RUTHFULLY YOURS

The New York City Council is the distilled political essence of modern progressivism, which means it can be dangerous to public health and safety. This summer tourists can see more New Yorkers relieving their bladders in public thanks to the council’s reduction in penalties for crimes against public order, and now the council wants to expose the city’s antiterror secrets.

A new bill would require the New York Police Department to disclose and describe all “surveillance technology,” which it defines as “equipment, software, or system capable of, or used or designed for, collecting, retaining, processing, or sharing audio, video, location, thermal, biometric, or similar information.” The cops would have to post this information online annually and respond to public comments.

The effort is backed by such anti-antiterror stalwarts as the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Brennan Center. Manhattan Democrat Daniel Garodnick, a co-sponsor, says the measure would enhance public trust by giving citizens more knowledge about policing techniques.

We’ll see how long that trust lasts if the bill makes it easier for terrorists to thwart or evade the NYPD’s antiterror methods. That’s the legitimate worry of police who rely on technology and surveillance to prevent mass murder. A jihadist bombed Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood as recently as September and the department maintains on average three or four active terrorist investigations at any one time. John Miller, the NYPD’s counterterror chief, says police have foiled at least 25 major terror attacks since 9/11.

New York’s cops are as respectful of privacy as any in the country, and they need a court order to conduct searches or track a cellphone. They also comply with the court-ordered Handschu guidelines that impose additional due-process burdens.

An NYPD internal committee reviews these cases along with an external, civilian representative, who is currently former federal Judge Stephen Robinson. As if this weren’t enough, in 2014 the city council established an inspector general for the NYPD. The miracle is that the cops have been able to keep America safe despite all of this bureaucratic oversight and political second-guessing.

New York remains a pre-eminent terror target because of its size and importance as a symbol of American culture and commerce. The recent attacks in Britain show the jihadist threat to open societies hasn’t abated, and democracies need tools to defend themselves without offering terrorists a road map to thwart them.

The attack on congressmen last week illustrates the realities of sudden violence. There’s a saying among gun-carry permit advocates: “When seconds count, police are minutes away.”

That was not the case last week but only because Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s Capitol Police detail was on hand and courageously engaged the shooter. Had Rep. Scalise and his security team not been present, congressmen and their aides would have been easy pickings until local police arrived. That took three minutes—but that’s a long time to spend taking cover in a baseball dugout under armed assault. “It would have been a bloodbath,” said Texas Republican Joe Barton.

In largely rural states like Indiana, where I live, response times can be 30 minutes or more. Maybe that’s why nearly a million Hoosiers hold active gun permits, as per state records, out of an adult population of 4.5 million.

I’ve been one of them for decades. I’ve gone Christmas shopping armed, carried at family outings, sporting events and movie theaters. I was fired from a job with the gun tucked in an ankle holster. Aside from the indignity of being fired, the only person in danger was me, when I broke the news to my wife.

Indiana assumes—in the absence of evidence to the contrary—that people will protect themselves without reflexive, wanton violence. It works. A gun-use Venn diagram would show a mere sliver of overlap between those who lawfully carry weapons and those who use guns in the commission of crimes. You don’t find National Rifle Association stickers on getaway cars.

The inconvenient fact that laws aimed at restraining criminals are only obeyed by non-criminals was vividly demonstrated in this case. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.) reported that his aide “back in Georgia, carries a 9mm (pistol) in his car. . . . He had a clear shot at him, but here we’re not allowed to carry any weapons.”

Bad news for New York Republican Chris Collins, who said, “I can assure you from this day forth—I have a carry permit—I will be carrying when out and about.” Well, when he’s out and about on Capitol Hill he won’t be allowed to carry. He might be permitted to have a gun in his desk—unloaded. It will make a fine paperweight.

Mr. Collins’s New York state carry permit is recognized in Virginia, under expanding reciprocity laws that have extended permit rights beyond state lines. He could also carry in Indiana; our reciprocity rules are very liberal, in the least bossy sense of the term. But relying on his New York permit in Maryland or the District of Columbia would get Mr. Collins one phone call and a court date. CONTINUE AT SITE

Remember when Obama and Hillary cozied up to Putin? And recall when the media rejoiced at surveillance leaks about Team Trump?

The American Left used to lecture the nation about its supposedly paranoid suspicions of Russia. The World War II alliance with Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union had led many leftists to envision a continuing post-war friendship with Russia.

During the subsequent Cold War, American liberals felt that the Right had unnecessarily become paranoid about Soviet Russia, logically culminating in the career of the demagogic Senator Joe McCarthy. Later, in movies such as Seven Days in May, Doctor Strangelove, and The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming, Hollywood focused on American neuroses as much as Russian hostility for strained relations.

In the great chess rivalry of 1972 known as “The Match of the Century,” American liberals favored Russian grandmaster Boris Spassky over fellow countryman Bobby Fischer, who embarrassed them by winning.

In the same manner, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev was often portrayed in the media as the urbane, suave, and reasonable conciliator, while President Ronald Reagan was depicted as the uncouth disrupter of what could have been improved Russian–American relations.

Senator Ted Kennedy reportedly reached out to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov in 1984 to gain his help in denying Reagan his reelection.

In sum, the American Left always felt that Russia was unduly demonized by the American Right and was a natural friend, if not potential ally, of the United States. That tradition no doubt influenced the decision of the incoming Obama administration to immediately reach out to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, despite is recent aggressions in Georgia and steady crackdown on internal dissent, and despite Russia’s estrangement from the prior Bush administration.

Obama’s Entreaty to the Russians

In March 2012, in a meeting with President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia, President Barack Obama thought his microphone was either off or could not pick up the eerie assurances that he gave the Russian president:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

Medvedev answered: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . . ”

Obama agreed and elaborated, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev finished the hot-mic conversation with, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

A fair interpretation of this stealthy conversation would run as follows:

Barack Obama naturally wanted to continue a fourth year of his reset and outreach to Vladimir Putin, the same way that he was reaching out to other former American enemies such as the Iranians and the Cubans. Yet Obama was uneasy that his opponent, Mitt Romney, might attack him during his reelection campaign as an appeaser of Putin. Thus, to preempt any such attack, Obama might be forced to appear less flexible (offer less “space”) toward Putin than he otherwise would be in a non-election year. In other words, he couldn’t publicly assure Putin that he would be “flexible” about implementing missile defense in Eastern Europe (“all these issues”) until after he was reelected.

An apprehensive Obama, in his hot-mic moment, was signaling that after his anticipated victory, he would revert to his earlier reset with Putin. And most significantly, Obama wished Putin to appreciate in advance the motives for Obama’s campaign-year behavior. Or he at least hoped that Putin would not embarrass him by making international moves that would reflect poorly on Obama’s reset policy.