Flying Blind


It takes chutzpah to smear someone when you don't know what he's talking about or even his name. But that doesn't stop crooks or liars. Updated!

Never let it be said that "Crooks and Liars" (could this website be more aptly named?) lets little things like facts get in their way. Why bother learning if something is true when you can launch a smear attack? Heck, you don't even have to know who it is you're smearing. He appeared on Fox News, that's good enough. All the crooks and liars needed to run this item was a report from an emailer, who told them:
Yesterday morning on "Fox News Live" ( I filled that in ) was basically saying that the Brazilian that the london police shot and killed was actually all part of Al Quaeda's plan to dress up Brazilian's and other tan-skinned people and have them run from the police and get shot just to make us look bad. Amazing that Fox always manages to justify anything the U.S. or British do, even when there are MISTAKES made!!

C&L adds:
Take a look. (I'm sorry I don't have more of the video clip to play or the guest's name.)

They supplied this (not entirely accurate) transcript of the video snippet:
IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE QUESTION FOR THEM TO PICK ON SOMEONE WHO MAY NOT BE MIDDLE EASTERN BUT WHO MAY LOOK MIDDLE EASTERN. SAY, SOMEONE WHO IS FROM SOUTH AMERICA, SOMEONE WHO IS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA, AND, SAY, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THEY'RE RACIAL PROFILING US, SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET SOME PUBLIC OPINION ON OUR SIDE. LET'S DRESS THIS GUY UP, TELL HIM TO ACT SUSPICIOUS, AND IF THE POLICE APPROACH HIM, TELL HIM TO RUN AWAY, AND WHEN THE POLICE CATCH HIM, THEN HE APPEARS TO BE INNOCENT, SO, YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, THEY START SENDING OUT DECOYS. THEY CAN DO ALL KIND OF THINGS WHEN THEY KNOW THAT YOUR NET -- THAT YOU HAVE CAST A NET THAT'S THAT NARROW.

Then someone, we don't know if it's one of the crooks or one of the liars, adds:
If [sic] this not the sickest analysis you've ever heard!

So they don't know who's talking, they don't know the subject matter (other than the emailer's allegation), they don't know what questions he is responding to--but hey, it's sick, because it's on Fox. Let's start with a basic fact that C&L didn't bother to determine. The guest was Richard Nable, police officer, instructor, and author..

The topic was Homeland Security (not the London terror attacks), and Uma Pemmaraju was interviewing Mr Nable about the differences between criminal and racial profiling. Let's look at the relevant portion of the transcript and this time we'll include a little thing called context:



NABLE: When we talk about strict racial profiling, we're talking about picking on somebody because of what the profiler perceives to be a particular group that they belong to. And that has very limited success.

PEMMARAJU: What are some of the dangers when you look too closely at any one group?

NABLE: Well, any time you isolate one group from another, you automatically are diverting your attention from the other groups, obviously. And when that happens, you have people that can slip by because they don't actually fit the perception that the profiler may be using. But you also force the criminals to adapt. And we've already seen, over the last 20 years, how, to get away from the Middle Eastern male profile, they've started sending in females. Females have joined the ranks of the terrorists.

PEMMARAJU: So they get hip to knowing what the profile is, so they change their tactics and their methods.

NABLE: Exactly. And it wouldn't be out of the question, let's say, for them to pick on someone who may not be Middle Eastern, but who may look Middle Eastern--say, someone who's from South America, someone who's from Central America--and say, hey, we know they're racial profiling us. So we're going to try to get some public opinion on our side. Let's dress this guy up, tell him to act suspicious, and if the police approach him, tell him to run away. And when the police catch him, then he appears to be innocent. So in essence they start sending out decoys. They can do all kinds of things when they know that your net that you have cast is that narrow.

PEMMARAJU: Let me ask you this, though. Where do you draw the boundaries, and how do you teach law enforcement to be sensitive, to know where to draw the line, when you don't blur the lines between racial and criminal profiling?

NABLE: You have to remember that every law enforcement officer in this country is sworn to uphold the constitution. And one of the basic tenets of our constitution is personal freedom. And before we start suspending personal freedoms, there has to be very dire circumstances. That would be what would be tantamount to a nuclear option when you're talking about profiling. So you have to look at not just a person's race or what you perceive their race of their religion to be, because that can be an integral part. But you also need to look at their behavior, and their behavior is going to give you much better clues than the color of their skin, the color of their hair, or whether they're wearing a cross or a Star of David or anything else on their necks. It's just common sense there to me.

Now, "Crooks and Liars" calls this the "sickest analysis" they've ever heard, still trying to sell the notion that Mr Nable was talking about the Brazilian shot in London. In fact, not only was that incident not the topic of the interview, it was never even mentioned! C&L swallows whole the fatuous notion that Officer Nable was claiming the innocent Brazilian was part of an "Al Qaeda plan"--but the transcript shows he said no such thing, and neither he nor Ms Pemmaraju referenced the shooting at any time in the segment.

That's the kind of writing that passes muster at C&L. We wonder: is that not the sloppiest analysis you've ever read?

Update: We just noticed that C&L is pushing another discredited story:
Yesterday, O’Reilly jumped on Bernie’s coattails and says he’ll name all the people and organizations he considers to be helping the terrorists on his show each night. ( Tonight he didn't follow through )

C&L's source? The discredited newshound report that was based on a lie. Neither the crooks nor the liars bothered to look at what Mr O'Reilly actually said before publishing their snarky hit piece. Again, it's smear first, get the facts later--if at all. That's what experts call a "pattern".

posted: Fri - July 29, 2005 at 02:47 AM       j$p  send 

SLLamp
Just like the rest of the haters, their stance seems to be that it doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it makes FOX look bad.
July 29, 2005, 8:40:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard Nable
The funny thing is that I am one of the most "available" people and no one has contacted me to find out the truth here. I am willing to talk to anyone - anytime.
November 14, 2005, 9:38:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
We'd love to hear from you Mr Nable. What's your take on this?
November 14, 2005, 11:24:13 PM EST – Like – Reply