When a senior White House national security official traveled to New York City recently to praise that city's police department, he stoked the embers of a controversy between the Administration and the Arab American and American Muslim communities. The official's words, quoted by the Associated Press (AP), "I have full confidence that the New York Police Department is doing things consistent with the law" and his terming the department's work a "success" were especially troubling coming as they did on the heels of the communities' entreaties to the White House to either open a civil rights investigation into the NYPD's surveillance program, or at the very least to express concern at the program's invasive over-reach.
Having the CIA team up with the NYPD to establish a domestic spying operation using undercover police officers and civilian "snitches," who were suborned into service with threats of deportation or imprisonment, is bad enough, but a review of the fruits of all of this questionable activity also raises serious questions about the wastefulness of the entire effort.
Since the AP's initial revelations of the NYPD/CIA collaboration, less than one year ago, there has been some discussion of the degree to which the NYPD has made a mockery of the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights and has broken trust with New York's Arab and Muslim communities. What has not received sufficient attention is just how intrusive and at times pointless and inconsequential much of this program has been.
Some examples from the NYPD internal documents made public by the AP read more like reports prepared by the Syrian Mukhabarat (secret police). But what also comes through quite clearly is how downright silly much of the spying operation has been, more reminiscent, at times, of "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." Among the most alarming observations are those found in the "Locations of Interest Reports" that were compiled on New York's Egyptian and Syrian communities. Produced by the NYPD "Intelligence Division-Demographic Unit," the publications are stamped "SECRET" and have the following warning printed in bold red type on the cover:
"The information contained in this document is NYPD secret. No portion of this document can be copied or distributed without the exclusive permission of the Police Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence".
While all this build up makes the publications sound serious and important, an examination of their "top secret" content tells a different story.
Both reports begin with an overview establishing that their purpose is to provide "the maximum ability to gauge the general sentiment... and the greatest insight into the general activity of the community." The reports then proceed to "map" the areas of the city where the community in question lives and their "locations of interest" -- these being defined as "locations individuals may frequent to search for ethnic companionship" or "hangouts... for listening to neighborhood gossip."
After pages of demographic charts on Arab Americans, in general, and Egyptians, in particular (taken verbatim from a section of the Arab American Institute website), the reports go on to print pages of photos of every "location of interest" frequented by not just Egyptians and Syrians, but Lebanese, Palestinians, Yemenis, Moroccans, Algerians and "Caucasians"(!).
Included in the report on each of these locations is such revealing information as: whether al Jazeera TV is watched at the location; whether Halal food is served; whether underage "Caucasians" were seen smoking at the establishment; and conversations overheard (including one I mentioned in an earlier column, where "Rasha, working in the travel agency recommended the Royal Jordanian Airlines!").
These "locations of interest" books are not the only NYPD documents released by the AP that are filled with disturbing and shallow observations. Among the other questionable NYPD reports is the "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," a study by NYPD "Senior Intelligence Analysts." In an effort to create a profile of Muslims who become radicalized, the analysts lay out four phases in the process. The first, "Pre-radicalization" includes individuals who share the following characteristics: male, under 35, residents and citizens of Western democracies, middle class, educated, recent converts, living "unremarkable" lives with "little, if any, criminal history." What is so obviously troubling with this "profile," which is supposed to guide the NYPD's work, is the fact that it includes almost all young Muslim males in the United States. Helpful to law enforcement? Certainly not. Intimidating to Muslim Americans? Absolutely. As the great Latino leader U.S. Ambassador Raul Yzaguirre once said in criticizing ethnic profiling: "When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, don't keep adding more hay to the stack."
The fundamental questions that should be asked, not just by the Administration, but by all Americans, are: "Where do we draw the line that separates the rights of persons from the over-reach of law enforcement;" and "At what point do we conclude that the NYPD (with CIA collusion) has crossed the line and violated constitutionally protected freedoms and civil rights?"
It is not clear to me how anyone could review the NYPD materials and conclude that the tactics of massive surveillance and ethnic and religious profiling employed have not crossed that line or that they have in any way contributed to making New Yorkers "safe." What they have done is waste precious law enforcement resources. And as an exercise in heavy-handed police power, they have compromised the very security and basic rights of New York's large Arab immigrant communities.
All this should have been taken into consideration before the White House official lavished praise on the NYPD, dismissing the concerns of the Arab and Muslim communities.
[Note: As for the reports' "SECRET" designation and warnings about their "official police use only," I can conclude that these were intended merely to spare the NYPD the embarrassment of having them read by the public.]
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
The way the NYPD is crossing the line since last year as witnessed by their outrageous treatment of OWS people, minorities and those of Muslim faith is extremely worrisome.
That being said, it is just as incontrovertible that the vast majority of NYPD officers are hard working, competent and respectful of us and the Constitution as well.
By the way, I agree with your sentiments.
This is a war of terrorism. Any good general knows that the more you know about the enemy before you go to battle, the more effective you can be in battle. We have already been attacked! But, our main waring against terrorism in this country is only to take a defensive posture. That is exactly what the NYPD is doing. The NYPD should be commended in being in a state of constant research of a group which DOES HAVE the enemy among its' people. By not taking any action against them, other than observation, the NYPD is correct.
The NYPD observed and recorded notes, but took no action affecting anyone's activities. Observing is NOT illegal. The "wrongfull" activities of the NYPD will result in only 2 ways:
First, it may be a waste of time and expense. Second, it may provide the backround information to stop terrorist crime before it happens, or to more quickly and easily to apprehend the quilty after something happens.
Hint......It's a trick question; any answer by no will be consided a lie.
But this is because Muslims are leader less they have no leaders they have no organization and in Canada those who claim to be Muslim association are in fact snitches,"
They always blame the Muslims and ask the government to do more to punish Muslims if you read their website you would wonder are they Muslim organization or hate group organization!!
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/
This group are clearly open snitches and yet claim to be Muslim congress. So that is the problem if Muslims are united like the Jews they would be respected.
I'm not sure how many young Muslim males are recent converts. Many were brought up Muslim, and are probably more stable. I'd wager that the vast majority of young Muslims are not recent converts. Conversion to any religion can be a sign of instability, especially if it's an educated person. And since it's radical Islam that the NYPD is concerned about, it's not unreasonable to focus limited resources on the most likely places to look.
It would be interesting to know that statistic: what fraction of young Muslims are recent converts?
2--> The NYPD and the CIA have teamed together to stop bad, bad things from happening, such as preventing would-be terrorists from blowing up bridges full of commuters.
So does the author want bad, bad things to happen to American citizens, does he detest settled constitutional law, or what exactly? This all sounds well and good, until you weigh it against the lives of real human beings (with the fact that it is 100% legal and constitutional in mind).
So what's the deal here?
Keeping track of where Arab-Americans drink their coffee and whether they smoke in their coffee-houses or not hardly qualifies as an "authorized intelligence purpose."
The CIA doesn't work on domestic threats. So I think you're pulling facts from nowhere.
On the one hand, we rely on the Muslim-American community to protect us from some of their own. On the other hand, Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 40 are the clear primary profile of potential terror suspects and especially so if they were not born here. Denying this is not helping the vast majority of patriotic American Muslims and it certainly does not help the rest of us either.
Terrorism is not like white-collar crime. Alittle bit is far too much.
When it doesn't get between some rich guy and his money.