Moving On: Gates and Crowley Will Bury Hatchet Over Beers

It was very nice to hear that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sergeant Joseph Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department would be going to the White House to bury the hatchet over a few beers. It is probably the best solution to a problem that has rallied both sides of the argument over racial profiling in general and both participants' behavior in this particular incident. At the end of the day they were both a little wrong, with Gates seemingly overreacting and Crowley unjustly arresting him.

Today Boston.com had a piece on the caller who dialed 911 to initially report the "break in" at Gates' home on Ware Street by Harvard, stating that the caller claims she did not cite race. I found it very surprising because nearly all of the media reports immediately following the incident stated that when the caller spoke to 911 dispatchers she mentioned that two black men were breaking into the house. Even in Crowley's police report it indicates that she knew the race of the alleged perpetrators: "She [the caller] went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." That pretty clearly states that the caller was well aware of the race of the individuals.

And while the Boston.com article contains flat-out denials (through the caller's lawyer) from beginning to end that the caller did not know the race of the two individuals, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, while saying that the caller did not mention race in the 911 call, seems to backpedal a little bit:

In an interview at police headquarters last night, Haas said "it was very clear that she wasn’t sure" what the men’s race was. He also said that when the dispatcher questioned Whalen for more details, she told police she could only guess about the race of the two men. "She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic."

Someone involved in this does not have their facts straight. Either race was mentioned in the call or it wasn't; you can't say it was and then say, "Oh, well, she might have speculated that one might be Hispanic." If she did, then race was mentioned. If she did not postulate as to the skin color of the men, then race was not mentioned. The only way we'll know is if the 911 tape is released (which Haas says might be released in just transcript form, despite the fact that the caller has no qualms about fully releasing the audio).

It's nice to see Gates and Crowley put their differences aside and plan to enjoy a cold one with the president. The incident put race and police treatment of minorities back in the spotlight (whether you think Gates was a victim of racial profiling or not). The problem is that a new story will come up in the next week or so and we'll forget about this. Until another incident occurs. Then CNN and all these outlets will do specials to get more viewers (and ad revenue) until the next big story. Will racial profiling be eliminated or decrease because of this incident? No. If more cut and dry cases of racism (such as Amadou Diallo) did not stop racial profiling, a very ambiguous case such as this will not come close to ending the practice. We are a very long way from post-racial America (if it is even possible). Peace.

Photos - The White House, where Gates and Crowley are scheduled to have beers (Visiting DC)

Should He Have or Shouldn't He Have? The Obama Press Conference

NOTE: If you have arrived here from Boston.com, the quoted post is one below this.


Watch CBS Videos Online

As the story of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s arrest continues to percolate, a new issue is arising regarding President Obama's comments about the Cambridge PD "acting stupidly" when they arrested Gates. The White House has since clarified that Obama's remarks did not mean that Sergeant Crowley was stupid, but that cooler heads should have prevailed. Unions and supporters of Sergeant Crowley have called for Obama to apologize for his remarks.

So should Obama have weighed in on this issue? Let's remember that Obama did not offer up the issue voluntarily, he was asked about it and he gave his opinion of the matter. We can all criticize Obama for not having been there (and thus not knowing 100% of what went down), but none of us were there, either, and yet we continue to debate the issue. Obama, in my mind, had every right to talk about it, but I would have gone about it a bit differently.

Was "stupid" the correct word choice? It would not have been at the top of my list. We have to remember, though, that being black in America is a very different experience than being white; there is no way around that. We can fantasize about post-racial America and all of that, but as Michael Eric Dyson said a few days ago, the only black man living in post-racial America lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The fact is that this arrest has hit closer to home for some folks than for others.

Let's look at the facts. There is an undisputed history of racism and racial profiling in this country (just today it was reported that police down in Texas have been suspended for circulating racist emails about Obama). We all remember the whole bussing embarrassment in Boston, and who could forget Charles Stuart's unbelievable actions? All you have to do in this country to find racial undertones is scratch the surface. So when Gates was asked by a police officer why he was in his own home, is it that unreasonable for him to assume that his race may have had something to do with it?

Additionally, Obama's words are often taken out of context. He was not calling anyone on the scene stupid, he was saying that the arrest itself was stupid. Again, not the word choice I would have gone with, but don't forget that the charges were dropped at the request of the same department that employs Crowley as a Sergeant. If this were a good and legal arrest, Gates would be facing charges right now, but the fact remains that it was not. Does this make Crowley a bad person? No. He just made a mistake. What is telling is his stubbornness in not apologizing or at least backing down.

Was race a factor in Gates' arrest? I have no doubt. From the phone call from this mystery 40 year old woman who could not even recognize her neighbor (who happens to be somewhat of a celebrity), (EDITOR'S NOTE: As stated in the previous post, the actual caller seems to have just been relaying information given to her by a neighbor, who may or may not have been influenced by the race of Gates and his driver - that we'll probably never know) to the discussion Gates and Crowley had, race was all mixed in like the Oreo McFlurrys I used to make on 128. But we have to look at the facts: Crowley arrested Gates for a questionable crime and all charges were dropped at the insistence of Cambridge PD. Whether you think Crowley's a jerk or Gates is a jerk, the fact is that Crowley was overruled by his superiors; there's no getting around that. Peace.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrest: You're Kidding Yourself if You Don't Think Race Played a Factor

When I read the headline the other day "Harvard professor Gates arrested at Cambridge home" I was shocked. Here is a very bright individual, with a great job and national prominence being arrested. I quickly clicked on the link to find out what it was for and was even more shocked: it was for gaining entry into his own house. I knew what was coming next, and could not really blame Gates and others for saying it: race most definitely played a part in this incident.

I debated writing about this incident because I thought it was pretty clear cut. I knew the charges would not stick, and I figured people would chalk it up to what it is: a regrettable incident that most likely would never have happened had Gates been white. But some people are coming out and saying, "Oh, Gates should have just been polite to the officer and followed all of his commands, blah blah blah." Picture this scenario: you just get off a double-digit hour flight from China, you're exhausted, you get home and your front door is busted so you employ the help of your driver to help you get it open. You enter the back of the house (with your house key because, remember, you LIVE there), can't get it open from the inside and go back around to get it open from the outside. You call up the proper folks at Harvard to get your door fixed and you're probably pissed off at this point. Then a cop comes knocking on your door demanding proof that you live there.

Would this have happened if Gates were white? We'll never know, but looking at the pictures of Gates during his arrest he looks like my dad would on a day when he didn't have work, dressed in jeans and a polo. He's not dressed like a thug, nor does he look strung out or anything like that. So why did this mysterious passerby/neighbor (which, if it is a neighbor is a pretty shitty neighbor for not recognizing the resident of the house) call the police? Because she sees two black guys in the middle of a tony neighborhood trying to get a front door opened. Never mind that Gates is very well-known and highly recognizable (especially with his glasses on). Had Gates been white, at the very least this person would have thought twice about calling Cambridge Police if she even called at all.

*EDITOR'S NOTE: Having listened to the 911 tape, it seems that while the caller seemed to know that at least one of the potential intruders was not white, there is no indication that she was sure they were black, either. She also claims she was calling on behalf of a neighbor and she was merely a passerby, so while it is accurate that the caller seemed to not know the race of Gates and his driver (beyond the fact that she thought one of them might be Latino), the neighbor who apparently relayed her concern to the caller may or may not have been motivated by race.

Now let's go into the police action. Sergeant James Crowley shows up at the house, demanding ID and proof that Gates lived there, and then walked into the house uninvited by Gates. That alone would piss me off (nevermind the flight from China and the door being busted). Crowley stated in the police report, "I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." There's nothing surprising about being pissed at the police entering your home unjustly. I take it Crowley does not have police knocking on his door demanding proof that he lives wherever he lives, so he would probably not know how it feels. Plus, the charges have been dropped and I can tell you from personal experience that when a DIS/CON is dropped it is usually because the arresting officer did not interpret the law correctly and unjustly arrested the defendant. So for Gates to be outraged that he got arrested is not far off; in fact, in my opinion, it is fully justified.

When you read the list of people coming to Gates' defense it reads like a who's who of some of the brightest intellectuals in general and in the realm of race relations (sociologically and legally) in today's world: Lawrence Bobo, Charles Ogletree, S. Allen Counter (who had his own incident with Harvard Police after being mistaken for a robbery suspect). This means that folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can keep quiet because the professionals have this one. Let's recap the facts here quickly: Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct after some anonymous witness thought he was breaking into his own home, a verbal confrontation with a police officer ensued (which is not illegal), Gates was arrested for said confrontation, the charges resulting from said confrontation were dropped. Now you tell me who is in the wrong here, the person unjustly arrested or the person doing the improper arresting? Peace.

Photos - Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Harvard), Gates' arrest (Boston Globe)

Lawyer Who Defended Bell Killer Can't Make Up His Mind

It appears that Anthony Ricco, a lawyer for Gescard Isnora, the man who fired the first shot at Sean Bell and his friends that began the 50 bullet disgrace, has a tough time making up his mind. You see, he thinks that the 41 shots fired at unarmed black man Amadou Diallo by the NYPD in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building is horrendous, but the 50 shots fired at unarmed black man Sean Bell by the NYPD is not only OK, but worth defending the man who started the shooting. After the Diallo shooting, Ricco sent a letter to the feds urging civil rights charges for the four cops who shot the African immigrant (those charges were never filed), saying that,

The New York City Police Department has acted with impunity in its pattern of excessive use of force and violence against members of the African-American and Latino communities. The tragic litany of violence shall continue unless and until the United States Department of Justice aggressively prosecutes the police officers who are responsible for the violation of basic civil rights of the citizens they are hired to protect.

Well said, and I completely agree with Mr. Ricco's statement. Now fast-forward seven years, when Sean Bell and his two friends are shot while leaving a strip club while having no weapons on them. One would think that Ricco would get his pen ready to write to the feds again in the case of another state court injustice akin to the one from the Diallo shooting. No dice. In fact, Ricco decided to defend Gescard Isnora, the officer who began the shooting.

Is not the Sean Bell shooting a continuation of the "tragic litany of violence" that Ricco talks about in his 2000 letter? Was not what happened back in November, 2006 an example of an "excessive use of force and violence against members of the African-American and Latino communities"? Even if you subscribe to the notion that the officers somehow had a right to open fire on three unarmed men on an open street, there is little doubt that 50 shots is, at the very least, a bit excessive.

The irony of all this is the fact that now Anthony Ricco will be begging the feds not to charge civil rights charges against his client for killing Sean Bell. Ricco is trying to argue that the cases are different, and he is right. One was in the Bronx in a building and the other was in Queens in a car. Beyond that, however, the cases are very similar. Both involve unarmed black men, both involve said unarmed black men reacting to guns being drawn on them late at night by plainclothes officers who may or may not have identified themselves as the po, and both involve trigger-happy cops who fired over 40 shots. Hopefully the remaining difference will be that Diallo's killers were never brought to justice and Bell's killers will be. Peace.

Photos - Anthony (Tony) Ricco defending Sammy "The Bull" Gravano in 2005 (ganglandnews.com), Gescard Isnora, Ricco's client (www.nydailynews.com)

Setting Dangerous Precedents: Sean Bell's Killers Acquitted

It's Amadou Diallo part II: Sean Bell's killers have been acquitted of shooting 50 rounds at Bell and his friends on that fateful night back on November 25, 2006. At the conclusion of the bench trial requested by the defendants (who, apparently, did not trust the very people that they have pledged to protect and to serve), Judge Arthur T. Cooperman declared that all three men charged (despite the fact that there were five officers involved in the incident) did not act in a criminal manner when they killed Sean Bell and wounded his friends, all of whom were unarmed. Adding insult to injury, Judge Cooperman said that the testimony of Bell's friends at times did not make sense.

Numerous questions have to be asked about this case and its conclusion. What kind of precedent does this set for the NYPD and victims of police violence? First Amadou Diallo's killers get off the hook (following a dubious move to Albany - a much whiter city than New York) after firing 41 shots at the African immigrant, and now Sean Bell's killers, after firing 50 shots, are also off the hook. What is interesting is that with previous NYPD killings, while those officers involved were acquitted of criminal charges, large monetary settlements were given to the families of the victims. Amadou Diallo's family received $3 million, Patrick Dorismond's family got $2.25 million, and Timothy Stansbury's family received $2 million. I would be highly surprised if Bell's family did not receive some sort of compensation for their loss at the hands of the police department. But this begs the question: if the justice system thinks that these officers did nothing wrong, why settle with the families? By giving someone money (which is a shitty substitute for seeing those who killed your loved one put to justice), are you not admitting wrongdoing? If the NYPD is just doing what they're trained to do by gunning down these unarmed black men, then why pay the families of those who obviously had to be doing something wrong to get such a violent response from these trained officers?

I also want to go back to a case that I discussed a little over a year ago that occurred in Rhode Island. A corrections officer named Dante Pingitore was scoring some coke in Providence when he was approached by state police. Pingitore, in response to this, "rammed" his car into an unmarked police cruiser with officers inside. Pingitore could assumed to be armed, because he was a corrections officer for his state, yet his showdown with cops was resolved without firing a single shot. The interesting thing about this case (in case you could not figure it out from his Italian name) Pingitore is, by all available evidence short of an actual photo, white. If Rhode Island cops can prevent violence in a nearly carbon-copy case of Sean Bell's, why can't the NYPD? Does this mean that the NYPD is less trained or worse at their job than Rhode Island troopers? No two cases are the exact same, but these two cases are very similar and it should be noted that one ended with a person being given paid leave and bail and the other being buried.

Other questions that seem to remain unanswered: if the officers present that night were so certain that Bell and his friends not only had a gun, but were psychics and knew that Bell and his friends would go back to their car to get said gun and commit a drive-by (maybe the cops are related to Ms. Cleo?), why allow them to get into the car? Was it an example of NYPD brinksmanship? Why did Gescard Isnora open fire? Did he see a gun, or was he just going off of the equivalent of a middle-school rumor (well, someone said it, so it must be true)? Maybe he saw one of the victims' hands and took a page out of Sean Sawyer's playbook. It is amazing how the defense portrayed the whole thing as Joseph Guzman's (one of Bell's friends) fault. They said that because Guzman told Bell to go as Isnora approached the car, he caused all of this. Let's kick some logic for a moment: you just got into an argument with a group outside of a strip club and then some guy approaches your car with a gun drawn. Are you going to stick around to see what happens? Hell no. (Quick note: Isnora said that he clipped his badge to his collar and yelled "police." It was the middle of the night in November, so the car windows were probably closed, and thus they would not have heard Isnora's shout or seen his badge, if he even did this, as witnesses say that Isnora neither yelled police or had his badge visible.) So without seeing a gun or confirming the presence of any kind of weapon, Detective Isnora fired the first shot, leading to 49 more shots from him and his colleagues.

The most ridiculous part of this entire case is probably the role of Detective Michael Oliver - the man who shot 31 shots at Bell and his companions. Now you might be saying to yourself "Wow, I didn't know that the department-issued glocks had banana clips that held so much ammunition." Well, they don't. Oliver emptied an entire clip into the vehicle, felt that was not enough for a group of unarmed men, reloaded and pumped some more lead into the car. Oliver also has shown very little remorse for his actions, partying after the indictments for the charges were handed down. Bell's parents also seem to notice that, of all three detectives, Oliver seems to be remorseless and cocky. Oliver is also no stranger to violence while on-duty. He apparently put a cab driver's head through a window when he thought that the cab driver took too long to move his double-parked car. Oliver admitted no wrongdoing, but the city settled for $10 Gs, which again begs the question of accepting guilt. It is interesting that Judge Cooperman found Bell's friends' testimonies not believable, but found Oliver emptying a clip, reloading, and still believing to be threatened by unarmed men perfectly rational.

Additionally, many point to past activities of the victims as a reason that little sympathy should be felt for them. It is true that Bell, who's record is not squeaky clean, also hung out with people whose records were not squeaky clean. But unless the cops were familiar with the three men and their records prior to the incident, this means nothing. They could have been doctors or lawyers blowing off some steam for all the cops knew. Additionally, many point to the three victims saying that they were less-than-stellar members of society and this contributed to their death. At least Sean Bell graduated high school, which cannot be said for Michael Oliver. Bell's previous arrests were all for non-violent offenses, while Oliver has previously been involved in violent confrontations over such life-threatening matters as double-parking. Of course, people don't focus on this.

Finally, many news outlets have said that because two of the cops were minorities, this shooting could not have been racially motivated. Give me a break. The guy who shot the most was white and anyone who has dealt with cops will tell you that the only color that matters to them is the color of their uniform - blue. Black cops and Latino cops can be just as judgmental and racist as white cops. To quote an NWA line, "But don't let it be a black and a white one / Cuz they'll slam ya down to the street top / Black police showin out for the white cop." Racial profiling permeates police departments and does not affect only white cops; cops (and people, for that matter) of all races and nationalities fall victim to profiling people by the color of their skin.

The only solace that can come from this is the fact that these three officers will never work undercover again because their faces have been plastered all over the world. Judge Cooperman called their actions careless, but not criminal (though, last time I checked, recklessness that leads to a death is a crime, but let's not get tied down with what the law says) and hopefully all three will no longer be employed by the NYPD. Let's hope that Al Sharpton keeps his trap shut and some legitimate leaders say some intelligent things about the bullshit that occurred today instead of going through the usual rhetoric of the reverend. Rest in peace, Sean Bell, and hopefully justice will come to your killers someday. Peace.

Photos - Marc Cooper, Michael Oliver, and Gescard Isnora (l-r) (www.gothamist.com), Sean Bell, his fiancee Nicole Paultre-Bell, and their child (en.wikipedia.org), Judge Arthur T. Cooperman (www.nydailynews.com), The scene of Sean Bell's death the following morning (Pan-African News News Wire Photo File's flickr), The scene outside of the Queens courthouse following the verdict (cityrooms.blogs.nytimes.com), Never Again - hopefully not (www.villagevoice.com)

Was Representative Danny Davis Racially Profiled?

On Monday (Nov. 19th) Representative Danny Davis (D-Illinois, 7th District) was pulled over early in the morning. Davis claims that he was not speeding, he was not swerving, nor was he drunk. He says the reason he was pulled over is that he is black and had three black passengers in the car at 1 a.m. in the morning. The Congressman was driving three guests he had on his radio show, which he was supposedly working on until around midnight on Sunday. It was on his way from the station when he was pulled over on a street with no traffic for, as the Chicago Police Department says, driving left of center. Davis said that, after careful consideration of the incident, he came to the conclusion that he was pulled over due to his skin color. He said he tried to conceive of any other reason that the pair of cops (who were white, but it doesn't really matter because racial profiling comes from cops of all colors) would pull him over.

It appears as if it is a case of he-said he-said. Looking at the law that Davis is alleged to have broke, however, is a trip into obscure traffic law. The law, 625 ILCS 5/11-706, states that cars cannot drive left of center in numerous situations, with numerous exceptions (I'm not going to spell it out here, just click on the link and read it [if you can't read it on the website, copy and paste it into Word]). From Davis' story (the only one currently out there, plus all we have to go on), he violated no part of the statute. Davis does not strike me as the road-tearin' car-swervin' kind of gentleman from his video on CNN. As a quick sidenote - it appears that Tony Harris does not realize that Davis' beef with the traffic stop was not having the pay the $75, but the principle of the whole thing. He was stopped for nothing, he believes, and feels that his skin color contributed to the stop if it was not the only factor in it. Harris takes the "Oh, well, Mr. Congressman, you have to go through the same system everyone else does," which is not Davis' issue at all. He also implicitly accuses him of grandstanding and making a private matter public. The fact that Davis was pulled over early Monday and the story was not reported on - at least on CNN - until today says something about Davis not overreacting and flinging accusations he had not thought through. I was just kind of confused with Harris' sarcasm and hostile attitude toward the congressman.

OK, sorry for that little tangent. Back to the traffic law "violated." It seems very obscure and a law that is typically used in rural or highway situations, not urban settings. This case - at least on its face - seems to have some of the factors of a racial profiling stop. Namely, a black guy driving (add points for black passengers!) and an obscure traffic law. Remember when a Rhode Island State Trooper pulled over a van of Guatemalan nationals and dragged them to INS when they did the unthinkable: not use their turn signal on the highway? Though I only have anecdotal evidence for the following statement (damnit Baldus get on this!), it appears that traffic stops in which the underlying reason for the stop is the race of the driver and/or passengers are "based" on obscure laws that people break all the time and cops could care less about, like not signalling to change lanes on a highway or driving left of center in a city (note that these are also judgement calls on the part of the officer; something that cannot be backed up by a radar gun, etc.). I suppose that we will have to wait for either the Chicago Police Department to release to police report or for Rep. Davis to go to traffic court to see if the whole "left of center" business holds any water. Until then, given what little evidence there is on the table, I'm leaning towards the Illinois Congressman on this one.

Photo: Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL, 7th District) (en.wikipedia.org),

Airport Security

EWR (Travel and Leisure)

In a New York Times op-ed today, Kathryn Harrison writes that she was able to board a plane at JFK to look for her wallet. While not breaking news in any way, shape, or form, the way she was able to do it is highly disturbing.

She had gotten off the plane with her daughters from a Puerto Rican getaway, gets to the baggage carousel and realizes she left her wallet on the plane. She begs and pleads her way through security, gets to the gate and no one is there. She can see her plane through the window, so she knocks on the door of the gate leading to the plane. Nothing. 

She opens the unlocked gate door, and an alarm goes off. She waits for someone to show up and yell at her, but nothing. The passengers in the airport don't seem to care, either. So she props the door open with one of her shoes, all the while the shrill alarm is going off, and goes onto the plane. She looks around her seat for the wallet, but it is gone because the plane has already been cleaned and prepped for its next departure.

So she leaves the plane, closes the gate door and the alarm goes off. She walks back to the terminal and explains what happened to someone at the customer service desk, who is shocked, tells her she cannot do that, then lets her go.

So essentially someone was able to gain access to an airplane in one of the largest airports in the United States and was able to freely move within the aircraft and could have had enough time to alter the plane how she could have wanted to, which could include planting a bomb. This begs the question: how safe are our airports? If Mrs. Harrison was able to go through security sans boarding pass and also able to gain access to an empty airliner prepped for takeoff, all the while setting off alarms and giving authorities every chance to act, what would happen if a terrorist were able to do this?

I am certain of one thing: had Kathryn Harrison been Middle Eastern or had darker skin, then this would be a very different story. Remember, if there is the slightest miscommunication between a port employee and a Middle Easterner, you can expect to spend a night or two locked up, even if your paperwork and everything is in order. We are out in Iraq fighting terrorism there, when it seems that our airport security (or lack thereof) might be a larger threat to national security than some Sunnis and Shi'ites (if you know the difference) in Iraq fighting for control of their homeland.

Fine Police Work

Pinellas County Sheriff (Patch.com)

On August 17, 2006 two men were arrested in Florida who were the subject of a drug sting - or were they? Pinellas County Sheriff's Narcotics Division officers were following two black men in a white Chevy Lumina with tinted windows who were seen leaving a house known to be a spot to buy the most awful drug known to man: marijuana. Well, the police lost track of the car so they did the next best thing which was to find a white Lumina with tinted windows being driven by two black guys. The undercover officers followed the new duo into an Enterprise rent-a-car store in St. Petersburg, pointed their guns at the men that they had failed to identify correctly, made them get on the ground, kicked and shoved them a little bit, put them in handcuffs, and then high-fived each other for a job well done.

Well, as most places are, the store was equipped with security cameras which caught all the action on tape. The men just received a settlement worth $100,000 paid for by the taxpayers of Pinellas County, Florida. But there is a question that might be on your mind: this happened back in August, why is it being reported on now? Well, because the officers just started serving their suspensions - a whole 12 days without pay - now. In addition to the 12 days, the men will be assigned to desk duty for a year, then are allowed to go back on the street to arrest any pair of black men who dare drive a white Lumina with tinted windows in Pinellas County.

By the way, this is not just some mistaken arrest, the two innocent men were roughed up enough that Enterprise had to throw out the rug that the men were handcuffed on due to the large amount of blood spilled on it from the men's various cuts, split lips, etc. suffered from the narcs. I do not remember this story being reported on a national scale when it happened, only when it turns out that the police were punished for their wrongdoing. That begs the question - how often do things like this happen and do not get reported on, or how often does it happen and the officers get away with it? It's something to think about, especially if you drive a car and happen to be black.

Miami Port Scare

Port of Miami (Ship Technology)

Just as quickly as it came, the news story of the Miami Port scare on Sunday has been swept under the rug with no more reporting.

How did the Miami piece have racial overtones? Well, just the fact that it made the news in the first place. The media was very careful to mention that the three men under suspicion were Middle Eastern (Iraqi and Lebanese). Essentially, the problem was rooted in a language barrier and there was some miscommunication between the driver and the inspector. However, once the details were ironed out (i.e., the cargo matched the manifest to a T), the men were hauled into the police station and charged with resisting arrest and trespassing (charges which were later dropped completely.)

My question to you is this: do you think that this is the first time that there was a miscommunication issue at the Port of Miami? With the place being one of the busiest ports in the nation, one must believe that mistakes happen. How many breaking news stories have occurred when a white person or non-Middle Easterner has made a mistake with the inspector? I have yet to hear of one. Never mind the cost that this single security scare must have been to the taxpayers of Miami, Florida, and the United States. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, federal and local law enforcement got involved in what the Miami-Dade police spokesman dubbed "an abundance of caution." Along with an abundance of money and resources.

Of course, profiling Arabs and Middle Easterners is nothing new to America, even before 9/11 occurred. Some of us must be able to remember the rush to judgement of the Oklahoma City Bombing, in which major news sources pointed to the Middle East and their people as the culprits. Alas, come to find out it was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two white men avenging the government's bungling of the Waco siege.


Terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes, unfortunately. The idea that terrorism is a tactic cornered by those of Middle Eastern descent is simply wrong, and to assume that an attack is done by someone from the Middle East can hamper investigations (as in OKC) or can waste resources when a simple misunderstanding turns into a federal investigation (as in Miami.)