Sensible Security Vs. Paranoid Privacy

I've viewed the ACLU as a mixed blessing at best, as some of their laudable defense of civil liberties and social equality has been offset by needlessly obstructive litigation.  In the second category I'd include their lawsuit against the government's "phone spying program" that aims to prevent or detect terrorism.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) collects meta data (place and time of calls, and to whom) and likely records a lot of calls made overseas as well.  It is not clear from news reports if their analysts can mine that data and access recorded conversations without a court order.  Even if they can, I'm fine with it so long as there are stringent penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosure of such information, e.g., to expose extra-marital affairs or other embarrassing but non-criminal acts.

In a dangerous and uncertain time when there are inevitably those living within the US who'd like to do us harm I'd much rather choose security over some loss of privacy.  That includes measures like widespread video surveillance in public places, a national ID card, a national gun registry, some degree of profiling as I wrote in August 2009, and yes, electronic eavesdropping.  Tom Friedman in his June 11 Times column voices a lot of my thoughts except that I'd not so "reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining" but strongly endorse it.  In the same spirit I consider Bradley Manning who sent a trove of secret State cables to Wikileaks and NSA leaker Edward Snowden (if the US ever gets him) to be deserving of stiff jail terms. 

Many Americans agree with me, though poll results over the past couple of weeks vary depending on whom you ask and how you frame the questions.  According to USA Today on June 18, most Americans support prosecuting Snowden who is sought by the US and is for now in Russia.  There's an age divide, with the younger generation much more supportive of Snowden's leaks, which I attribute to their naivete.  After all, this is the demographic that helped Obama top a more capable and qualified Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary. (Sorry, past and present Obama fans, I couldn't resist this dig.)

Curiously, I see some mainstream media reports referring to Snowden and even Manning as "whistle blowers" which is a term for exposing illegality or wrongdoing.  That is not the case here, as they've instead leaked secret but legal acts or communications, so the the term "whistle blower" shouldn't be debased by applying it to them.

About the other security measures I reeled off above, to my mind privacy for privacy's sake is overrated, especially when it tips the scales heavily in favor of criminals.  Why not introduce a national ID?  Accompanied by biometric markers it would be much harder to fake and could significantly impede identity theft.  It could also make life for the truly innocent and harmless more convenient, as in airport security screening.

Why not have everyone's DNA and fingerprints in a national registry along with criminal information, so long as access to it is graduated and available to the authority only to the extent justified?  For example, police officers making a traffic stop could access if there are any outstanding arrest warrants for anyone they pull over, but not prior convictions that could prejudice them.  This type of comprehensive registry would enormously expedite and ensure detection and apprehending of the guilty if their DNA or fingerprints are found at the crime scene.  For the same reason we should indeed have not just a national gun registry but also to the extent feasible the ballistic records of every weapon to make criminal forensics more effective.

Privacy is another term for concealment, and I can see why we'd want things like our bedroom behavior, non-criminal fetishes or even some misdemeanor offenses to be inaccessible to the public at large.  But that's very different from information we're talking about here, which can seriously impede crime, terrorism and other really bad stuff.  Modern technology makes it possible for us to not just store vast amounts of useful information about people but also to selectively restrict access to it.

Of course, data hacking and cyber security failures can expose secret information but that happens anyway in other settings like email and other records, and lapses can be mitigated with extra care.  After all, our banks, the Pentagon and the CIA do not avoid collecting and storing confidential information in electronic format just 'cause this can possibly be hacked. The same logic should apply to keeping relevant and useful information about all Americans in a common, well secured database.

So while the ACLU and libertarians keep crusading against NSA "excesses" like warehousing electronic communications and centralized databases  I view most of these as sensible measures to make us safer.

Playing Rajat Gupta

 I've followed developments and written earlier about Rajat Gupta in March 2011,  in May 2012, and in July 2012.  The essence of my views has been:
a) Rajat's alleged insider tip-offs are out of character with the person I had come to know.
b) His heavy contributions to society and humanity far outweigh his alleged transgressions.
c) His insider leaks if true also pale in comparison to the misdeeds of typical hedge fund managers and other Wall Street players who are never caught or whose dishonest acts aren't technically crimes.
d) Even if he revealed secrets they could have been pried or deduced through wily questions by Rajaratnam.  Our Indian culture and ethos can make it seem impolite and difficult to completely clam up when a friend asks a direct question about a confidential matter.

 More light has been shed on the last point in a May 17 article in the New York Times that has pieced together the story of how he was manipulated by hedge fund titan (and crook) Rajaratnam.  This piece is well researched and dispassionate, providing insights into how Rajat could have landed in the mess that he's in.
Even the trial Judge Rakoff at the time of sentencing acknowledged that Rajat is "undoubtedly a good man".  In an interview (Fortune, Jan 24, '13) he stated without going into the specifics that he takes a defendants good deeds into account in his judgements.

[An aside: Though I think highly of judge Rakoff a point where I'd take issue with him as a financial purist is in his characterizing Rajat's tip-offs as “the functional equivalent of stabbing Goldman in the back.”  Actually, insider "buy" trades do not damage the firm whose shares are traded.  They instead discriminate against outside prospective buyers who are preceded by the inside trader and lose some of the fair chance to be "lucky" before share prices rise.  Of course that still makes insider trading wrong and it is rightly outlawed as it affects the integrity of the markets.]

Rajat continues to maintain he's not guilty as he appeals his conviction and sentencing, and  I continue to root for him.  Back to the Times article it speculates that an unfortunate Rajat was played by a "boorish" Rajaratnam and it reads somewhat like a Shakespearean tragedy.  As the future unfolds I'd like Rajat to have a happier ending.

More On Rajat Before The Trial

To me, ideal justice should reward or punish a person in proportion to the net of all the good and bad deeds done over a lifetime.  In this "Judgement Day" sense society is enormously indebted to Rajat Gupta about whom I last wrote in March 2011.  The world is a better place because of his work at McKinsey and after, including with the Gates Foundation, the American India Foundation, and in his helping set up ISB, the best business school in India.  And this is in addition to his grace, generosity and goodwill towards those who came into personal contact with him.

Rajat allegedly leaked board meeting information that led to insider trading gains of up to a few million dollars cumulatively to his friend Rajaratnam, though none to Rajat personally.  Even if true this sum is dwarfed by Rajat's services to humanity that (if you can put a monetary value on them) are worth billions - or tens of billions - of dollars. 

Of course, our man made system of justice is of necessity a lot more limited, with no offsetting credits for unrelated acts. Even Mother Teresa would have been prosecuted if she had committed a robbery.  For proven offenses penalties are at most mitigated when the judge at the time of sentencing considers a defendant's good deeds.  All I'm saying is that I continue wishing the best for Rajat, and regardless of the outcome of his trial starting on May 21 he remains in my books an admirable and thoroughly decent human being.

Others who have interacted closely with Rajat seem to feel the same way.  FriendsofRajat.com is a website established by friend and former McKinsey colleague Atul Kanaghat where folks of varying prominence have rallied to support Rajat. It contains several fervent testimonials and positive accounts from those who know him well.  Many people who are eager to cultivate relationships with celebrities abandon them just as quickly when they come under a cloud. Rajat in contrast having steadfast friends speaks well of both.

And then as his friends maintain, the allegations against Rajat may simply be untrue.  They are out of character with the person I know.  Rajat's defense team is expected to stress that (a) there is no direct evidence of Rajat's wrongdoing, (b) the timing of his calls to Rajaratnam does not mean that he leaked confidential information since he had many other matters to discuss, and (c) Rajat had just lost his entire $10M investment in Rajaratnam's funds which had strained their relationship so he'd hardly want to go out of his way to help Rajaratnam.

There are other developments.  AP reported on April 19 that prosecutors acknowledged Goldman employee(s) (not Rajat) also fed Rajaratnam inside information.  A May 3 article in the WSJ also described how Goldman's stock had been rising for several minutes even before Rajat called Rajaratnam and the latter made his "inside" trade, meaning that someone else had already leaked this information.  

Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati with whom I've co-written health care articles also has a sympathetic perspective as reported in the media about an Indian propensity to over-share that could cause problems. He said:

“You go to a meeting and you hear something which technically could be considered insider information and you go to your friend and you say ‘Arrey you know what happened?’  And he doesn’t realize - and that is Rajat’s bad judgment - that this guy is a crook. I think this is what may have happened. It is the product of Indian culture...  I think most people will see Rajat as somewhat of a victim. The fact that he has been doing a lot of good things for India and the Indian American community is going to stand in his favor. There will be cynicism among some people, but the vast majority will see him as a good man, who got caught on the wrong side of the street.”

Knowing what I do about Rajat and wanting to see justice served in a more holistic sense, I hope he gets through his crisis and regains universal acclaim for his achievements and innate decency.

Right Wing Judges Have Their Uses

I've generally taken a dim view of the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court, especially since their partisan 2000 ruling against Al Gore that stopped the Florida vote recount and made GWB President.  There's been the (so far unrealized) fear that they'd overturn Roe v. Wade to give abortion foes an upper hand. In January 2010 they aided special interests and electoral corruption by removing restrictions on corporations from spending freely on supporting or opposing candidates.  Going forward when it ultimately comes to them they may undo the 2010 health care reforms by (among other things) striking down the vital mandate for everyone to get insurance coverage.

But this same conservative wing also plays a key role in curbing class action lawsuits, expanding interpretation of anti-discrimination laws, and left wing activism that unfairly burdens our businesses and the economy.

On June 20 the Supreme Court threw out the largest class action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart with the conservative wing also making it difficult to file such class actions in the future.  This is welcome as such cases are generally a boon for trial lawyers while imposing huge costs on businesses that are hard put to defend against a wide variety of claims, many of them frivolous.  Businesses pass on such costs to Americans in the form of higher prices, and this also makes the US a less desirable place to hire workers or operate in.  So in this way the conservative judges have helped not just businesses but also the economy and American consumers by reducing unnecessary litigation. 

In this same case the conservative majority did businesses another favor by indirectly rejecting "proof by quota" as I call it.  This is an argument by trial lawyers and bodies like the EEOC that the simple fact of lower average pay or under-representation of ethnic groups or gender is proof of discrimination.  For example, if women in Wal-Mart on average earn less than men, or their proportion in management positions is much below 50% then this alone proves Wal-Mart's discriminatory conduct.  It ignores (or shifts the burden to defendants to prove) other possible reasons like women working less hard or for fewer hours due to their family commitments, or interrupting careers to raise children.  Or having fewer applicants with the required skills or willingness to work long, non-standard hours.  The conservative judges required proof of some employer conduct or instructions that's common to all discrimination claims to allow them to be clubbed and litigated.

The Supreme Court can restrict "proof by quota" even more explicitly, particularly by public agencies like the EEOC whose actions can hobble businesses even if their orders are eventually overturned on appeal.  I like the role of our right leaning judges in at least three other areas:

• Curbing pro-union partisanship and bias.  On April 22 I've talked of excesses by unions and the undesirable NLRB steps to try forcing Boeing to shift its 787 plane assembly from South Carolina to expensive, heavily unionized Washington.  Employers should be free to factor in labor relations and costs as well as labor disruptions to assess profits and viability, without the NLRB calling their resultant plant location an anti-union retaliation.  Even if it ultimately loses in a conservative Supreme Court (assuming the case goes that far) the NLRB's litigation is creating enough headaches for Boeing in the intervening period.  It would be a lot worse if a liberal Supreme Court actually sided with the NLRB.
• Countering the excesses of anti-discrimination laws.  As mentioned above, affirmative action can easily slip into quota based appointments and promotions that undermine a meritocracy and cause reverse discrimination.  Back on April 8, 2009 I mentioned the offshoot of anti-age discrimination leading to barring employers (with a few exceptions) from having a mandatory retirement age, no matter how high.  I've already talked about why I consider these developments unfortunate from an economic and jobs viewpoint, and would like to see conservative judges bring the balance back even if our politicians won't.  Liberal judges through their judicial activism on the other hand may perpetuate or even extend such misplaced anti-discrimination measures. 
• Being tough on crime.  Crime shouldn't pay, and "justice" should imply proportional consequences for major offenders.  On Sep. 3, 2009 I had espoused justice for violent and serious criminals to be weighted more towards deterrence, restitution and even retribution, instead of rehabilitation and reform.  When public resources are severely strained we see some courts forcing authorities to ease overcrowding, provide proper health care, spend more on inmates, or else to release them.  Conditions within prisons seem to be better than those for many outside of it.  Conservative judges are more in tune with the majority of Americans who prefer "true" justice to a coddling of criminals.

So there's at least a silver lining to these "right-minded" gentlemen of the court.

Justice Or Lynching Of DSK?

Anita's frail and gentle 80 year old uncle living by himself in Pune (India) is deathly afraid of changing his maid who has been giving him grief.  He cites many accounts of maids falsely alleging sexual assault by (even elderly) male employers when there were disputes or in revenge for perceived grievances.  He also quoted news of a rising trend of women in ones and twos hitching rides with unsuspecting male motorists and then demanding cash and valuables failing which they'd raise an alarm about attempted molestation.

Many years ago during my own IAS training, Mr. M.K. Kaw, one of our illustrious senior officials cautioned: "If you have a woman in your office make sure there's a third person around."  I took that advice to heart and repeated it to others, including a mid level forest official many years later when I was inquiring into a sexual harassment complaint against him by one of his female employees.  He was lucky to be cleared because of inconsistencies in her statements and evidence of her involvement with his enemies in influential circles.

It's the same in the US.  For example rape accusations were made up and vigorously pursued against three Duke lacrosse players in 2006.  And some may recall the media circus around the 1991 rape trial and acquittal of JFK's nephew, William Kennedy Smith.

We hear much about how difficult it can be for a rape victim to press charges, and how the proceedings questioning her and going into her own background can hurt her twice.  That needs to be balanced with the way improper handling can severely and irreversibly damage the falsely accused even if he is eventually cleared.

I have long had issues with the US justice system per my Sept. 3, '09 post, which coddles convicted criminals while paying lip service to presumption of innocence and needlessly humiliating the accused.  This brings me to the sexual assault charges against IMF (ex-)chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) who's hardly a sympathetic figure. He's widely known to be a womanizer and philanderer, though he may be in an open marriage - his wife has gone to great lengths to bail him out and to support him.  More disturbing is his supposedly consensual affair three years ago with a subordinate and former IMF economist that could involve sexual harassment. While DSK got off then with a reprimand I agree with the view that this made him unsuitable to head the IMF.

But considering just the current allegations there's little doubt that the accusing hotel maid performed a sex act on him - the DNA evidence confirms this and the defense has not denied it.  The key question is whether he forced himself on her or was the act consensual. Polls show a little over half the Americans believe the former while a majority of the French believe the latter (and that DSK was set up by his opponents as he was likely to become the next French President.)

I am with the French and skeptical of the sexual assault allegations.  Here's why:

•  DSK is a 5'7" flabby, pasty 62 year old who looks like he'd be bested by a younger woman in a physical struggle, leave alone being able to corner, subdue and force himself upon her.  And remain aroused through all this. 
• Young women have teeth. DSK had no weapons to cow the maid into complying with oral sex.  She could have interrupted proceedings while inflicting serious damage by biting down hard.  Wouldn't DSK be aware of this risk and be deterred by it?
• DSK has a reputation for seduction, but this is very different from a rapist physically forcing himself on a woman. DSK is rich enough to pay for sex which is what I suspect was the deal that day (or so he thought.)  If so, he still has a problem telling the truth and facing criminal consequences of abetting prostitution.  I favor decriminalizing the world's oldest profession as long as it does not involve minors, coercion or trafficking, but that's not how the law stands in New York.
• The police cite DSK's previous conduct including hitting on other staff and inviting two receptionists to his room the previous evening for a drink as supporting "proof" of his criminal state of mind.  But the implications can be just the opposite.  If the staff shared their experience with others, it would be widely known that he was seeking out women, and give his enemies a good way to set him up.
• The maid should not have had this room on her cleaning list because  DSK was supposed to check out that day.  Hotels have routine systems in place that flag rooms for cleaning only after the guest has left.  So did the hotel make a mistake, or was she not supposed to enter in the first place?  Another curious coincidence is that she was not supposed to be working on that floor, but volunteered to do so in place of an absent colleague.
• The maid further seems to have ignored protocol by not knocking loudly and repeatedly before entering the suite.  By her account she then went deep enough into the suite before noticing it was occupied as to be prevented from leaving when DSK emerged naked from the bathroom.  

The police and prosecutors aware of all this should have been cautious in their approach.  I'd imagine they at least had the maid take a polygraph (lie detector) test to satisfy themselves even though it's inadmissible in court.

We saw the police parading DSK in handcuffs in media glare in a humiliating "perp walk" that is banned in Europe and even by a Supreme Court order in a developing country like India.  Worse, the initial judge Melissa Jackson abused her discretion in denying DSK bail because he is a flight risk.  Is her action stemming from sheer stupidity or pomposity combined with an ego kick at bringing down an international leader and reveling in media attention?

What age are she and the police living in?  With DSK wearing an electronic ankle monitor, under police guard and surveillance, and his passport seized, how did they find the prospect of DSK pulling a Houdini and escaping realistic?  I think this judge is a disgrace and unfit to hold office.  A superior court eventually granted DSK bail with home confinement but I wish there was a system in place for immediate appeal or review of the first judge's decision so DSK wasn't sent to Riker's Island jail in the first place.

Even if DSK is acquitted of sexual assault (and I'd lay the odds on that despite a lot of noise to the contrary) the damage is already done.  He's already had to resign from the IMF and a future presidential bid looks dead.

The solace we can take is that in his case two wrongs may have made a right.  His romp with his subordinate in the IMF in 2008 should have cost him his IMF job, but didn't, and the latest allegations should not have severely damaged him until they were proved, but did.

Aftermath Of Friend's Murder

Last week I received a call from someone who requested anonymity, and I'll call him Charlie.  He had seen my post of April 18, 2008 about the murder of my childhood friend Aasha Chhabra and her husband Brij in Troy, Michigan.  He wanted to update me with news about their killers so as to afford closure to the family.  (We haven't got in touch with the Thadani's young daughter, their only child, though.)

The murders had been arranged by Narayan Thadani who had betrayed Aasha's complete trust in him by selling her landed property in India and stealing the proceeds of over $2 million.  He was about to lose it all in a court case and hired two men from El Salvadore for the killings.  Narayan pleaded guilty and he as well as the two hit men all received life terms in prison in October 2010 while another accomplice got 30 years after turning state's evidence.

Charlie himself is an ex-convict who met Narayan in the Houston prison where he is now serving his sentence.  Charlie called Narayan an evil and scary person who while awaiting trial almost nonchalantly sought help from fellow inmates to hire a hit man to kill the FBI agent who was investigating his case.  Narayan apparently bore that agent a grudge and also thought the killing would remove a vital prosecution witness and help his court defense.  His fellow prisoners instead tipped off the authorities.  He was put in touch with an undercover FBI agent posing as a contract killer, and caught.

Charlie sent me the docket containing the charges for the murders of the Chhabras for which Narayan pleaded guilty, as well as for attempted murder of the FBI agent, which didn't really carry any additional downside as Narayan will spend the rest of his life behind bars anyway.

While it's good that Narayan and the three others got caught and punished, I'm still bothered by our justice system coddling perpetrators of such terrible crimes, as I opined in my September 3, 2009 post.  There is not even any lingering doubt about the guilt of all these men yet they don't get to pay the ultimate price.  The gentle and thoroughly decent Chhabras have been murdered, and their ruthless killers spend their lives in prison conditions that are better than that of much of humanity on the outside. 

Rehabilitation should of course play a role depending on the circumstances.  Charlie's own crimes were a lot less serious (why they mix prisoners whose degrees of offenses are so disparate is beyond me.)  He came across as a well spoken person who had turned his life around, and I wish him well.

The Rajat I Know

A rather sanctimonious mass email I've received is prompting this post.  Rajat Gupta, former head of McKinsey has been widely praised and admired though he is now in the news for passing material non-public information to Raj Rajaratnam (RR) of the Galleon hedge funds.

The email titled "How Much is Enough?" echoed some other chatter about how the wealthy and highly respected Rajat let greed get the better of him and ruin his reputation by abetting insider trading.

I feel compelled to balance the picture about Rajat whom we know personally since 1991 when I had just come to the US for PhD studies at the University of Chicago.  I knew nothing of McKinsey or what he did at that time, and we drove to his house simply to deliver a gift from India sent through us by one of my favorite ex-bosses in the IAS.  That was Mr. P.K. Mattoo, Chief Secretary of HP state till 1987,  and uncle of Anita Mattoo Gupta, Rajat's wife and a warm, wonderful person whom he met as a fellow student at IIT Delhi. 

I've rarely seen anyone more gracious, modest and personable than Rajat, in spite of his brilliance and success at McKinsey.  He was that way in all the subsequent times we met him, and Mr. Mattoo told me how Rajat was ever ready to sleep on the floor when he and family would visit and stay with them in India. In 1994 after Rajat became head of McKinsey, my friend Harsh from the University of Chicago who joined McKinsey told me about how he and other fresh recruits met Rajat at a welcoming party for them.  He said the recruits were blown away when Rajat came up to them individually, put out his hand and diffidently said, "Hi, I'm Rajat Gupta," before chatting with them.  "As if anyone in the gathering didn't know who he was," Harsh marveled, "And he was on the cover of many major magazines."

We saw Rajat and family after a gap of of over 10 years in June 2009 at a high school graduation party for the daughter of Sunil, Mr. P.K. Mattoo's son.  Rajat was as unassuming and cordial as ever, and introduced us to his daughter and her African American husband who had been warmly welcomed into the family.  We also learned about Rajat's hectic schedule, working for free with non-profits, including with the Gates Foundation (that he's now stepped down from) to help eradicate malaria.

While he certainly violated confidentiality as a Goldman Sachs director in his conversations with Raj Rajaratnam, he seems to have done it out of a misplaced sense of friendship, without profit to himself.  I saw SEC's most damning evidence against him, this 18 minute transcript of his call with RR.  The disclosure seems incidental to the main conversation, and as a result of RR pumping him for information.

The other striking incident cited is Rajat calling RR seconds after a Goldman board meeting where Warren Buffet's $5B investment was disclosed.  Minutes later RR placed bets on Goldman shares that netted Galleon $900,000.  To me, it's very out of character for Rajat to call someone just after receiving confidential information to tip them off for illicit gain.  Even a March 7 Times article referred to some curious aspects of the SEC's case against Rajat.

The kind of scenario I'd envision is that RR tracked scheduled board meetings and timed messages requesting a call back to Rajat accordingly.  After meetings are over the attendees typically get to their other activities, including returning calls, as Rajat did with RR.  Then in the course of other conversation that was ostensibly the purpose of RR's contact, he casually asked Rajat some leading questions about Goldman, and pounced on any resultant cues.  RR is obviously sharp as a whip, but his laid back style and humor interspersed with personal chats could disarm a friend into revealing more than he should.  Rajat's amiable and forthcoming nature could make him hesitate to clam up and pointblank refuse to answer RR's "incidental" questions.

In sum Rajat's approachability and helpfulness has apparently proved to be his undoing.  His lack of motive or ill intent seems to be why he hasn't been criminally prosecuted, though he's had to resign all his board positions and suffer ignominy. 

Sometimes bad judgment or carelessness can land very good people in trouble.  I'm sorry to see Rajat in this plight and hope he gets out of this okay.

Why a Mosque at Ground Zero?

The latest poll shows Americans nationwide think 70% to 25% that Muslims have the right to build a mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero, but oppose it 63% to 28% as inappropriate.  New Yorkers oppose it 51% to 41%.

The non-Muslim supporters of the proposal are upholding 1st Amendment rights and the proud US tradition of tolerance and respect for all religions.  They also think this profound gesture of inclusiveness will mitigate ill feelings towards the US.  It is remarkable to see NY Mayor Bloomberg, a Jew and till recently a Republican, buck public opinion as a high profile and vocal supporter, at the cost of a steep drop in his popularity.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is similarly facing heat from within his own Republican Party for implied support by cautioning against an overreaction.

I appreciate such principled stands and my respect for Mayor Bloomberg has gone up immensely.  I also think a lot better of Gov. Christie whom I had regarded as a poor choice by NJ voters to replace Democrat Jon Corzine.

Still, I hold a different view, in line with most Americans who have a gut feeling about this.  I am opposed to the present location of the mosque for the following reasons:

• Why here?  The site was deliberately chosen right next to Ground Zero.  The decision to locate the mosque here is not in spite of the tragedy at Ground Zero, but because of it. In other words, if there had been no 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, there would not have been any plans for the mosque right here.

• The stated intent behind building the mosque here is not believable.  The planners claim to want to foster better relations between others and Islam, and to help people have a better understanding of this faith.  How can they not have anticipated the adverse reaction?  They say they are surprised by it, and Imam Rauf claims had they known this would happen they wouldn't have proposed this.  Even assuming that is true, now that they do, they should look elsewhere.  Rauf a couple of days back said he opposes this as it would create a violent Muslim backlash round the world.  That reasoning again sounds false.  What's the religious significance of Ground Zero for Islam, that its proponents insist on building right here?

• Sensitivities to a mosque next door have a subtle aspect.  They go beyond the fact that the 9/11 attackers all happened to be Muslims.  It's that they committed this act in the name of Islam.  Of course the vast majority of Muslims found this to be reprehensible, but they will empathize and won't mind if the mosque is a located a few blocks further away. 

• Erecting a mosque here is unlikely to discourage terrorism, and could arguably work the opposite way.  Who said the jihadists and religious terrorists are perfectly reasonable, rational people?  The planners say the gesture of allowing a mosque here would weaken or win over radicals because the US would be seen as Islam-friendly.  That could certainly be the way many Islamists may see it.  But jihadist recruiters could also feed religious fanatics the line that the "sacrifices" of the 9/11 attackers led to this mosque being built, and more of such "pious" acts are needed to help spread Islam.

Where do we go from here?  Laws are imperfect, and the mosque planners seem to have taken advantage of this and US freedoms in an affront to the 9/11 victims and their families. The solution can be to fix or modify the laws as situations like this arise.

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission could have nipped the controversy in the bud if they had given landmark status to Ground Zero, instead of unanimously turning it down.  Then they could have done something like barring all new religious buildings within a half mile radius.  Perhaps a measure with similar consequences can now be passed by some other body.  This may be needed even though the planners and Rauf now show signs of backing away.  This is because other mischief mongers could take their place, if for no other reason than to yank peoples' chains, or because this issue attracts so much publicity.

Still, we should reassure Muslims of equal treatment of their religion and their needs.  To this end I saw this interesting proposal to even have a Muslim place of worship within a Ground Zero building.  The difference?  It will presumably be one of the several places of worship for people of different faiths, stressing respect and equality for all.  It will also be under the overall control of a centralized management not associated with any particular religion.

                                                                                                

Changing Our Criminal Justice System

I am unhappy with several aspects of our US criminal justice. But I'm on the left or the right depending on the practice in question. Broadly speaking, I'm with the left when it comes to presumption of innocence and treating those not yet convicted of crimes with dignity. And I'm with the right for more powers for investigating crimes, treatment of convicted offenders and lowering the taxpayer tab on prison inmates.

This is where I'd want a more liberal shift:

• Avoid handcuffing non-violent suspects before they obtain bail. Why did Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, or the two Bear Stearns fund managers have to be handcuffed and confined before appearing in court when (a) they seem highly unlikely to pose physical danger to the arresting officers, and (b) had ample advance notice of impending charges, so they could be allowed to do something about it? Being handcuffed would be very humiliating and an affront to our dignity for most of us - something that can't be undone even if we're subsequently cleared. Since 1980 the Indian Supreme Court has barred handcuffing of suspects who are not likely to be violent or dangerous. There is also a clear provision for anyone to approach the court and seek anticipatory bail to avoid needless humiliation and inconvenience. If a developing country like India can have these safeguards, why not the US?
• Have much stricter gun control. What age are we living in? The 2nd Amendment giving the right to bear arms is an anachronism, though this will be hard to repeal because of entrenched beliefs. It's almost inconceivable for someone coming from India (and I'm sure most developed countries) to see how easily any punk in the US can acquire a firearm. Even assault weapons can be bought, with the NRA and the loony gun-toting fringe vigorously defending this right in the name of self-protection. And there should be strict background checks and stringent penalties for disqualified applicants possessing illegal firearms. Thanks to guns the US has a much higher homicide rate than other first world countries. With shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Washington Beltway sniping, "going postal" and other workplace violence, perhaps the average American is now ready for more Europe style arms restrictions.
• Freely let DNA evidence and new techniques be used to revisit old cases of conviction to reassess guilt. Some of these convictions have been successfully challenged, DNA tests allowed and convictions reversed. But we know how jury verdicts can be so flawed and arbitrary - why assign a false sanctity to such verdicts and not allow DNA tests in all such cases?
• Decriminalize victimless crimes like acts between consenting adults, or using (as opposed to dealing with) drugs. What former NY Gov. Elliott Spitzer did in hiring a call girl may be bad for his family life, but shouldn't have been a crime.

Here's where I favor a marked shift to the right:

• Much stiffer penalties for criminals. True to our sense of fair play, justice should be retributive, not just reformative or a deterrent as liberals maintain. There's no reason to take capital punishment off the table for egregious murders so long as guilt is established beyond all lingering doubt (say with 99.99% certainty), not just reasonable doubt. There also shouldn't be a blanket minimum age or intelligence threshold for capital punishment. After all, a juvenile showing extreme cruelty or sadism while knowingly committing crimes is more, not less, likely to become an even bigger monster as he grows older.
• A tougher and lower cost jail environment. There's something wrong about criminals (especially hardened ones) sentenced to punishment spending their time watching TV, pumping iron, eating well and enjoying better medical care than many people outside the prison. Criminals should repay their debt to society through work and depending on the gravity of their offenses (think Dahmer, Bundy, the Beltway snipers, or the killers of my childhood friend Aasha) as a resource for medical testing and organ donation against payment to the state. These measures will at least lower the taxpayer burden, and if they act as some kind of a deterrent against crime, that's a bonus. (The Chinese till recently were harvesting and selling organs of executed prisoners. That disturbed many of us because we weren't sure if (a) those people had actually committed crimes deserving of the death penalty, and (b) if the profit from organ sales was itself an incentive for executing prisoners.)
• Close monitoring of inmates and strict punishments for offenses committed in jails. I've don't understand how prison rapes and inmate on inmate violence can still go undetected given our advances in technology. We can cheaply video monitor (and record) every cell, every square foot of prison space, and every movement by every inmate. Any offenses can be easily proved by playing back the recordings and inmates severely punished, preferably in a revenue positive fashion (see point above.) Guards who fail to act can also be identified and disciplined. This will also crimp in-prison gang activity and prevent the worst and most dangerous inmates from victimizing weaker ones.
• Further limiting or completely eliminating trials by jury. The US is one of the few countries where jury trials, which are highly wasteful with often arbitrary verdicts, are still widely prevalent. Other countries use just judges, whose verdicts can be appealed to superior judges and panels of judges. Given our multicultural society with ethnic divides and loyalties, jury trials are even more vulnerable to unfair outcomes, especially when the alleged crimes cross racial boundaries. Remember how O.J. Simpson was let off for double murder by a mostly black jury in 1994, and lost in the subsequent civil case decided by a mainly white jury (though this case admittedly required a lower burden of proof.)
• Requiring every US resident to submit a DNA sample and to carry a national ID card. Objections by the ACLU to maintain privacy have little merit, since safeguards can be imposed to ensure the information is used only to detect or prevent major crimes. Besides, consider the huge upside of such measures. Any DNA on a crime scene can be matched against a national database of the entire populace to solve crimes. Terrorism can be severely limited with a national ID, possibly combined with biometrics. The system can be carefully designed of course to protect most privacy, but this exercise to guard against "Big Brother" excesses should be very feasible.

There may be nuances, but a majority of Americans likely agree with my thinking. 

Gay and Diverse Celebration

Anita's young female relative graduated from high school last week, and Anita and I had a great time attending the festivities. At a private dinner in a New Haven restaurant we met a nice young couple - one the step-sister of our graduate and the other her woman spouse, along with their two year old daughter.

The cute toddler ran around, being minded and doted upon by her two moms (one the biological mother through sperm donation) as well as her grandpa, a cheerful and mild-mannered cardiologist. He and his wife introduced the female couple as their daughter and daughter-in-law.

Considering that it was a family affair with everyone related by blood or marriage, our group of 10 was remarkably diverse. Five distinct mother tongues - English, Gujerati, Hindi, Malayalam and Panjabi. A mix of four Indian ethnic groups and one Caucasian. Four different religions - Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. In answer to Rodney King's question two decades ago, yes, we can all get along beautifully.

The female couple talked of their quest, hope and anxieties about getting recognized as spouses. They first got married in San Francisco, then last month in Massachusetts and are now looking forward to legalization of same sex marriage in New York where they live. They sought marriages in multiple states because of uneven laws recognizing these, and the validity being subject to referendums and court challenges. One of them talked about the hurt she felt when her uncle (the cardiologist's brother) whom she was very close to didn't attend their wedding.

I've supported gay marriage in a "why-not-if-it-makes-people-happy" sense, brushing aside those religious objections as meaningless. But I didn't consider it very different from civil unions and was hence not too invested in the issue. Now having seen it up close and personal, I am much more sympathetic to the cause and hope it gains universal acceptance.

Lead Foot Drivers Or Light-Headed Politicians?

I've always deplored using traffic enforcement as a way to raise revenues rather than ensuring safety and smooth driving conditions. Unfortunately it happens all the time. Ever noticed how the traffic police seem most active in issuing tickets when traffic volumes are low and driving conditions are good? In other words, when the conditions for driving fast are the safest?

Many of the traffic police either have quotas or financial incentives for issuing more tickets, though they try not to disclose this. That's why there's the "gotcha" mentality that makes me (and I'm guessing a majority of you) think negatively about speed cops.

Now look what these Virginia politicians have done. The Republicans opposed measures like a 1 cent increase in gas taxes to fund state highway projects, and instead pushed for raising revenues through draconian traffic penalties, like charging drivers at least $1,050 for going 20 miles over the limit. The main proponent of this legislation, State Rep. David Albo (R) is the senior partner in a law firm dealing with traffic offenses, which should experience a nice uptick in business.

Oh, and it's not just Republicans to blame. Democrat Governor Tim Kaine fully went along with this idea. Now that the new law took effect on July 1st, there's been a public outcry. There's pressure on lawmakers to call a special session to repeal the new provisions. Tim Kaine is opposing it - so far. All the state lawmakers face elections this fall. If those among them who voted for the new penalties get re-elected, Virginian drivers will lose a lot of my current sympathy for them.

Scooter Pardon Musings

I have mixed feelings about how the Plame-Wilson-Libby affair has played out. The Libby pardon is hardly a surprise. GWB and Co. have done much worse in the past, and with the current 26% approval rating no longer have much of a reputation to protect. And one good shield deserves another. They owe it to their henchman to shield him from the consequences of shielding them from exposure.

I think about four aspects of the case.

First, it's about those who lash out at Bill Clinton for deploring the pardon because of his own rash of pardons near the end of his presidency. The two acts are different because Clinton didn't pardon anyone who was covering up for him or his administration.

Second, despite my occasional digs at Republicans it shows there are plenty of decent and straight ones around. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald and federal judge Walton are both Republicans and proved they're no hatchet men. Fitzgerald probably gave VP Cheney a break by not compelling damaging testimony from him under oath, but has been upstanding on the whole. Judge Walton didn't give Libby any undue breaks and it can even be said his sentence was on the harsher side.

Third, Libby may not be that bad a guy and one can empathise with his situation. He was put on the spot and lied or obstructed the investigation to protect the boss out of a sense of loyalty. He sacrificed himself knowing he could go to prison and no one would bail him out. (Oh, wait. )

Lastly, just like in that Clinton impeachment drama, probably too much has been made out of this case. The motive in exposing Plame wasn't revenge as much as an attempt to discredit Wilson's revelations by painting him and his wife as anti-GWB partisans. What was the damage done by outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? Probably only that she could never do a covert job again.

So can't it go this way: the Administration and the CIA say to Plame "oops, we're so sorry about goofing up on this. Here's $5 million (or $10 million) and a promotion to compensate you for our gaffe." End of story. Valerie's quite a babe and will improve the image of the CIA, so to speak. Those who feel taxpayers shouldn't pay so much for the Administration's mistakes should look at the billions of dollars of overspend on no-bid Iraq / Katrina contracts and other wastages inherent in the government. Also the special prosecutor's activities have cost more than this amount.

So in sum, while the Plame leak and Libby pardon affair confirms the seamy side of GWB-Vice politics, it's not that big a deal as to unduly exercise us.

In Defense Of Paris Hilton

The vast majority of the vociferous minority demanded that Paris Hilton serve her full jail time "like the rest of us would" for driving on a suspended licence and a public-pandering judge obliged them in this Paris Hilton saga.

The "vociferous minority" I'm talking about are the self-righteous indignants on the left and the right. They're the type who demanded Don Imus's head despite his apologies over his "nappy headed ho's" comment, or made those furious calls to the FCC about Janet Jackson baring her breast at the '04 Superbowl. They demand their pound of flesh and condemn any leniency in jail time or special treatment for Paris because she's a celebrity.

Here's why I disagree with them:

• Celebrities may give more to the community, so factoring this in during sentencing for minor offenses can be justified. Even Paris with her lavish and vacuous lifestyle provides us with news and entertainment. (Not to mention her widely circulated '03 sex tape that's the first thing I associate with her. I haven't seen it but it couldn't be bad.)
• Being a celebrity comes with it's own problems, like lack of privacy, chases by the paparazzi, getting accosted by obnoxious fans or publicity seekers, etc. So why grudge them a little consideration (again for minor offenses) that makes up for this downside?
• Jail time IS much harder for celebrities. So a jail stay is a far stiffer punishment for Paris who is used to an ultra luxuriant and protected lifestyle, than for a run of the mill offender where the "inside" is not much worse than the outside.
• Want to make sentencing uniform for all in minor cases? Then how about something like a 45 day jail term or $2 million in fines. Then ordinary offenders go to prison while rich celebrities pay a hefty sum into the city coffers that benefits the community.
• Paris' licence should arguably not have been suspended in the first place. Her blood alcohol level in that earlier incident was at 0.08 which is exactly at the new threshold, down from the 0.10 of a few years ago. I think most people would have contested this borderline result but she didn't because the trial have been too much bother. So in a way this is a case of reverse discrimination.

By the way, Rubina and her friends were wondering why people like Mel Gibson or Paris get caught driving drunk when they can easily afford to be chauffered around.

The recent music video about Paris in jail is quite funny. Shouldn't she get time off for providing all this entertainment? If she doesn't, she'll likely get off on June 26th after serving 23 days.

Crime And (Low) Punishment

The Columbia Journalism graduation ceremony on May 16 was long as each of the 250 students walked up to receive their diplomas, and we had settled back into a kind of semi-stupor after our own Rubina was done.

The sudden loud applause and standing ovation of one student towards the end of the ceremony took us by surprise. Then I guessed who it was. Rubina later confirmed that this girl was indeed her friend (only four days apart in age and living a few blocks away from Rubina) who some weeks back had been brutally raped and tortured for 19 hours by an ex-convict. Among the horrible things he did to her (not all made public) was slitting her eyelids and leaving her to die by setting her apartment on fire (to cover up any clues) with her tied to her futon bed. The attacker's subsequent arrest was carried by many papers in follow up of the initial story.

This brave girl was hospitalized for weeks and we're glad she could attend her graduation. But note this - her attacker had spent just 8 years for nearly kiling a neighbor by shooting the victim four times. He had a long rapsheet even before that and was considered dangerous at the time he served his full sentence and had to be released. The reason for that paltry eight year sentence? That's the maximum penalty that can be imposed in New York for attempted murder.

While in prison this guy would throw his faeces at the guards and attack other inmates. Such activities could not be grounds for lengthening his sentence. All they did was prevent his release on parole. After he eight years he had to be turned loose, and even his activities could not be monitored, say by requiring him to disclose his whereabouts or wear an electronic ankle bracelet.

There are many similar stories - this is just one that affected Rubina's friend. New York laws seem particularly soft on offenders but I'd want tougher provisions across the country.

I differ from the liberals (many in my own family) who in my view over-emphasize reform and rehabilitation over meting out justice and having a criminal repay his debt to society. When we talk of (or hope for) rewarding good and punishing evil in the after-life, why not start here on earth? There are also deterrent effects of stiffer penalties though statistics can be presented either way by partisans to draw different conclusions on issues like capital punishment.

Here are some measures I'd support:

• All states should have the death penalty, even if it's only for the most heinous and vicious crimes/murders and when there is no doubt at all about guilt (not just "beyond reasonable doubt.") There should be an ultimate penalty for the likes of Dahmer and Bundy.
• There should be truth in sentencing - not these provisions that allow a convict sentenced to "life" or hundreds of years to get out in twenty or less. And what's all this about "concurrent sentences" where the additional punishments are meaningless?
• Convicts considered dangerous at the end of their sentences can be allowed to be monitored in their activities and the community informed about them. This can be done by laws analogous to those passed for sex offenders.
• Inmate-on-inmate crimes should be vigorously investigated and offenders punished just as much or more than if they were committed outside prison. Why should the weaker prisoners be victims of things like prison rape while the worst offenders thrive at the top of the food chain? With modern technology it should be possible to monitor every move of every prisoner so these Oz-like goings on don't ever happen. And don't tell me this violates privacy.
• Prisons are for punishment, not for coddling prisoners. They should earn their upkeep instead of limbering up in gyms and watching TV. Yes, the system should aim to rehabilitate as well and find honest jobs when convicts get out, but inmates should have a strong disincentive to return.
• Don't use tender age as a basis for imposing lighter sentences unless the offender didn't fully grasp what he was doing. If a 16 year old brutally murders someone he should get the same sentence (including death) as a 30 year old. One can almost argue that if he has become such a monster at 16 he's likely to become worse later.
• Same as above largely goes for mental retardation or childhood abuse.
• Reform / abolish the system of trials by jury (more on this in a subsequent post.)

I probably disappoint those who lauded my reconciling with a former school bully. But simple bullying by adolescents is not comparable to the crimes I'm talking about here.
At the same time I'd like to see:

• Strict gun control and stringent penalties for violations of such laws
• Due process and safeguards for the accused. Those at Guantanamo for instance should certainly get legal representation and humane treatment. Also the innocent caught in the net should be speedily cleared, and generously and expeditiously compensated for their hardships.

A tough crime policy was a crucial plank that helped Bush Sr. beat Dukakis in 1988. Remember those Willie Horton Ads? Since then it has receded as an election issue. I wonder if it will resurface in 2008.

Indian Courts - Gere'd For Change

Here's an aspect of the Gere drama that I haven't seen covered anywhere. What can be done to prevent a bigoted or incompetent or just plain publicity hungry judicial official among thousands in one part of India from hassling celebrities in any other part of the country?

When protests and demonstrations were staged following Richard Gere's playfully tangling with Shilpa Shetty at an AIDs awareness gathering, I was embarassed as an Indian but not particularly bothered. After all there will always be the ultra conservatives and whackos in a country of a billion plus. Their right to free speech even if distasteful to me and contrary to majority view is an affirmation of our democratic values.

But it is very different when one magistrate (or subordinate judge) sitting in Jaipur issues arrest warrants and initiates proceedings for something that occurred in Delhi. The merits of the action aside just because media footage is aired in some place should not give the local judiciary the authority to summon or proceed against people who were never within their physical jurisdiction. For interstate occurrences there should be a clear single jurisdiction court. That way you need to only depend on the good sense and judgement of that court instead of being hostage to the whims or shenanigans of any one of the thousands of courts.

The required long term remedy needs legislative action by Parliament perhaps in consultation with the Judiciary and they should get to it. They can include some other pressing reforms like rolling back this rash of public interest litigation into this effort - but that's for a separate discussion.

Meanwhile, the additional chief judicial magistrate who acted against Gere and Shetty is Dinesh Gupta who has since been transferred out of Jaipur to a small little town.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_en_mo/people_gere

That is a good step but - as we were repeatedly told in government while I was part of it - a transfer should not be taken as any punishment. There should be some official proceedings to discipline this judge and affect his career and service records, That will deter similar actions by others. But the judiciary tends to be protective of its own and I wouldn't hold my breath on this happening.

The superior courts should also take "suo motto" (on their own) notice and quash the groundless proceedings without requiring the defendants to jump through further procedural hoops.