The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has predictably gone crying to its friend in Eric Holder's Justice Department to intervene and stop the New York City PD from doing its duty to prevent another 9-11. Here is the report from their own website.
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26876&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1
Today's Washington Post published the AP report on the NYPD investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/with-cia-help-nypd-built-secret-effort-to-monitor-mosques-daily-life-of-muslim-neighborhoods/2011/08/24/gIQAr87haJ_story.html
Since when is it against the law for police to conduct surveillances? Let's not forget the motivation is to save lives by preventing more terror attacks. I see no mention of people being dragged away in the dead of night. I see no mention of illegal wiretaps or searches. I see no human rights violations here. Post 9-11, the CIA and domestic intelligence agencies have been able to work together since that "wall" built up by Jamie Gorelick in the Clinton Justice Department has been torn down. What is wrong with the CIA giving training to local police forces? What is sancrosanct about mosques when so many of them are sites where hate and subversion are being propagated? Hopefully, the NYPD is monitoring that mosque in Brooklyn headed up by Siraj Wahhaj. We know what kind of preaching comes out of there because it's documented on audiotape.
It will be interesting to see if Eric Holder's Justice Department will accommodate CAIR and intervene against the NYPD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Since when is it against the law for police to conduct surveillances?
Since they are doing it on Muslims. Muslims are a very protected minority. You cannot spy on them, you cannot arrest them, you must give in to every demand they have.
There could be a great deal wrong with it... or not. Americans have, for most of our history, been prickly about government agencies keeping citizens under surveillance based on political or religious affiliation.
IF the police are "surveilling Muslims," for being Muslim, then it is wrong, no matter how many times Miggie caterwauls about the fact that they aren't Amish.
IF the police are following up credible leads of criminal violations, then it is legitimate, whether or not the investigation takes them into mosques. Gary has, quite properly, noted that some intrusive surveillance requires a warrant, and it appears warrantless searches are not going on.
But then we come to public assemblies. When you have an activity that is open to the public, anyone, friend, foe, or merely curious, is likely to show up. Candidates for public office have gotten used to the fact that their opponents will routinely have cameramen at every speech, hoping for a gaffe. So, if the police are showing up where someone is speaking in public, and listening, so what?
The CIA is forbidden by its charter to spy on American citizens in side the United States. It can now share information, so that half a hunch and the other half of a hunch can get connected on foreign-inspired activity hooking up with people inside the country. But it still shouldn't be training police or doing active surveillance inside the country.
I doubt CAIR has much to complain about. But the rest of us, as James Madison said, should be concerned about the least infringement of our liberties.
It is not a case of trying to suppress a religion. It is a case of trying to prevent more terror attacks and save innocent lives. We all acknowledge that most Muslims are not terrorists. Yet, there is a terrorist and hateful element within that community. If my church were preaching racila or religious hatred against others, then cops should be monitoring it too.
"It is a case of trying to prevent more terror attacks and save innocent lives."
Every police state says something like that. In fact, the government of Syria is saying something very similar right now.
The question is not whether the police agencies can plausibly state that their general purpose is to prevent terror attacks and save innocent lives.
The question is whether the police are actively pursuing a milieu where they have reasonable suspicion that terror attacks are being formulated and organized.
Since "We all acknowledge that most Muslims are not terrorists," and yes, you have acknowledged that consistently, to your credit, then it is not SUFFICIENT that the people or institutions under surveillance are Muslim.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the mosque in Brooklyn that you mention is a legitimate target for surveillance, which indeed requires a lower standard than either a stop or an arrest.
If one informant tells police "The guy at X address is running a drug house," then the police should not (although they often do) get a search warrant and go busting in. They certainly may, and should, put the place under surveillance to observe whether there IS probable cause for a search warrant.
I bet there are Methodists who participated in mass protests at clinics where abortions are performed, and Eric Rudolph may have been at some of those mass protests, where misdemeanor civil disobedience may also have taken place. Does THAT mean that the FBI should place any Methodist church they care to under surveillance to see if another Eric Rudolph lurks among the congregation?
Although I am firmly pro-choice, for the same reasons I firmly uphold the First Amendment, I would answer my last rhetorical question in the negative.
Perhaps CAIR is a legitimate target for surveillance. On what basis that decision is made matters a lot to me.
Post a Comment