Editorials from around South Carolina: Gitmo detainees at Hanahan, police videos, drones v. privacy

No terroristsat Hanahan brig

(T)his protracted struggle should not require the placement of dangerous terror detainees, including confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in any U.S. population center — including our community.

Unfortunately and unwisely, though, the Obama administration is seriously considering relocating such prisoners at the Navy brig in Hanahan. Under that scenario, the Charleston area would become the new home of the inmates now housed at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Still, the Defense Department plans to evaluate the Navy brig in Hanahan as a potential site for the detainees from Guantanamo.

Again, though, this is a densely populated area — and increasingly so.

Objecting to this idea is not NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) whining. It’s common sense — and would be just as applicable if the administration wanted to put those prisoners in any other highly populated place.

Drones v. privacy

Many states are looking at regulations to govern the use of drones by private operators and government agencies, Greenville News staff writer Amy Clarke Burns reported last week. …

South Carolina lawmakers likely will look at legislation next year that will suggest some regulations for drones. One proposed bill would outlaw the use of drones over private property, Burns reported. A challenge here, though, is that a homeowner or business doesn’t own the air above a piece of property.

State Sen. Thomas Alexander is right that some guidelines are in order. Those should strive to safeguard legitimate uses of drones while also protecting the privacy and property rights of residents of South Carolina.

Right now, for example, real estate agencies are creatively using drones to better capture images of a piece of property that’s for sale. Law enforcement can use drones to search for a missing person and help with crowd control at a large event.

Lawmakers will be challenged to find the proper balance between the rights of a property owner and those of the hobbyist or business owning the drone. It can be done, however.

Police videos

The details of a North Charleston police shooting that came to light because of a bystander’s cell phone video prompted the outcry about equipping policemen with body cameras to provide a record of incidents — a record which could become evidence in an investigation and subsequent court case, and a record which can assure the public that police are not hiding wrongdoing by one of their own.

The State Law Enforcement Division and the legal establishment in South Carolina won praise for the way they handled the case against officer Michael Slager, making public the dashboard-camera videos and other records in the case in which he fatally shot Walter Scott in the back after a traffic stop in April. What has happened since is the opposite of actions needed to build more trust between police and public.

While dashboard-camera videos and records such as 911 tapes previously have been released to the press and public under provisions of the S.C. Freedom of Information Act, those public records are frequently being withheld now. …

As important as it is for SLED and law enforcement across the state to conduct thorough and unbiased investigations, it is equally important that the public be provided every bit of information to assure people their public servants are worthy of the public trust. In the short term, the people of South Carolina can hope the courts intervene to order release of the videos and other public records.

This story was originally published August 26, 2015 at 2:44 PM with the headline "Editorials from around South Carolina: Gitmo detainees at Hanahan, police videos, drones v. privacy."