“It does not hinder policing, but the admin part is clogging up the works.”53 The most
frequently noted hindrance, particularly by law enforcement respondents, is the
amount of paperwork created for sergeants by the consent decree, which has a direct
result of keeping them off the streets.
“We are seeing blatant discretionary policing, where a cop can just walk by a
violator because they don’t feel like filling out the paperwork, so the violator feels
above the law, compounding propensity to commit crimes.”54
Surprisingly, it was NOPD respondents who said that the consent decree is not the
burdensome yoke others perceive it to be. While it may have been a difficult
adjustment for veteran NOPD officers, they said, new officers who have only known
policing under the consent decree do not feel tethered by it, as they have no other
comparison.
F.
Risk of Terrorism & Critical Security Incidents
The risk of terrorism – specifically mass shootings and vehicular attacks – remains highly
possible while moderately probable.
The two modes of terror attack most likely to be used are vehicular ramming and active
shooting. Both international and domestic terrorists have turned to these methods as a
cheap low-tech alternative to complex bomb plots, particularly in the case of lone wolf
attacks. Considering that the most high-profile target in New Orleans – Bourbon Street
– is an open air thoroughfare with little to no access control reinforces the rationale for
these two methods.
Aside from serving as a general deterrent, the larger police presence that Interfor and
nearly all stakeholders are advocating would ensure a quicker armed response to an
active shooter. To illustrate the fact, one need look no further than the August 4, 2019
active shooter attack in Dayton, Ohio. In this tragic act of terror, nine people were killed
and an additional seventeen were shot within thirty-two seconds of when the gunman
opened fire, at which point he was neutralized by the substantial police force in the
nearby vicinity. Sadly, the carnage would likely be far worse in the area of Bourbon
Street, where no evidence of a substantial quick reaction force ready to face a similar
threat was observed.
Increased visibility and a larger show of force also raise the chances to disrupt potential
terror attacks during the planning phase. Historically, the majority of intended attacks
which have been thwarted were detected during the planning phase, when would-be
53 NOPD Officer
54
A restauranteur
-37-
INTERFOR INTERNATIONAL

US President Joe Biden has blocked a $15bn deal by Japan’s Nippon Steel to buy US Steel, delivering a setback to Washington’s relations with its closest Asia-Pacific ally and prompting the companies to threaten legal action.

Biden, who has long been opposed to the purchase, issued an order on Friday compelling Nippon and US Steel “to fully and permanently abandon the proposed transaction” within 30 days.

In response, the two companies labelled the move “a clear violation of due process” and the law. In an indication of possible legal action, they added: “Following President Biden’s decision, we are left with no choice but to take all appropriate action to protect our legal rights.”

A clause in the original agreement with US Steel obliges Nippon to pay a $565mn break-fee payment in the event the deal is blocked.

Biden’s extraordinary intervention, which comes with just 17 days remaining of his term, caps a presidency in which he has sought to boost American jobs and has moved away from the free-trade agenda of previous administrations.

It is also likely to raise concerns about US receptiveness to future foreign investment, with president-elect Donald Trump, who won November’s election on a protectionist platform, also opposing the deal.

The companies said it was “shocking and deeply troubling that the US government would . . . treat an ally like Japan in this way”.

They added: “Unfortunately, it sends a chilling message to any company based in a US-allied country contemplating significant investment in the US.”

In the order, Biden said there was “credible evidence” that through the acquisition, Nippon “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States”.

The Committee on Foreign Investment, which vets foreign acquisitions, failed to reach a consensus by a December 23 deadline on whether the transaction posed a national security threat.

The companies said the president had not presented any “credible evidence of a national security issue”, adding that “instead of abiding by the law, the process was manipulated to advance President Biden’s political agenda”.

They added the Cfius process “was deeply corrupted by politics, and the outcome was pre-determined”.

Biden’s intervention marks the failure of Nippon Steel’s ambitious expansion plan that morphed into a sensitive political issue in a US election year.

The decision by the outgoing president, who is known for his support for organised labour, follows fierce opposition to the deal from the United Steelworkers union. The group’s campaign proved fatal to the purchase, despite intense lobbying in recent weeks from executives at US Steel and Nippon.

The White House said Biden’s decision was not meant as a snub to Tokyo.

“This isn’t about Japan. It’s about US steelmaking,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said on Friday. It is about “keeping one of the largest steel producers in the United States an American-owned company. It is not about the extraordinary, close relationship, any alliance, that we have with Japan.”

US Steel shares were down more than 6 per cent after the decision.

Opponents of the takeover welcomed Biden’s decision.

Sherrod Brown, the outgoing Democratic senator from Ohio, wrote on X: “This deal . . . represented a clear threat to America’s national and economic security and our ability to enforce our trade laws. It’s why we fought it every step of the way. The president is right to block it.”

Biden’s move to quash the deal will leave the fate of US Steel in limbo. The company had warned it might close mills and reduce its workforce, possibly moving its headquarters away from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, if the agreement was blocked.

Nippon’s proposed takeover had attracted significant support in parts of the US that would have benefited from the promised investment and technology from the Japanese company.

William Chou, deputy director of the Japan chair at the Hudson Institute think-tank, said the decision would devastate the steelmaking communities in western Pennsylvania and Indiana.

“President Biden talks about protecting the American steel industry, but only in the abstract,” he added. “At no point did he engage with actual steelworkers, or address the technology needed to empower them to safeguard the steel industry.”

Japanese officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have previously said that, while they understood the risk of political intervention that Nippon faced when launching a bid ahead of a US presidential election, it was baffling that a Japanese company should be labelled a security risk.

Heino Klinck, a former US deputy assistant secretary for defence for east Asia, said it was “ironic and nonsensical” that national security concerns were being cited as rationale for blocking the deal, because Japan hosted the world’s largest presence of the US’s forward-deployed military forces.

“This decision will cast a shadow on the alliance,” he said. “It is indeed unfortunate that the Biden administration has handed the Chinese Communist party yet another talking point on America not being a reliable partner.”

Additional reporting by Steff Chávez

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is calling on Congress to require health warning labels that inform consumers about the link between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer.

Murthy released a new advisory detailing how drinking alcohol increases the risk of developing seven types of cancer.

“Alcohol is the third leading preventable cause of cancer behind tobacco and obesity,” Murthy, who will leave office later this month, told NPR. “Just to put this in perspective, alcohol is responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer in the United States each year and 20,000 cancer deaths.”

He told Morning Edition‘s Steve Inskeep that the seven cancers linked to alcohol consumption are breast, colorectal, esophagus, liver, mouth, throat and voice box (larynx).

“Most people don’t know about this link. And that’s the key reason why I’m putting out this advisory today,” Murthy said.

Murthy spoke with Morning Edition about the risk of alcohol consumption and the incoming surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Inskeep: Is the science more definite than a few years ago? Do we know more about this link?

Murthy: We do. The science has been building for years, creating greater and greater certainty about more and more types of cancer. But what is clear is that while people know, for example, about the link between tobacco and cancer and other health risks and cancer, less than half of people in America know that alcohol is, in fact, connected to cancer risk.

Inskeep: Does it matter if you drink a lot or in moderation?

Murthy: It turns out it does. It turns out that more consumption of alcohol increases your risk of cancer. So we see significantly lower risk at lower levels of consumption.

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy speaks during an event on the White House in April. The nation’s top doctor has issued an advisory about the public health risks of widespread gun violence.

Susan Walsh/AP

hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Susan Walsh/AP

Inskeep: I’m thinking about how to measure this risk. It sounds pretty bad, but there are so many risks with alcohol. In fact, there are already warnings about drinking during pregnancy, drinking while driving, obviously operating machinery, various other health problems. Is cancer even the main thing to worry about here?

Murthy: Well, it’s interesting that you mention those other risks, because on alcohol-containing bottles, there is, in fact, a surgeon general’s warning that mentions these two risks: drinking during pregnancy and drinking while operating a car or heavy machinery.

What I have called for in this advisory is that the surgeon general’s warning label be updated by Congress to include a third risk here, which is the risk of cancer. You know, we’ve seen in the first two cases that when people were warned about these risks, they became part of our common knowledge. They sort of just shape our behavior.

What I want people to know here is that, while we don’t have data to give a precise level at which every person can drink and minimize their risk of cancer, the exact level that’s right for each individual does depend on their own risk of cancer based on their genetics, their family history, environmental exposures.

The two critical things that the data does tell us are that, one, there is a significant increase in risk of cancer going from, you know, even at the current levels, that are within the guidelines. So that’s one drink a day for women, two drinks a day for men. But second, that the patterns we see suggest lower consumption is equated with lower risk.

So the bottom line is, if you drink regularly, keep in mind that less is better when it comes to reducing your cancer risk.

Inskeep: I want to note for people you’re heading out of office Jan. 20. President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a replacement, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, who’s a Fox News contributor, also a doctor in urgent care. Have you had many conversations with her as she prepares to take over, assuming she’s confirmed?

Murthy: I have not, but I’m looking forward to connecting with her. And, you know, to her or to whomever is confirmed as the next surgeon general. I think something people may not know is that those of us who have served in this role have a strong fellowship. We are friends with each other across Republican and Democratic administrations. We help each other out and support each other. And if she is to serve as the next surgeon general, if she’s confirmed by the Senate, and certainly she’ll be a part of that group as well.

Inskeep: One other thing is on my mind, because you’ve issued a number of warnings during your time in office, I think sometimes about the famous 1964 surgeon general’s warning on smoking. My parents heard that and actually just quit smoking. They still had their old lighters when I was growing up, but they did not smoke at all. People listened to the surgeon general. Do you think people listen to the surgeon general the same way today?

Murthy: I think people still do listen to the office, but I’m certainly aware that there are many types of pathways to which people get their information these days. Many more than back in 1964 when the tobacco report came out from our office. But back then, when that report did come out, the very next year, Congress passed legislation for a warning label. And we started to see a big national effort come together where parents, community leaders, schools all came together to build campaigns to reduce tobacco use.

That, in my mind, has been the power of this office in history. – During this term as well, we’ve seen the issues we have raised around youth mental health, loneliness and isolation, social media, have driven national conversation and behavior change. My hope with this advisory on alcohol and cancer risk is that we can contribute to change as well, and help people ultimately be healthier.

This article was edited by Obed Manuel.