They Messed With Texas
By PETER CATAPANO
A funny thing happened at the Republican debate at the Reagan Library
in California on Wednesday night, when the evening's co-moderator
Brian Williams asked a question of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. (Not
funny ha-ha, funny peculiar.) Let's go right to the video.
For the text oriented among us, here's what transpired.
WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has
executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern
times. Have you…
(APPLAUSE)
Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of
those might have been innocent?
PERRY: No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all. The state
of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which
— when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our
citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate
process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if
that's required.
But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill
one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with
another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the
ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be
executed.
WILLIAMS: What do you make of…
(APPLAUSE)
What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the
mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?
PERRY: I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are
clearly, in the vast majority of — of cases, supportive of capital
punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our
citizens — and it's a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas,
our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they
don't want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you
do, you will face the ultimate justice.
For some — in this case, opponents of the death penalty — this was
sort of a double whiplash moment, a gasp within a gasp that may have
been more confusing than mobilizing. Because which was more disturbing
(or heartening, depending on your political view)? Perry's unbowed
defense of the "thoughtful" trial process in Texas and the clear
expression of his untroubled mind in the face of possible moral doubt
and complexity (i.e., Have I facilitated the death of an innocent
human?)? Or the audience applause that bracketed the exchange, the
rousing audience cheers for an aggressively applied death penalty? In
California, mind you, not Texas.
Let's look at the applause, the "execution cheer," if you will.
Because any number of analysts might have expected Perry to say what
he said, but the cheer was a surprise — a welcome sort for some, but
unwelcome for others.
This is the digital age, so let's begin with an immediate outburst
from Andrew Sullivan, who during his live blogging of the debate,
wrote:
9.48 pm. A spontaneous round of applause for executing people! And
Perry shows no remorse, not even a tiny smidgen of reflection,
especially when we know for certain that he signed the death warrant
for an innocent man. Here's why I find it impossible to be a
Republican: any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234
individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join. This is the crowd
that believes in torture and executions. Can you imagine the torture
that Perry would authorize? Thank God he's doing so poorly tonight.
The next morning, Sullivan's former colleague, The Atlantic's Ta-
Nehisi Coates, seemed somewhat less rattled, though hardly cheerier.
"Apparently people were shocked by the applause here," he wrote. "The
only thing that shocked me was that they didn't form a rumba line.
It's a Republican debate. And it's America." He continued:
Perry's right — most people support the death penalty. It's the
job of those of us who oppose the death penalty to change that.
It's worth remembering that no Democratic nominee for the
presidency in some twenty years, has been against the death penalty.
This is still the country where we took kids to see men lynched, and
then posed for photos.
We are a lot of things. This is one of them.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon found it unwelcome, too. Actually he found it
"creepy and disgusting." (Greenwald, like Perry, is direct.). In a
link-laden broadside, he wrote:
[I]t's hardly surprising for a country which long considered
public hangings a form of entertainment and in which support for the
death penalty is mandated orthodoxy for national politicians in both
parties. Still, even for those who believe in the death penalty, it
should be a very somber and sober affair for the state, with
regimented premeditation, to end the life of a human being no matter
the crimes committed. Wildly cheering the execution of human beings
as though one's favorite football team just scored a touchdown is
primitive, twisted and base.
All of that would be true even if the death penalty were perfectly
applied and only clearly guilty people were killed. But in the U.S.,
the exact opposite is true; see here to read about (and act to stop) a
horrific though typical example of a very likely innocent person about
to be executed by the State of Georgia. That Perry in particular
likely enabled the execution of an innocent man — as well as numerous
other highly disturbing killings, of the young and mentally infirm —
makes the cheering all the more repellent. That the death penalty in
America has long been plagued by a serious racial bias makes it worse
still. That this death-cheering comes from a party that relentlessly
touts itself as "pro-life" and derides the other as The Party of Death
— and loves to condemn Islam (in contrast to its war-loving self) as a
death-glorifying cult — only adds a layer of dark irony.
That whole "perfectly applied" thing — the goal of which requires the
person being put to death to actually be guilty — also troubled
others. Marie Diamond at Think Progress Justice undertakes a thorough
debunking of the idea that everyone executed in Texas in the past
decade or so was guilty:
[D]uring Perry's tenure as governor, DNA evidence has exonerated
at least 41 people convicted in Texas, Scott Horton writes in
Harper's. According to the Innocence Project, "more people have been
freed through DNA testing in Texas than in any other state in the
country, and these exonerations have revealed deep flaws in the
state's criminal justice system." Some 85 percent of wrongful
convictions in Texas, or 35 of the 41 cases, are due to mistaken
eyewitness identifications.
Those exonerations include Cornelius Dupree, who had already spent
30 years in prison for rape, robbery, and abduction when DNA evidence
proved unequivocally that he was not the man who had committed those
crime. Tim Cole, the brother of Texas Sen. Rodney Ellis (D), was
posthumously pardoned a decade after he died in prison when DNA
evidence proved his innocence. The total failure of the Texas courts
to protect these innocent individuals reveal a system plagued by
racial injustices, procedural flaws, and a clemency review process
that's nothing but a rubber stamp on executions.
Leading the country in wrongful convictions probably should give
Perry a moment's pause about the reliability of a criminal justice
process he described last night as "thoughtful." …
And he may well have already executed an innocent man. The case of
Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for the arson deaths
of his three daughters and maintained his innocence until his dying
day, will likely continue to haunt Perry throughout the campaign.
Several scientists and forensics experts have questioned the evidence
that led to Willingham's conviction, but Perry "squashed" an official
probe into his execution.
(Here is an interactive graphic of executions under Governor Perry,
from the Texas Tribune.)
Taking another tack, political animal Steve Benen at Washington
Monthly notes the apparent inconsistency in Perry's much-discussed
attitude towards science:
[W]e're learning quite a bit about how Rick Perry thinks.
Scientists tell him, after rigorous, peer-reviewed, international
research that global warming is real, and Perry responds, "I don't
care." A deeply flawed judicial process puts potentially-innocent
Americans on death row, and Perry responds, "Let's get the killin'
started."
The governor balks when presented with evidence on evolution,
abstinence education, and climate change, but embraces without
question the notion that everyone he's killed in Texas was 100 percent
guilty. The scientific process, he apparently believes, is unreliable,
while the state criminal justice system is infallible.
Intellectually, morally, and politically, this isn't just wrong;
it's scary. The fact that Republicans in the audience found this
worthy of hearty applause points to a party that's bankrupt in more
ways than one.
Of course, as Coates pointed out, this is America, and thus Perry's
stance was praised by some as proof (not scientific) that the governor
was truly sympatico with the average American death penalty supporter.
An interesting opinion of this sort was aired by James Taranto at The
Wall Street Journal. Taranto reaches way back to the year 2000 to a
New Republic piece by Josh Marshall, which explained every other
civilized country's ban on the death penalty as political "elitism" —
the populous in most countries support the death penalty, but their
politicians forbid it. In other words, the political systems in these
other countries are "morally superior" but "less democratic," Marshall
wrote. "[I]n Europe and Canada elites have exercised a kind of
noblesse oblige. They've chosen a more civilized and humane political
order over a fully popular and participatory one. It's a perfectly
defensible position — but it might not go over that well on
'Crossfire.' "
("Crossfire" was cancelled in 2005, but you get the picture, right?)
Eleven years on, Taranto elaborates, explaining the audience applause
as rooted in a sort of patriotism:
It seems to us that the crowd's enthusiasm last night was less
sanguinary than defiant. The applause and the responses to it reflect
a generations-old mutual contempt between the liberal elite and the
large majority of the population, which supports the death penalty.
There are, of course, reasonable arguments against the death
penalty. But opponents are too resentful at their inability to
steamroll over public opinion as if this were Europe or Canada to
argue their case effectively. One of their most ludicrous tropes is to
liken the U.S. to authoritarian regimes that also practice capital
punishment. In reality, as Marshall showed, America still has the
death penalty because it is less authoritarian than Europe. Thus
whenever someone makes that argument, we feel a tinge of patriotic
pride. We believe a similar sentiment lay behind last night's
applause.
(Weirdly, the caption beneath the photo of Perry read simply, "Rick
Perry has executive experience." Italics mine.)
Another oddity of this dust-up was the digital shrapnel that hit Brian
Williams for asking the obvious question. Matthew Sheffield at
Newsbusters.org (devoted, in the site's own words, to "exposure of
liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and
timely corrections to news media reporting.") argued that Williams
showed a lot of liberal elitist gall for even going there:
As someone who makes his living by trying to appeal, at least in
some fashion, to the emotions of crowds, Williams's inability to
understand the audience's spontaneous outbreak of applause response to
his declaration that Texas "has executed 234 death row inmates, more
than any other governor in modern times" is a classic case of a
liberal elitist being unable to compute that his smugly held opinions
are not shared by others. It was the media analog of 1988 Democratic
presidential nominee's Michael Dukakis's anodyne response when asked
in a debate about whether he would want a hypothetical murderer of his
wife executed.
But perhaps I'm selling Williams's perspicacity short. One
suspects he would likely have understood a similar audience reaction
were it to applaud enthusiastically a Democratic candidate's firm
support for abortion legalization. Such a response could equally be
perceived as grisly but it seems unlikely that Williams would
entertain such a thought.
Ann Althouse also accused Williams of baiting, not unlike a certain
CNN anchor at a 1988 Democratic presidential debate:
Williams —skillfully — lures Perry into the realm of emotion.
Perhaps he's looking for a big moment, perhaps something like what
happened to Michael Dukakis in the second presidential debate in 1988.
Dukakis was against the death penalty, and the question asked by
Bernard Shaw invited him to show some passion and fire about crime —
what if your wife were raped and murdered? — and Dukakis stayed
doggedly on his track, expressing coolly rational rejection of the
death penalty.
In last night's debate, Perry declined the invitation to show
passion about death — the death of the convicted murderer — and, like
Dukakis, he stayed coolly rational. In Sullivan's words, he "shows no
remorse" or "reflection" — but he did show reflection, reflection
about the soundness of the system of justice. He didn't show remorse.
Remorse is what you ask a criminal to show. It was fine for Perry not
to be lured into displaying angst over executions. But then I thought
it was fine for Dukakis to keep from getting sidetracked by Shaw's
melodramatic hypothetical. All we're talking about is the public's
response to the candidate and the journalist's effort to create
excitement. The difference is, most Americans support the death
penalty, and they don't need elaborate expressions about the deep
significance of death when it's the death of a convicted murderer.
Certainly, as Sept. 11 approaches, the idea of revenge is in the air,
as are questions about it. Is vengeance the way of nations? Was it
worth it? What is the difference between revenge and justice? Does
violence merely beget violence? Greenwald, in the same post cited
above makes the connection to the American cheering that followed the
killing of Osama bin Laden. ("In all cases, performing giddy dances
over state-produced corpses is odious and wrong.")
Greenwald also cites Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Daily News, who
believes he saw the national sentiment that Perry tapped into. Bunch
calls the death penalty cheer "a shocking new low" in American
politics. On Thursday he wrote: "[W]ith the 10th anniversary of 9/11
just four days away, everyone's been looking for a window into
America's post-attack psyche. I think that, sadly, that window just
opened wide in Simi Valley last night. I've never forgiven my own
newspaper, the Daily News, for leading the Sept. 12, 2001, paper with
an editorial headlined 'Blood for blood' that started out: 'Revenge.
Hold that thought.' Obviously, we have — for coming up on a decade.
The cheering of executions is the hallmark of a sick society one
that's incapable of tackling its real demons and looking for vengeance
on whomever happens to be available."
Given the tension in the air, and the 2012 election hovering, it's not
likely that the warring parties will come together on this or any
other issue. But who knows? Maybe we'll all wake up one morning and
see the world differently. It's happened before.
On Sep 10, 12:02 pm, "Abdul Bangura" <th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My USA-Afrika Dialogue Family Members, please let us be very careful out there. Report any suspicious activity to law enforcement officers. Terrorist bombs, like other bombs, do not discriminate.
> AP sources: 2 terror suspects may be US citizens
>
> September 10, 2011 ? WASHINGTON (AP) ? Al-Qaida may have sent American terrorists or men carrying U.S. travel documents to launch an attack on Washington or New York to coincide with memorials marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, government officials say.
> One U.S. official says al-Qaida dispatched three men, at least two of whom could be U.S. citizens, to detonate a car bomb in one of the cities. Should that mission prove impossible, the attackers have been told to simply cause as much destruction as they can. But U.S. intelligence officials say they have no evidence there is anyone inside the United States tied to the plot.
> Although the initial tip suggested terrorists, including U.S. citizens, may be traveling to the country, that remains unconfirmed. Word that al-Qaida had ordered the mission reached U.S. officials midweek. A CIA informant who has proved reliable in the past approached intelligence officials overseas to say that the men had been ordered by newly minted al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahri to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Sunday by doing harm on U.S. soil.
> The tipster says the would-be attackers are of Arab descent and may speak Arabic as well as English. Counterterrorism officials were looking for certain names associated with the threat, but it was unclear whether the names were real or fake.
> Intelligence analysts have looked at travel patterns and behaviors of people entering the country recently. And while they have singled out a few people for additional scrutiny, none has shown any involvement in a plot.
> Counterterrorism officials have been working around the clock to determine whether the threat is accurate, but so far, have been unable to corroborate it, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.
> In the meantime, extra security was put in place to protect the people in the two cities that took the brunt of the jetliner attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a decade ago. It was the worst terror assault in the nation's history, and al-Qaida has long dreamed of striking again to mark the anniversary. But it could be weeks before the intelligence community can say whether this particular threat is real.
> Undaunted by talk of a new terror threat, New Yorkers and Washingtonians wove among police armed with assault rifles and waited with varying degrees of patience at security checkpoints. "We're watching," James McJunkin, FBI assistant director in charge of the Washington field office, said Saturday. "We expect we're going to get an increase in threats and investigative activity around high-profile dates and events. He added: "This is a routine response for us. It's routine because it's muscle memory."
> For months, the FBI had planned to increase staffing around the anniversary and police knew they were going to be out in force in Washington, he said. In New York on Friday, security worker Eric Martinez wore a pin depicting the twin towers on his lapel as he headed to work in lower Manhattan where he also worked 10 years ago when the towers came down. "If you're going to be afraid, you're just going to stay home," he said.
> Mayor Michael Bloomberg, too, made a point of taking the subway to City Hall. Briefed on the threat Friday morning, President Barack Obama instructed his security team to take "all necessary precautions," the White House said. Obama still planned to travel to New York on Sunday to mark the 10th anniversary with stops that day at the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa.
> Washington commuters were well aware of the terror talk. Cheryl Francis, of Chantilly, Va., said she travels over the Roosevelt bridge into Washington every day and doesn't plan to change her habits. Francis, who was in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, said a decade later the country is more aware and alert.
> "It's almost like sleeping with one eye open," she said, but she added that people need to continue living their lives. The intelligence community regularly receives tips and information of this nature. But the timing of this particular threat had officials especially concerned, because it was the first "active plot" that came to light as the country marked the significant anniversary, a moment that was also significant to al-Qaida, according to information gleaned in May from Osama bin Laden's compound.
> The U.S. government has long known that terrorists see the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and other uniquely American dates as opportunities to strike. Officials have also been concerned that some may see this anniversary as an opportunity to avenge bin Laden's death.
> Britain, meanwhile, warned its citizens who are traveling to the U.S. that there was a potential for new terror attacks that could include "places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers." Acutely aware of these factors, law enforcement around the country had already increased security measures at airports, nuclear plants, train stations and more in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The latest threat, potentially targeting New York or Washington, prompted an even greater security surge in those cities. U.S. embassies and consulates abroad had also boosted their vigilance in preparation for the anniversary.
> At Penn Station in New York, transit authority police carried assault rifles and wore helmets and bullet proof vests as they watched crowds of commuters. Police searched passengers' bags as they entered the subway, and National Guard troops in camouflage fatigues moved among riders, eyeing packages.
> In Washington, Police Chief Cathy Lanier warned that unattended cars parked in suspicious locations or near critical buildings and structures would be towed. Speaking in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was "a specific, credible but unconfirmed report that al-Qaida, again, is seeking to harm Americans and in particular, to target New York and Washington."
>
> Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Christopher Hawley, Colleen Long and Samantha Gross in New York, Ben Feller, Jessica Grescko, Matthew Lee, and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
>
> 678346h425pd1w620.jpg
> 84KViewDownload
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment