Editorial boards across the country are writing this week about the tragic, senseless death of two New York police officers and the rush to blame protestors for the heinous acts. First up,
The Los Angeles Times:
Without sufficient thought and care, the nation could too easily allow the cruel ambush killings Saturday of two New York City police officers to undermine the often tense but crucial national dialogue on race and policing that was spurred by the deaths of African American suspects earlier this year at police hands in Ferguson, Mo., Cleveland, New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere. [...]
it is utterly unreasonable to suggest that people who have been protesting the use of excessive force by police are somehow responsible for provoking the actions of a cop-killer. To follow Lynch's argument to its logical conclusion, communities that have felt the brunt of abusive police tactics must not object, lest their demonstrations incite criminals or the deranged to attack police. That's a non-starter. There is a conversation taking place on race and policing, and it necessarily will include protests against injustice, real or perceived.
The New York Times:
Mr. Bratton had chosen his words poorly earlier in the day, in a morning TV interview, saying that “the targeting of these two police officers was a direct spinoff of this issue of these demonstrations.” He should have made clear that the only one responsible for the killings is the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley. Mr. Bratton’s 35,000 officers, in whom Mr. Lynch has been trying mightily to stoke a sense of grievance and victimhood, need to hear from him that this administration fully supports the police, and that gestures of contempt — like turning their backs on the mayor — are out of place.
The protests for police reform should not be stifled — they should be allowed to continue, and be listened to. The protesters and their defenders, including Mayor de Blasio, need offer no apologies for denouncing misguided and brutal police tactics and deploring the evident injustice of the deaths of unarmed black men like Eric Garner. As Mr. de Blasio noted on Monday, a vast majority of demonstrators are “people who are trying to work for a more just society,” a mission that has nothing to do with hating or killing cops. Those who urge violence are on the fringe, Mr. de Blasio said, rightly denouncing them and urging New Yorkers to report them.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
The Hartford Courant:
People are given the right to protest — to "peaceably assemble" — by the same Constitution that police are sworn to uphold. The deaths of Mr. Brown and Mr. Garner raised serious issues about policing. That there are people, of all political persuasions, who could misinterpret peaceful protests and commit murders speaks to the need for better mental health services.
People aren't against the police, they want better police. They want cops who know the people they serve, who are well trained, who give everyone an even break and who use force only as an inescapable last resort. They want to be on the same side as the cops.
The Denver Post:
The driving concern of the movement — the equitable treatment of black men by police — is legitimate, whether one sees the problem as serious or not.
The murder of the two New York officers is a tragedy that should inspire appreciation of the difficult job police have and the dangerous people they deal with. But it is no time to score political points by trying to deflect responsibility from the man who committed the crime.
Eugene Robinson adds his view:
It is absurd to have to say this, but New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, activist Al Sharpton and President Obama are in no way responsible for the coldblooded assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn on Saturday. Nor do the tens of thousands of Americans who have demonstrated against police brutality in recent weeks bear any measure of blame.
[...] I don’t know the right way to make sense of such depravity. But I am certain that the way not to make sense of it is to blame nonviolent protesters, exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and speech, for the acts of a deranged killer.
Brinsley had somehow arrived at a day of personal apocalypse. He was beyond any rational search for reasons to commit a string of heinous acts. He needed only to give himself an excuse.
Jon Terbush:
The long-view argument blaming de Blasio insists he's been on an anti-cop crusade ever since running a mayoral campaign built on vows to reform the police department. That crusade, the argument goes, then fostered a prevailing anti-cop climate where police killings are more likely to flourish.
That's a laughable stretch that hyperbolizes both de Blasio's reform push and any role it could plausibly have played in instigating violence against the police. And it's a stretch that must be recognized as what it is: A blatant attempt to transform a tragedy into a political cudgel.
Dean Obeidallah:
... it's outlandish to blame the protesters for the actions of a man with a long criminal record who had shot his girlfriend only hours before killing the police officers.
Lynch's comments sounded like a politician using a tragedy to score political points. In fact, former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican who is said to be considering a presidential run in 2016, made comments similar to Lynch's via Twitter, where he blamed de Blasio for the tragedy.
Lynch is missing the big picture. Sure, for politicians such as Pataki, pandering to the base is the norm. But the leader of a union that represents more than 34,000 uniformed officers charged with protecting and serving the public needs to be better than offering up red meat to his supporters.
Lynch is viewed by many as the spokesman for rank-and-file New York Police Department officers. Consequently, his remarks could result in an even fewer Americans viewing the police in a favorable light. That does not bode well for us a nation.
Switching topics, on the foreign policy front,
George Zornick examines the president's Afghanistan policy:
During his opening remarks at Friday’s year-ending press conference at the White House, President Obama declared that “in less than two weeks, after more than thirteen years, our combat mission in Afghanistan will be over.”
No reporter followed up with Obama on that statement—nor with any questions about Afghanistan—but they really should have. [...] the mission is unmistakably ramping up. Just days before that flag-lowering ceremony, outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that 1,000 more US troops would stay in Afghanistan next year than was originally planned. And the deeply-sourced New York Times report indicates US forces will indeed be engaging in direct combat.
Ben Jacobs and David Freedlander remind us why everyone hates Congress so much:
Michael Grimm just got re-elected to Congress in November, so why should he resign over a minor detail like pleading guilty to a felony? [...]
Grimm faces no legal pressure to leave office. There is no requirement for a member of Congress to resign after pleading guilty to a felony. However, House Rule XXIII suggests that a representative who has been convicted of an offense that may result in at least two years’ imprisonment should “refrain from voting.” A report by the Congressional Research Service notes that members are “expected to abide” by this rule, even though it is technically advisory. Tax evasion carries a maximum penalty of five years, and thus it seems likely that Grimm would be covered by the provision. Tom Rust, a spokesman for the House Ethics Committee, declined to comment to The Daily Beast.
Grimm could be forced from office if he is expelled by a two-thirds vote of the House. The penalty is only rarely imposed, as members often resign before they can be voted out of Congress. Only two members of the House have been expelled since the Civil War, and no one has ever been expelled for a felony committed prior to serving in Congress.
And now, let's end on a positive note:
Nicholas Burns profiles the peacemakers of 2014:
...a closer look illuminates thousands of courageous men and women who work ceaselessly for the elusive hope of peace. [...]
■ The brave doctors and nurses who, at great personal risk, treated thousands of Ebola victims in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Time Magazine’s salute to the “Ebola Fighters” as its “Person of the Year” was so right. We can’t thank them enough.
■ Pope Francis: The new Pope is breathing new life into the Roman Catholic Church. Through his message of tolerance for all and embrace of the poor and the excluded, he reminds Catholics of the simple beauty and abiding importance of the Social Gospel. [...]
■ Malala Yousafzai: Recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize for her peerless courage in standing up to terrorism, this 17-year-old’s determination and grace will be tested by renewed death threats against her as it was by last week’s horrific murder of 141 schoolchildren by the Pakistani Taliban. [...]