NYPD spying on innocent Muslims

[GarfieldtheCat]

No, it's not funny at all, you're just so dense that you can't understand the difference between terrorist activities and other criminal activity.

Again, trolling doesn't do your brain good.

Terrorism is a crime.

 

[fskimospy]

In case you were wondering how rationally some people in the NYPD view muslims, I suggest reading this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?_r=1

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Well then, I guess the GOP is totally entitled to spy on Obama and all democrats, since they aren't "fond of America" according to the GOP?

Really? That's all it takes?

Like I said, they were incredibly angry and were clearly sympathetic to terrorist groups based on their own words. They had some kind of pro intifada event/speaker I just can't recall the details. Despite the rhetoric on here I don't think the Dems or Obama actually hate America.

Wolf's analogy of right wing Christian militias is spot on. I did consider reporting them to the FBI myself but I didn't think that they would investigate unless I had heard a specific threat. One of the reasons I attended their events was to see just how radical they were.

I'm not going to apologize for being suspicious of people behaving suspiciously. I have had many Muslim friends both before and after that period but the MSA was a haven for radicals and I'm glad the NYPD investigated.

 

[woolfe9999]

Somehow I don't think your comparison is valid, when you are comparing white supremacists with student organizations. That is like comparing the KKK with the NAACP. Doesn't work.

It is more similar to spying on all Catholic priests though, and no one would dare to that, but it's OK to do it to Muslims. Wonder why?

And you are ASSUMING they have reason.....given recent history, that is certainly a dangerous ASSumption to make.

I'm not assuming they do or do not have a good reason. However, it is logical to conclude that they have some additional reason(s) for surveilling these groups other than the mere fact that they are Muslim, regardless of how good or flimsy those reasons might be. They certainly don't have the resources to surveil every Muslim, or even every Muslim group that meets publicly. So they must have a selection criteria. It might very well be an incredibly bad reason. We just don't know.

As for the analogies I cited, they're pretty spot on if in fact these Muslim groups are being watched because they are known to have espoused extremist and/or violent views. That is essentially the only reason Christian militia groups are watched. They aren't being watched solely because they are Christian, even though in some cases their extremist views may be related to their religion.

I don't get your analogy to Catholic priests. They aren't watching all Muslims either, or even all Imams.

 

[Nebor]

In case you were wondering how rationally some people in the NYPD view muslims, I suggest reading this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?_r=1

Nothing wrong with the Third Jihad, they show it widely in the armed forces as well. It's no different from watching any other politically motivated documentary; only a mush minded simpleton is going to take the movie's opinion and immediately adopt it as their own. A reasonable, rational person is going to take months or years of reading and personal interaction with Muslims before adopting that viewpoint.

 

[peonyu]

Its not OK to violate their rights for being Muslim, but the fact that there is suspicion of Muslims for terrorist activities is no surprise at all. 9/11 remember it ? Allah Akbar's killed 3000 Americans that day, there is reason to be weary of ultra-religious Islamic groups, especially for NYC as that is the #1 target.

Also look at this way. Lets say racist anti-black and anti-Jewish grafitti is written all over a Neighborhood block one night and some blacks are beaten the same night but the perps are unidentified...Who is going to be the prime suspects in that case ? White racists, because of past history of doing that stuff. Would it be wrong for the Government to keep tabs on white racists in that regard ? Its as wrong as watching Muslims is since it is racial profiling in the "White" case and religious profiling in the Muslim case...But BOTH groups are monitored today for the same reasons - past aggression.

Terrorism lately is a Muslim MO btw.

 

[dmcowen674]

NYPD spying on innocent Muslims

Dude try and keep up.

Everyone is now guilty until proven innocent.

Actually no one can be proven innocent only degree of compliance and clearance.

 

[dmcowen674]

Misleading thread title.

By US law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's not true anymore in the U.S.

Patriot Act flipped that around to Guilty until clearance and compliance is met.

Where have you've been for ten years???

 

[PokerGuy]

I know you are trolling, but you got proof they have ANY evidence?

Do you have proof that they don't? You're the one saying their actions are improper, which must be based on an assumption that they are acting without any reason or justification. Got anything to back up that assumption?

Did anyone get arrested in the past 4-5 years of this spying? None that anyone can see.

So before they investigate they should use a crystal ball to see the future and figure out if there will be arrests? How do you know what information was gleaned from their activities?

You DO realize that this is the US, where EVERYONE, (hint: that includes Muslims) is innocent until proven guilty?

Of course. That's why nobody went to jail without being charged and convicted.

So we don't have to know if they are "actually innocent"...the government has to prove they are guilty

Can you explain to us how the government proves guilt without investigating (which by the way, can include monitoring, infiltrating groups and so forth)? Here's a clue: they investigate. If there's no evidence to support arrest and conviction, nothing follows. If there is, they proceed with those steps. In your zealotry for political correctness you've lost sight of all common sense logic.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing wrong with the Third Jihad, they show it widely in the armed forces as well. It's no different from watching any other politically motivated documentary; only a mush minded simpleton is going to take the movie's opinion and immediately adopt it as their own. A reasonable, rational person is going to take months or years of reading and personal interaction with Muslims before adopting that viewpoint.

I have a large number of friends in the military and not one of them has ever talked about seeing it (and I'm pretty sure it would come up if they had). Either way, if your command is showing it they are incompetent, stupid, or both.

I mean talk about just handing your enemies a propaganda victory. Maybe that's why the Army gets made fun of all the time .

 

[Nebor]

I have a large number of friends in the military and not one of them has ever talked about seeing it (and I'm pretty sure it would come up if they had). Either way, if your command is showing it they are incompetent, stupid, or both.

I mean talk about just handing your enemies a propaganda victory. Maybe that's why the Army gets made fun of all the time .

I've seen it play on base TV in Afghanistan, and there's a copy of it on the share drive here.

Propaganda victories? Who cares about those? We burn Korans for fun, piss on the corpses of our enemies and hit children with drone strikes. The propaganda battle was over before it started.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What do you bet if the NYPD, or any state/federal agency, spied on all the Southern Baptists, for example?

Well, for one I'd be mighty damn impressed.

Even though I'm not a Baptist I live in the South and you can't throw a rock without hitting a Baptist church.

There would literally need to be millions and millions of NYPD officers to have any hope of spying on all Southern Baptists.

2 other thoughts:

1. I find it weird that NYPD, who I would think have zero jurisdiction outside of NYC, are spying on people in other states.

2. Unless you're spying on people in prison, isn't spying on anyone "spying on innocent" people? I mean, you're considered innocent until proven guilty so anyone spying is always spying on "innocent people" aren't they?

Otherwise, this seems a constitutional issue.

Fern

 

[Nebor]

Well, for one I'd be mighty damn impressed.

Even though I'm not a Baptist I live in the South and you can't throw a rock without hitting a Baptist church.

There would literally need to be millions and millions of NYPD officers to have any hope of spying on all Southern Baptists.

2 other thoughts:

1. I find it weird that NYPD, who I would think have zero jurisdiction outside of NYC, are spying on people in other states.

2. Unless you're spying on people in prison, isn't spying on anyone "spying on innocent" people? I mean, you're considered innocent until proven guilty so anyone spying is always spying on "innocent people" aren't they?

Otherwise, this seems a constitutional issue.

Fern

See my earlier post. They have police officers deployed in Afghanistan. And not just helping training Afghan police, but as liaisons and collecting intel.

 

[Fern]

Nebor,

That seems damn weird to me.

Fern

 

[Nebor]

Nebor,

That seems damn weird to me.

Fern

It's extremely weird. IIRC they also have liaison officers with most major Western nations, like in London, Paris, etc.

 

[Nebor]

FWIW I met a Chicago police officer in Afghanistan too, but he was there training Afghan police officers. His city had pledged some officers and he had volunteered. Also tons of international cops. Female swedish cops, OMG .

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Do you have proof that they don't? You're the one saying their actions are improper, which must be based on an assumption that they are acting without any reason or justification. Got anything to back up that assumption?

See, trolling is bad. I don't need proof they are innocent...the government needs real evidence they suspect illegal activities. They can't go, "hey they are evil Muslims, lets spy on all of them" and then decide if they have evidence, they have to have the evidence FIRST. That is why police need wiretapping requests approved by a judge (they have to show real evidence of suspected wrongdoing), instead of wiretapping everyone FIRST, and then seeing if they find anything incriminating. Don't you have a clue about the law?

Is that really so hard to understand? Just like other things, the police can't just decide to spy on me without a real good reason, and your religion isn't one of them.


But again, you troll, so giving facts doesn't really matter now does it?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I'm not assuming they do or do not have a good reason. However, it is logical to conclude that they have some additional reason(s) for surveilling these groups other than the mere fact that they are Muslim, regardless of how good or flimsy those reasons might be. They certainly don't have the resources to surveil every Muslim, or even every Muslim group that meets publicly. So they must have a selection criteria. It might very well be an incredibly bad reason. We just don't know.

As for the analogies I cited, they're pretty spot on if in fact these Muslim groups are being watched because they are known to have espoused extremist and/or violent views. That is essentially the only reason Christian militia groups are watched. They aren't being watched solely because they are Christian, even though in some cases their extremist views may be related to their religion.

I don't get your analogy to Catholic priests. They aren't watching all Muslims either, or even all Imams.

They have a reason. Most likely, it is because they are brown and are Muslim. You haven't seen all the missteps by agencies about how evil Muslims are? Even the FBI training class that got outed last year was ridiculously biased.

You are assuming again they are extremists. No proof has been given or shown, and once again, the government (state or federal) has shown time and time again that assuming they are right, or know what they are doing is not correct.

As to the Catholic priests, you really don't see it? If people are actually worried about stopping crimes, priests are way more likely to commit one then the Muslims they are watching, so if the reason is to stop crime (terrorism), why aren't people wanting them to spy on the priests and protect all those kids? Hell, why aren't they enofcing better driving or DUI? That would save a lot more lives then spying on innocent people.

A lot of time and money has been spent for 3-5 years on this, no arrests, that most likely shows they have found nothing, but refuse to comment if they still spy. Really? That's not an investigation, that is just systematic spying.

So why are they doing it? Because all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent, and even then, they are still suspect. Yep, land of the free and home of the brave. Never mind that everyone here is more likely to be killed in a car accident, or die of cancer rather then by a terrorist attack. But hey, facts don't matter.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

See, trolling is bad. I don't need proof they are innocent...the government needs real evidence they suspect illegal activities. They can't go, "hey they are evil Muslims, lets spy on all of them" and then decide if they have evidence, they have to have the evidence FIRST. That is why police need wiretapping requests approved by a judge (they have to show real evidence of suspected wrongdoing), instead of wiretapping everyone FIRST, and then seeing if they find anything incriminating. Don't you have a clue about the law?

Is that really so hard to understand? Just like other things, the police can't just decide to spy on me without a real good reason, and your religion isn't one of them.


But again, you troll, so giving facts doesn't really matter now does it?

You are mixing up investigating with searches and wiretaps which require a warrant. The standard required to investigate is far lower than for searches.

 

[Ktulu]

Gee, color me shocked (not). The NYPD is going full-on CIA and spying on Muslims of all ages all over the country, specifically targeting them for surveillance, despite no evidence of wrong doing.

Link

Link





What do you bet if the NYPD, or any state/federal agency, spied on all the Southern Baptists, for example? No one would stand for that, funny how all the GOP people that are so pro-religion aren't protesting this. Bigotry is alive and well still.


Perhaps they should spy on all Catholic churches and priests to prevent pedophilia? There probably have been more crimes committed by Catholic priests then Islamic NYC residents. But no, people would complain about that.

And to head off the usual bigots and trolls (hmm, I think that is redundant), the "nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide" is NOT a reason or excuse, given this the is the US, and we are all innocent until PROVEN guilty.

But then you'd have to spy on all school teachers/administration, other religious groups, heck even families themselves if you really want to stop pedophelia. Cuz If you think it is a problem exclusive the the Catholic church you're a fool.

 

[fskimospy]

I've seen it play on base TV in Afghanistan, and there's a copy of it on the share drive here.

Propaganda victories? Who cares about those? We burn Korans for fun, piss on the corpses of our enemies and hit children with drone strikes. The propaganda battle was over before it started.

People who are smart care about propaganda victories, that should be pretty obvious. You appear to be arguing that because of other propaganda failures that we should continue to make more propaganda failures such as these. Good thing they haven't put you in charge of strategy, huh?

If it has been played on base TV I certainly hope it wasn't played with command authorization. If it was, you should definitely keep that quiet as your commanders have committed a pretty foolish mistake. Not only is it a bad move for the US, but your commanders would be putting their own careers in jeopardy as is anyone who knowingly played it.

Just trying to help you guys out here. If you need any more tips as to why displaying ultra right wing islamophobic propaganda videos on US government property is a bad idea, let me know!

EDIT: I know in any command I was ever a part of someone playing something like that would have at least gone to mast for putting something like that on the ship's TV network.

 

[woolfe9999]

They have a reason. Most likely, it is because they are brown and are Muslim. You haven't seen all the missteps by agencies about how evil Muslims are? Even the FBI training class that got outed last year was ridiculously biased.

You are assuming again they are extremists. No proof has been given or shown, and once again, the government (state or federal) has shown time and time again that assuming they are right, or know what they are doing is not correct.

As to the Catholic priests, you really don't see it? If people are actually worried about stopping crimes, priests are way more likely to commit one then the Muslims they are watching, so if the reason is to stop crime (terrorism), why aren't people wanting them to spy on the priests and protect all those kids? Hell, why aren't they enofcing better driving or DUI? That would save a lot more lives then spying on innocent people.

A lot of time and money has been spent for 3-5 years on this, no arrests, that most likely shows they have found nothing, but refuse to comment if they still spy. Really? That's not an investigation, that is just systematic spying.

So why are they doing it? Because all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent, and even then, they are still suspect. Yep, land of the free and home of the brave. Never mind that everyone here is more likely to be killed in a car accident, or die of cancer rather then by a terrorist attack. But hey, facts don't matter.

You keep using the word "all." They aren't spying on "all" Muslims. Clearly they don't have that capability. It's unlikely they are spying on more than a tiny fraction of Muslims even in their own geographical area. Your premise seems to be that they're spying on all Muslims, but with non-Muslims, they would only spy if they had good reasons, the difference being prejudice. But that just cannot be the case.

I don't doubt that stereotyping is a factor in their selection criteria here. But they can't spy on all Muslims, so if the fact of them being Muslim is the only factor here, then they are essentially throwing darts at a board to decide which Muslims to spy on. If that is the case, then what a colossal waste of the limited budget and resources they have at their disposal. If that is truly what's going on, then not only are they prejudiced, they're also amazingly stupid. Even an Islamaphobe can see that spending time surveilling a randomly chosen Muslim is exceedingly unlikely to yield a conviction or even an arrest.

- wolf

 

[fskimospy]

You keep using the word "all." They aren't spying on "all" Muslims. Clearly they don't have that capability. It's unlikely they are spying on more than a tiny fraction of Muslims even in their own geographical area. Your premise seems to be that they're spying on all Muslims, but with non-Muslims, they would only spy if they had good reasons, the difference being prejudice. But that just cannot be the case.

I don't doubt that stereotyping is a factor in their selection criteria here. But they can't spy on all Muslims, so if the fact of them being Muslim is the only factor here, then they are essentially throwing darts at a board to decide which Muslims to spy on. If that is the case, then what a colossal waste of the limited budget and resources they have at their disposal. If that is truly what's going on, then not only are they prejudiced, they're also amazingly stupid. Even an Islamaphobe can see that spending time surveilling a randomly chosen Muslim is exceedingly unlikely to yield a conviction or even an arrest.

- wolf

Clearly being Muslim isn't the only factor, but if you go back and check on the criteria that other govt. agencies have used for surveillance on Islamic groups in the past, some of their reasoning is pretty hilariously bad. While I doubt it is as bad as throwing darts at a board, I feel it's pretty likely that they are stupidly wasting fairly sizable resources.

 

[woolfe9999]

See, trolling is bad. I don't need proof they are innocent...the government needs real evidence they suspect illegal activities. They can't go, "hey they are evil Muslims, lets spy on all of them" and then decide if they have evidence, they have to have the evidence FIRST. That is why police need wiretapping requests approved by a judge (they have to show real evidence of suspected wrongdoing), instead of wiretapping everyone FIRST, and then seeing if they find anything incriminating. Don't you have a clue about the law?

Is that really so hard to understand? Just like other things, the police can't just decide to spy on me without a real good reason, and your religion isn't one of them.


But again, you troll, so giving facts doesn't really matter now does it?

This is fallacious. It's already been pointed out that they are investigating these people, not putting them on trial. For investigating, they need only probable cause (a low evidentiary bar) and that's IF they are intruding on a area protected by the 4th Amendment. If they are attending public meetings, they don't need even that. They only need enough to justify the resources they are spending and that only as a matter of accountability, not Constitutionality.

And yes, as a matter of logic, you do need to offer proof of "innocence" since you made a positive assertion of innocence and you have the burden of proving your own factual assertion. If by "innocence" you mean that in the legal sense rather than the factual sense you are still wrong. Under the law, a lack of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not = factual innocence. It only means there isn't sufficient evidence for conviction.

 

[Darwin333]

How do we know those being monitored were actually innocent? How do we know the NYPD didn't get anonymous tips indicating potential threats, leading them to conduct monitoring to see if that was the case or not? I commend the NYPD for taking the logical steps needed to keep the population safe.

Why would you commend them for something that you admit you don't know is reasonable or not?