A10 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION
OPINION
EDITORIALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LETTERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to
[email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see
latimes.com/letters or call
1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.P
resident Trump’sinsistence on
total rehabilitation for a Navy
SEAL who was accused of war
crimes illustrates several of
Trump’s worst traits as a national
leader: his contempt for norms, his compul-
sion to put himself at the center of every
controversy and, most disturbing, his toler-
ance for misbehavior by those in uniform.
On Nov. 15, Trump restored the
promotion of Eddie Gallagher, who had
been convicted by a court-martial of posing
in Iraq with the body of an Islamic State
fighter. Gallagher was acquitted of the
much more serious charges of killing the
man, who was in U.S. custody, and of shoot-
ing civilians. On the same day, Trump par-
doned Army Lt. Clint Lorance, who had
been convicted of murder for ordering his
soldiers to fire on three unarmed Afghan
men in July 2012, killing two, and Maj.
Mathew Golsteyn, a former Green Beret ac-
cused of killing a suspected bomb maker
during a 2010 deployment to Afghanistan.
Last week it emerged that Gallagher and
other service members involved in his case
would be subjected to further review by the
Navy. As a consequence of that process, Gal-
lagher could have been expelled from the
SEALS and stripped of the coveted Trident
pin worn proudly by members of the elite
Sea, Air and Land teams.
That was a cue for Trump to again ex-
press support for Gallagher, whose cause
has been championed by Fox News hosts.
On Thursday the president tweeted: “The
Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter
and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident
Pin. This case was handled very badly from
the beginning. Get back to business!”
For a while it seemed that the Navy
would be allowed to proceed with a review
despite Trump’s tweet. But on Monday, Sec-
retary of Defense Mark Esper said that
Trump had directed him to ensure that Gal-
lagher retained his Trident pin.
Meanwhile, Secretary of the Navy Rich-
ard V. Spencer has been dismissed, at least
in part because of a dispute among him,
Trump and Esper over Gallagher. Not sur-
prisingly, each person involved offered a dif-
ferent story about why Spencer was fired.
Who is right about the specifics of
Spencer’s departure is less important than
what this episode says about Trump’s con-
tempt for the orderly operation of the mili-
tary justice system. Yes, he is the command-
er-in-chief and yes, the Constitution gives
him the authority to “grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United
States,” including crimes in war. But such
power should be exercised with discretion
and with a respect for due process.
Even more alarming is what Trump’s
words and actions in these cases say about
his tolerance for brutality by those who
serve the nation in wartime. Last month, in
reference to the Golsteyn case, Trump
tweeted: “We train our boys to be killing
machines, then prosecute them when they
kill!” The implication was that any act of vi-
olence or cruelty, no matter how depraved
or unjustified, must be excused.
Trump has made it clear that his natural
instinct is to wink at barbarism so long as it
is committed by “our side.” During the 2016
campaign, he declared that “torture works”
and promised if elected to “bring back a hell
of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Nor
does he limit his approval of official violence
to actions against terrorists or enemies on
the battlefield. Who can forget his suggesti-
on in a 2017 speech that officers shouldn’t be
“too nice” in pushing suspects into a police
car?
In his letter to Trump, Spencer wrote
that the rule of law — even in wartime — is
“what sets us apart from our adversaries.”
Sadly, the commander in chief doesn’t see
things that way.Trump vs. military justice
O
ver the last yearand a half,
politicians and activists have
spent more than $900 million
pumping 5.7 million ads
through Facebook’s network. Is
there any wonder the company is reluctant
to crimp that pipeline?
In late September, Facebook took off one
of the few restrictions it had placed on polit-
ical advertisers, exempting candidates and
political parties from the fact-checking
process it had instituted to slow the virus-
like spread of fake news on the platform. If
President Trump wanted to run an ad say-
ing he has proof that former Vice President
Joe Biden is a Ukrainian spy, he’s free to do
so. And if Biden wanted to respond with an
ad showing a faked Kenyan birth certificate
for Trump, he can do that too.
We’re all for candidates speaking freely
to the public. But we’re not comfortable
with the way Facebook and other tech com-
panies enable candidates and campaigns to
turn their speech into something more ma-
nipulative and powerful than it would other-
wise be.
Facebook’s move was such an alarming
renunciation of responsibility, politicians
and good-government advocates were
aghast. They’ve been pressing for change
ever since Facebook’s see-no-evil approach
to political ads became official in Septem-
ber. The company appears to be respond-
ing; according to the Wall Street Journal,
Facebook executives are exploring ways to
reduce the power political advertisers have
to manipulate Facebook users. In particu-
lar, they’re discussing ways to limit how pre-
cisely political ads can be targeted to specif-
ic audiences.
These discussions come as Twitter and
Google are also adjusting the tools they of-
fer political advertisers. But these Big Tech
companies are finding that there’s no easy
way to balance two vital but competing in-
terests: our society’s free-speech values and
our interest in free and fair elections.
Along with Google’s sister company
YouTube, the three companies dominate
online advertising as well as play a central
role in the flow of information on the inter-
net. It’s more than just their near-ubiqui-
tous reach; it’s also the tools they offer to de-
liver messages tailored to individual lean-
ings and susceptibilities, and the algorithms
that some of them use to decide which posts
to favor and which ones to bury.
Combined, these factors have the poten-
tial not just to amplify deceit, but to deliver
it to the people most likely to believe it. As
Twitter chief Jack Dorsey put it, “Internet
political ads present entirely new challenges
to civic discourse: machine learning-based
optimization of messaging and micro-tar-
geting, unchecked misleading information,
and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, so-
phistication, and overwhelming scale.”
We don’t want Big Tech companies to be
a gatekeeper, picking and choosing which
political speech is allowable. But neither do
we want them to make their amplifiers and
their vulnerability-seeking targeting tools
available to candidates seeking to deceive,
especially not when these companies have a
financial incentive to turn a blind eye to
abuses of their platforms. Otherwise, there
will be no boundaries, and we will truly be a
post-truth society.
So now Facebook is reportedly pursuing
what you might call a light-touch approach,
even as it refuses to impose the same stand-
ards on political ads that it does on all other
advertisers. Yet even its restrictions on tar-
geting seem weak; according to the Wall
Street Journal, candidates will be able to
use any of the profile information Facebook
collects on its users to target ads, as long as
at least a few thousand people are in that
group. Call it not-so-micro micro-targeting.
Google appears to be heading in a more
promising direction. Last week, the com-
pany announced that it will bar election-re-
lated ads from including “doctored or ma-
nipulated media” or “making demonstrably
false claims that could significantly under-
mine participation or trust in an electoral or
democratic process.” It also will bar political
advertisers from accessing the personality
profiles Google builds from users’ web
browsing. Instead, those advertisers will be
allowed to tailor their messages only accord-
ing to general demographic information,
such as a viewer’s gender, age and ZIP Code.
Nevertheless, Google is inserting itself
into an uncomfortable place. If the National
Rifle Assn. wants to run an ad a month be-
fore an election criticizing a member of Con-
gress for voting for a gun-control bill, is that
“election-related”? How much does a video
have to be edited to be considered “doc-
tored”? Does taking something that’s de-
monstrably true and presenting it in a dif-
ferent context make it demonstrably false?
These are all judgment calls, and not al-
ways easy ones. Twitter’s Dorsey believed
he had a simpler solution: He announced
last month that Twitter would not carry any
political ads. That eliminated the fact-
checking conundrum, but it raised a new
question: What, exactly, is a political ad?
The company has been backpedaling since
then, allowing ads related to causes — but
only if they don’t push for a specific bill, can-
didate or regulation, and with limits on tar-
geting. That’s going to make Twitter a lot
less useful to people trying to challenge the
governmental status quo.
The lesson here isn’t that these compa-
nies shouldn’t be trying to make their plat-
forms both open and trustworthy. It’s that
those qualities conflict, and there’s no easy
way to overcome that problem.Big Tech’s political targeting
Dispiriting as it was to
read the story of photo-
journalist Lexis-Olivier
Ray’s loving docu-
mentation of the serial
destruction of classic
homes and commercial
buildings, it is refreshing to
see a rare discussion of this
obvious side of the Cali-
fornia rezoning contro-
versy.
The housing crisis, and
the concurrent insistence
on planning for unlimited
future growth, have
reached such acuity that
developers suddenly find
themselves in the unaccus-
tomed role of social activ-
ists, and I’m sure they are
enjoying it.
In private they must
also enjoy the irony, since
they are obviously not in
the game to create afford-
able housing; the few
obligatory units for low-
income families included in
their projects are clearly
bagatelles.
Anyone who believes
that density leads to af-
fordability has obviously
never gone apartment
hunting in New York City.
Mary Farley
South PasadenaNot the GOP
of Watergate
Re “Trump won’t be
ousted — but his call
wasn’t ‘perfect,’ ” Opinion,
Nov. 22While reading my way
around the enormous
holes in former Republican
Party advisor Scott Jen-
nings’ opinion piece, I
noticed he totally failed to
mention the most impor-
tant alleged complicit
parties involved in the
Ukrainian scandal: Secre-
tary of State Michael R.
Pompeo, acting White
House Chief of Staff Mick
Mulvaney and Energy
Secretary Rick Perry.
Jennings also failed to
take into account that this
is not simply a partisan
decision the Democrats
are making to hold im-
peachment hearings;
rather, it is their sworn
moral and public duty to
uphold the U.S. Constitu-
tion, and for anyone to
ignore the president’s
abuse of power, obstruc-
tion of justice and bribery
would demonstrate com-
plete dereliction of duty.
The difference between
Watergate and now is that
back in the 1970s, members
of Congress still had integ-
rity and put country before
party. Obviously this is no
longer the case, and it is a
sad and dangerous time for
our fragile democracy.
Penelope Burley
Santa Rosa Valley::
I like Jennings’ article.
He comes across as a veryrealistic pundit.
Jennings paints Presi-
dent Trump as being sur-
rounded by a few bad ad-
visors (such as his personal
attorney, Rudolph W. Giu-
liani) and exercising bad
judgment, but not a crimi-
nal by any stretch. The
Democrats, on the other
hand, are impulsive and
unthinking.
I disagree with one
statement made by Jen-
nings. He said that Demo-
crats will push for articles
of impeachment and a
Senate trial because they
have “nothing to lose.” I
beg to differ.
They may indeed lose
the support of those who
become disgusted by the
manner in which the
Democrats have con-
ducted themselves in this
process — that is to say, the
shear vulgarity of it. It’s
odd that the party con-
ducting itself in such a
vulgar way considers itself
the elite.
Arthur G. Saginian
Santa Clarita::
I wish the media would
do two things.
First, they should re-
mind the GOP that Senate
Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) de-
clared his intent to make
Barack Obama a one-term
president from the mo-
ment he was sworn in. This
would dispel the victimiza-
tion argument that people
have been “out to get”
Trump from the beginning.
Secondly, they should
ask the GOP why the over-
whelming evidence that
Trump violated the Consti-
tution in myriad ways does
not rise to impeachment.
For the love of the Con-
stitution, if holding up aid
for a country battling our
adversary in exchange for
that country creating a
hint of scandal against his
major political rival, ob-
structing a legitimate
congressional investiga-
tion of said actions, deni-
grating our State Depart-
ment and undermining our
intelligence community are
not impeachable offenses,
what are?
Glenda Tamblyn
PalmdaleStop trying to
sell more books
Re “Bolton could flesh out
Ukraine story,” Nov. 23The article labels Presi-
dent Trump’s former na-
tional security advisor a
“fierce partisan” and also
describes his media teases,
as well as his reluctance to
testify, as benefiting future
sales of the book he’s writ-
ing.
Those of us who sub-
scribe to a local paid speak-
ers series also recentlydiscovered that John
Bolton’s agent is marketing
him as a potential speaker
next season.
It appears to me that
Bolton is fiercely partisan,
fiercely selfish and fiercely
greedy. I just wish that he
would be fiercely American
and simply tell Congress
what he knows about im-
peachment-related issues.
Ronel Kelmen
Wright
El Segundo::
During five days of live
testimony, career di-
plomats who had served
under both Republican
and Democratic adminis-
trations provided more
than enough substantive
evidence to prove that
President Trump withheld
military aide and an official
White House visit to extort
and bribe a foreign leader
into investigating a politi-
cal rival and conspiracy
theories about the 2016
election.
Republican members of
Congress, instead of cross-
examining witnesses,
wasted their time by mak-
ing meaningless state-
ments and now claim that
there has been insufficient
information to consider
impeachment.
Bolton is considered a
vital witness, but if the
president is truly inter-
ested in clearing his name,
he would allow witnesses to
testify. What is he hiding?
Richard C.
Armendariz
Huntington Beach::Fiona Hill told the
truth. Bolton sold the
truth.
Stacy Antler
Los AngelesStop naming
mass shooters
Re “Searching for clues as
to what set off violence,”
Nov. 19Surprised, disappoint-
ed, frustrated — that’s how
I felt when the Los Angeles
Times named the suspect
in the Saugus High School
shooting.
The student-led news
outlet where I am executive
editor, USC Annenberg
Media, also reported on the
shooting. But we did not
share the name of the
teenage suspect. Annen-
berg Media policy adheres
to the idea of “no notori-
ety.”
Authorities did not
name the suspect and, as
of this writing, they still
have not provided motives.
That means there’s still a
chance the motive could be
a desire for fame, notoriety
or recognition.
I wish the studies about
the notoriety effects out
there alone would influ-
ence top media outlets. I
believe it’s more important
and challenging for news-
rooms to decide what not
to report than what to
report.
The next time someone
chooses to perpetrate an
act of mass violence, please
offer “no notoriety.”
Ruby Yuan
Los Angeles
The writer, a USC un-
dergraduate, is executive
editor of USC Annenberg
Media.Math regrets
Re “Teachers up to math
challenge,” letters, Nov. 24As a 1950s algebra drop-
out, I cheer the suggestion
by Professor Paul Chow for
a hands-on approach to
teaching math.
I don’t know how I got
through high school, col-
lege and graduate school
without understanding
any algebraic concepts;
thank goodness I didn’t
need this knowledge for my
work.
However, I feel that my
life would have been en-
riched if I knew these con-
cepts and skills.
Barbara Marcus
Sherman OaksThe ‘NIMBY’ slur
Re “Preserving L.A.’s character, one photo at a time,”
column, Nov. 23I agree that the housing shortage provides a
convenient pretext for development that displaces
middle-income and working-class families. In the name
of progress, city officials enable developers to turn
communities into commodities.
And the disenfranchisement of residents noted by
local historian Nathan Marsak will only get worse under
state laws designed to override local zoning.
But I object to columnist Nita Lelyveld’s observation
that this unfolds “with barely a word” of opposition. L.A.
activists constantly confront shortsighted policies,
Sacramento arrogance and City Hall collusion.
We insist that existing infrastructure cannot support
greater density; that high vacancy rates in posh
developments worsen the housing shortfall; that the city
should survey existing parcels suitable for development
without zone changes; and that L.A. has no credible
mechanism to monitor or enforce “commitments” for
affordable units in upscale projects.
Developers, officials and, yes, the L.A. Times Editorial
Board dismiss these arguments as NIMBYism. It’s long
past time for real stakeholders, not slash-and-burn
speculators, to call the shots.
Shelley Wagers
Los AngelesMel MelconLos Angeles Times
JOURNALISTLexis-Olivier Ray documents demo-
litions and new building in Historic Filipinotown.EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITOR
Scott Kraft
SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR
Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
John Canalis, Len De Groot, Loree Matsui,
Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR