MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 19, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
The Andrea Yates trial got under way yesterday and there was some dramatic developments in that trial. In the course of today, we'll be taking our first look at that trial in the course of this program, just to bring ourselves a little bit up to date. We are going to go in depth into some of the issues that are involved on Thursday.
But first, one of the consequences of September 11 has been that we've been hearing a lot more about what has to be done for our security. One of the ideas that has come forward and is now being implemented little by little in places around the country is the idea that we can help police to deal more effectively with the challenges of terrorism and crime and other disturbances of our peace and order if we could harness technology, placing street cameras in places where it would extend the ability of the police to watch the comings and goings of our citizenry.
Is this something that's going to contribute to the safety of our streets or is it the advent finally of the much-dreaded era of big brother predicted in the novel “1984” long years ago, but slowly but surely being realized at least in terms of the technological possibilities? Today, the Washington, D.C. police showed off the latest technology to some of the harshest critics of what some regard as growing big brotherism. Chris Gordon from our NBC station, WRC, in Washington D.C. explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS GORDON, WRC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Leaders of civil liberties groups got a tour of the D.C. Police Department's joint operation command center. This high-tech TV control room allows police to keep an eye on public areas around the city with 12 digital cameras displayed on a wall of monitors. But the American Civil Liberties Union came to this meeting concerned about the possible loss of privacy.
JOHNNY BARNES, ACLU: The objection is that these cameras will be able to monitor the movement of citizens as they propose. This network of surveillance cameras in our schools, in the subway systems, and in public buildings, government buildings, Capitol, the Monument, the Mall, they will be used in a way that video cameras have never been used.
TERRY GAINER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF: I think we're comfortably within the law, but we have to see where the public and others want us to be on this issue.
GORDON: Assistant Chief Terry Gainer conducted the tour of the joint operation command center. Then, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey sat down and met to address the concerns expressed by the civil libertarians and agreed to a process to meet the needs of police while protecting the rights of citizens.
BARRY STEINHARDT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ACLU: The department has only begun to show us the tip of the iceberg here. Much more powerful technology is clearly available than what's being employed now. Certainly it will be very tempting to use it and we need to set in motion the process that allows us to adopt those guidelines before the technology overruns us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Chris Gordon from WRC here in Washington.
Obviously, these are questions that have implications for the future that could be quite ominous. We're talking of course about something that starts on a small scale. But where will it end? Twelve cameras today, does it become scores or hundreds in the future? We are going to look at some of the questions that are involved in this harnessing of technology in the name of greater security and safety.
Will it in fact make our city safer? Will it ultimately destroy privacy as we know it? And given the benefits and the risks that are involved, is it worth it? I think this is something that we're going to have to tussle with as a people over the months and years ahead. It is one of those areas where technology grows and hands to us both abilities and temptations that could prove both greatly beneficial and highly dangerous to our liberties. We're going to have to think this through very carefully.
Joining us now to help in that process is Congressman Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia, somebody well known for his championing of the basic rights of our citizens. His understanding of and commitment to constitutional government, and I believe that the Congressman has some serious concerns about the direction that this kind of technology might take us in. Welcome to the show, Bob. Thank you for joining us tonight.
REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Thank you, Alan. It's great to be with you. This is a very, very important topic and to be honest, we don't have a lot of time to think about this. We need to start acting because whatever little privacy we have left, and it is precious little, is fast disappearing. And as you know, as I know, privacy surrendered to the government, power surrendered to the government, is not returned.
KEYES: Well, one of the questions that I think is being raised, and we saw it alluded to in the tape we just saw by the folks who are representing the police, is basically we're putting these cameras where we could put policemen anyway. We're not violating the laws. No warrants are required to watch these places. Why is this, in fact, an invasion of privacy when the cameras are going where a policeman could legitimately go, without a warrant, under present circumstances?
BARR: Well, I think you alluded to it also, Alan. It very, very subtly, but in a very pronounced way, changes the way we view our role as citizens in a free society. It's one thing to have a police officer on the beat, somebody that you know is there, that you can see, that can exercise judgment, can exercise discretion. You know that he or she is subject to the rules of constitutional law, that they have to have a reason before they search you, before they take evidence from you, before they detain you.
It's very different when you have cameras that you don't even know are there, recording your every move, and there's something very different between a police officer watching what's going on and exercising judgment and stepping in, and a camera that you don't know is recording your moves, and it's recording. You don't know what happens to that information. I am not at all satisfied that the officials who tell us, oh, we're not going to record this. We're not going to retain it. We're not going to do anything with it. They do retain it. They do stuff with it.
KEYES: Now what kind of abuses do you think would result from a system like this where people are being watched and recorded by police authorities?
BARR: Well, one thing that we know is happening in some jurisdictions where cameras have been set up to record vehicles as they go through intersections or are speeding, and that is despite early assurances that these cameras will only photograph the license plate, we now know there are instances in which the occupants of cars have been photographed and the interior of cars, showing what's in the car. Some people don't want to have their picture taken of who's in the car with them or what's in the car with them. And this also provides an opportunity for police to gather evidence without a proper search warrant or without probable cause.
KEYES: Now do you think that this would be something where we might see eventual abuses in terms of blackmail as well as legal abuses where they're getting into areas that they couldn't enter into without a warrant?
BARR: These are all very, very real possibilities. We know, Alan, that in the past, when police have been given the green light to gather evidence in questionable ways, despite the fact that most police officers will not abuse the authority they're given, inevitably it does happen.
KEYES: But what about though the argument — because I know that there are some parts, I've been there myself, in Baltimore, in Washington, D.C., I've done ride-alongs with the police where you go through areas, open-air drug markets, drive-by shootings.
Wouldn't it actually help in some of these areas where neighborhoods are being literally turned into hell by the domination of criminal forces, if you were to post cameras and extend the ability of police to keep an eye on activities, to make streets safer for the people who are now being beset by these criminal elements?
BARR: Well, efficiency is one thing. And yes, inevitably, the use of technology can make the job of law enforcement more efficient. But that's not what our Constitution was written for. The protections in the Bill of Rights were not put there to increase the efficiency of law enforcement. They were put there as a check on law enforcement, to make sure that what law enforcement does remains within the bounds of our rights as given to us by our creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.
KEYES: Now does that mean, though — because I'm watching this discussion develop. Obviously, you have some of the police forces in D.C. and Tampa, I think they've already implemented an approach that's using cameras in some of their public places. We'll have, in fact, a guest on our panel tonight who is very familiar with that. And it's moving ahead.
Do you think that this is something that simply needs to be stopped? Are you going to be looking for legislation that would somehow or another curtail it on constitutional grounds, or is it something that we have to find ways to move ahead with but carefully safeguarding the rights? Is there some way to achieve a balance on this?
BARR: Well, there may be some way to achieve a balance, but what we need to do right now is stop it because if we don't stop it right now, and step back and take a very close look at it and draft laws that provide proper assurances and guarantees that there will not be constitutional abuses, that technology, once implemented, it's virtually impossible, Alan, to back away from. And that's why these jurisdictions should not be allowed to move forward. What they want us to do is to allow them to move forward with the technology and trust them that they won't abuse it later on.
KEYES: Well, I have to agree with you. I think that when we're in the face of something, one of the problems I have is that whatever the arguments for the benefits — and I think some could be made — when you put something in place on a large enough scale, I think it's quite possible that you reach a qualitative difference, between that and the discreet particular examples of surveillance or camera usage that might exist up to now and that qualitative difference could mean that you could track someone's movements in such a way as basically to destroy their privacy altogether. And that is something I think that in the future, as this became more prevalent and centralized, would be a tremendous tool for abuse in the hands of a government that didn't have good intentions. Congressman, thank you so much.
BARR: And we are — thank you, Alan. We're reaching that point very quickly, and that's why it's important for you to be out there speaking on these issues.
KEYES: I sure appreciate as always the fact that you're standing up with some courage to look at these areas that so deeply affect our constitutional life and I wish you Godspeed in the work that you're doing. I hope you all will take a careful look at this and move ahead in ways that will help to us get the time we need, to make sure we're making the right decisions.
Congressman Bob Barr with us this evening. I'm glad he was able to join us. Next, we're going to have a panel of folks pro, and con, looking at this issue to help us get to the heart of the matter. The issues that really constitute the knob of this challenge to our public judgment and our concern for rights.
Later, we're going to have our first look at the Andrea Yates trial. Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-keyes-usa with whatever is on your mind.
And later, I'll be sharing with you my outrage of the day. But first, does this make sense? Here is what Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam had to say about the war on terrorism. “If the truth were known,” he said, “there would be a Nuremberg trial for American presidents. I can not allow them to use the American soldier, black, brown and poor and white, to fight a war that is unjust and wrong,” he says. Well, this is a man who couldn't find nice enough things to say about Muammar Qaddafi when he was running around the world killing innocent people, and he says our president should be put on trial? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot of Times Square, New York City, through a Web cam, just the sort of thing that someday policemen might be looking at, watching you.
We're talking tonight about whether we should be using these surveillance cameras that are popping up in public places, put them in the hands of the police as an extension of their ability to keep watch on what's happening in our society. The argument is made that that will make us more secure, but implemented on any kind of large scale, does it constitute in and of itself a destruction of our privacy, an infringement on our private lives?
Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter is the man who coordinates the camera system in Tampa, Florida, which was the first city to install such a system, detective Bill Todd of the Tampa Police Department. Also with us, Joe Mowbray, a columnist with the Web site townhall.com, and Johnny Barnes, the executive director of the Washington, D.C. Area Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
I think first I want to go to Johnny Barnes. Johnny, looking at this situation, what are the kinds of concerns that a Civil Libertarian necessarily has as he sees us moving, possibly pell mel, toward the implementation of this use of technology in our lives?
BARNES: Well, Alan, I think you raised the right questions at the top of this program and now over the coming weeks and perhaps months we've got to search for the right answers. It is appropriate to raise the bar of security in the wake of the events of September 11. But we must ask the question at what cost? And we're very troubled by this speculative adventure.
The cameras have proven not to prevent crime, deter crime, catch terrorists. Yet we're spending a great deal of money to implement this system, and we're sacrificing the most precious right that we have, the right to be free of interference in our lives, the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. So we're very troubled by this.
KEYES: But aren't we actually extending this concept of privacy as we are going to say that putting a camera in a public place is somehow in and of itself an infringement on privacy? After all, if a policeman was standing there watching you, that would just be a policeman in a public place. He wouldn't need a warrant. Why does a camera raise additional issues?
BARNES: Well, according to “The Wall Street Journal,” Detective Gafkin (ph) was quoted as saying that we are going to have the most extensive video surveillance system in the nation. And that way the movement of citizens will be monitored. That's what they do in countries we condemn; in China and the former Soviet Union. This is — we're talking about, you showed a picture of Times Square. We're talking about Times Square in America, not Tiananmen Square. We don't do that here.
KEYES: Bill Todd, as you look at this issue as it's developing, what are the advantages that we should look for from a system like this? And are they worth the risks that we'll be taking?
BILL TODD, TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, Alan, I think that there are a lot of advantages and you've named a number of them through the top of the hour and in your earlier commentaries, the efficiency and the enhancement of the police being proactive. We recognize what the representative was saying, what Mr. Barnes is saying about the fears or where this could lead. But those haven't proven true at this point. The benefits have happened, we've seen crime statistics where large video cameras have been deployed, we've seen reductions in crime.
So there are some proven benefits, if it's the abuses that we're concerned with, then let's identify and address those abuses.
KEYES: Joel Mowbray, do you think that that's a proper position? Is it possible in fact to implement this in a way that isn't going to be inherently subject to abuse?
JOEL MOWBRAY, TOWNHALL.COM: Well, I actually took a tour of the joint operation command center today, which is at the D.C. Police headquarters. It's a $7 million control room and right now they only have 12 cameras, and 22 screens, and you do the math, and as it is right now in response to the latest terrorist threat, only looking at federal buildings, the Pentagon and Union Station, it's OK. But there are no controls in place. There's nothing to stop this prom snow-balling to become a runaway train. We don't know. And plus Washington, D.C. is such a special situation compared to other cities.
So my real fear is that other cities will take a look at Washington and say hey, this is a success, let's do it elsewhere. I think we pose a unique terrorist threat here, but that's only for specific occasions such as in the wake of the latest alert that came down last week.
KEYES: But I guess one of the problems I'm having is in terms of what the specific fears are, I myself look at a situation like this and I think well you've put 12 cameras in, maybe that's not so bad. But if you are going to have a network of these cameras that would eventually say blanket an urban area, where it would be possible to trace someone's movements from one place to another. Couldn't somebody piece together your private intentions by looking at your public actions and thereby invade your privacy by inference?
MOWBRAY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, there's no doubt about it, that's the problem here is that there are no controls in place. You know, I met with Steve Gafkin today, and he seems like a nice guy, a reasonable guy, but you know what? Who's to say that six months down the line, two years down the line this thing won't become, as you say, and they are already talking about doing 280, 300 cameras. That's just in the “Wall Street Journal” article.
They're talking about putting a camera up in Georgetown. There's no terroist threat in Georgetown unless somebody has a real beef with a fashion designed clothes. That's about it. There is no real threat there. It's pretext to say terrorists. In fact, Chief Ramsey was on another network last Friday and he admitted, and I quote, “that the cameras have nothing to do with terrorism.” And he was talking about preventing muggings and car break-ins and everything else. That's a noble goal but that is not a terrorist threat.
KEYES: It's not a terrorist threat, but isn't that a legitimate goal of law enforcement? Bill Todd, when you put a system in place in Tampa, is it part of the result you're looking for, a reduction in crime? If that reduction is produced, don't you want to spread the system? Is this something you're going to keep on a limited bass or do you look to eventually implement it in ways that would move in to problem neighborhoods and get rid of open-air drug dealers and deal with problems like that?
TODD: Alan, absolutely. Crime prevention is absolutely one of our goals. In fact, we should point out that we installed cameras in 1997 long before 9-11. September 11 exemplifies why we should use some of these cameras in different ways that we should address it. But in fact we've been using the video cameras for years to great success.
KEYES: That would seem,though, to lend some credibility, then, to Joel's concern that this isn't something that's just going to be done on a restricted basis. If it spreads, doesn't the very existence of a system like this, even if it's just posted in public places, begin to put a weight on our private sphere that maybe it can't bear?
TODD: I don't think so. I mean, we've been using it a number of years. We've been using it in public places, in our entertainment district. We haven't spread it. There have been no abuses. You know, you bring up the story about, or the analogy of following someone from place to place.
First, I'm a realist. I don't see any reason to do that. But if we were to do that, we could do it now in person without doing it in cameras. Had we gone any further in that field, no, I don't think so.
MOWBRAY: Actually, the fact that the cameras make it easier means it's more likely to happen, but I have another — aside from the privacy issue there's a whole use of a questionable use of resources. I mean, let's think about this. We're training a whole new generation of cops to be couch potato voyeurs participating in high tech government stalking. Is that really what we want law enforcement to be doing rather than good old fashioned police work, having cops on the beat, patrolling the streets and keeping the residents safe in the manner that we know works?
TODD: Can I respond to that? Absolutely not. The thing to look at here is this is being used in conjunction with the officers on patrol to augment their activities, to direct their appropriate response to issues, to make them aware of things as they're responding. It's not anything to replace or anything instead of. This isn't a new way of policing.
MOWBRAY: With all due respect, when I went to the joint operation command center today I was told that minimum number of people they have at any given time sitting there watching their TV screens is six. And these were not just people, civilians who work for the police department. These were officers, in some cases lieutenants and sergeants, people who could be out there making a difference but who are instead sitting there watching TV.
BARNES: If I may add, Alan, these cameras have been tried in other places. They were tried for a decade and a half in Detroit, and ultimately abandoned because of mixed results. They have 2.5 million cameras in England. You can't go anywhere in England without being watched. Yet crime has risen since the implementation of this proliferation of cameras.
So there are many jurisdictions where — other than Tampa where cameras have been used and they have been abandoned, they don't work. So should we — we must measure the cost to our liberty against the cost of a speculative adventure like these cameras.
KEYES: One of the problems I think — and this of course is partly speculative but I watched it happen with our intelligence area. We talked about it last night where some folks thought you could substitute technology for actual human intervention, and this of course led to serious problems and deficiencies.
I think if we started to get into that mentality with these cameras, thinking that you could put cameras in the place of the kind of involvement and presence in the community of actual police officers, that that would actually lead to an increase in the problem, not a decrease in it, because without the active involvement of law enforcement working with the community, you're not likely to get good results.
Bill Todd, how can we avoid that sort of syndrome — especially if we implement this on a large scale?
TODD: Alan, I think you're absolutely correct, and I don't think there's any intention to replace a police officer with just the cameras. Obviously it broadens his scope of view to see things, but the interaction with the community is valuable. The cameras are at best a tool adding to what he can do, observe and respond to. It does not replace what he learns from people in the community, getting to know who belongs there or his interaction with the community.
BARNES: That's the point. We've already spent millions in Washington, D.C., to develop this system, and we have limited resources. We still don't have our police force up to the level that it's supposed to be.
MOWBRAY: I think there's an even bigger point here. It's a false sense of security. Back in 1996 we actually captured Timothy McVeigh on camera, delivering the fertilizer in his truck, and the thing is, we had cameras then. We were watching it, but we didn't do anything because we didn't have the people on the ground preventing him from getting close enough to the building to do the damage that he did.
So the high tech cameras don't give you the kind of security that you need. You need to have the people down there. Now if you're going to look outside federal buildings and specific areas that have specific threats against them, that is a whole different ball of wax, but that's not what we're talking about. In D.C. We're talking about using traffic cameras to spy on people standing on the street corner.
KEYES: The great problem is that you can't substitute relatively unintelligent technology for intelligent analysis of what you're looking at.
Johnny Barnes, one last question for you. Do you think that implementation of this kind of system on any large scale is going to lead folks like yourself into court, and what do you think the courts will say about this?
BARNES: Well, the courts have said that there is no expectation of privacy in public places, but we think this is a very different situation than the situation the courts — we believe that there is an expectation of privacy in the subway system.
KEYES: So in effect it might lead to a qualitative difference when something like this is implemented on a large enough scale?
BARNES: We're looking closely at that.
KEYES: Thank you all. I appreciate your coming with us tonight. Obviously this is a vexed issue and it's one where I think there are clearly two sides to the question, but where those of us who are deeply concerned about the strength of our Constitution and the survival of our civil liberties are seeing a technological burden placed on those liberties that I think we're going to have to be very wary of if we want to remain a free society.
Up next, in a MAKING SENSE special, we'll take our first look at the Andrea Yates trial and later we'll get to what's on your mind on any topic of the day. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES SHOEBRIDGE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM DETECTIVE: I've got no doubt that had surveillance cameras been in place — I'm not sure that it would have prevented this attack, but it would certainly have been of a huge advantage to investigators trying to actually establish what happened and who performed these acts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Today was day two of the Andrea Yates trial. In just a moment, we'll go to an investigative reporter who's been following the case from the beginning.
But, first, MSNBC's Larry Wideman brings us up to date on today's developments in the courtroom.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY WIDEMAN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time, the jury saw the clothing the five Yates children were wearing when they were drowned in the family bathtub in a Houston suburb last June. Despite objections by Andrea Yates' defense attorney, George Parnham, the tiny pajamas and night clothes were pinned to a white board.
Andrea Yates wiped her face as another of her attorneys tried to comfort her.
At one point, Parnham, arguing the clothing had nothing to do with his client's state of mind, said, “We will stipulate that Andrea P. Yates on the 20th of June drowned her children.”
In an afternoon session, Dora Yates called Andrea Yates “my very precious daughter-in-law” and described Andrea as catatonic, almost like a zombie before the murders. “She would walk around in circles 30 times and stare at the television.”
Dora Yates ended her testimony with a testy exchange with prosecutor Joe Owmby over her unhappiness with the district attorney's decision to seek the death penalty. Owmby countered the reason for the trial and the possible death sentence was five dead children.
Larry Wideman, MSNBC News, Houston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: On Thursday, we are going to put together a show to take an in-depth look at some of the issues that are raised by the Andrea Yates trial.
Right now, though, joining us from outside the Houston courthouse where Andrea Yates is on trial, we have Suzanne O'Malley, an investigative reporter who is a consultant to NBC News.
Looking at what happened in the trial today, I think it's pretty clear, Suzanne, that we have two sides focused on the issue of whether this was somebody who was capable of making a judgment of right and wrong at the time that this act took place.
What progress do you think the prosecution made, and do you think the defense was adequate in dealing with what they tried to establish on that issue?
SUZANNE O'MALLEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: No, I don't think they made very much progress at all on either side today. My reason for thinking that, Alan, is that the witnesses today, two police officers and Dora Yates, are really not experts in what the state of mind of Andrea Yates was, whether she was able to tell right from wrong.
KEYES: Does that mean that we're going to be looking at a trial that will come down to a sort of battle of experts? Do you think they'll be putting up their psychologists and trying to establish this on that basis?
O'MALLEY: I think that's what they have to do, but I think it's a battle of law as much as a battle of experts.
KEYES: And what principle of law do you think will decide it?
O'MALLEY: Well, you know, the insan — proving insanity is a very narrow defense that is particularly difficult in Texas law because it's applied very strictly. Did she know the nature and quality of her acts, and did she know at that moment right from wrong, not did she know the day before, not did she know today.
KEYES: So does that mean that a lot of the things that are cited in the press accounts and so forth about her long history of illness and the various bouts of depression and medication or not medication — I mean, except for what happened on that day, a lot of that will just be irrelevant, right?
O'MALLEY: No, I think that's very important in one respect, because forensic psychiatrists and psychologists have a term called malingering, which means that you pretend illness.
Now both the prosecution and the defense agree that Andrea Yates is not a pretender, and her two-year-long record — medical record — there are more than 2,000 pages of it, all of which I've read, and it's a really impressive document of mental illness. This is not something that she thought of the day after she killed her children as an excuse.
KEYES: But when looking at a case like this — I must say this, my first reaction to this when I first heard about it at just a sort of layman's level — you hear about somebody killing all their children, and it seems to me that somebody couldn't possibly do that if they were in their right mind. I've often commented to people if I were on the jury, they'd have to spend their time convincing me that she wasn't nuts in terms of just a layman's look at this issue.
And yet when you actually get into the courtroom, doesn't the heavier burden of difficulty fall on the defense here?
O'MALLEY: Absolutely. They have to prove insanity. All the prosecution has to prove is that she knew right from wrong and that she committed murder.
Now she doesn't even object to the fact that — I mean, she did murder the children. Her attorneys are willing to stipulate to that. So all in the world the prosecution has to do is to prove that she knew right from wrong.
KEYES: And the kind of things that are reported about her deportment on that day, the calmness with which she seemed to approach the aftermath when the police had arrived — how do you think that's going to weigh in the balance as a judgment is made about her state of mind?
O'MALLEY: It depends on your point of view because you — when you are in a psychotic state, as medical records indicate she was, her lack of responsiveness can be easily interpreted by the prosecution as an unwillingness or an uncooperativeness or a wanting to protect herself and knowing her legal rights.
And as far as the defense is concerned, you can look at it as the woman was out of her mind, she couldn't respond, didn't know what to say, you know. So you can play it either way, and I've already seen that taking place in the first two days of the trial...
KEYES: Do you see any...
O'MALLEY: ... even in the playing of...
KEYES: Go ahead.
O'MALLEY: I was going to say, even in the playing of the 911 tape yesterday, the defense characterized it as she withheld the information of why she needed police at the house, whereas the prosecution pointed out that she couldn't answer who or what questions. She could only answer yes or no questions, which I think will become critical as we get to the medical experts next week.
KEYES: Now — because that will be taken as a sign on the one hand of callousness, on the sign — as a sign on the other that she really blanked out and didn't realize what was happening?
Both arguments are likely to be brought up. What do you think will tip the balance, if anything, that we're looking at right now?
O'MALLEY: Park Dietz is a heavy, heavy hitter. He's going to come in. He's going to say she knew right from wrong. As far as the defense is concerned, they're going to say Park Dietz didn't even interview Andrea until months and months after the crime, so how then could he give any opinion as to whether — what her frame of mind was or whether she knew right from wrong back on June 20th.
KEYES: Apart from the issues that are being raised about her guilt or innocence in the trial itself, you look at something like this, and you really have to wonder how such a terrible situation could come about and what kinds of contributing factors there were.
Obviously, people would be speculating about that for a long time, but, from your point of view, looking at this, reading through all of the records, do you think that there is some general observation of the lessons to be drawn from what we see in this terrible case? Or is it just the banality of evil?
O'MALLEY: You know, one of the best — one of the things I say in “Oprah” magazine in the piece that I wrote that's in this month, February, is that if even one thing had gone right, the Yates children would still be alive today.
I mean, if one doctor had done a better job. If a different doctor had been assigned to Andrea. If it were — if, if, if, you know. If Rusty had left late for work that day or if his mother had come earlier.
You know, your show is called, you know, MAKING SENSE, and I think, for viewers, for all of us, this case — and one of the reasons that it does rivet one's attention is it is so, so hard to make any sense of it, and it's so tragic.
KEYES: I think that's the heartbreaking aspect of it, Suzanne. I want to thank you for joining us today to take a look at what is going on there. We're obviously going to be watching these developments with great interest, and I appreciate your taking the time to join us.
Later, I will share with you the outrage of the day, and, of course, on Thursday, we will be getting more deeply into the Andrea Yates trial. But, first, I want to hear what's on your mind today. So you call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. Anything that's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Now we get to the part of the show that often is the most fun for me. I get to find out what's on your mind. We're going to start with Carlos in Virginia.
Are you making sense tonight, Carlos? Welcome to the show.
CARLOS: Thank you. Yes, I really enjoy your show. Anyway, I'm a retired New York City police officer, and when they installed computers in our cars, yes, we checked out for bad guys, but whenever we saw a pretty girl that we wanted to get to know, we would run her plate, get her information, and try to get a date with them, and they had no way of knowing how we got their information.
KEYES: So do you think that that kind of thing would carry over into surveillance cameras, possible abuses where people could use them to sort of track down the pretty girls instead of just get information like that?
CARLOS: Yeah. Cops have a feeling like if they know a guy is a bad guy and they know he's bad, they're going to keep looking for this guy until they get enough to nail him. That's just how we are. We — we convict, and then we go after a guy, and I think that we would use it improperly. We just couldn't help ourselves, the police officers, because we think that we're right.
KEYES: Carlos, thank you. Appreciate your call.
Let's go to Evan in New York.
Evan, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
EVAN: Hi. I agree with Carlos. I think the implementation, you know, of a large camera system just lends itself to potentially terrible abuses, blackmail, or whatever.
I mean, look, if I'm outside, if I'm not breaking the law, who I'm with, what I'm doing, it's my business, you know, and I think that this just creates an atmosphere of just, you know, even greater mistrust and suspicion, paranoia of government in already troubled times, frankly, sort of to me — to me, it's sort of 1984ish atmosphere, which is not something I think the country needs right now.
KEYES: So you would think that we shouldn't be moving ahead with this at all because it essentially would represent that kind of abuse.
EVAN: If we were moving ahead with it, very slowly, if at all, probably not at all.
KEYES: Evan, thank you for your call.
EVAN: Thank you.
KEYES: Let's go to Pete in North Carolina.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
PETE: Hi, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
PETE: I was wondering if you thought we were close to becoming an imperialistic society or close at all because of big brother and that, at one point, it would be impossible for the people to bring on a shift in power, whether it was vote or by force.
KEYES: I think unhappily that the technology is converging with the circumstances to put us in grave danger of that kind of an outcome, and when I say the circumstances, I mean things like the threat of terrorism.
A pervasive threat like that without any clear knowledge of when it might end — so it's kind of an open ended threat — then leads to a rising sense of insecurity that feeds the consolidation of power in the hands of government, and when you have that intersecting with the development of technologies, be it the cameras, the digital technologies that could centralize all this information and make it readily available to people who wanted to abuse it, yeah, I think all the ingredients are now in place.
The only thing that's lacking is the malevolent will, and, of course, in the course of human history, that's always manifested itself once the power was present. So I think we have to be very careful and vigilant. Pete, thank you for your call.
Let's go to Diane in Massachusetts.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DIANE: Hi. Can you hear me?
KEYES: Yes, I can.
DIANE: Hi. I can't hear you, though. Hold on. I'm sorry. I think I can't — I can't hear you.
KEYES: Well, Diane, thank you for calling.
Let's go to Arthur in Massachusetts.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ARTHUR: Dr. Keyes, the facial recognition systems — they're about as indiscriminate as land mines and booby traps, which are categorically illegal in just about every jurisdiction. There's no guarantee that the underlying software that drives those systems is valid. I can't see any premise that — the software that's driving it is based on political correctness.
KEYES: Well...
ARTHUR: It's similar to Worcester where we have the Worcester police...
KEYES: ... I think one of the problems that we're getting into here is that the validity of this kind of software then becomes a matter for experts to argue about, and the manipulation that is possible is something that only those experts could understand.
I am wondering myself, as I look at these developments, how our courts are going to keep abreast of it when the people sitting to make judgments about whether or not this is within the law, whether or not there's opportunity for the kind of cross-examination that is essential in order for witnesses to be valid, whether you can then accept this kind of evidence — it's going to require an expertise that I wonder if our courts have available.
We're getting into a lot of difficult questions here.
Arthur, thank you for your call.
ARTHUR: Thank you.
KEYES: Now let's take look at some of your e-mail. We have Dennis from North Carolina, who writes, “Given the fact that blacks were once Republican before switching to the Democratic Party en masse, what does the Republican Party really have to offer blacks, given the Republicans' down-the-nose attitude toward minorities in general? What is it that you, J.C. Watts, and a few other African-American Republicans find so endearing that you must wrap yourselves with it?”
Well, I must confess I think that the main reason that I reject the Democrats is because they sadly have rejected the basic moral principles of the nation. When they run after things like abortion, they are going against the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence which I think should inform all our policies, and they leave me in a position where I have to stand with that party that still respects those principles.
Thanks for your feedback.
Next, the outrage of the day, something you really don't want to miss. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: After the fracas in Las Vegas, the boxing officials there decided that Mike Tyson wasn't going to be licensed to box in their state.
I think that's the kind of thing that showed a lot of common sense because this is a fellow who, in addition to the conviction on rape, has shown an utter inability to control his own outrageous temper. And after all, that's not what boxing is about.
It's not about violence. It's about discipline. It's about the application of abilities in a way that suggests that you actually have control of yourself.
The great problem here, I think, is not just the fact that they're taking an individual who obviously can't control his temper, putting him in a situation where he's liable to do mayhem. No. It's that for the sake of money, folks now in Washington, D.C., the boxing board there, they're thinking of licensing a Tyson-Lewis fight.
I think they ought to have more consideration not just for boxing but for Mike Tyson. This is a man who obviously shouldn't be in this profession. He needs help. He doesn't need encouragement and exploitation so that some folks can make a few more bucks while he himself goes deeper and deeper into the grip of those demons that beset him.
It seems to me that that kind of exploitation of an individual smacks of the sort of thing that people did in the slave times when they had no respect for individual personality and instead just used people for what they could get out of them.
I think it's time some people showed consideration not just for Mike Tyson's potential for profit making but for his potential as a human being. The man needs help and he's not going to get it in the ring. That's my sense of it.
Lester Holt is up next.
See you tomorrow.
The Andrea Yates trial got under way yesterday and there was some dramatic developments in that trial. In the course of today, we'll be taking our first look at that trial in the course of this program, just to bring ourselves a little bit up to date. We are going to go in depth into some of the issues that are involved on Thursday.
But first, one of the consequences of September 11 has been that we've been hearing a lot more about what has to be done for our security. One of the ideas that has come forward and is now being implemented little by little in places around the country is the idea that we can help police to deal more effectively with the challenges of terrorism and crime and other disturbances of our peace and order if we could harness technology, placing street cameras in places where it would extend the ability of the police to watch the comings and goings of our citizenry.
Is this something that's going to contribute to the safety of our streets or is it the advent finally of the much-dreaded era of big brother predicted in the novel “1984” long years ago, but slowly but surely being realized at least in terms of the technological possibilities? Today, the Washington, D.C. police showed off the latest technology to some of the harshest critics of what some regard as growing big brotherism. Chris Gordon from our NBC station, WRC, in Washington D.C. explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS GORDON, WRC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Leaders of civil liberties groups got a tour of the D.C. Police Department's joint operation command center. This high-tech TV control room allows police to keep an eye on public areas around the city with 12 digital cameras displayed on a wall of monitors. But the American Civil Liberties Union came to this meeting concerned about the possible loss of privacy.
JOHNNY BARNES, ACLU: The objection is that these cameras will be able to monitor the movement of citizens as they propose. This network of surveillance cameras in our schools, in the subway systems, and in public buildings, government buildings, Capitol, the Monument, the Mall, they will be used in a way that video cameras have never been used.
TERRY GAINER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF: I think we're comfortably within the law, but we have to see where the public and others want us to be on this issue.
GORDON: Assistant Chief Terry Gainer conducted the tour of the joint operation command center. Then, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey sat down and met to address the concerns expressed by the civil libertarians and agreed to a process to meet the needs of police while protecting the rights of citizens.
BARRY STEINHARDT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ACLU: The department has only begun to show us the tip of the iceberg here. Much more powerful technology is clearly available than what's being employed now. Certainly it will be very tempting to use it and we need to set in motion the process that allows us to adopt those guidelines before the technology overruns us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Chris Gordon from WRC here in Washington.
Obviously, these are questions that have implications for the future that could be quite ominous. We're talking of course about something that starts on a small scale. But where will it end? Twelve cameras today, does it become scores or hundreds in the future? We are going to look at some of the questions that are involved in this harnessing of technology in the name of greater security and safety.
Will it in fact make our city safer? Will it ultimately destroy privacy as we know it? And given the benefits and the risks that are involved, is it worth it? I think this is something that we're going to have to tussle with as a people over the months and years ahead. It is one of those areas where technology grows and hands to us both abilities and temptations that could prove both greatly beneficial and highly dangerous to our liberties. We're going to have to think this through very carefully.
Joining us now to help in that process is Congressman Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia, somebody well known for his championing of the basic rights of our citizens. His understanding of and commitment to constitutional government, and I believe that the Congressman has some serious concerns about the direction that this kind of technology might take us in. Welcome to the show, Bob. Thank you for joining us tonight.
REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Thank you, Alan. It's great to be with you. This is a very, very important topic and to be honest, we don't have a lot of time to think about this. We need to start acting because whatever little privacy we have left, and it is precious little, is fast disappearing. And as you know, as I know, privacy surrendered to the government, power surrendered to the government, is not returned.
KEYES: Well, one of the questions that I think is being raised, and we saw it alluded to in the tape we just saw by the folks who are representing the police, is basically we're putting these cameras where we could put policemen anyway. We're not violating the laws. No warrants are required to watch these places. Why is this, in fact, an invasion of privacy when the cameras are going where a policeman could legitimately go, without a warrant, under present circumstances?
BARR: Well, I think you alluded to it also, Alan. It very, very subtly, but in a very pronounced way, changes the way we view our role as citizens in a free society. It's one thing to have a police officer on the beat, somebody that you know is there, that you can see, that can exercise judgment, can exercise discretion. You know that he or she is subject to the rules of constitutional law, that they have to have a reason before they search you, before they take evidence from you, before they detain you.
It's very different when you have cameras that you don't even know are there, recording your every move, and there's something very different between a police officer watching what's going on and exercising judgment and stepping in, and a camera that you don't know is recording your moves, and it's recording. You don't know what happens to that information. I am not at all satisfied that the officials who tell us, oh, we're not going to record this. We're not going to retain it. We're not going to do anything with it. They do retain it. They do stuff with it.
KEYES: Now what kind of abuses do you think would result from a system like this where people are being watched and recorded by police authorities?
BARR: Well, one thing that we know is happening in some jurisdictions where cameras have been set up to record vehicles as they go through intersections or are speeding, and that is despite early assurances that these cameras will only photograph the license plate, we now know there are instances in which the occupants of cars have been photographed and the interior of cars, showing what's in the car. Some people don't want to have their picture taken of who's in the car with them or what's in the car with them. And this also provides an opportunity for police to gather evidence without a proper search warrant or without probable cause.
KEYES: Now do you think that this would be something where we might see eventual abuses in terms of blackmail as well as legal abuses where they're getting into areas that they couldn't enter into without a warrant?
BARR: These are all very, very real possibilities. We know, Alan, that in the past, when police have been given the green light to gather evidence in questionable ways, despite the fact that most police officers will not abuse the authority they're given, inevitably it does happen.
KEYES: But what about though the argument — because I know that there are some parts, I've been there myself, in Baltimore, in Washington, D.C., I've done ride-alongs with the police where you go through areas, open-air drug markets, drive-by shootings.
Wouldn't it actually help in some of these areas where neighborhoods are being literally turned into hell by the domination of criminal forces, if you were to post cameras and extend the ability of police to keep an eye on activities, to make streets safer for the people who are now being beset by these criminal elements?
BARR: Well, efficiency is one thing. And yes, inevitably, the use of technology can make the job of law enforcement more efficient. But that's not what our Constitution was written for. The protections in the Bill of Rights were not put there to increase the efficiency of law enforcement. They were put there as a check on law enforcement, to make sure that what law enforcement does remains within the bounds of our rights as given to us by our creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.
KEYES: Now does that mean, though — because I'm watching this discussion develop. Obviously, you have some of the police forces in D.C. and Tampa, I think they've already implemented an approach that's using cameras in some of their public places. We'll have, in fact, a guest on our panel tonight who is very familiar with that. And it's moving ahead.
Do you think that this is something that simply needs to be stopped? Are you going to be looking for legislation that would somehow or another curtail it on constitutional grounds, or is it something that we have to find ways to move ahead with but carefully safeguarding the rights? Is there some way to achieve a balance on this?
BARR: Well, there may be some way to achieve a balance, but what we need to do right now is stop it because if we don't stop it right now, and step back and take a very close look at it and draft laws that provide proper assurances and guarantees that there will not be constitutional abuses, that technology, once implemented, it's virtually impossible, Alan, to back away from. And that's why these jurisdictions should not be allowed to move forward. What they want us to do is to allow them to move forward with the technology and trust them that they won't abuse it later on.
KEYES: Well, I have to agree with you. I think that when we're in the face of something, one of the problems I have is that whatever the arguments for the benefits — and I think some could be made — when you put something in place on a large enough scale, I think it's quite possible that you reach a qualitative difference, between that and the discreet particular examples of surveillance or camera usage that might exist up to now and that qualitative difference could mean that you could track someone's movements in such a way as basically to destroy their privacy altogether. And that is something I think that in the future, as this became more prevalent and centralized, would be a tremendous tool for abuse in the hands of a government that didn't have good intentions. Congressman, thank you so much.
BARR: And we are — thank you, Alan. We're reaching that point very quickly, and that's why it's important for you to be out there speaking on these issues.
KEYES: I sure appreciate as always the fact that you're standing up with some courage to look at these areas that so deeply affect our constitutional life and I wish you Godspeed in the work that you're doing. I hope you all will take a careful look at this and move ahead in ways that will help to us get the time we need, to make sure we're making the right decisions.
Congressman Bob Barr with us this evening. I'm glad he was able to join us. Next, we're going to have a panel of folks pro, and con, looking at this issue to help us get to the heart of the matter. The issues that really constitute the knob of this challenge to our public judgment and our concern for rights.
Later, we're going to have our first look at the Andrea Yates trial. Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-keyes-usa with whatever is on your mind.
And later, I'll be sharing with you my outrage of the day. But first, does this make sense? Here is what Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam had to say about the war on terrorism. “If the truth were known,” he said, “there would be a Nuremberg trial for American presidents. I can not allow them to use the American soldier, black, brown and poor and white, to fight a war that is unjust and wrong,” he says. Well, this is a man who couldn't find nice enough things to say about Muammar Qaddafi when he was running around the world killing innocent people, and he says our president should be put on trial? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot of Times Square, New York City, through a Web cam, just the sort of thing that someday policemen might be looking at, watching you.
We're talking tonight about whether we should be using these surveillance cameras that are popping up in public places, put them in the hands of the police as an extension of their ability to keep watch on what's happening in our society. The argument is made that that will make us more secure, but implemented on any kind of large scale, does it constitute in and of itself a destruction of our privacy, an infringement on our private lives?
Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter is the man who coordinates the camera system in Tampa, Florida, which was the first city to install such a system, detective Bill Todd of the Tampa Police Department. Also with us, Joe Mowbray, a columnist with the Web site townhall.com, and Johnny Barnes, the executive director of the Washington, D.C. Area Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
I think first I want to go to Johnny Barnes. Johnny, looking at this situation, what are the kinds of concerns that a Civil Libertarian necessarily has as he sees us moving, possibly pell mel, toward the implementation of this use of technology in our lives?
BARNES: Well, Alan, I think you raised the right questions at the top of this program and now over the coming weeks and perhaps months we've got to search for the right answers. It is appropriate to raise the bar of security in the wake of the events of September 11. But we must ask the question at what cost? And we're very troubled by this speculative adventure.
The cameras have proven not to prevent crime, deter crime, catch terrorists. Yet we're spending a great deal of money to implement this system, and we're sacrificing the most precious right that we have, the right to be free of interference in our lives, the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. So we're very troubled by this.
KEYES: But aren't we actually extending this concept of privacy as we are going to say that putting a camera in a public place is somehow in and of itself an infringement on privacy? After all, if a policeman was standing there watching you, that would just be a policeman in a public place. He wouldn't need a warrant. Why does a camera raise additional issues?
BARNES: Well, according to “The Wall Street Journal,” Detective Gafkin (ph) was quoted as saying that we are going to have the most extensive video surveillance system in the nation. And that way the movement of citizens will be monitored. That's what they do in countries we condemn; in China and the former Soviet Union. This is — we're talking about, you showed a picture of Times Square. We're talking about Times Square in America, not Tiananmen Square. We don't do that here.
KEYES: Bill Todd, as you look at this issue as it's developing, what are the advantages that we should look for from a system like this? And are they worth the risks that we'll be taking?
BILL TODD, TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, Alan, I think that there are a lot of advantages and you've named a number of them through the top of the hour and in your earlier commentaries, the efficiency and the enhancement of the police being proactive. We recognize what the representative was saying, what Mr. Barnes is saying about the fears or where this could lead. But those haven't proven true at this point. The benefits have happened, we've seen crime statistics where large video cameras have been deployed, we've seen reductions in crime.
So there are some proven benefits, if it's the abuses that we're concerned with, then let's identify and address those abuses.
KEYES: Joel Mowbray, do you think that that's a proper position? Is it possible in fact to implement this in a way that isn't going to be inherently subject to abuse?
JOEL MOWBRAY, TOWNHALL.COM: Well, I actually took a tour of the joint operation command center today, which is at the D.C. Police headquarters. It's a $7 million control room and right now they only have 12 cameras, and 22 screens, and you do the math, and as it is right now in response to the latest terrorist threat, only looking at federal buildings, the Pentagon and Union Station, it's OK. But there are no controls in place. There's nothing to stop this prom snow-balling to become a runaway train. We don't know. And plus Washington, D.C. is such a special situation compared to other cities.
So my real fear is that other cities will take a look at Washington and say hey, this is a success, let's do it elsewhere. I think we pose a unique terrorist threat here, but that's only for specific occasions such as in the wake of the latest alert that came down last week.
KEYES: But I guess one of the problems I'm having is in terms of what the specific fears are, I myself look at a situation like this and I think well you've put 12 cameras in, maybe that's not so bad. But if you are going to have a network of these cameras that would eventually say blanket an urban area, where it would be possible to trace someone's movements from one place to another. Couldn't somebody piece together your private intentions by looking at your public actions and thereby invade your privacy by inference?
MOWBRAY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, there's no doubt about it, that's the problem here is that there are no controls in place. You know, I met with Steve Gafkin today, and he seems like a nice guy, a reasonable guy, but you know what? Who's to say that six months down the line, two years down the line this thing won't become, as you say, and they are already talking about doing 280, 300 cameras. That's just in the “Wall Street Journal” article.
They're talking about putting a camera up in Georgetown. There's no terroist threat in Georgetown unless somebody has a real beef with a fashion designed clothes. That's about it. There is no real threat there. It's pretext to say terrorists. In fact, Chief Ramsey was on another network last Friday and he admitted, and I quote, “that the cameras have nothing to do with terrorism.” And he was talking about preventing muggings and car break-ins and everything else. That's a noble goal but that is not a terrorist threat.
KEYES: It's not a terrorist threat, but isn't that a legitimate goal of law enforcement? Bill Todd, when you put a system in place in Tampa, is it part of the result you're looking for, a reduction in crime? If that reduction is produced, don't you want to spread the system? Is this something you're going to keep on a limited bass or do you look to eventually implement it in ways that would move in to problem neighborhoods and get rid of open-air drug dealers and deal with problems like that?
TODD: Alan, absolutely. Crime prevention is absolutely one of our goals. In fact, we should point out that we installed cameras in 1997 long before 9-11. September 11 exemplifies why we should use some of these cameras in different ways that we should address it. But in fact we've been using the video cameras for years to great success.
KEYES: That would seem,though, to lend some credibility, then, to Joel's concern that this isn't something that's just going to be done on a restricted basis. If it spreads, doesn't the very existence of a system like this, even if it's just posted in public places, begin to put a weight on our private sphere that maybe it can't bear?
TODD: I don't think so. I mean, we've been using it a number of years. We've been using it in public places, in our entertainment district. We haven't spread it. There have been no abuses. You know, you bring up the story about, or the analogy of following someone from place to place.
First, I'm a realist. I don't see any reason to do that. But if we were to do that, we could do it now in person without doing it in cameras. Had we gone any further in that field, no, I don't think so.
MOWBRAY: Actually, the fact that the cameras make it easier means it's more likely to happen, but I have another — aside from the privacy issue there's a whole use of a questionable use of resources. I mean, let's think about this. We're training a whole new generation of cops to be couch potato voyeurs participating in high tech government stalking. Is that really what we want law enforcement to be doing rather than good old fashioned police work, having cops on the beat, patrolling the streets and keeping the residents safe in the manner that we know works?
TODD: Can I respond to that? Absolutely not. The thing to look at here is this is being used in conjunction with the officers on patrol to augment their activities, to direct their appropriate response to issues, to make them aware of things as they're responding. It's not anything to replace or anything instead of. This isn't a new way of policing.
MOWBRAY: With all due respect, when I went to the joint operation command center today I was told that minimum number of people they have at any given time sitting there watching their TV screens is six. And these were not just people, civilians who work for the police department. These were officers, in some cases lieutenants and sergeants, people who could be out there making a difference but who are instead sitting there watching TV.
BARNES: If I may add, Alan, these cameras have been tried in other places. They were tried for a decade and a half in Detroit, and ultimately abandoned because of mixed results. They have 2.5 million cameras in England. You can't go anywhere in England without being watched. Yet crime has risen since the implementation of this proliferation of cameras.
So there are many jurisdictions where — other than Tampa where cameras have been used and they have been abandoned, they don't work. So should we — we must measure the cost to our liberty against the cost of a speculative adventure like these cameras.
KEYES: One of the problems I think — and this of course is partly speculative but I watched it happen with our intelligence area. We talked about it last night where some folks thought you could substitute technology for actual human intervention, and this of course led to serious problems and deficiencies.
I think if we started to get into that mentality with these cameras, thinking that you could put cameras in the place of the kind of involvement and presence in the community of actual police officers, that that would actually lead to an increase in the problem, not a decrease in it, because without the active involvement of law enforcement working with the community, you're not likely to get good results.
Bill Todd, how can we avoid that sort of syndrome — especially if we implement this on a large scale?
TODD: Alan, I think you're absolutely correct, and I don't think there's any intention to replace a police officer with just the cameras. Obviously it broadens his scope of view to see things, but the interaction with the community is valuable. The cameras are at best a tool adding to what he can do, observe and respond to. It does not replace what he learns from people in the community, getting to know who belongs there or his interaction with the community.
BARNES: That's the point. We've already spent millions in Washington, D.C., to develop this system, and we have limited resources. We still don't have our police force up to the level that it's supposed to be.
MOWBRAY: I think there's an even bigger point here. It's a false sense of security. Back in 1996 we actually captured Timothy McVeigh on camera, delivering the fertilizer in his truck, and the thing is, we had cameras then. We were watching it, but we didn't do anything because we didn't have the people on the ground preventing him from getting close enough to the building to do the damage that he did.
So the high tech cameras don't give you the kind of security that you need. You need to have the people down there. Now if you're going to look outside federal buildings and specific areas that have specific threats against them, that is a whole different ball of wax, but that's not what we're talking about. In D.C. We're talking about using traffic cameras to spy on people standing on the street corner.
KEYES: The great problem is that you can't substitute relatively unintelligent technology for intelligent analysis of what you're looking at.
Johnny Barnes, one last question for you. Do you think that implementation of this kind of system on any large scale is going to lead folks like yourself into court, and what do you think the courts will say about this?
BARNES: Well, the courts have said that there is no expectation of privacy in public places, but we think this is a very different situation than the situation the courts — we believe that there is an expectation of privacy in the subway system.
KEYES: So in effect it might lead to a qualitative difference when something like this is implemented on a large enough scale?
BARNES: We're looking closely at that.
KEYES: Thank you all. I appreciate your coming with us tonight. Obviously this is a vexed issue and it's one where I think there are clearly two sides to the question, but where those of us who are deeply concerned about the strength of our Constitution and the survival of our civil liberties are seeing a technological burden placed on those liberties that I think we're going to have to be very wary of if we want to remain a free society.
Up next, in a MAKING SENSE special, we'll take our first look at the Andrea Yates trial and later we'll get to what's on your mind on any topic of the day. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES SHOEBRIDGE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM DETECTIVE: I've got no doubt that had surveillance cameras been in place — I'm not sure that it would have prevented this attack, but it would certainly have been of a huge advantage to investigators trying to actually establish what happened and who performed these acts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Today was day two of the Andrea Yates trial. In just a moment, we'll go to an investigative reporter who's been following the case from the beginning.
But, first, MSNBC's Larry Wideman brings us up to date on today's developments in the courtroom.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY WIDEMAN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time, the jury saw the clothing the five Yates children were wearing when they were drowned in the family bathtub in a Houston suburb last June. Despite objections by Andrea Yates' defense attorney, George Parnham, the tiny pajamas and night clothes were pinned to a white board.
Andrea Yates wiped her face as another of her attorneys tried to comfort her.
At one point, Parnham, arguing the clothing had nothing to do with his client's state of mind, said, “We will stipulate that Andrea P. Yates on the 20th of June drowned her children.”
In an afternoon session, Dora Yates called Andrea Yates “my very precious daughter-in-law” and described Andrea as catatonic, almost like a zombie before the murders. “She would walk around in circles 30 times and stare at the television.”
Dora Yates ended her testimony with a testy exchange with prosecutor Joe Owmby over her unhappiness with the district attorney's decision to seek the death penalty. Owmby countered the reason for the trial and the possible death sentence was five dead children.
Larry Wideman, MSNBC News, Houston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: On Thursday, we are going to put together a show to take an in-depth look at some of the issues that are raised by the Andrea Yates trial.
Right now, though, joining us from outside the Houston courthouse where Andrea Yates is on trial, we have Suzanne O'Malley, an investigative reporter who is a consultant to NBC News.
Looking at what happened in the trial today, I think it's pretty clear, Suzanne, that we have two sides focused on the issue of whether this was somebody who was capable of making a judgment of right and wrong at the time that this act took place.
What progress do you think the prosecution made, and do you think the defense was adequate in dealing with what they tried to establish on that issue?
SUZANNE O'MALLEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: No, I don't think they made very much progress at all on either side today. My reason for thinking that, Alan, is that the witnesses today, two police officers and Dora Yates, are really not experts in what the state of mind of Andrea Yates was, whether she was able to tell right from wrong.
KEYES: Does that mean that we're going to be looking at a trial that will come down to a sort of battle of experts? Do you think they'll be putting up their psychologists and trying to establish this on that basis?
O'MALLEY: I think that's what they have to do, but I think it's a battle of law as much as a battle of experts.
KEYES: And what principle of law do you think will decide it?
O'MALLEY: Well, you know, the insan — proving insanity is a very narrow defense that is particularly difficult in Texas law because it's applied very strictly. Did she know the nature and quality of her acts, and did she know at that moment right from wrong, not did she know the day before, not did she know today.
KEYES: So does that mean that a lot of the things that are cited in the press accounts and so forth about her long history of illness and the various bouts of depression and medication or not medication — I mean, except for what happened on that day, a lot of that will just be irrelevant, right?
O'MALLEY: No, I think that's very important in one respect, because forensic psychiatrists and psychologists have a term called malingering, which means that you pretend illness.
Now both the prosecution and the defense agree that Andrea Yates is not a pretender, and her two-year-long record — medical record — there are more than 2,000 pages of it, all of which I've read, and it's a really impressive document of mental illness. This is not something that she thought of the day after she killed her children as an excuse.
KEYES: But when looking at a case like this — I must say this, my first reaction to this when I first heard about it at just a sort of layman's level — you hear about somebody killing all their children, and it seems to me that somebody couldn't possibly do that if they were in their right mind. I've often commented to people if I were on the jury, they'd have to spend their time convincing me that she wasn't nuts in terms of just a layman's look at this issue.
And yet when you actually get into the courtroom, doesn't the heavier burden of difficulty fall on the defense here?
O'MALLEY: Absolutely. They have to prove insanity. All the prosecution has to prove is that she knew right from wrong and that she committed murder.
Now she doesn't even object to the fact that — I mean, she did murder the children. Her attorneys are willing to stipulate to that. So all in the world the prosecution has to do is to prove that she knew right from wrong.
KEYES: And the kind of things that are reported about her deportment on that day, the calmness with which she seemed to approach the aftermath when the police had arrived — how do you think that's going to weigh in the balance as a judgment is made about her state of mind?
O'MALLEY: It depends on your point of view because you — when you are in a psychotic state, as medical records indicate she was, her lack of responsiveness can be easily interpreted by the prosecution as an unwillingness or an uncooperativeness or a wanting to protect herself and knowing her legal rights.
And as far as the defense is concerned, you can look at it as the woman was out of her mind, she couldn't respond, didn't know what to say, you know. So you can play it either way, and I've already seen that taking place in the first two days of the trial...
KEYES: Do you see any...
O'MALLEY: ... even in the playing of...
KEYES: Go ahead.
O'MALLEY: I was going to say, even in the playing of the 911 tape yesterday, the defense characterized it as she withheld the information of why she needed police at the house, whereas the prosecution pointed out that she couldn't answer who or what questions. She could only answer yes or no questions, which I think will become critical as we get to the medical experts next week.
KEYES: Now — because that will be taken as a sign on the one hand of callousness, on the sign — as a sign on the other that she really blanked out and didn't realize what was happening?
Both arguments are likely to be brought up. What do you think will tip the balance, if anything, that we're looking at right now?
O'MALLEY: Park Dietz is a heavy, heavy hitter. He's going to come in. He's going to say she knew right from wrong. As far as the defense is concerned, they're going to say Park Dietz didn't even interview Andrea until months and months after the crime, so how then could he give any opinion as to whether — what her frame of mind was or whether she knew right from wrong back on June 20th.
KEYES: Apart from the issues that are being raised about her guilt or innocence in the trial itself, you look at something like this, and you really have to wonder how such a terrible situation could come about and what kinds of contributing factors there were.
Obviously, people would be speculating about that for a long time, but, from your point of view, looking at this, reading through all of the records, do you think that there is some general observation of the lessons to be drawn from what we see in this terrible case? Or is it just the banality of evil?
O'MALLEY: You know, one of the best — one of the things I say in “Oprah” magazine in the piece that I wrote that's in this month, February, is that if even one thing had gone right, the Yates children would still be alive today.
I mean, if one doctor had done a better job. If a different doctor had been assigned to Andrea. If it were — if, if, if, you know. If Rusty had left late for work that day or if his mother had come earlier.
You know, your show is called, you know, MAKING SENSE, and I think, for viewers, for all of us, this case — and one of the reasons that it does rivet one's attention is it is so, so hard to make any sense of it, and it's so tragic.
KEYES: I think that's the heartbreaking aspect of it, Suzanne. I want to thank you for joining us today to take a look at what is going on there. We're obviously going to be watching these developments with great interest, and I appreciate your taking the time to join us.
Later, I will share with you the outrage of the day, and, of course, on Thursday, we will be getting more deeply into the Andrea Yates trial. But, first, I want to hear what's on your mind today. So you call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. Anything that's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Now we get to the part of the show that often is the most fun for me. I get to find out what's on your mind. We're going to start with Carlos in Virginia.
Are you making sense tonight, Carlos? Welcome to the show.
CARLOS: Thank you. Yes, I really enjoy your show. Anyway, I'm a retired New York City police officer, and when they installed computers in our cars, yes, we checked out for bad guys, but whenever we saw a pretty girl that we wanted to get to know, we would run her plate, get her information, and try to get a date with them, and they had no way of knowing how we got their information.
KEYES: So do you think that that kind of thing would carry over into surveillance cameras, possible abuses where people could use them to sort of track down the pretty girls instead of just get information like that?
CARLOS: Yeah. Cops have a feeling like if they know a guy is a bad guy and they know he's bad, they're going to keep looking for this guy until they get enough to nail him. That's just how we are. We — we convict, and then we go after a guy, and I think that we would use it improperly. We just couldn't help ourselves, the police officers, because we think that we're right.
KEYES: Carlos, thank you. Appreciate your call.
Let's go to Evan in New York.
Evan, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
EVAN: Hi. I agree with Carlos. I think the implementation, you know, of a large camera system just lends itself to potentially terrible abuses, blackmail, or whatever.
I mean, look, if I'm outside, if I'm not breaking the law, who I'm with, what I'm doing, it's my business, you know, and I think that this just creates an atmosphere of just, you know, even greater mistrust and suspicion, paranoia of government in already troubled times, frankly, sort of to me — to me, it's sort of 1984ish atmosphere, which is not something I think the country needs right now.
KEYES: So you would think that we shouldn't be moving ahead with this at all because it essentially would represent that kind of abuse.
EVAN: If we were moving ahead with it, very slowly, if at all, probably not at all.
KEYES: Evan, thank you for your call.
EVAN: Thank you.
KEYES: Let's go to Pete in North Carolina.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
PETE: Hi, Dr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
PETE: I was wondering if you thought we were close to becoming an imperialistic society or close at all because of big brother and that, at one point, it would be impossible for the people to bring on a shift in power, whether it was vote or by force.
KEYES: I think unhappily that the technology is converging with the circumstances to put us in grave danger of that kind of an outcome, and when I say the circumstances, I mean things like the threat of terrorism.
A pervasive threat like that without any clear knowledge of when it might end — so it's kind of an open ended threat — then leads to a rising sense of insecurity that feeds the consolidation of power in the hands of government, and when you have that intersecting with the development of technologies, be it the cameras, the digital technologies that could centralize all this information and make it readily available to people who wanted to abuse it, yeah, I think all the ingredients are now in place.
The only thing that's lacking is the malevolent will, and, of course, in the course of human history, that's always manifested itself once the power was present. So I think we have to be very careful and vigilant. Pete, thank you for your call.
Let's go to Diane in Massachusetts.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DIANE: Hi. Can you hear me?
KEYES: Yes, I can.
DIANE: Hi. I can't hear you, though. Hold on. I'm sorry. I think I can't — I can't hear you.
KEYES: Well, Diane, thank you for calling.
Let's go to Arthur in Massachusetts.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ARTHUR: Dr. Keyes, the facial recognition systems — they're about as indiscriminate as land mines and booby traps, which are categorically illegal in just about every jurisdiction. There's no guarantee that the underlying software that drives those systems is valid. I can't see any premise that — the software that's driving it is based on political correctness.
KEYES: Well...
ARTHUR: It's similar to Worcester where we have the Worcester police...
KEYES: ... I think one of the problems that we're getting into here is that the validity of this kind of software then becomes a matter for experts to argue about, and the manipulation that is possible is something that only those experts could understand.
I am wondering myself, as I look at these developments, how our courts are going to keep abreast of it when the people sitting to make judgments about whether or not this is within the law, whether or not there's opportunity for the kind of cross-examination that is essential in order for witnesses to be valid, whether you can then accept this kind of evidence — it's going to require an expertise that I wonder if our courts have available.
We're getting into a lot of difficult questions here.
Arthur, thank you for your call.
ARTHUR: Thank you.
KEYES: Now let's take look at some of your e-mail. We have Dennis from North Carolina, who writes, “Given the fact that blacks were once Republican before switching to the Democratic Party en masse, what does the Republican Party really have to offer blacks, given the Republicans' down-the-nose attitude toward minorities in general? What is it that you, J.C. Watts, and a few other African-American Republicans find so endearing that you must wrap yourselves with it?”
Well, I must confess I think that the main reason that I reject the Democrats is because they sadly have rejected the basic moral principles of the nation. When they run after things like abortion, they are going against the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence which I think should inform all our policies, and they leave me in a position where I have to stand with that party that still respects those principles.
Thanks for your feedback.
Next, the outrage of the day, something you really don't want to miss. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: After the fracas in Las Vegas, the boxing officials there decided that Mike Tyson wasn't going to be licensed to box in their state.
I think that's the kind of thing that showed a lot of common sense because this is a fellow who, in addition to the conviction on rape, has shown an utter inability to control his own outrageous temper. And after all, that's not what boxing is about.
It's not about violence. It's about discipline. It's about the application of abilities in a way that suggests that you actually have control of yourself.
The great problem here, I think, is not just the fact that they're taking an individual who obviously can't control his temper, putting him in a situation where he's liable to do mayhem. No. It's that for the sake of money, folks now in Washington, D.C., the boxing board there, they're thinking of licensing a Tyson-Lewis fight.
I think they ought to have more consideration not just for boxing but for Mike Tyson. This is a man who obviously shouldn't be in this profession. He needs help. He doesn't need encouragement and exploitation so that some folks can make a few more bucks while he himself goes deeper and deeper into the grip of those demons that beset him.
It seems to me that that kind of exploitation of an individual smacks of the sort of thing that people did in the slave times when they had no respect for individual personality and instead just used people for what they could get out of them.
I think it's time some people showed consideration not just for Mike Tyson's potential for profit making but for his potential as a human being. The man needs help and he's not going to get it in the ring. That's my sense of it.
Lester Holt is up next.
See you tomorrow.