Q: I’ve now read everything you’ve written about the Sandy
Hook mass murders, quite a lot. I’ve noticed two things: You have not weighed
in on what some people might consider the central legislative issues, the “should”
questions – should certain weapons be banned, that sort of thing; and throughout
your commentary, you manage to sound like a Jeremiah on what some grey heads in
the journalism business use to call “freedom of information.” Is that a right
reading of the main thrust of your commentary on Sandy Hook?
A: It’s a fair reading, yes.
Q: Why the emphases on the free flow of information?
A: Because what one does will always depend upon what one
knows. It would be more accurate to say “the full and accurate flow of
information.” Can I pick a bone with you on Jeremiah?
Q: Sure.
A: Jeremiah was repetitive because he had a positive genius
for getting quickly to the decisive point and, of course, repeating it, much to
the distress of the hypocritical whitened sepulchers in his audience. Someone –
I think it might have been me – once said that journalism was 20 percent
thought and 80 percent repetition. That is the nature of journalistic reporting
and commentary. Some themes are dearer to you, because they are more important to
you, than others, and so you inflict upon your readers the burden of
repetition. I’d like to try out on you an answer to the second part of your question.
Q: Okay.
A: Legislators in the General Assembly are pretty much
finished with their bills. [This interview occurred on Wednesday, April 10,
2013. Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law on Thursday, April 4, 2013 a bill
containing, according to a New York Times report,
“… sweeping new restrictions on weapons and ammunition magazines similar to the
ones used by the man who fatally shot 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Newtown.”] Remarking on the missing data that should have
driven their efforts, I said in one of the columns, all of which may be found
on a site called “Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes From A Blue State,” [Here sorted by date]
that the bills were premature because the criminal investigation report was not
due to be completed until June. The General Assembly produced its bill – a bipartisan
measure, we are reminded often enough by its architects – in the first week of
April, about a month before the criminal investigation report was due to be
completed. I think I quoted the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carol’s “Through the Looking
Glass” in the course of that blog and column: “First the verdict,” said the
imperious Queen, “then the trial.”
Q: Well yes, but people were impatient to get something
done.
A: And their impatience had been stoked by politicians and
others interested mostly in bum-rushing legislation before the data upon which
that legislation should have rested was available. Why is that?
Q: You had the families of the 26 victims in Sandy Hook
waiting patiently for legislation that would…
A: … insure that the slaughter at Sandy Hook would not be
repeated. There are so many assurances on this point from state and national
politicians, Democrats mostly, that it would be unnecessarily tedious to repeat
them here. The two U.S. Senators in Connecticut most voluble on this point are
Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy.
Q: Okay.
A: And how can you write such bills if you do not know what
happened at Sandy Hook? To be sure, there were reports in the media, many of
which relied upon heavily edited information from sources that may or may not
have been accurate. Some of the information in the polluted media stream was
partial or inaccurate enough to give credence to absurd conspiracy theories.
Very little of the information could be described as authoritative -- because
much of the information was in the custody of criminal investigators who were
determined to draw about the data an impenetrable iron curtain. Every time you approached
a data master with a question, you were told, “Sorry Bud, that information is
not available because of an ongoing criminal investigation.” To some
commentators, myself among them, the criminal investigation seemed overblown,
since the two people who might have been charged criminally, Adam Lanza and the
mother he murdered, were both dead, as were most of the witnesses to the mass
murder. Finally, as the General Assembly was on the point of emitting bills,
the carefully guarded bucket sprung a leak. A New York Daily News reporter
loosed upon the public some quarantined details that came to him from a source who
had attended a police convention in New Orleans, after which it was decided to
release police arrest warrants – be it noted, a full month or more before the
final criminal report was due.
Q: Which means what?
A: It means that the data in the arrest warrant could have
been release long before to legislators charged with shaping bills. Now, I may
say – without, I hope, drifting into the bog of conspiracy theory – that, as a
general rule, a political sequence occurs because politicians want things to
happen in a certain sequence. Even the data included in the arrest warrant was
by no means complete and definitive. Arrest warrants reveal only what police
are looking for and what they have found at the beginning of an investigation. The
General Assembly should have insisted, right from the get go, that all
information in the custody of investigators pertinent to the bill or bills the
legislators were constructing be made available to the relevant heads of
legislative committees – in camera,
if necessary. That did not happen. Connecticut’s very robust Freedom of
Information [FOI] law means, if it means anything at all, that the only thing
the general public need fear about the release of information is that
information necessary to a well ordered Republic will NOT be released. But what
happened in this instance goes far beyond FOI laws.
Q: You are not saying that people intentionally edited the
data you think necessary so that bills could be constructed as they wished, are
you?
A: Well, I do think there is a well-documented tendency among
politicians to use available laws and processes to advance a preferred end.
That’s politics. If the end they have in view is defective, or if the process
leads ineluctably to an end the consequences of which are destructive, you must
adjust the laws and processes. Politics, at its best, is the legislative art that
conveys us to an end result that increases liberty and justice for all.
Q: But how much of what happened was purposeful?
A: All of it -- I hope. To suppose otherwise would be to
suppose that our legislators are either stupid or mad. You would have to go to
a different planet to find a convocation of reporters and commentators who did
NOT think that Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans wanted gun
restrictions, whatever the data suggested.
The data trap in Connecticut eased their way. But bad data – or, worse, sequestered
data – makes for bad laws. If Republicans in Connecticut were not a bunch of spineless
go-alongs hanging by their torn fingernails to increasingly disappearing legislative
seats, they would insist on bills that break down Berlin Walls intended to
prevent the liberating and free flow of data. But look what is happening: As a
result of Sandy Hook, we now have before the General Assembly a bill that would restrict information on death certificates.
Why? Because we wish to spare the stricken parents of young children murdered
in Sandy Hook the resulting publicity that might occur should FOI laws be rigorously
enforced. Really? Death certificates, available for centuries to the public,
contain only general information. The certificate requires a review of the
cause of death by a medical examiner to determine the presence or absence of
foul play indicating that a murder may have been committed. How can the general public know that
authorities responsible for apprehending and convicting murderers are doing a
proper job if information of this kind is not made available to them? Who are
the political beneficiaries of such a bill? Why, dear me, can’t we say it
plainly? The bill would largely benefit propagandist politicians whose efforts
would be furthered any restriction that data-traps inconvenient truths and prevents
the free flow of information. You control the messenger – there are still in
Connecticut some alert reporters, a few brave Jonahs who have managed to escape
the maw of Leviathan – by controlling data. In history, the upward progress of
politicians has always been paved by the careful editing of information. In
constitutional republics, some subtlety that veils naked political purposes may
be necessary to sell such anti-democratic measures to an increasingly apathetic
public. Do we wish to further wound stricken victims? How could we be so
heartless? This is how the liberties of free men disappear, not through honest
battles waged on an open field but with a flick of the serpent’s tongue.
Q: Are you satisfied with the final bill [recently signed
into law by Mr. Malloy]?
A: No. the legislative product was shamelessly oversold by
demagogues. The passage of the bill here in Connecticut marked the boundary of
overheated rhetoric. Before passage, Connecticut politicians, mostly Democrats
driven by a script that bore the watermark of Washington D.C., were telling us
that the measures they preferred would make school children across the state
safe from the Adam Lanzas of the world. Suffering parents in Sandy Hook,
perhaps traumatized by the slaughter of their children, were used to prop up an
improbable theory: namely, that restrictions imposed on certain weapons –
indeed, the most popular and bestselling long rifle in the United States, the
AR15 – would render schoolchildren safe from attack. Even town administrators
in Newtown dramatically spurned that theory when the town fathers voted to
appropriate money to place armed guards in all their schools, including the
three private schools in town [Sandy Hook is a section of Newtown]. They knew
from direct experience that unarmed interveners, however brave, could not stop
a determined shooter. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School stopped when
armed first responders appeared in the school. After the bill in Connecticut
had passed, U.S. Senators Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Governor Dannel
Malloy took their show to Washington D.C., where a national gun bill, much more
pallid that the Connecticut version, was up for consideration. Here at home,
legislators who had championed “the toughest gun laws in the nation,”
perhaps with a cautious eye focused on reality, began a tactical retreat from
their overblown rhetoric: True, the bill wasn’t perfect, but we should never
allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Vice President Joe Biden
said at one point that if national gun legislation saved but one life, it would
be worth it, which is simply another way of saying that Mr. Biden regards human
life as precious. Well, of course he does. All the old canards were trotted out
and dangled before an aroused but doubtful public. A rhetorical mountain had
been made of a mole hill, and now politicians were concerned with reducing
their overinflated mountain of promises so that, when lives once again were
lost in what should properly be regarded for purposes of punishment as a
terrorist act, politicians who had overpromised in their legislation would not
be held to account. Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy both come from a state that
had recently abolished a death penalty following a horrific multiple murder in
Cheshire committed by two newly released prisoners on parole. Their crime was
spectacularly heinous. They broke into a house, beat the male householder with
a bat, tied him up in the basement, assaulted three women in the house
upstairs, forced a mother to go to a bank and withdraw money, raped two
daughters and set fire to the house, killing all the women. That incident
sparked massive purchases of guns in Connecticut, especially in rural areas,
where the response time from police is necessarily longer. Now, if Adam Lanza
had survived his attack on Sandy Hook Elementary school, he could not have been
executed in Connecticut for having murdered his mother, 20 children and 6 brave
faculty members of the school because – largely owing to politicians like Mr.
Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy – the state, for humane reasons, had deprived itself
of a punishment tool. Had Mr. Lanza survived, the political play we are now
witnessing would not be the same. We have to begin to focus on the criminal
misuse of weapons. In the week prior to passage of the gun restriction law in
Connecticut, Managing Editor of the Journal Inquirer Chris Powell noted in one of his columns,
there were three handgun murders in Hartford alone. “Some of the shots fired
there,” Mr. Powell wrote, “may have been audible from the Capitol grounds, at
least with those with ears to hear. No one in authority seems to know what to
do about such murders, and over the course of a year, such murders in Connecticut’s
disintegrating cities will be far more numerous than the murders in Newtown,
but nobody has to know or even pretend
to know because that part of Connecticut – the part where mayhem is ordinary and
daily, not a freak event such as Newtown – can be written off politically.
Murder victims in the cities long ago ceased being cute.” Unfortunately, not as
many people are like to have read Mr. Powell’s column as those who read Mr.
Murphy’s maiden speech in the U.S. Senate on gun violence in the course of which
Mr. Murphy pointed out, quite correctly, that guns in the hands of criminals
are more lethal than knives. He might have done a valuable service for his constituents had he read Mr. Powell’s
column into the legislative record.
Comments
What a stain of shame on the modern media that it doesn't demand excellence and fearless inquiry of its reporters.
By the hands of the Progressives, the First Amendment will die with no more than a mere whimper.