They should focus on the Mennonites. They are known terrorists.
Printable View
They should focus on the Mennonites. They are known terrorists.
It's like going into the ghetto to crack down on crime, but refusing to question the suspicious looking black men for fear of "discrimination." So instead they target the one or two white/asians in the neighborhood and beat the hell out of them with tasers and throw them in prison on bogus charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
That wouldn't make any sense, right? When all the suicide bombers are coming from one ethnic group, I'd say they warrant more than the average amount of suspicion. Stop thinking you're achieving anything by being mr politically correct liberal. You look like a clown and even the arabs being profiled don't respect you for it.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
I don't even know where to start.
That's one of the most shitful takes I've ever read, tbh.... terrorism has originated from just about every race and religion at one point or another, so profiling doesn't really solve anything tbh....
This American Life had a show about it in the past few weeks. I think 2 weeks ago.
the new NYPD chief shutters the program:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/ny...&nlid=59624939Quote:
The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods to eavesdrop on conversations and built detailed files on where people ate, prayed and shopped, the department said.
The decision by the nation’s largest police force to shutter the controversial surveillance program represents the first sign that William J. Bratton, the department’s new commissioner, is backing away from some of the post-9/11 intelligence-gathering practices of his predecessor. The Police Department’s tactics, which are the subject of two federal lawsuits, drew criticism from civil rights groups and a senior official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who said they harmed national security by sowing mistrust for law enforcement in Muslim communities.
To many Muslims, the squad, known as the Demographics Unit, was a sign that the police viewed their every action with suspicion. The police mapped communities inside and outside the city, logging where customers in traditional Islamic clothes ate meals and documenting their lunch-counter conversations.
"The Demographics Unit was trying to root out terrorist threats, but never produced a usable lead." :lol
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/16/303634...ied-on-muslims
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...idelines.shtmlQuote:
Following two lawsuits against the NYPD for its pervasive, rights-violating surveillance of the city's Muslims, the department's Inspector General took a look at a sampling of cases from 2010-2015 to see if the Handschu Agreement -- crafted in 1985 and heavily modified in 2002 -- was being followed. The short answer is "No." So is the long answer [PDF].
The guideline was part of a consent decree created in response to pervasive NYPD surveillance of activities protected by the First Amendment, even when no unlawful activity was suspected. The guideline worked for awhile, but the 9/11 attacks changed that. The NYPD brought in two former CIA employees who decided to turn a domestic law enforcement agency into Langley on the Hudson. Former CIA officer David Cohen used terrorism fears to compel a judge to significantly modify the Handschu Agreement.
From that point on, the NYPD steadily abused the revamped agreement. Its "Demographics Unit" designatedentire mosques as terrorist entities, placed the city's Muslims under surveillance, and -- best of all -- generated zero leads.
The Inspector General's report points out that the NYPD couldn't even comply with the relaxed, post-9/11 Handschu Agreement. Instead, the Demographics Unit copy-pasted justifications for pervasive surveillance and passed them up the ladder to the rubber stamps handling the approval process.
OIG-NYPD’s investigation found that NYPD, while able to articulate a valid basis for commencing investigations, was often non-compliant with a number of the rules governing the conduct of these investigations. For example, when applying for permission to use an undercover officer or confidential informant, the application must state the particular role of the undercover in that specific investigation, so that the need for this intrusive technique can be evaluated. NYPD almost never included such a fact-specific discussion in its applications, but instead repeatedly used generic, boilerplate text to seek such permission. Tellingly, this boilerplate text was so routine that the same typographical error had been cut and pasted into virtually every application OIG-NYPD reviewed, going back over a decade.TheNYPD's response [PDF] to the report disputes the accusation of using boilerplate permission slips. But that's all it does. It fails to explain how each individual request somehow contained the same typographical error. Repeatedly. For fourteen years.
Quote:
Once an investigation was under way, NYPD supervisors tended to take a very hands-off approach.
Further, among all cases reviewed, NYPD continued its investigations even after legal authorization expired more than half of the time. Often more than a month of unauthorized investigation occurred before NYPD belatedly sought to renew the authorization.As the IG points out, this is completely unacceptable. The Agreement is there for a reason: to prevent unlawful surveillance. But the NYPD is left alone to ensure its own compliance with the guideline. There's no judicial oversight of these activities -- not like there is with searches, seizures, and stops. Left to police itself, the NYPD proved unworthy of the trust placed in it.
These failures cannot be dismissed or minimized as paperwork or administrative errors. The very reason these rules were established was to mandate rigorous internal controls to ensure that investigations of political activity – which allow NYPD to intrude into the public and private aspects of people’s lives – were limited in time and scope and to ensure that constitutional rights were not threatened.
[...]
As a result, until OIG-NYPD conducted this review, there had never been any routine, independent third-party review to ensure compliance with these rules. NYPD's compliance failures demonstrate the need for ongoing oversight, which OIG-NYPD will now provide.
see what happens when PDs are allowed to run surveillance without accountability or oversight?
rights of US citizens violated for over a decade, no bad guys caught.
Quote:
As is evidenced by the Inspector General's findings -- and the NYPD's own admissions -- the department has never been interested in accountability. It's far more interested in pretending it's the DEA, FBI, CIA, and NSA all rolled into one local law enforcement office. And it operates with a level of opacity surpassing the federal agencies it aspires to be.
Considering the targets, I don't think you're going to get more than a shrug from the people who are okay with the BPD program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You're going to have to wait for secret government surveillance of white, male gun owners to generate any kind of concern from them.
I could have sworn Barry already enacted that program with his cell phone and a stroke of his pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Cringing at the infinitessimal threat of terrorism, they prostrate themselves before the authority of the state. I still don't get why 9/11 means we have to throw away our liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
What happened to keep calm and carry on?
Google up NSA or National Security Agency...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
I'm talking about a situation where it was revealed that a law enforcement agency was monitoring the activities of gun owners without any prior announcement that this was taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
Anything about the NSA that would be found on Google, or discussed by President Obama, is not, by definition, secret.
And if that has already happened, tell me how gun owners reacted to this discovery... Could the reaction be summed up as "If you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about"?
My response was intended in jest. I should have put it in blue...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.