Post racial era, not yet

By DeWayne Wickham

That Oscar Grant didn’t live long enough to see Barack Obama sworn in as this nation’s first black president is proof that the post-racial era that Obama’s election was supposed to usher in has not arrived.

Grant, a 22-year-old black man, was killed on New Year’s Day. He was shot in the back as he laid face down on a subway platform in Oakland. His killer was a white transit cop — one of several officers who detained Grant and several other young men for questioning in connection with a fight that occurred on a subway train.

The shooting was captured on cell phone video cameras by several onlookers. One of them shows officers forcing Grant to the ground before one of the cops stands up, pulls his gun and fires a single shot into the young man’s back. Shortly before he was supposed to be interviewed by investigators, Johannes Mehserle — the cop who shot Grant — resigned.

That same day, a demonstration in Oakland over the fatal shooting turned violent. Store windows were smashed, police cars were vandalized and some vehicles were set on fire. More than 100 demonstrators were arrested. But so far, no charges have been brought against Mehserle — and that’s not surprising.

The wheels of justice have always turned slowly — if at all — in cases in which cops have used deadly force against unarmed blacks. Nothing symbolizes America’s long-running era of racial conflict more than these kinds of killings, and the failure of the criminal justice system to do something about them.

In 1966, a Los Angeles cop shot to death Leonard Deadwyler, a black man who was rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. The officer, who stopped Deadwyler for speeding, leaned inside the car window with his gun drawn and shot him. A coroner’s jury ruled to killing accidental.

In 1979, white off-duty policeman Larry Shockley shot 21-year-old Randy Heath in the back of his neck outside a Miami warehouse. The cop first said he caught Heath attempting to burglarize the building and shot the unarmed man after a short struggle. He later admitted there was no struggle and claimed his gun discharged accidentally. Heath’s sister said her brother had stopped at the building to urinate. A grand jury refused to indict Shockley.

And then there were the cases of Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell, two unarmed black men who were killed in New York City in separate police shootings. Diallo, an African immigrant, was struck by 19 bullets fired by four white cops in 1999 while standing in the vestibule of his apartment building. The officers said they mistook a wallet in his hand for a gun. A jury acquitted them of any wrongdoing.

The unarmed Bell was killed in 2006, just hours before his wedding, when three plainclothes cops fired 50 shots at him as he tried to drive away from his bachelor’s party at a New York strip club. The cops said they thought an occupant in Bell’s car had a gun. None was found. A judge acquitted the cops of the charges brought against them.

When it comes to police shootings of unarmed black men, these are hardly isolated cases. They are core causes of the racial discontent that made the closing decades of the 20th century the best of time and the worst of times for many blacks.

Obama’s election is a major transition in the life of this country. But the police killing of Grant just three weeks before Obama takes office suggests that the intersection of unarmed black men and armed cops is still this nation’s most explosive racial problems — one that delays arrival of the post-racial era.

Burris has history on his side

By DeWayne Wickham

Someone should introduce Harry Reid to William Marbury.

Reid, the Senate majority leader, has blocked Roland Burris' appointment to that body, saying his paperwork is not in order. This is the best argument Reid has been able to come up with to keep embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich from filling the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

Federal prosecutors have accused Blagojevich of attempting to sell the Senate seat, though Burris isn't connected in any way to this alleged criminal act. By all accounts, the former Illinois attorney general is an upstanding guy. Still, Reid believes that Blagojevich, who has neither been convicted of a crime nor impeached, should not be allowed to exercise his legal right to fill the vacancy.

While his objection to Blagojevich's appointment of Burris might be a good politics, Reid stands on really thin legal ice - because of Marbury.

Back in 1801, Marbury was appointed justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by outgoing president John Adams. But Thomas Jefferson, who replaced Adams in the White House, ordered his secretary of State not to execute the paperwork needed to confirm Marbury's appointment.

Two years later, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that seems to shatter the legal basis for Reid's action on Burris' appointment.

The court's Marbury v. Madison ruling is best known for establishing the principle of judicial review, but the high court also ruled in the case that the secretary of State's failure to perform a "ministerial act" did not negate Marbury's appointment.

"The appointment, being the sole act of the president, must be completely evidenced when it is shown that he has done everything to be performed by him," Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in that historic ruling.

In other words, the absence of some paperwork did not negate the president's authority to name Marbury a justice of the peace.

Like Adams, Blagojevich was exercising his exclusive authority to fill a federal vacancy. Blagojevich did this on December 30 when he issued a written announcement of Burris' appointment. The following day, the senior legal adviser to Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White sent a letter to Burris' lawyer acknowledging the governor's action.

"This letter is to inform you that the Office of the Secretary of State... has made a register of the appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy left by President-Elect Barack Obama, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, and the date of the appointment," Nathan Maddox wrote.

But White refused to sign the certificate of appointment making Blagojevich's selection of Burris official.

Under the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators, state legislators can give governors the power "to make temporary appointments" to fill a Senate vacancy until the next election. And that's just what they did in Illinois.

Signing a certificate of appointment is a ministerial act, not an executive function. Unlike Blagojevich, Illinois' secretary of state can't fill a Senate vacancy. He's not required to pass judgment on the appointment, but simply to acknowledge it has occurred.

White's refusal to sign the certificate, he now admits, should not be allowed to keep Burris from taking his seat in the Senate.

Like it or not, Burris is the junior senator from Illinois. Reid's refusal to accept this fact and White's refusal to acknowledge it do not invalidate his appointment. Having been officially named Obama's successor, Burris will retain this Senate seat until his term expires - or until he succumbs to the pressure and resigns.

Harry Reid's folly

By DeWayne Wickham

You have to wonder if the Senate Democrats that Harry Reid herded to the edge of a political cliff will follow him in leaping off that precipice.

Reid, the leader of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic majority, is trying mightily to keep Roland Burris from assuming the Senate seat he was appointed to by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. His selection of Burris, a former attorney general and the first black to win statewide election in the Prairie State, may be a cynical act. But it baits a trap that Reid has fallen into.

“We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus,” Reid said in a statement.

But Blagojevich, who has neither been convicted of a crime nor impeached, had the legal right to appoint Burris. And Senate Democrats have no constitutional authority to reject Burris because of the legal problems that now engulf Blagojevich, who federal prosecutors accuse of political corruption, including allegedly scheming to personally benefit from naming someone to replace Obama.

As far as we know, Burris was not a party to that scandalous talk, which was captured on wiretaps by federal prosecutors. In fact, Reid said Sunday on Meet the Press, “I don’t know a thing wrong with Burris.” Later he added: “I think that everyone I’ve talked to says that Burris is a good guy.”

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Reid called Blagojevich shortly before his arrest and urged the governor not to appoint Illinois Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Danny Davis, or state Senate president Emil Jones — all of them black. Instead, he wanted Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth, the state’s chief of Veterans Affairs, named to the post. Neither woman is black.

Reid denies this account of his conversation with Blagojevich. Among others, Reid cited his support of the appointment of black Nevada attorney Johnnie Rawlinson to a federal judgeship as proof that he’s not a closet racist.

Ironically, President Clinton nominated Rawlinson to the federal bench while he was the target of a federal investigation that resulted in the House approving three articles of impeachment against him. Had Republicans adopted Reid’s argument that the Senate can stop a duly elected official from carrying out his authorized duties, they could have refused to approve Rawlinson’s nomination.

As it stands now, Reid has gotten Senate Democrats to band together in opposing Burris. Their sheep-like allegiance to the Senate majority leader could be a gift to Republicans, hurting Democrats in the next election cycle.Reid and his followers are wrong to believe that what they are doing to Burris won’t produce a black backlash. It will. They hope that Obama’s support of their position will give them cover. It won’t.

No matter his motivation, Reid’s opposition to Burris will leave the Senate a lily-white body as this nation enters the new era in American politics that was ushered in by Obama’s election as this nation’s first black president.

Are you planning to attend Obama's inaugural?

If so, this is must reading: http://inaugural.senate.gov/2009/.

Also, Destination DC, the official tourism office of the nation's capital has a treasure trove of information about things that are happening in the District of Columbia in the days leading up to the January 20th swearing in of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States.

It seems that everybody has gotten into the act. There will be an Aloha Ball, a Green Inaugural Ball, The People's Inaugural Ball (tickets are just $75), a "2 Degrees of Separation" Champagne Brunch and much more. See the link below: http://www.washington.org/visiting/experience-dc/presidential-inauguration/balls-and-events.

Burris deserves better from Senate Democrats

By DeWayne Wickham

In saying they won't let Roland Burris fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, Democrats controlling the Senate said Burris would be "plagued by questions of impropriety" if they let his appointment stand.

That reeks more of political bluster than concern about good governance.

Burris is the former Illinois state attorney general named by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to replace Obama, who gave up his seat after winning the presidential election. Burris' selection comes three weeks after a federal prosecutor charged Blagojevich with trying to sell the Senate seat for
personal gain.

Blagojevich claims he's committed no crime, even as a committee of the Illinois legislature holds impeachment hearings and federal prosecutors press ahead with their case. There were mounting calls for Blagojevich not to fill the vacant Senate seat with this legal cloud hanging over his head.

But despite the seriousness of the charges against him, Blagojevich retains the constitutional authority to fill the Senate seat - and Senate Democrats should not reject Burris' appointment out of hand.

"Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man," Blagojevich said in announcing his selection. "This is about Roland Burris as a U.S. senator, not about the governor who made the appointment."

But as news of Burris' selection leaked, Senate Democrats said they would stop him from taking office. This "is not about Mr. Burris, it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat," Democrats said in a statement.

"Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois" and will not be allowed to take a seat in Congress, the Democrats went on to say.

Senate Democrats were aided and abetted in this bad judgment call by President-elect Obama. While calling Burris "a good man and a fine public servant," Obama said he agreed with the Senate's opposition to his appointment because Blagojevich "is accused of selling this very Senate seat."

To accept this tortured reasoning is to treat a mere accusation as proof of criminal behavior. The charges against Blagojevich are serious; but Obama and the Senate's Democratic majority need to be reminded they are just that - charges.

I'm not suggesting Senate Democrats should be unmindful of the federal prosecutor's claim that Blagojevich is corrupt. But since the Illinois governor has neither been convicted of a crime nor impeached by state lawmakers, his choice to fill Obama's Senate seat should not be rejected without good cause.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the authority to "be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." So instead of announcing a knee-jerk rejection of Burris - even as they say they "respect his years of public service" - Senate Democrats should take a more deliberative approach to his appointment.

They should hold a hearing to determine if Burris bought his way into the Senate - something no one has accused him of doing. If he didn't, they should let him take a seat among them.

Senate Democrats should not lump Burris and Blagojevich together. It makes no sense to say a man they know to be upstanding can't be allowed to fill the Senate vacancy because the governor who appointed him is accused of wrongdoing.

What the Senate doesn't need is a posse of Democrats gunning for an accused governor and making collateral damage of a man widely considered a class act.

As Castro's Cuba turns 50, it's time to end the fight

By DeWayne Wickham

Like a couple of punch drunk boxers who have stayed in the ring long after the blows they rain on each can produce a decisive victory, Cuba and the United States are still flailing at each other half a century after Fidel Castro’s revolution succeeded.

In the world of geopolitics, this ought to be the definition of insanity. Cuba’s brand of communism turns 50 on New Year’s Day. That it has survived so long is a testament to the resiliency of this one-party state, which — despite the claims of its critics — has widespread support among the Cuban people.

But longevity alone is no predictor of survival. For the past 50 years, Cuba has been a nation under siege, rallying people to its defense with calls to patriotism and the fear that another U.S. occupation force will descend upon the island nation that sits just 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

Between 1898 and 1933, the United States sent military forces into Cuba four times. After the Castro regime came to power in 1959, American government operatives helped arm and train an invasion force of Cuban exiles that was defeated in the 1961 Bays of Pigs invasion.

“I have spent all of my adult life in the trenches,” Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba’s National Assembly, once told me. He was talking about the time he’s spent defending Cuba’s communist regime from U.S. efforts to topple it.

Alarcon won’t escape that trench any time soon — nor is it likely there will be an appreciable change in U.S.-Cuban relations in the next 50 years — if the two countries continue their fistfight. It’s time for Cuba and the U.S. to replace their pugilism with diplomacy — time for both to make some meaningful concessions to bring this fight to an end.

And just what concessions do I have in mind? Well, to begin with, the incoming Obama administration should shut down Radio and TV Marti, the federally funded Spanish-language stations that attempt to penetrate Cuba’s airwaves with “news” shows largely controlled by Cuban exiles in south Florida. In return, Cuba should open its broadcast airwaves to legitimate news programs that come from beyond its borders so that its people — like those in many other countries — can get a broader perspective of the world.

The Castro government should free all of its so-called “political prisoners,” in return for which the Obama government should stop giving aid and comfort to Cuba’s political dissidents.

The Obama administration should return the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to Cuba. Control of that land was coerced from Cuba more than a century ago as a condition for ending the first U.S. military occupation of that island. In return for this giveback, Cuba should agree to allow its citizens to freely travel abroad and emigrate anywhere they want.

Cuba should admit that in shooting down two unarmed planes in 1996 it overreacted to the provocations of the south Florida exile group that operated those flights. The United States should apologize for not putting Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles on trial for their alleged roles in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that took 76 lives.

Congress should end the economic embargo of Cuba — and the Castro government should open Cuba’s political process to all comers.

Of course all of these actions will draw a blood curdling cry from those who still hope for a knockout punch in the U.S.-Cuba political fistfight. But the more rational among us know the time has come to get these old combatants to take off their boxing gloves.

Bush should pardon shoe thrower

By DeWayne Wickham

Two days before Christmas, President Bush issued 19 pardons and one commutation. But nowhere on that list was the name of Muntazer al-Zaidi.

Al-Zaidi is the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at the president during his surprise visit to Iraq earlier this month. Of course, Bush's power to forgive the bad acts of people doesn't extend to crimes committed by foreigners in their native land.

But al-Zaidi is a special case, and there is still time for Bush to launch a pre-emptive strike against his prosecution. Bush should ask the leaders of the government his administration played a big role in creating to pardon the shoe thrower.

As it stands now, al-Zaidi's trial is scheduled to begin on New Year's Eve. If convicted, he could be imprisoned for five to 15 years.

Al-Zaidi was attending an impromptu press conference held by Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki when he ripped off his shoes and tossed them at the American president.

What he did was a foolish expression of the disdain many Iraqis feel for Bush. In the Arab world, showing someone the soles of your shoe is a sign of contempt. Bush nimbly ducked both shoes. After security officers hustled al-Zaidi from the room, Bush joked about the incident, then linked it to his efforts to turn Iraq into a democratic state.

"I don't know what the guy's cause is," Bush said. "But that's what happens in free societies, where people try to draw attention to themselves."

Exactly. And it is a free society that Bush wants as his legacy in Iraq. Al-Zaidi wasn't trying to harm Bush physically, he wanted to insult him. What he did was - in the context of his culture - an act of political protest.

But the Iraqi journalist is charged with "aggression against a foreign head of state" and could end up spending a lot of time behind bars. And that could undermine Iraq's fragile democracy.

With provincial elections set for the end of January, opponents of al-Maliki are trying to paint the Iraqi prime minister as an American puppet and al-Zaidi as an Iraqi hero who stood up to the leader of the country that invaded Iraq.

Americans can argue the merits of this argument (again, an expression of democracy), but in Iraq and much of the Middle East the shoe-throwing is seen as a David-and-Goliath incident.

If al-Maliki's government convicts al-Zaidi for an offense not considered a criminal act in that region of the world, it will hand the opponents of democracy in Iraq a highly symbolic victory at a crucial time.

Bush can take al-Maliki off of the hook by asking him to pardon al-Zaidi.

"There is hope in the eyes of Iraqis' young," Bush said shortly before al-Zaidi tossed his shoes. "This is a future of what we've been fighting for - a strong and capable, democratic Iraq that will be a force of freedom and a force for peace in the heart of the Middle East."

Maybe so. But the prosecution of al-Zaidi could become the cause célèbre that unravels all of what Bush thinks he has accomplished in Iraq.

Al-Zaidi is not Richard Reid, the Briton who tried to blow up a Miami-bound airline using a shoe packed with explosives. He rightfully got a life sentence from an American court for that act of madness.

For throwing his shoes at Bush, al-Zaidi should be judged only for the political statement he was trying to make in the newly democratic Iraq.