NYPD Spying on Muslims

by YankeeJim | March 7, 2012 at 02:59 pm
134 views | 0 Recommendations | 8 comments

Photos

NYPD Commissioner Kelly | Photo 02

NYPD Commissioner Kelly | Photo 02

see larger image

uploaded by YankeeJim

Where is the Chief, we need to talk

There are circumstances in which a police department may have cause to monitor the behavior of specific individuals who are suspected to be engaging in criminal activity.

There are no circumstances in which a police department has the right to cast a net on a community in an act of general sifting or spying.

That is why the FBI had to intervene. The FBI and all law enforcement must have the trust and confidence of the communities they are protecting. Otherwise, their mission is undermined.

Our institutions cannot throw democracy and our protections under the bus, just because it may be easier. In fact, such actions may be wasteful use of scarce resources.


FBI Speaks Out Against NYPD's Muslim Surveillance

By Jason Grant
Religion News Service


NEWARK, N.J. (RNS) As friction over the New York Police Department's spying on New Jersey Muslims continues to grow, the state's top FBI officer said the uproar is damaging his agency's ability to gather important counterterrorism intelligence.

"What we have now is (Muslim communities) ... that they're not sure they trust law enforcement in general, they're fearing being watched, they're starting to withdraw their activities," Michael Ward, director of the FBI's Newark division, said Tuesday (March 6).

"And the impact of that sinking tide of cooperation means that we don't have our finger on the pulse of what's going on in the community as well -- we're less knowledgeable, we have blind spots, and there's more risk."

In his first public comments on the deepening controversy, Ward said the FBI has spent the years after 9/11 opening lines of communication with New Jersey's Muslim communities.

"Now that trust is being challenged, those relationships are being strained," he said, his voice rising with emphasis. "And it's the trust and those relationships that provide the true security against terrorism."

In a rare public criticism of another agency, Ward also questioned the effectiveness of the NYPD's 2007 surveillance as plainclothes officers charted mosques and other places frequented by Muslims.

"There's a difference between effective intel and intel that's not effective," he said. "If the NYPD intel could come over (to New Jersey) and identify hot spots of al-Qaida sympathizers, or if they could identify individuals being radicalized over the Internet, then that would have a direct correlation to counterterrorism efforts and that would be something that we could use, that would be useful intelligence.

"But (the NYPD) coming out and just basically mapping out houses of worship and minority-owned businesses, there's no correlation between the location of houses of worship and minority-owned businesses and counterterrorism" work.

Ward also said there should be "an articulable factual basis" for domestic intelligence collection, such as a "specific reason why we're looking at this location, this person."

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded in an e-mail that plainclothes officers of the NYPD who operated in other states, such as New Jersey, "were not conducting blanket ongoing surveillance of communities."

Plainclothes officers would go into neighborhoods with heavy concentrations of populations from the "countries of interest," and observe the individuals in the public establishments.

"This is an important point -- only public locations were visited. This was perfectly within the purview of the NYPD," Browne said.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly have staunchly defended the need for and legality of the NYPD operating beyond New York, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker have criticized the undercover operation.

Ultimately, Ward said, speaking broadly of the Muslim and other communities' view of law enforcement, "Reputations are built by many deeds and ruined by one."

(Jason Grant writes for The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J.)

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
2
"thirty-aught-six"

Millions of dollars in Obama White House money has helped pay for New York Police Department programs that put entire American Muslim neighborhoods under surveillance. The money is part of a little-known grant intended to help law enforcement fight drug crimes. It's called the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, known as HIDTA. The AP confirmed the use of White House money through secret police documents and interviews with current and former city and federal officials. The AP also obtained electronic documents with digital signatures indicating they were created and saved on HIDTA computers. The HIDTA grant program is overseen by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The disclosure that the White House is paying for the NYPD's wholesale surveillance of places where Muslims eat, shop, work and pray counters Obama's attempts to distance himself from this out right circumnavigation of the Constitution and rule of law. Obama's not so secret Police state in action.

1
tikun

Oh My Gosh. Really. "spying" or "observation" of suspected  terrorists is better than the disaster that will follow.

Unless you really don't give a damn as long as it doesn't take place in a town near you.

This is a real and present danger.

I understand the concerns but not to take a peak at potential terrorists within the law is well worth while.


0
YankeeJim

Precision and close coordination to focus resources on the sources of real threats is the objective. Walking the line or threading the needle are metaphors that describe the edge we're on -- the cliff, that is.

1
"thirty-aught-six"

Define in legal terms "potential" terrorist. Who falls into this category "potential" terrorist. I think personally one is either a terrorist or not. The potential to become a 'terrorist" needs to be "Policed" at the policy level in as much as said potential would be relative to conditioning by known terrorist or rebellion against discriminating social policies. Especially the circumnavigation of the rights and freedoms of the individual, the Constitution, and the rule of law. A better question is why would any NewYorker or any other American be on such a list of "potential terrorist"? That is the fundamental question. We don't need to create 'terrorist" in this country to further our anti-terrorist goals for the sake of national security. We are well on our way to becoming our own worst enemy under this administration and it's fear mongering/war mongering/anti-social divisive attitudes. The more this government attacks our individual rights and freedoms the greater the "potential" is for terrorist to rise up from with any community who feel disenfranchised.

1
tikun

A potential terrorist is one that of the moment has NOT committed an act of terror but has communicated in some fashion an interest in doing so. Potential vs Actual.

I understand your concerns. But you either have faith in the system or you do not. Either the police and other government agencies are "honest" and truthful" and serve in the public interest or not. But fear or doubt or conspiracy theories just don't cut with me. Facts about abuse of power  needs to be revealed.


2
'thirty-aught-six"

The honey pot methodology of entrapment is my concern here. Not fabricated conspiracy. As with the drug enforcement agencies enticing drug sales and creating low level buyers, thus drug dealers by having our Police forces engage in drug deals. We do not need to have our law enforcement agencies selling weapons to 'potential" terrorist to entrap "potential" terrorist or to further any anti-terrorism for the sake of national security. The news has already shown instances of anti-terrorism agencies engaging in this behavior. While it may further said budgets; it does not reduce the number of real terrorist anymore than having drug enforcement selling drugs has reduce drug trafficking. A much better plan of operation IMHO would be for all law enforcement agencies to rigorously enforce the laws with out exception and for this same consistency be seen with in the Courts system and from politicians at every level. I would hate to see the US adopt the UK appeasement of Muslims, the establishment of no go zones, that disregard our values and legal system on one hand while passing ever more laws and security policies that infringe on individual rights and freedoms. I don't want to live in a Police State because it has been deemed best for mine or national security. INHO Islam must be treated like any other religion. Practice in the home. Practice in the Mosque. No where else. No exceptions and no appeasement in hopes of quelling anti-western sentiment here or abroad. One voice -consistently and unquestionable. No systemic political Islam and no systemic judicial Islam. Obama is all over the map on this and the legal system is all over the map on this so it is no wonder there are Muslims pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go. No consistent message is being voiced by society, governments and the Courts and that is the real root of the problem IMHO.

0
YankeeJim

You know when you answer questions like this so eloquently it makes me wonder how many personalities you have.

0
tikun

Well said.. 30-06

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from