Despite the painfully misguided view of Cara Buckley in her  New York Times apologia for the difficult path of narcs who go bad, the  New York Times today shines the spotlight into the sewer of law enforcement at the lowest of its inhabitants, the rat. 

Formally known [?] as C.I.’s, for confidential informants, they are a detective’s best friend. They act as eyes and ears. They serve as secret tipsters. They take the police, by proxy, to the dangerous and privileged places where badges cannot go.

An ignominious start, indeed.  Perhaps next time, they might mention the place rats are most likely to take cops:  Hell.  But enough of my snarky asides, what does the Times think of rats?

At the same time, they present problems of administration — and sometimes of temptation — to those who uphold the law. Petty crime is often tolerated in exchange for information. Detectives can be duped by an informant’s agenda. While cases of corruption are rare, it is fairly common to have more “give” in this delicate give-and-take.

I hate to pick nits with the ultra-liberal Times, but perhaps the claim would be better stated as “cases of prosecution of corruption are rare.”  But then, in its zeal to be fair-minded and present all sides of a story, the writers, Alan Feuer and al Baker, with the help of our dear friend Cara Buckley, neglected to speak to anyone except those who live off rats. But if you can’t trust cops when writing about cop scandals, who can you trust?  Again, I digress.

The focus in snitches (see, I use the nice word) comes from the revelation that the Brooklyn South police scandal included stealing drugs from busts to give to snitches in payment for their services.  Surely this is a problem.  Well, it apparently falls under the heading of “petty crime,” which will be good to know for all those petty criminals doing state prison time for the same thing that makes rats the cops’ best friend, a needed self-esteem boost.

And what explains this willingness on the part of law enforcement to lie down with dogs?

“With confidential informants we get the benefit of intimate knowledge of criminal schemes by criminals, and that is a very effective way to investigate crime,” said Daniel J. Castleman, chief of the Investigative Division of the Manhattan district attorney’s office. “It’s no secret that people conduct criminal activities not alone but in combination, and if you can flip someone involved in the criminal scheme, it makes it much easier to investigate and to prosecute.”

Dan is a nice guy and all, but it would also be much easier to investigate and prosecute crime if the cops were just allowed to break into apartments in Harlem at will.  Ease of prosecution really isn’t the best argument for paying off rats who will say or do anything to get their needed fix or avoid the consequences of their own criminal conduct.  It’s that darned trustworthiness thing.

To avoid problems, it is standard practice in police departments and federal law enforcement agencies to closely vet and watch informants — a process that one official in the New York field office of the Drug Enforcement Administration called “knowing them from womb to tomb.”

“Womb to Tomb,” what a great phrase!  It’s almost like they actually do it when they have a cute name for it.

But all is not lost.  If you can tolerate the Times’ love-fest with this ugly but necessary tool in the war on drugs, you finally get to Brooklyn Assemblyman Joe Lentol.

“This kind of informing stuff that is going on in the ghettos of today is not unlike what had gone on in the ghettos of Warsaw and Eastern Europe and East Berlin,” Mr. Lentol said.

He proposed a bill in Albany last year to give defense lawyers more power to challenge an informant’s testimony, prohibit or require court approval when prosecutors drop serious charges in exchange for testimony, and require that the police file annual public reports on their use of informants. The bill was not voted on last year but was again referred to committee this month.

“All of these snitches have stopped people from wanting to cooperate with the police because nobody knows who to trust,” Mr. Lentol said. “It’s like a community poisoning.”

But you will no doubt be shocked to learn that police do not support Assemblyman Lentol’s bill.  Sure, they recognize that the unrestricted, uncontrolled, unsupervised use of rats presents a problem, but they can handle it.  Our police have their snitches under control.  As proven by this latest scandal in Brooklyn South.

Before ending, there’s just one thing I have to add.  If there is anyone left at the New York Times who isn’t a law enforcement sycophant, please disengage your head from some cop’s butt and let us know you’re there.