Posted on 03/23/2016 1:35:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
The tragedies in Paris and Brussels show us that we need more, not less, of former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelley’s approach to counter-terrorism.
Yesterday, in the wake of the horrific Islamic terrorist attack on Brussels, Ted Cruz said we must ignore political correctness and “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslims neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” As has often been the case this election cycle, Cruz’s measured and rational words have been twisted into some kind of fascistic call for rounding up Muslims. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Later in the day Cruz clarified his comments, citing the example of the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) anti-terrorism efforts under former mayor Michael Bloomberg. But even this clarification was misunderstood by those convinced Cruz is unhinged. Vox’s Matthew Yglesias thought Cruz was talking about “Stop, question and frisk.”
@yeselson @DLind Turns out I misunderstood. It's not stop-and-frisk it's this https://t.co/cNgbfnrCSM
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 22, 2016
As it turns out, Cruz was referring to a successful counter-terrorism program that was undermined by liberal journalists and abandoned, leaving the city and the country less safe. In 2012 the Associated Press won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the NYPD’s counter-terrorism efforts. By their account, a frightening malfeasance of spying and violation of rights was at the heart of the program. But in fact, the much-needed work of the NYPD was not only legal, it was also successful.
In a 2012 article for Commentary magazine, Mitchell D. Silber takes on the AP’s criticism with an astounding point-by-point admonishment of their take. The entire article is well worth revisiting, especially in light of the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels, but here a few key points.
On criticisms that the NYPD’s Demographics Unit was violating the rights of Muslims, Silber counters: “Plainclothes officers of the Demographics Unit were deployed for this mission. They went into neighborhoods that had heavy concentrations of populations from the ‘countries of interest’ and walked around, purchased a cup of tea or coffee, had lunch and observed the individuals in the public establishments they entered. This is an important point: Only public locations were visited. Doing so was perfectly within the purview of the NYPD.”
Let’s understand this clearly. Critics of the program, apparently including the Pulitzer committee, object to police being in public places, observing public situations. Where are they supposed to be? In some kind of game show silent tank? Unable to deal with crime or acts of war until they have already occurred? This is madness. It’s not a game show; it doesn’t have to be fair.
On criticisms that the NYPD had no real results to show for its program: “the Demographics Unit was critical in identifying the Islamic Books and Tapes bookstore in Brooklyn as a venue for radicalization. Information the unit collected about the store provided a predicate for an investigation that thwarted a 2004 plot against the Herald Square subway station. The unit also played a role in forming the initiation of an investigation that led to the 2008 identification ofAbdel Hameed Shehadeh, a New Yorker who was arrested and is currently facing federal charges for allegedly lying about his plans to travel to Afghanistan in order to kill U.S. servicemen.”
But hey, that’s only two examples. I’m a New Yorker, so now and then I find myself at the Herald Square subway station. I’d prefer that the NYPD pursue relevant information regarding terrorist attacks there before I take my kid to see Santa at Macy’s. This is just common sense—a quality that has been lost in the quantity of big talk that has distracted us so completely.
On the need for police to predict: “By portraying the NYPD efforts as rogue operations, the AP and the Pulitzer committee are seeking to slacken attempts inside the United States to stop terrorist plots before they happen. Letting these false and misleading stories alter local counterterrorism work would be catastrophic. It has taken many hard years to craft the effective anti-terrorism policies that serve us so well today.”
This is frankly an area where Bernie Sanders socialists and Gary Johnson libertarians find some common ground in opposition. And I dig it; law enforcement predicting complicity seems to run counter to every American ideal of jurisprudence.
But in predicting, or anticipating, potentially catastrophic actions by terrorists, law enforcement is playing defense, not offense. These methods aren’t new. They were used to take down the Mafia. But in 1980, nobody in the liberal press was insisting that if you are investigating the Mafia you need just as many cameras in Bed Stuy and the Upper East Side as in Little Italy and Bensonhurst. You got to go where the game is.
If Cruz deserves any criticism here, it is for invoking the idea of political correctness in a nuanced approach to anti-terrorism. PC has become a linguistic dead wood. This term conflates legitimate concerns about surveillance and civil liberties with the cultural appropriation of taco night, and has probably outlived its usefulness. But in as much as political correctness suggests that legal measures must not be taken if they insult anyone’s sensibilities, then Cruz has a point.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this scrutiny into Cruz’s sober and reasonable opinion is the scrutiny himself. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders gaffe at will. Donald Trump takes three positions contradicting each other in a news cycle and the bobble heads keep bobbling. But Cruz is subjected to a soul-searching deep dive every time he puts on his boots. It’s like he’s the presidential candidate defending his PhD dissertation.
The tragedies in Paris and Brussels show us that we need more, not less of former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelley’s approach to counter-terrorism. Cruz is right to cite his example. Honestly, folks, that’s all he was saying. He wasn’t calling for balaclava-bearing Special Ops to target shop owners in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. He was calling for a return to a policy that recognizes the unique challenge terrorism presents.
Sometimes Cruz reminds me of Jessica Rabbit: He’s not bad, he’s just drawn that way. His look, his style, his place in recent political history all paint him easily as the villain. But there are two kinds of villains. There are the ones who are irredeemable and vanquished, and the ones who learn great lessons and go on to lead. On the issue of police and counter-terrorism, Cruz is leading. And we would be wise to follow.
Hear! Hear!
I have been advocating the reclassification of ‘islam’ to the status of cult for many lustrum, and for the reasons you state.
Unfortunately it would be difficult as anyone who can gather a few folk together and state that they believe that fornicating with goats will allow them to enter Heaven. That qualifies them as a ‘religion’ in this country. Too bad.
So where was Cruz last summer while Trump was taking endless heat over his promise to build a wall?
I’ll tell you where he was, he was in hiding, fearful.
Once Trump cleared the path, suddenly Cruz whispered, ‘Me too’.
Cruz can’t take 10% of the hateful rhetoric directed towards Trump.
He folds like a wet paper bag.
Yes, let’s elect a noodle for president.
Once again, Cruz parroting Trump who said neighborhood mosques should be watched. = Bingo
Donald Trump was asked if he could quote any bible verses —
He answered: Trump 20:16,
“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Deport him and you won’t have to feed him again.”
National Guard.
These places have their own islamic police, and they don’t play by the rules. This great idea will get a lot of people killed. Cuz it’s a half measure doomed to fail. Stupid.
Do not confuse them with facts. Their minds are made up. Donald Trump has so poisoned the waters of this election by running his big fat mouth that he can’t take back all the crap he has spewed about Cruz and he cannot mend that fence.
Even if Cruz doesn’t make it to the Presidency he won’t be able to be part of a Trump White House. “Lying Ted?” I mean come on, what a bully and a single-minded fool.
If Trump had half the sense his supporters bestow on him he would have backed all that down a thousand rpms several months ago. We are screwed. Because of Donald’s mouth we are probably going to get the dreaded second President Clinton.
cruz isint right about anything
“If Ted Cruz cured cancer tomorrow, you’d call him out on his methods and the cost.”
If Ted Cruz cured cancer tomorrow the Trumpsters would say Trump did it first and Ted copied him.
For years Muslims in Europe have been murdering Europeans.
However, since almost all of the European victims of Muslim hatred have been Jewish, no great incentive has developed to get serious about policing Muslim neighborhoods.
Now Muslim murderers have become equal-opportunity terrorists, targeting all Europeans, regardless of race, creed, or degree of abject servitude to Muslim causes such as the destruction of Israel.
Only a few months ago, Brussels was the scene of the European Union’s enactment of a continent-wide boycott against Israeli goods. Yet Muslim terrorists have not been appeased; instead, they’ve increased their deadly attacks against their European anti-Israel allies.
Europe’s continuing failure to improve its Muslim-neighborhood policing threatens to turn Europe into one big Muslim neighborhood. But do Europeans care enough to do anything about it?
“Because of Donald’s mouth we are probably going to get the dreaded second President Clinton.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that’s been Trump’s objective all along.
Trump’s good friend George Soros is funding Kasich which helps Trump.
Soros wouldn’t be helping Trump if he thought it would hurt Hillary and both Soros and Trump are on the Clinton’s “Third Way” economic bandwagon and have been for years.
The Clinton’s “Third Way” is nothing more than the economics of 1930s Germany, Govt and business in partnership.
Soros grew up with it and thought it was great and Trump has shown his support for it with his support of Kelo.
It’s easier, though never a certainty, to do something about a problem when you’re president than trying to convince those against it as a senator. Maybe you don’t understand how that works. IOW, for now, it’s all talk...
It’s all TALK, sack-of...
Yeah, Cruz was hiding...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/why_wont_donald_trump_debate_ted_cruz.html
Cruz whispered “me too” 4 years ago while Trump was donating $$$ to 5 of the Gang Of 8. Cruz has been taking the hateful rhetoric in the senate for 4 years. Have you been hiding under a rock or in a coma?
Governments are out of money. People will have to protect their own towns.
No one heard a peep from Cruz last summer over The Wall.
He hid while Trump took all the flack.
You have anything from the news showing he was out there at all?
His actions were those of a coward.
Thanks for repeating what you wrote previously...now you’ve persuaded me /s
Ted could cure 'cancer' by disavowing his ugly PAC's who do his dirty work so he can come across as Mr. Clean.
I also asked if you had any news reports of Cruz ‘building a wall’ from last summer.
Kind of rhetorical on my part of course, Cruz was trembling under his desk for fear someone would ask him about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.