Month: May 2015

In a troubling new development, our volunteer human rights group Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has learned that a former, widely celebrated Baltimore City Police Officer, Peter Moskos, promotes a book which calls for the “flogging” (tortuous whipping) of prisoners, called “In Defense of Flogging,” which calls for whipping prisoners with a lash.

This news comes on the heels of the May 21, 2015 indictment of six Baltimore City Police Officers in the death of Freddie Gray (who died from a broken neck and spine), where such police have been indicted with charges ranging from “depraved heart” murder, reports that 2,600 arrested by Baltimore police were too injured to be put in jail, and the announcement of a U.S. Department of Justice civil rights investigation of the practices by the Baltimore police.

Peter Moskos is a celebrated former Baltimore City Police officer who recounted his police experience in a book “Cop in the Hood,” which has been praised by Baltimore police officials. Furthermore, this widely celebrated former Baltimore Police Officer is now teaching police tactics as a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where references and reviews for his book “In Defense of Flogging” are posted on the John Jay College web site.  In this book calling for attacks on human rights and human dignity, former Baltimore City Police Officer Peter Moskos also thanks “my colleagues and students at John Jay College of Criminal Justice” in his book defending flogging for all of their help, ideas, and comments, and efforts to help him get tenure, including John Jay College of Criminal Justice chairperson Maria (Maki) Haberfeld and Northeastern University Professor Peter K. Manning.

During our research, we have found this issue to involve many individuals with far-reaching impact to trust in law enforcement capability and the shared challenge to our human rights and safety, as explained in this article.

At the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Mr. Moskos is an Assistant Professor in the Law and Police Science Department, teaching young people on police science. His current class defends the controversial “broken windows” policy abused by NYC police officers, which led to the harassment and the police strangulation death of Eric Garner, is dismissed by Mr. Moskos when teaching police science.  His class notes state that those concerned about human rights issues involving the “broken windows” policy should be dismissed as:”Academics who stress ‘root causes’ and/or hold a Marxist anti-police view related to class oppression.”

In Mr. Moskos’ class notes, he provides a photo of Eric Garner being strangled to death (crying out “I can’t breathe”) on the ground by a police officer, which he flippantly dismisses as merely “bad policing.”   (This is who is teaching police science in college.)

In former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos’ “In Defense of Flogging” book,  he writes of his recommendations for torturous whipping as punishment to resolve prison overcrowding, which he states “flogging is much more humane (and economic) alternative” and that “[f]logging is refreshingly transparent and honest.” He writes that the history of slavery in America is no reason to not to support torturous whipping and flogging of those convicted of crimes, stating that the “legacy of racism is troublesome, to say the least, but it is not in and of itself a valid reason to favor incarceration over corporal punishment.”  He states: “To argue against flogging because of past and present racism sorely misses the point.”  Instead, he calls for whipping of convicted individuals, which would not be closed to the public, including perhaps relatives of the convicted to watch their loved ones be beaten with a whip.  Mr. Moskos does not like to call such cruel and unusual punishment as “torture,” because it is inconvenient for his argument.  He prefers the term “corporal punishment” which has a less “threatening” sound to free people.  He wants to make the brutal, violent, lashing of human beings somehow seem reasonable.

Mr. Moskos writes: “Punishment must cause pain.  Physical violence has the advantage of being honest, inexpensive, and easy to understand.”  This former Baltimore police officer promotes physical violence and torturous whipping as “honest,” while he dishonestly rejects our Constitution, our human rights, and the international laws of human rights our nation has agreed to uphold.  He then goes on to describe how “violence can have a lasting impact” to teach lessons to children.   Yet the John Jay College of Criminal Science thinks that a person with such views should be teaching our young people on police science; perhaps this speaks to the values and integrity of the leadership of John Jay College.

Former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos writes of how police  that he knows  wish they could live in a time where they could beat suspected criminals at will without legal consequences.  In his book “In Defense of Flogging”, he recounts the views of a retired police officer, who “miss[es] those days before Rodney King,”  and who says how he would offer suspects the opportunity to get physically beaten rather than go to jail, stating “I would ask one question: Do you want to go to jail or do you want to settle it right here?”  Mr. Moskos gives this as an example of “the potential benefits of legal and consensual corporate punishment.”

 

(UPDATE: On Twitter Peter Moskos denies ever writing this, and claims that R.E.A.L. “makes up quotes” about him, when R.E.A.L. quotes from his anti-human rights book.  But R.E.A.L. has screen shots of what he wrote in his book.)

In this book “In Defense of Flogging”, Mr. Moskos recommends  public torturous whipping in America of those convicted of crimes, stating: “There would be perhaps a dozen spectators, including  bailiffs, and other representatives of the court, a lawyer, a doctor, perhaps a court reporters, and maybe a few relatives of both parties, including the victim.  After the doctor’s approval, a guard would tie your arms and legs to a trestle-like whipping post designed specifically for this purpose.  This strange piece of furniture resembles a large and sturdy wooden artist’s easel, but in place of a painting or canvas, you would be tied somewhat spread-eagle to the front.  Once the guard takes down your pants, and adds a layer of padding over your back (to protect vital organs from errant strokes), the flogging would begin.  An expert trained in the use of the cane would lash your rear end for the prescribed number of times.”

Former Baltimore Police Officer (and current police science professor) Peter Moskos proposes the use a type of torture whipping post to be used to whip American citizens to ensure efficiency in beating them.  The Nazi German SS and Gestapo in their concentration camps also routinely used specialized whipping posts for “efficiency,” as part of their crimes against humanity.  Flogging was a preferred form of torture by the Nazi Germans against those they had captured and restrained, since like modern day bullies, the Nazis only knew how to fight as perverted cowards against those who could not fight back.

Former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos then describes how the prisoner is to be lashed, in his book, quoting foreign whipping procedures which he suggests should be used on Americans: “When caning, a warder, wielding a half an inch-thick and four feet long cane, uses the whole of his body weight, and not just the strength of his arms, to strike.  As a result, the skin at the point of contact is usually split open, and after three strokes, the buttocks will be covered with blood.  All the strokes prescribed by the court.. are give at one and the same time, at half minute intervals.”  He goes on to describe the foreign torture process with approval, writing that prisoners would “put up a violent struggle after each of the first three strokes.”  Then he quotes the foreign source: “After that, their struggles lessen as they become weaker.  At the end of the caning, those who receive more than three strokes will be in a state of shock.  Many will collapse, but the medical officer and his team of assistants are on hand to revive them and apply antiseptic on the caning wound.”   Peter Moskos goes on to suggest that “ten strokes” might be an average appropriate whipping, with “only ten brutal, skin-bursting, scar-creating lashes” as an alternative to jail.

Let’s be clear on something.  This flogging is not “paddling.”  These are violent acts to rip the skin off of someone’s body, with blood flowing down their body, and creating scars for life.  This monstrous torture is the text-book definition of the “cruel and unusual punishment” which is against the law in the United States and free nations.  Given the apparent lack of breath-taking disgust by too many on Mr. Moskos’ plan for America, I have contemplated showing what this really looks like with a still photo in this posting.  Instead, I have provided links for you to choose what information you need. We must recognize the depravity towards human rights which those calling for flogging must have.

Mr. Moskos’ recommendations  for enabling torturous whipping of American people depends on blackmailing convicted individuals given oppressive and extreme jail sentences that they can reduce their jail sentence, by voluntarily submitting to such torturous flogging.  Mr. Moskos reasons that by blackmailing people into “voluntary” flogging, this will prevent such cases to going to a Supreme Court which would readily oppose calls for criminal abuse of Americans in clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.  That is the same U.S. Constitution, which Mr. Moskos conveniently forgets to recall he swore an oath to support.

When Mr. Moskos’ “In Defense of Blogging” book was published, The Atlantic interviewed Mr. Moskos as a “Brave Thinker” on his calls for whipping prisoners, and he stated: “Other than fining people — if they have money — I can’t think of a better way to punish than physical pain.” In asking about how his role as a Baltimore police officer affected his calls for such degrading torture, Mr. Moskos stated that “My police background did cement for me the idea that our current system doesn’t work, and cops know that.” He told the Atlantic that “People get their ass whipped all the time. It’s a little precious to me, when I hear people who think we live in this perfect society say a little bit of corporal punishment is going to take us down the road to hell.”

Former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos’ offers suggestions to avoid the “messiness of flogging.” In his book “In Defense of Flogging,” he suggests: “Why not just build some kind of pain machine, push a button, and be done with it?  A machine, perhaps, much more than a person, could guarantee consistency of pain and also spare a person from having to administer the punishment.”  He is disappointed with the current inventions for such torture, writing, “If a flogging machine exists that can consistently and forcefully draw blood and still be less than lethal, I’ve yet to see it.”  He continues to offer alternatives to torturing convicts using electric shock using “conducted energy devices” (e.g., Tasers) to torture convicts for corporal punishment.  (In February 2015, R.E.A.L. reported on the killing by electrocution of mentally ill Natasha McKenna in Fairfax, Virginia jail, by lunatics with badges, using taser guns on her while she was restrained.)

With no sense of the delusion or irony in his corrupt statements, former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos states in this book that “Flogging could restore legitimacy to a criminal justice system that is in desperate need of it.”

In Mr. Moskos’ book, he directly links his calls for violence to friends of his within Baltimore, including quoting one anonymous Baltimore native who he calls “a friend of mine, a retired ranking African American police officer: “When I was growing up in Baltimore, police would whup your ass.  I don’t think that was such a bad thing.  I’m pro-corporal punishment.”  He praises the idea of “beat and release” of suspects by police, and then seeks to extend this concept to  rationalize institutionalized flogging of American citizens.  Mr. Moskos states: “Because corporal punishment may often be preferable to arrest, who not offer flogging as a legalized form of the old ‘beat and release’?”

While Mr. Moskos writes about praising of the “old ‘beat and release'” approach in his book “In Defense of Flogging,” he also points out in his previous book “Cop in the Hood” how “police love talking about beatings.” In his “acclaimed” “Cop in the Hood” book, he described how Baltimore police held citizens in contempt, writing:  “One officer said, ‘[People in the Eastern District are] drugged-out, lazy, mother******. These people don’t want to work. They want to sit on their ass, collect welfare, get drunk and make babies. Let them shoot each other.”

[Let’s also provide perspective – Peter Moskos’ blog where he regularly advertises for his book, “In Defense of Flogging” that promotes the whipping and beating of criminals.  His blog is “Awarded ‘Top 50 Criminal Justice Blogs,’ by Criminal Justice Degree Schools, Awarded ‘Top 20 Criminal Justice Blogs’ by Excite Education. ”  So if you think our problem is just with a hand full of untrained, individual extremists in law enforcement, you are missing the POINT.]

Mr. Moskos has also been writing about the current police situation which led to Freddie Gray’s death, where Mr. Moskos’ focus is only on those outraged by this killing, calling the protesters “ghetto boys,” while he continues to refuse to find fault with the Baltimore Police involved in the Freddie Gray’s death.   Mr. Moskos was also invited by CNN to comment on the Baltimore protests, he stated that “The ghetto, and I’m talking class and not race, was on full display.”

After six Baltimore police were arrested for the death of Freddie Gray on May 1, 2015, Mr. Moskos then charted a rise in crime and murder at his “Cop in the Hood” website, as Baltimore Police reportedly chose to be less active in pursuing criminals.   Our justice system is not a hostage negotiation.  Americans have the simultaneous right to believe that members of law enforcement will be responsible in their duties, both in performing them, as well as not murdering suspects, because it convenient, they enjoy it, or they believe they have impunity from the very laws that have sworn to uphold.

But Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore Police officer who is teaching police science, argues that it is right for Baltimore Police officers not to enforce the law.  On May 20, 2015, Peter Moskos stated that he viewed the Baltimore murder rate rise as “I attribute it almost exclusively to cops (for good reason) not doing any proactive police work.”

How can someone who believes that police should not do their job teach police science to students?  But then again, who would think a person calling for pain machines to torture those arrested for crimes would be in such a position of influence either?  The answer to both of these questions have troubling implications for American justice, security, and human rights.

On Mr. Moskos’ website for his book “Cop in the Hood” on his Baltimore Police Department work, he also describes how he enjoyed it when Baltimore police made sick jokes about murdered victims and their mutilated bodies. Mr. Moskos writes: “Granted it may not look good to be laughing over a dead body (especially if the victim’s relatives are nearby…) but hey, you gotta have fun.”

This is the level of contempt we see by extremists toward the very dignity of human life itself.  How can we allow such extremists to represent the American people in a system of justice?  How can we allow extremists to believe they will have IMPUNITY from consequences when they call for violence or commit violence against the American people?

This problem is, sadly, not unique to Baltimore, as we have seen especially over the past year.   But the Baltimore example provides an opportunity to examine the depth and degree of depravity among extremists within the law enforcement community, who believe that American citizens are inferior and that their law enforcement authority grants them superior rights in judging what our human rights are, what dignity  we can be granted, and even deciding the value of our lives as human beings.  They don’t have that superiority, and the American people will not grant them such superiority.  Our friends in the justice community need to recognize this as the wake-up call for badly needed reform that is becoming an emergency situation.

These extremists have come to believe they can act with an arrogant disrespect for the American people, impunity in accountability for their actions, and a CONTEMPT for the very United States Constitution which they swore to uphold.

The Baltimore City Police Oath of Office is “I solemnly do swear, that I will support the Constitution of the United States, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the state of Maryland, and support the Constitutional laws thereof, that I will do to best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality and prejudice, execute the office of law enforcement officer, according to the Constitution and the laws of this state.”

Amendment 8 of the United States Constitution forbids such “cruel and unusual punishment” as torture by flogging or other “cruel and unusual punishment.”  It was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and it states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  The Eighth Amendment was largely inspired by the savage whipping of Titus Oates by King James II, in rejection of savage inhuman behavior proposed by former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos. This Constitutional clause is not only a legal responsibility for the federal government, but also it was ruled in 1947 by the Supreme Court as the legal responsibility for state government. In their discussion of this law in the Continental Congress, our founding fathers specifically called out “whipping” as such cruel and unusual punishments, when they created the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. Constitution is the LAW.

Such unequivocal rejection of inhuman, degrading, and tortuous behavior as “flogging” is a fundamental aspect of our shared universal human rights, accepted by the United States, the United Nations, and nations which reject totalitarianism. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted on December 10, 1948, by the United Nations and signed by the United States, states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The UDHR was adopted after World War II, in the wake of atrocities by Nazi Germany.  Article 5 of the UDHR incorporated as international law as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Part III, Article 7, signed by the United States on October 5, 1977, and ratified on June 8, 1992.  Furthermore, such whipping is even a violation of the Geneva Convention.  Should we be unable to contain extremists within our own law enforcement, will the American people be forced to call upon the allied United Nations to enforce international law for our protection from such extremists?  Other world powers are rightly concerned about the broken dam of human rights violations which are soiling our nation’s reputation around the world.

The law is the law – for everyone – including extremists in law enforcement, who believe that they are somehow above the law and the boundaries of human rights and dignity.

It is typically the role of Responsible for Equality And Liberty to defy tyrants and criminals abusing human rights and dignity in totalitarian nations, where the basic rights of minorities are oppressed.  We are used to openly protesting the criminals in the Taliban, the war criminals committing genocide in Sudan, dictators, and totalitarian nations who deny human rights and dignity to their people.

In his book, Peter Moskos openly mocks such universal human rights, international law, and those seeking to defend such rights, while he uses the examples of extremist and dictatorial nations as a rationale to argue that his suggestions to whip the American people would  somehow be workable.   This is wrong.

In challenging human rights abuses, we understand the history of the UDHR, signed on December 10, 1948, comes from a global response to the crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany.  This included the genocidal Holocaust against Jews and their atrocities against human life, wherever it suited them.   They believed they had “authority,” but they were criminals against human rights, international law, and human decency.

The Nazi criminals created  a Lagerordnung, which was the “Disciplinary and Penal Code” first for the Dachau concentration camp, and then for all Nazi concentration camps.  The Nazi concentration camps had an emphasis on flogging their prisoners, and they had an organized set of number of whippings that would be associated with “offenses.”  The Nazi punishments and floggings within the Lagerordnung were the creation of  SS-Oberführer Theodor Eicke.  The criminal Eicke’s lust for extreme violence had previously led to him being committed for evaluation at a psychiatric clinic at the University of Würzburg.  However,  Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (SS) Heinrich Himmler had him released to manage the concentration camps, and add the flogging punishments to the Nazi camps’ torture methods.  (Himmler was the driving force behind the Holocaust.)

The lunatic Nazis did not contain their degrading violence only to the concentration camps, but also extended the campaigns of terror against humanity throughout Europe.  The Nazi campaign of physical abuse, flogging, whipping, and beatings, created a short path to simply murdering those who did not follow their rules.  This included flogging Greeks and other Europeans to death, in country after country, after they occupied that nation.  Reports from London newspapers and around the world spread the message of the insane Nazi violence and torture against Jews and others.

The Nazis monstrous behavior accomplished only one long-term goal; it unified people across the world in every walk of life to see the defeat of such profound and obvious enemies of humanity.  The Nazi fascists believed their reign of terror would cow the people of the world; they believed humanity would live in fear of their torture and contempt for human life.  The fascists found out instead, that, once roused, the human race could and would crush them and their tools of terror into the ground.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the War Crimes Tribunals held trials on such criminals, and sought surviving members of the concentration camps to testify.  Such testimony included examples of how Nazis performed flogging.

Such contempt for human rights, human dignity, and freedom has outraged human rights groups and human conscience around the world, before and after the defeat of the Nazi crimes against humanity.

We have continued to such contempt for freedom, human rights, and dignity in nations such as Malaysia, where Sharia courts order floggings for women having extramarital sex, nearly 50,000 immigrants for migration violations, and other offenses; this has included Malaysia flogging a Muslim woman for the “crime” of drinking a beer.  Malaysia is notorious for its intolerance for religious freedom, with a religious police force, banning freedom of expression and wholesale of religions, as reported in the 2015 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedoms (USCIRF).   We have seen such violations of human rights and dignity in Singapore, led by a political dictatorship, denying freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and contempt for human dignity through a policy of whipping those convicted of crimes.

We have continued to see reports of Nazi-inspired criminal sickness and flogging by madmen among the Taliban terrorists, whipping of Christians by ISIS in Iraq, Sudan’s genocidal leaders whipping women into submission, totalitarian thugs in Saudi Arabia whipping those who dare to express their opinion, Boko Haram whipping people in Nigeria, whippings in Iran of children, women’s rights activists, journalists, and prisoners of conscience, flogging of women, and even pregnant teenage girls, in Maldives, and other areas where human rights activists continue to struggle for human freedom of our fellow human beings living in oppression.   This has included a law passed in Nigeria which for the round-up and flogging of gays.

Human rights groups challenge such depraved and despicable crimes against our fellow human being’s dignity around the world.   We call for justice and international law to be applied to such vile inhuman behavior by criminals against our society.

What is next?  Do we have to expand the current wave of protests against such human rights criminals among law enforcement here in the United States of America?  We cannot say such crimes against our fellow human beings are wrong in other nations, and remain silent about those criminals here, especially those in authority, who plot and perform crimes against human rights and human dignity.

In his “Defense of Flogging” book, former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos mocks the efforts by the UN Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International‘s condemnation of flogging as cruel, degrading, and contrary to human rights law, writing that “the corporal-punishment holdouts seem to apply flogging with unrepentant zeal.  Malaysia flogs perhaps 16,000 people a year.  Singapore, with a population one-fifth of Malaysia, canes more than 6,000 a year.”

Mr. Moskos apparently decided that using Malaysia and Singapore as successful examples of his strategy to whip the American people would be more convincing to many of the American people who know nothing about these nations — as opposed to, for example, using such examples as the Taliban terrorists, Saudi Arabian extremists, or Sudanese war criminals, doing the same thing.

Let’s take a closer look at the more “reasonable” nations Mr. Moskos chooses as examples for America to follow – in flogging our citizens.

Malaysia has largely defied human freedoms for decades under its dictatorial Internal Security Act, allowing for imprisonment without trials, etc., as a typical totalitarian state.  It has since been replaced by a new repressive Security Offences (Special Measures) Act.  It’s government has a draconian religious police force to monitor and oppress its people, especially women.  In Malaysia, we have repeatedly seen criminals burn down Christian churches and Hindu temples.  Mr. Moskos’ favorite nation for flogging is on the watch list as a nation which prohibits religious freedoms by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms.  Freedom of speech is denied, and violent national protests occurred when a Catholic used the word “Allah.”  This is the type of nation Mr. Moskos wants America to become.

By the way, let’s not forget the conferences held in Malaysia by the anti-democracy group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.  This the same Hizb ut-Tahrir whose reading material was key in Osama Bin Laden’s library, and which has been a long time advocate against human rights, human dignity, and equality. By the way, that is also the same Malaysia, where Al Qaeda plotters and a former Malaysia military officer met to plan the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole.

A more convenient example for Mr. Moskos is Singapore, which doesn’t have those pesky distractions of Malaysia’s religious police forces, burning churches, and Al Qaeda meetings, which don’t help his argument to use them as a model to argue for the flogging of the American people.  He counts on the American people to really know NOTHING about Singapore.

In his book “In Defense of Flogging,” former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos  stated that he traveled to Singapore to learn more about their flogging procedures, so he could recommend them for the United States of America.   Much of the content of his methods of torture are based on Singapore practices used to whip their people.

As has been reported, the Singapore government has been run for over 40 years by a political dictatorship, run by a Lee Kuan Yew, who was a functional dictator of Singapore, up until his death in March 2015.  Any criticism of the government have been met  either with crushing financial lawsuits to silence dissent and disagreements, or simply arresting those who make critical statements that his government views as offensive unacceptable.  Some political prisoners have languished in Singapore jails for over 30 years.

In Singapore, as Mr. Yew’s son takes over as the new functional dictator of Singapore, nothing will change in terms of denial of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.  In fact, if anything freedoms will become even more restricted.  You have the right to freedom of expression in Singapore as long as you say what the government wants you to say.  You have the freedom of media as long as it is run by the Singapore government.  You have freedom of religion as long as it is a religion that the Singapore government accepts, and that you register your religion with the government.  Singapore denies religious freedom to the Jehovah Witness and Unification Church members.  Homosexual activity is illegal.  It confiscates Bibles used by those who seek to share their faith, and it denies the right of members of a faith to evangelize with others.  In short, it is a dictatorship.

But most telling of Mr. Moskos’ model nation of Singapore is how it treats its children.  Teenager Amos Lee recently made a video critical of the Singapore leader and critical of Jesus Christ’s views.  In most nations, no one would have even heard of this video.  But in Singapore, the dictatorship arrests this teenager for his free speech.  This is how much they ensure “law and order,” Mr. Moskos, by ensuring that there is no free speech, no free media, no free politics, no free religion, and even teenagers get arrested and thrown in jail from speaking their mind.  This is the type of nation Mr. Moskos wants to emulate in his calls for flogging American people.  What cowardly “tough guys” – arresting teenage children – but just like those who call for flogging to beat our citizens into submission, some seek to use their authority to silence those who criticize their views.  Criminals are a cowardly lot – especially those who use their office, their influence, and even a badge to conceal their black hearts and craven souls.

If you have read this far, you probably have been wondering to yourself, what could anyone really need to know about such a disgusting situation?  Really, what more do you need to know, right?  Anyone in their right mind would immediately conclude that Peter Moskos’ calls to flog the American people are utterly insane.   That’s exactly what I thought too, until I realized to my horror and disbelief that wasn’t quite true.  In fact, Peter Moskos’ call for flogging violence against Americans is not some isolated extremist within the law enforcement community that we should ignore.  Furthermore, where has CNN been, where has the Washington Post been, where has the Atlantic been, where has Time Magazine been – in rejecting Mr. Moskos’ calls for flogging the American people as the absurd lunacy that it is? Because they all knew about this, but they didn’t challenge him.  In fact, some of them promoted him.

That is how far the moral compass in this nation has gone astray.

Where has John Jay College been – you would think chairperson Maria (Maki) Haberfeld  really would not want the college associated with calls to flog the American people, let alone be named in the book itself as someone Mr. Moskos thanks for all her help, along with the college, right?  You would expect at least she wouldn’t want her name or the college’s name inside the book.  But the truth is they haven’t objected.  The reason is as crystal clear, as it is sickeningly disheartening; that is because they don’t object to it.

Nor is Peter Moskos alone – and that is the real point of this article.   Among the other 50 names of people in Mr. Moskos’ book “In Defense of Flogging” are several senior professors in criminal justice and police science, who are also teaching our children today – the next generation of our police.   Mr. Moskos did not come up with such views on whipping the American people on his own.  Mr. Moskos was TAUGHT such  support for violence,  mentored by another professor who views human rights and dignity is merely “narcissistic.” This goes beyond states and goes beyond generations, with who knows how many extremists teaching our young people in police science and criminal justice.

One of the other professors of criminal justice mentioned in former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos’ book on “In Defense of Flogging” is Graeme Newman, “Distinguished Teaching Professor”, University of Albany, State University of New York, School of Criminal Justice.  Mr. Newman is also an Associate Director with the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, which has its next conference at the Doubletree at Hilton in Portland, Oregon on October 19-21, 2015  with the Portland Police Bureau (I will try to attend, Mr. Newman).  Mr. Newman, originally from Australia, supported the  Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Division of the United Nations (of all things).  Furthermore, Mr. Graeme Newman was more than a “help” to Mr. Moskos’ call for violent flogging of American people; he was an ideological mentor to Mr. Moskos.  In fact, Mr. Newman had written his own book calling for cruel and unusual punishment against Americans (in rejection of our Constitution and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights) entitled: “Just and Painful – A Case for the Corporal Punishment of Criminals.”

In Mr. Newman’s book, he calls for electric shock and whipping of those convicted of crimes in America, and he dismisses those who reject such claims as barbaric that they are only narcissists about their bodies.

Peter Moskos’ mentor, Mr. Newman, goes beyond this, and rejects the concept of human dignity itself, stating “[t]he recognition of the sovereignty of each person’s physical being has come quite late. And although we gave up eating each other very early in the history of Western Civilization, we were unable to give up mangling the bodies of criminals and prisoners of war until very late indeed-some would say only a decade ago if we consider the atrocities of the Vietnam war.”    Mr. Newman continues that “Our revulsion at mutilations is also conditioned by the fact that we have, in large part, become ‘disembodied’ in our relationships with each other. Much more emphasis is placed today on the person as a ‘psychological entity’ rather than on a person as a ‘thing’ or ‘body’ as was, perhaps, the perception of people in the days when slavery was considered the normal state of affairs.”  He states that “Today is also the age of ‘narcissism’-that is, love of one’s own body or self, and this is perhaps expressed through the extreme view of the body as being inviolable, sacred, private, except for very specific sexual and medical purposes.”

So the real obstacle, in Mr. Newman’s mind, is not the barbaric nature of whipping, mutilations, and torture.  Instead, he views that our problem is our “narcissism” with the human body, and the idea (which he apparently rejects) that we have an inherent human dignity as individuals, beyond our bodies which can be used as “things,” such as “slaves,” for example.

In Chapter 5 of Mr. Newman’s book, he calls “Electric Shock: The Fairest Punishment of All.”   He states that “[i]n the form of carefully controlled electric shocks, such a punishment does not mutilate,”  which Mr. Newman views as “cheaper, more effective.” In this book, Mr. Newman talks about levels of voltage to electrically shock American convicts, and writes of studies that state “whites will tolerate more pain than blacks,” that the  young and women would be able to withstand pain better, although he believes these studies are inconclusive, and he believes electric shock would be appropriate punishments for American convicts.  But where electric shock would not be effective, Mr. Newman also calls for other whipping and corporal punishment in what he calls “A Punishment Manifesto.”   Incredibly a teacher of criminal justice mostly ignores the Constitution of the United States in calling for such cruel and unusual punishments, except for one chapter where he expresses his views that the Supreme Court could somehow be persuaded to support such torture.  He hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of corporal punishment (Weems v. U.S.), will provide sufficiently ambiguous case law to encourage future challenges to his proposed cruel and unusual punishment.  He hopes that the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution, and he guides lawyers defending such torture to be concerned about Justice Blackman’s opinion on Jackson v. Bishop, where he categorically rejected corporal punishment as a violation of the Eighth Amendmen to the Constitution (Justice Blackman died in 1999).

Mr. Newman’s book was in 1985 – 30 years ago.  But for 43 years, Mr. Newman has been a professor teaching at the University of Albany, State University of New York, School of Criminal Justice.  For 30 years, Mr. Newman’s calls for electric shock and whipping of criminals had no adverse affect on Mr. Newman’s role in continuing teaching of criminal justice to our children.  Was the United Nations aware of Mr. Newman’s calls for electric shock and whipping of criminals when they hired him?  How are calls for such cruel and unusual torture by its faculty acceptable to the University of Albany or Dean Alan Lizotte?  Will training in electric shock and whipping find its way on the course listing?

In fact, there will be no impact, no response, and no rejection by the University of Albany, or any of the colleges associated with law enforcement training involving those who call for whipping, electric shock, and God Knows how many other types of mutilations and torture against Americans.  Apparently, some of these colleges even agree with contemptible ideas against human rights.

This report merely addresses two layers of a very dark and diseased onion.  God Knows what more we will find as more and more detailed human rights investigation is conducted.  Part of the problem is that some depraved individuals think that flogging and electric shock against our fellow human beings is somehow funny.  They think the word “flogging” is some plaything for musical bands and entertainment, while human rights activists passionately seek the protection for people tortured and abused in totalitarian and terrorist nations around the country.

But in our passion for global justice and human rights, have we taken our eyes off of the United States of America?  It is right for the world to question such human rights atrocities.  If our great nation seeks to promote values of equality, liberty, justice, and human rights around the world, then we must also be accountable when we too fail such standards.  Our universal human rights are – UNIVERSAL.

This corruption in contempt for our Constitution, human rights, and human dignity in those teaching our police is not only within multiple colleges and universities, but also it is multi-generational.  We can see now that too many extremists in law enforcement are teaching depraved heart values toward human rights, human dignity, and human life.  Those who abuse their authority are not just random criminal abusers; the Baltimore police who killed Freddie Gray, those in Ferguson, New York City, and cities around the nation are being TAUGHT that contempt for human life and human dignity is acceptable in our law enforcement.

We must not, can not, and will not accept such attacks on human rights in the United States of America.

To those like former Baltimore Police Officer Peter Moskos who believe that human rights activists are not concerned with the real needs of law enforcement, let me completely introduce myself.

In addition to my role as founder of the volunteer human right group Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L), I am also Jeffrey Imm, retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Every day I worked there, I was reminded of our commitment to Fidelity, Bravery, and most of all.. INTEGRITY.

We cannot defend those extremists in our justice community, who reject the Constitution of the United States, our universal human rights, and the truths we hold self-evident – by their words, tactics, and actions.  The problem is NOT with our standards of human rights and our respect for human dignity; it is with the institutional aspects of those in our justice community that would tolerate such contempt for human rights, that would tolerate abuse against our fellow human beings’ rights and dignity, and that even tolerate murder of our fellow citizens when there is not a camera to capture such atrocities.  It is unacceptable and unconscionable to every patriotic American.

We cannot trust one another if we don’t share fundamental values in human rights and human dignity.   Without that trust, we don’t have a justice system. There are some who think that would be acceptable.

But not here.  Without a trusted justice system, we have no organized way for the daily enforcement of laws designed to protect our human rights.  So those who love human rights cannot allow and cannot accept a broken justice system in America.  Those love justice also cannot allow and cannot accept law enforcement practices which defy our Constitution, human rights, and human dignity.  The influence and authority of extremists within our nation’s justice community must  end.  We cannot fight a Taliban mentality towards humanity, both abroad and at home.

To the extremists who have infiltrated our justice community, the American people will not let you continue to do this to our country.  We may have been naive, ignorant, and uninformed.  We may have let our guard down.   But just like the world awakened and responded to past threats, so it will again today.   Extremists may mock us today, just like tryants and oppressors of the past have, but the voice of a nation  defiant to criminal oppression is being heard.

The extremists might defeat one or two, one or two hundred, one or two thousand, even one or two million of the American people.  But we have another 300 million Americans right behind us.  From coast to coast, we will stand united – responsible for equality and liberty.

We will start here with an impassioned call for an American Justice Movement from among diverse citizen activists, educational groups, media, and our many, many friends in government and the justice community.  We will call for volunteers in this movement to watch and challenge extremists and extremist violence in any area of our justice community threatening the rights,  integrity, dignity of our nation, but most of all the Constitution of the United States of America.  We call for those who swore the OATH to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America – from ALL enemies – foreign or domestic: members of our federal justice community, members of our Armed Forces, and members of every government area – federal, state, local – who share our absolute rejection and contempt for extremists which have infiltrated the ranks of the justice community we honor as an integral part of our nation.

If you haven’t taken the oath, well, maybe now would be a good time.  My fellow Americans, your country and your Constitution needs you now.

To those of you Americans who have not had a chance to take the OATH, let us end here by giving you an opportunity to commit to the defense of our Constitution:

Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

God Bless the United States of America – we will not fail you.

 

 

Footnote – no one in the Baltimore Sun is remotely interested in even being aware of this story.  We have the names of all the reporters R.E.A.L. has contacted on this.