An American Muslim Journal

The Associated Press: With CIA help, NYPD moves covertly in Muslim areas

One of the enduring questions of the past decade is whether being safe requires giving up some liberty and privacy. The focus of that debate has primarily been federal programs like wiretapping and indefinite detention. The question has received less attention in New York, where residents do not know for sure what, if anything, they have given up.

via www.google.com

That this question is evening being asked in the mainstream is just another sign of our times.  Or is it?

Actually, I don't think the CIA working internally (within the U.S.) is a new development.  TIME magazine did a story titled "THE CIA: Operating at Home" back in 1973 and in that article it reported that the CIA trained local police departments, including the New York Police Department, on various techniques and tactics to, ostensibly, fight crime.  Or spy on Americans...

From the May 1973 TIME article:

In February the agency admitted that it had trained policemen from nine U.S. cities and counties, including New York, in clandestine photography, identification of explosive devices and analysis of intelligence data. The purpose was to improve police ability to fight crime.

I guess some may argue that training police officers is not the same as conducting operations.  Training alone may not be considered "operating" inside of America (which the CIA by law is prohibited from doing), but this begs the question: where is the line drawn?  If the CIA uses local law enforcement agents to do things they themselves could not do, is that considered "operating"?

This was reported in today's Associated Press:

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NYPD has become one of the country's most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies. A months-long investigation by The Associated Press has revealed that the NYPD operates far outside its borders and targets ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government. And it does so with unprecedented help from the CIA in a partnership that has blurred the bright line between foreign and domestic spying.

This is not shocking news to civil liberties proponents who have been watching and criticizing these practices for as long as they've been going on.  This is, however, one of the few times that mainstream reporting has disclosed so many facts and details about the NYPD/CIA intelligence program.

According to the Associated Press, the CIA, using active and former CIA staff, trained NYPD detectives at the CIA's "Farm" (a training facility in Virginia), and recently sent a CIA officer to work clandestinely within NYPD headquarters.

The AP description of what the NYPD is doing, with the help and support of the CIA, is shocking:

The department has dispatched teams of undercover officers, known as "rakers," into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as "mosque crawlers," to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing. NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims.

The NYPD believes that what it's doing is good for New York City.  The AP story reports NYPD officials as saying the following:

"The New York Police Department is doing everything it can to make sure there's not another 9/11 here and that more innocent New Yorkers are not killed by terrorists," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. "And we have nothing to apologize for in that regard."

No one will argue that stopping terrorists and keeping people safe is priority #1.  The question is whether the ends justify the means?  And with regard to the second part of the NYPD statement regarding "nothing to apologize for" one has to wonder what that means.  Does it mean the NYPD believes that what it's doing is lawful?  

The AP story suggests that NYPD itself recognizes that what it is doing is probably out-of-bounds of the legal system: 

But officials said they've also been careful to keep information about some programs out of court, where a judge might take a different view.

What does it mean to "keep information...out of court"?  When criminal cases are presented to the DA's office, are material details as to how evidence was gather omitted (or even altered)?

Read this AP story.  It is an intriguing look into the NYPD and CIA collaboration post-9/11.

_______________________________________

I love this quote attributed to Police Commissioner Kelly:

We see ourselves as very conscious and aware of civil liberties. And we know there's always going to be some tension between the police department and so-called civil liberties groups because of the nature of what we do. (emphasis added)

"So-called"?  What the heck was he trying to say when he added that qualifier into his statement?

Oh, and what the heck does it say when the FBI is troubled by something?  Read this excerpt:

The idea troubled senior FBI officials, who saw it as the NYPD and CIA blurring the lines between police work and spying, in which undercover officers regularly break the laws of foreign governments. The arrangement even made its way to FBI Director Robert Mueller, two former senior FBI officials said, but the training was already under way and Mueller did not press the issue. 

Sheesh!  It has to be bad for the FBI to be "troubled" given what we know about their current guidelines.

So, is it okay to profile young black men so long was we're nice to them? What would Asra Nomani say?

If I understand Asra Nomani right, she thinks its okay to profile Muslims because, in her view, a lot of terrorists are Muslims.

Here is Ms. Nomani in her own words:

Profiling doesn’t have to be about discrimination, persecution, or harassment. As my debating partner, conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.”

And let me make sure I understand this correctly - it's okay to profile someone on the basis of his race or religion so long as he isn't tortured?  Okay, so maybe that was hyperbole by Ms. Nomani but what she's saying is that Muslims should accept profiling as long as they aren't physically harmed.  Is that right?  Or is she saying that folks can't eat Pizza Hut food in the first-class lounge?  I don't get it.

If profiling is lawful, then why don't we allow our police departments to use it when fighting all sorts of crimes?  

Would Ms. Nomani also argue in favor of profiling all young black men - politely of course and without waterboarding them - as they enter public spaces like a movie theater or a public park to check for weapons?  What about random frisks of all young black male pedestrians in inner-city neighborhoods? Again, it would be without rendition or torture so is it kosher?

Umm, I don't think so.  I don't think even my man Juan Williams would go here and we know how nervous he gets when he sees Muslims on airplanes.

I don't think Ms. Nomani is the "Uncle Tom" she's portrayed as in some parts of the American Muslim community, but I do think that this was a particularly weak argument.  I wish Ms. Nomani would use her talents and the public stage she's given to articulate more thoughtful ideas.  This one failed miserably.