Call for surveillance system suspension not “drastic”
“Drastic action?” You’re editorializing in “Council members talk with anti-surveillance activists.”
What’s “drastic” is the surveillance system. Taking it down until there is a reasonable framework for accountability, oversight, and transparency and PUBLIC governance of the system, along with a regulatory framework passed by the city–that’s rational and reasonable, not drastic.
Also, we are looking for a rational compromise, but that will not be “middle ground”. The LCSC has significantly overreached in its deployment and fallen far short on its management, which has been shown to be shoddy and dangerous to the public.
This is not a popularity contest. And though the cameras might be popular, but the operation and management of them is not.
But democracy has at least two parts in this country: majority rule (popularity contest), and the framework of democratic principles as reflected in the Constitution, body of law, and judicial rulings to bring the law (or lack of law) in alignment with the Constitutional framework.
I appreciate this [letter]. Obviously this person knows what is important.
I do have a correction though. People use the phrase, “We are a democracy.” This is a statement repeated so much throughout the years that people actually believe it. We have a “democratic voting system” where by majority we elect our officials, but we ARE a “Republic”. (i.e. “And to the republic, for which it stands . . . ‘
This is very important to correct with people because a republic demands NO tyranny from the majority, NO mob rule. We are a system of the rule of law with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. And regardless of whether or not the city council or the employees, such as Jose Urdaneta, want to keep spouting how what they are doing is “not against the law”, our city council should be going out of their way to make sure that when something looks like it is taking rights away, they should be putting it on a back-burner instead of letting something happen and just allowing for a court case to decide for them. Their responsibility is to seriously ask the hard questions, and their number one concern should be the rights of the people.
So, if the cameras “may” take away the rights of some of the people, they should find another avenue to fight crime – like maybe one that actually works?