The Washington Post - USA (2021-10-25)

A20 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.MONDAY, OCTOBER 25 , 2021

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[email protected]

F

OR TOO long, judges and lawmakers have granted virtually auto- matic deference to police who in- sist that in the stress of an uncer- tain moment, they felt such fear that it was reasonable to fire their guns at an unarmed subject. That judicial norm has gone all but unchallenged in U.S. courts — even in cases where scrutiny of the evidence suggests that police shootings were objectively unreasonable. It was applied again by a federal judge in Virginia who on Friday dismissed the manslaughter case against two U.S. Park Police officers charged in the death of Bijan Ghaisar near D.C. in 2017. Ghaisar, a 25-year-old accountant who had no weapon, was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway when he was rear-ended in a fender bender, then kept driving. The Park Police soon encountered him; that’s when the trouble started. He was certainly guilty of failing to heed the officers’ repeated attempts to apprehend him — he disobeyed them three times by driving off after he had stopped. Yet there is no way to reasonably

conclude, from the video shot by a trailing Fairfax County police patrol car, that Ghaisar’s conduct was aggressive or thre atening, or that the lives of the officers were in peril at the moment they began shooting, firing at him 10 times. In dismissing the case against the two officers, U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton concluded that under the circumstances, their actions met the legal stan- dard of “necessary and proper.” That assertion is plainly at odds with the video evidence, which shows the officers rush- ing at Ghaisar with guns drawn for no other reason than he had disrespected them by failing to pull over. The judge also noted that Ghaisar appeared to have been smoking marijuana and that his driving was erratic. The judge reached his conclusion, based on written assertions by the officers themselves, without a trial or any scrutiny of the officers’ testimony. He applied the old-school benefit of the doubt that police have enjoyed pretty much forever. That benefit of the doubt rests on the question: Who are we to second-guess an officer’s subjective decision-making in

the heat of the moment? Without doubt, police have dangerous and critical jobs, and any judgment must take that into account. But that cannot mean that police officers who kill unarmed individuals are exempt from any real scrutiny, no ma tter the circumstances. Ghaisar had no weapon. At the moment the police discharged their guns, he was steering away from one of the officers who was moving toward the front of his vehicle. His Jeep did not “lurch forward” as Judge Hilton wrote; it crept at slower- than-walking speed. The of ficers, who were visibly irate, now cite that as their pretext for taking a l ife. Here’s a q uestion for the courts: Given that the Ghaisar case began as a minor traf fic incident, was it remotely reasonable for the officers to draw their guns in the first place? That question seems not to have occurred to Judge Hilton. It would have certainly been raised had there been a trial. Virginia prosecutors say they will ap- peal the judge’s ruling. Here’s hoping the appeals court watches the videotape with its eyes wide open.

A verdict, but no justice

Police officers get away with killing the unarmed Bijan Ghaisar.

N

O U.S. president resorted to eco- nomic sanctions more often than did Donald Trump, whose administration issued about 3,8 00 new sanctions “designations” in a single term. There were many reasons for this, including Mr. Trump’s penchant for targeting adversaries such as Iran, and for doing it unilaterally as opposed to waiting for cooperation with allies. In a broad sense, though, he was just acceler- ating a trend that began with his pred- ecessors, including President Barack Obama, who made 2,350 new designations in his second term (though he “delisted” targeted countries, individuals and entities more often than Mr. Trump did). As of Oct. 1, 2021, there were 9,421 sanctions designations in effect, according to the Treasury Department, which is responsible for enforcing them. That’s a t enfold increase since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, spawned a new era in the use of sanctions, aimed at defunding far-flung terrorist networks and other nonstate networks as well as traditional state adversaries. In addition to counter terrorism, the goals include fighting nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea; punishing human rights violations or corruption; and bat-

tling cybercrime. And it’s easy to see why the United States resorts so often to sanctions: They promise the achieve- ment of foreign policy goals without the use of armed force, by taking advantage of the United States’ pivotal role in global f inance and trade. The question, though, is whether sanctions are yielding diminishing returns. Then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew raised that issue in one of his last official speeches — five years ago. In the same spirit, the current secretary, Janet L. Yellen, promised the Senate at her confirmation hearing that she would conduct a review of all existing sanctions. Some risks — that a given sanction will simply fail to achieve its goals, or will create unfair difficulties for U.S. businesses and humanitarian aid organiza- tions — are familiar. The administration has already taken steps to mitigate this by issuing humanitarian relief licenses for Syria, Venezuela and Iran for covid- related aid, and a more general one for Afghanistan. More novel is concern that the heavy U.S. use of so-called secondary sanctions, which not only ban dealings with certain individuals, companies or governments but also stop third parties from dealing with them, may alienate even friendly

countries. In a w orst-case scenario, the United States would cause countries to find cryptocurrency alternatives to the U.S. dollar and U.S.-dominated financial transactions systems. Ms. Yellen’s review ended Oct. 18 in what can only be described as modest fashion, with the publication of a short paper in which the department essential- ly restated these dilemmas, urged a more targeted, refined use of sanctions, and promised to “modernize the underlying operational architecture by which sanctions are deployed.” One recommenda- tion — to pursue the widest possible international support for any future sanctions — was valid, but fundamental- ly the State Department’s job, not Treas- ury’s. Another — to supply Treasury more resources and personnel to keep up with the expanding enforcement job — will take congressional action. The Senate could help matters by confirming Mr. Biden’s nominee for Treasury’s top sanction-enforcement job, Brian Nelson, newly released from a “hold” that had been placed on him by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Mr. Cruz wanted the administration to punish the German- Russian deal to build a gas pipeline — by hitting the construction company with s anctions.

Sanctions power

The United States is using them more than ever. But do they work?

force them to do so on the merits. Amazon can make Amazon Basics batteries, and the batteries can even appear as a recommended product. The firm just has to justify that placement. Google, simi- larly, would have to show by a preponder- ance of the evidence why its restaurant review tool deserves to appear above Yelp’s. Another provision would allow gatekeepers to pre-install software (such as that flashlight) but not to restrict users from un-installing that software unless there’s a s ecurity reason. Another would stop gatekeepers from tying platform access or preferred treatment to the purchase of unrelated products or ser-

vices. Yet another would prohibit gatekeepers from exploiting nonpublic data to create proprietary o fferings. This last stricture may seem iffy: After all, if Amazon can harness its trove of knowledge to develop the type of diapers that people most desire at the lowest cost, why stand in its way? And if it does, shouldn’t it be allowed to reap some reward for its success? These are the sort of essential questions lawmakers must confront as they mull the antitrust co- nundrum in the digital age. Ms. Klobu- char and Mr. Grassley, with their balanc- ing-act of a bill, have given them a fine place to start.

S

ENS. AMY Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) are going after Big Tech with a new bill — and this time, the muscular rhetoric belies the proposal’s more modest nature. That’s a p ositive. The legislation is companion to a House Judiciary Committee measure in an antitrust package filled with plenty of good ideas and plenty of bad ones. The Senate’s version adds some necessary nuance. The animating principle is that so-called gatekeeper companies (or “critical trading partners”), essential to other businesses’ ability to reach their custom- ers, should be constrained from abusing their position. The bill explicitly prohib- its some practices. Other potential mal- feasance it addresses with a general prohibition against unfairly giving pref- erence to one’s own products; unfairly limiting others’ ability to compete; and unfairly discriminating when enforcing terms of service. The devil, of course, is in what counts as “unfair.” These digital behemoths are different from their physical brethren, both in terms of the power they wield and in terms of the precision of their data stores. Antitrust law traditionally disap- proves of firms leveraging their dominance in one market to gain dominance in another — which is what Google does when it puts an in-house restaurant review tool at the top of its search rankings, and what Amazon does when it develops and recommends its own batteries, or diapers, with the help of information gleaned from third-party transactions. (Amazon founder Jeff Be- zos owns The Post.) Yet companies’ self-promotion sometimes helps con- sumers, even as it hurts competitors: facilitating the speedy purchase of cheaper diapers, for instance, or the simplicity of an auto-installed smart- phone flashlight. This means legislators should tread carefully — not stepping on pro-user innovation in a rush toward pro-rival policies. Smartly, the Senate legislation wouldn’t bar companies from competing on their own platforms. It would simply

A Big Tech bill with promise

Bipartisan legislation focuses on self-preferencing, but with nuance.

Yes, indeed, Justice William O. Doug- las’s 185-mile hike along the C & O Canal with Post writers Merlo Pusey and Robert Estabrook in 1954 was key to The Post’s editorial switch from supporting an auto parkway down the C & O Canal property to supporting its preservation as a park, as outlined in the Oct. 17 Metro article “A justice hiked 185 miles to save the C & O Canal from becoming a highway.” But Pusey and Estabrook would be among the first to also note that it took two decades of political work and vision by then-Rep. Gilbert Gude (R-Md.) in whose district much of the canal lay, and Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R) and Sen. J. Glenn Beall Jr. (R), also from Maryland. Their persistence, as well as broad public support from birdwatchers, canoeists and many others, including Boy Scouts who could obtain Scout patches and medals for hiking the canal, carried the day. The Gude-Beall legislation was signed into law in 1971, desig- nating the canal and its towpath as a national historical park. And U.S. 70 was built to carry the auto traf fic that would have smothered the canal. Gude was also thinking ahead when he opposed a major highway to be built through Rock Creek Park. Gude wrote two books about the Potomac River and its contributions to the area. David O’Bryon, Deale The writer served on the late represen- tative Gilbert Gude’s staff.

Why we walk the canal

Regarding the Oct. 20 Metro article “Rep. Harris, an anesthesiologist, says he prescribed ivermectin”: Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), an anesthesiologist who has prescribed ivermectin as a covid-19 treatment, asked, “What are we, a b unch of lemmings?” No, Mr. Harris. “We” are citizens who have chosen to put our faith in the immu- nologists and virologists who have devot- ed their professional lives to studying infectious disease. “We” would like to stay healthy and would rather not endanger our fellow citizens by spreading a deadly virus. Mr. Harris, on the other hand, has chosen to ignore all of his medical train- ing and violate the Hippocratic oath by prescribing an untested treatment that could cause much more harm than it could prevent. He has attacked the national pharmacy associations that have dis- courage d the dispensing of an unproven treatment and has opposed the vaccine and mask mandates that have kept the staff and students at the University of Maryland safe. The be tter question to ask is a variation of the question posed to Sen. Joseph Mc- Carthy in 1954: You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of shame, Mr. Harris? Susan Weinmann, Rockville

We put our faith in science

I read with interest the Oct. 20 news article regarding the Food and Drug Administration’s move to allow the sale of hearing aids without a prescription or exam by a physician. I have been a wearer of hearing aids for 66 years. I have received all of my hearing aids from either an audiologist or a physician. Without hearing aids, I would not have been able to go to law school and work as an attorney for 30 years with the Justice Department. Over-the-counter hearing aids would be much more afford- able but not an adequate substitute for the assistance of an audiologist trained to test for hearing loss and the specific settings to provide meaningful use of a hearing instrument. It is an excellent idea to make hearing aids available to people with hearing impairments who can’t afford these instruments. However, the FDA should offer such a program only with the assistance of a trained a udiologist. Charles R. Schwidde, Alexandria

Help with hearing aids

I was baffled by the Oct. 19 editorial “Mr. Biden did not run to stage a revolu- tion,” saying progressives “are having trouble accepting” the half-loaf infrastructure deal and are blocking any deal. The progressives agreed in negotiations that more expansive and more moderate infrastructure plans would both get a vote. Most moderates are on board with both plans. Only Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have been obstructing debate and pas- sage, claiming they cannot sign on to anything other than the physical infrastructure plan they backed and who are not offering much room to negotiate. This is on top of their refusal to modify the filibuster for even dealing with critical issues such as the debt limit and voter protection. Republicans continue to obstruct the basic functioning of government in the hopes of political wins at the ballot box. Even if just th e physical infrastructure bill were to pass the House, if there are any modifications from the Senate bill, who knows if 10 of the Republicans who origi- nally signed on would still support it. For all we know, it was their ultimate strategy to prolong the infrastructure debate just to make the Democrats look bad. The bottom line is that there is a histor- ic opportunity to have government focus on the needs of the many (poverty, health care, child care, education, climate change), but the obstinate few — Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema — are standing in the way, along with the entire Republi- can caucus, not the progressives in the House. Maurice Werner, Washington

The obstinate few

ABCDE

FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer

ABCDE

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

EDITORIALS

J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/ASSOCIATED PRESS Sen. Amy Klobuchar, above, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley have introduced legislation aimed at outlawing anticompetitive behavior by tech platforms.

News pages: Editorial and opinion pages: SALLY BUZBEE FRED HIATT Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor CAMERON BARR RUTH MARCUS Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor TRACY GRANT KAREN TUMULTY Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor KAT DOWNS MULDER JO-ANN ARMAO Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor KRISSAH THOMPSON Managing Editor SCOTT VANCE Deputy Managing Editor BARBARA VOBEJDA Deputy Managing Editor

Vice Presidents: JAMES W. COLEY JR.........................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL............................................Human Resources KATE M. DAVEY.....................................................Revenue Strategy ELIZABETH H. DIAZ....................Audience Development & Insights GREGG J. FERNANDES..........................Customer Care & Logistics SHANI GEORGE......................................................Communications STEPHEN P. GIBSON.....................................Finance & Operations SCOT GILLESPIE...........................................................................Arc KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY.....................Communications & Events JOHN B. KENNEDY...................................General Counsel & Labor SHAILESH PRAKASH....Digital Product Development & Engineering MICHAEL A. RIBERO....................................................Subscriptions JOY ROBINS..............................................................Client Solutions

The Washington Post 1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-

own. Any delay in doing so is simply serving the purposes of those states’ actions aimed at precluding voter rights and threatening the most essential citi- zen right — voting — and imperiling our democratic government. Though the chief justice has initiated judicial action in Georgia, such action may simply serve to delay what’s necessary to end these unconstitutional voter suppression tactics immediately. Joseph G. Feinberg, Gaithersburg

Regarding the Oct. 21 news article “All eyes on Manchin as voting rights legislation hits another roadblock”: Previously, the federal government delegated to the individual states how each could organize its voting procedures. This did not authorize establish- ing procedures that obviously and seri- ously served to hamper, preclude and prevent many citizens from exercising their right to vote. Given this clear violation, the executive branch should exercise its existing constitutional authority and act on these violations with no need for any further congressional or judicial action or inter- pretation. The Justice Department should therefore act immediately, drawing on whatever additional executive authority necessary in addition to its

A clear violation

DRAWING BOARD MATT DAVIES

B Y MATT DAVIES FOR NEWSDAY

The Washington Post - USA (2021-10-25)

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources