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.
2012 occurred earlier than last summer. Cruz doesn’t cringe...especially from bullies.
No worries there.
He’s never worked in the private sector, and I have no respect for anybody who lives off my tax money.
Half his career has been in private law firms. Can you make even one post about Cruz that isn’t a falsehood?
“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.
_________________________________________________
Bingo!
BTW speaking of the economy in Germany pre war, you might enjoy the book The Vampire Economy by Guenther Reinmann.
https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
Filling DC with lawyers and private investment hacks is the problem.
I don’t see anything inspirational or helpful by electing the same people from the same background, the same schools, the same club.
I think it is apparent that the rumored ‘deep bench’ of the GOPe was in their own minds. Americans rejected all of them. They will never be back.
We all saw through the scheme. Cruz has been at this game a long time. His dirt is starting to come out and people are starting to ask questions about why the wife uses “we are running for President”. I didn’t make any of that up.
I don’t want anybody that has been there for years. It’s not working.
No, instead you want one of the corrupt donors. But you don’t see it, so I don’t know why I waste my time.
If you do a search for “Clintons Third Way” you will see the “Third Way” campaign to get Hillary into the WH that is being played out right now was planned by the Clintons as far back to at least 1998-1999.
Communist B Sanders on the left.
Capitalist T Cruz on the right.
Two “Third Way” candidates Trump and Clinton are in the middle.
Trump’s sons and family can’t benefit from “Third Way” if he is president, dems would stop him because dems want the presidency, but Trump and family can benefit from “Third Way” if Hillary is president.
What does that have to do with my question?
Nothing. Your question is off-topic to deflect from the subject of the thread which is policing Muslim neighborhoods...about which Trump agrees.
“He’s never worked in the private sector, and I have no respect for anybody who lives off my tax money.”
Not true and you Know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Private_practice
Yeah, I knew you wouldn’t find any articles about Cruz defending his position to build a wall.
He never has done such a thing.
Yes, he did as far back as 2012, but I’m not going to research your off-topic question.
You insisted on bringing up the subject, not me.
I’ve pointed out what a coward Cruz is on the subject of The Wall, and all available evidence proves me correct.
You can’t even defend your original post, which is circumstantial proof in itself.
You can have the last word as you run for cover, just as Cruz did.
Here, you useless ___, you could’ve looked it up yourself...
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.