Time to Start Profiling All the Dunkin’ Donuts

With the exception of the time CBS borrowed my post on the Iranian Jewish butchers profiled by the NYPD, the NY news outlets cheering the NYPD apparently haven’t actually looked closely at what the AP was reporting. The NY Post, the NYDN, they seem to blindly accept whatever Ray Kelly or Mike Bloomberg claim about the program, without checking.

Yesterday, the NYDN actually did some reporting. And they discovered that almost none of the businesses reported to be owned by Syrian Muslims actually were.

NYPD anti-terror detectives compiled lists of businesses, stores and mosques linked to Muslim New Yorkers with Syrian, Albanian and Egyptian roots.

But they didn’t do a very thorough job.

The owners of most of the establishments listed in the “Syrian Locations of Concern Report” told The Daily News Friday they are neither Syrian nor Muslim.

Though rather curiously, that didn’t stop the NYDN from doing an op-ed today claiming such files had nothing alarming–as if there’s nothing alarming about NYPD files riddled with errors.

Nevertheless, the sudden outbreak of reporting did have one interesting result: a new spin from NYPD spokesperson Paul Browne on what these reports were supposed to capture: not Muslim-owned businesses, but Muslim-frequented businesses.

Told of the discrepanies in the reports, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the listed establishments were “frequented by” Syrian, Albanian and Egyptian Muslims.

Now, as I noted in my post showing how narrowly the NYPD had missed the hawala Faisal Shahzad used to fund his attack on Times Square, they actually missed some of the key locations: things like the Lowes where hawala operator Mohammad Younis worked or, perhaps even more problematic, the 7-11 where Younis had worked earlier with other recent Muslim immigrants, not long after he arrived in this country, which seems to have been where he met his friends.

The entire NYPD demographic set reads as if white people never frequent Muslim businesses (except for the Bianky Cafe on Coney Island Avenue, which “is patronized predominantly by young Caucasians”) and Muslims never frequent the same kind of generic American chains the 9/11 hijackers used when planning their attack.

The sole exception seems to prove the rule: the Suffolk set profiles the Dunkin’ Donuts in Seldon, describing a hopping business of people it judged were Bangladeshis coming over after Friday prayer. The Newark set profiles the Dunkin’ Donuts on South Orange, which is operated “by persons of Bangladeshi descent” but doesn’t appear to be in a particularly Bangladeshi neighborhood.

According to the NYPD (and we know they’re never wrong), in addition to a whole slew of Muslim cafes and halal butchers, Muslims also patronize Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just like most everyone else in the Northeast.

So why aren’t the Dunkin’ Donuts franchised by non-Bangladeshis listed? Why aren’t corporate-owned 7-11s in Muslim areas profiled?

Why has the NYPD decided it’s a smart idea to waste time and money profiling just businesses they believe (correctly or not) to be Muslim-owned that are frequented by Muslims (and occasionally, “young caucasians,” while ignoring the more generic American chains that tend to hire recent immigrants and would tend to attract people trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves?

Of course if the NYPD started rebranding American chains like Dunkin’ Donuts as terrorist hideouts, I would imagine the entire profiling program would end rather quickly.

14 replies
  1. P J Evans says:

    The NYPD doesn’t seem to know anyone who could actually tell them where the militant Muslims (and, I hope, the militant non-Muslims) hang out. (Possibly at the local firing ranges, but more likely in people’s back yards and living rooms.)

  2. PeasantParty says:

    Good One, Marcy!

    Small shops and family owned places, sure!

    Large Corporate Franchises, nope!

    Oh, the money that rules the planet.

  3. Quanto says:

    Just think, a cop getting paid overtime to: “hang out at a donut shop”.

    The NYPD are on to the donut terrorist plot, their going to all get extremely fat, have a heart attach, then bankrupt us in medical bills.

  4. Gitcheegumee says:

    As I haven’t posted here in some time,perhaps this comment is bringing coals to Newcastle, but isn’t Dunkin Donuts associated with Mitt Romney??

    According to my understanding,it’s owned by a triumvirate of private-equity firms, i.e., Bain Capital ,the Carlyle Group, and Thomas H. Lee Partners.

  5. watercarrier4diogenes says:

    Old joke from when 911 was still kind of a new thing, and Winchell’s was the dominant donut chain, in Southern California:

    Why are they wasting all this money on a 911 system? You need a cop? Call Winchell’s, that’s where they are!

  6. scribe says:

    Thing is, if you pass through the NY/NJ area, most (if not all) of the Dunkin’ Donuts operations are owned/operated by South Asians of one flavor or another. (Except the ones in company-owned Exxon stations/mini-marts, of course.) So, consonant with the general make-work tenor of the whole enterprise, the NYPD could have its cops hanging out in every Dunkin’ Donuts and becollecting data for their secret police ambitions.

  7. emptywheel says:

    @scribe: You know that just from experience?

    I actually think I missed one more Dunkin they talked about.

    But it would be really damning that they looked at Dunkins only because they were Bangladeshi owned, as if the owner gives a place cooties.

  8. sailmaker says:

    Hey, it is a known truthy fact that Dunkin Donuts is a Muslim loving chain. No less a vigilant(e) fashionista than Michelle Malkin has pointed this out: she got Dunkin’ Donuts to pull their ad featuring Rachel Ray in a Muslim scarf. So now the entire NYPD has been forewarned (we only prosecute pre crime thoughts now) that Dunkin Donuts is known to be a secret Muslim (read terrorist) endorsing hangout. /snark

  9. rugger9 says:

    It’s bad enough they they are doing it, it’s worse they are doing it badly. How long until Bloomberg smells the coffee and pulls the plug? Maybe when someone gets waxed in a raid that shouldn’t have happened.

    On a related note, are the Awlakis going to sue over the kid?

  10. Bob Schacht says:

    @rugger9: “are the Awlakis going to sue over the kid?”

    I think they were trying to, but for the status of their case, see perhaps EW’s previous post, with links:
    “And, of course, it continues to do it with the Anwar al-Awlaki killing, preferring inconsistent claims of Glomar and state secrets to full accounting not just of Awlaki’s killing, but of the claims about Presidential power more generally.”

    Bob in AZ

Comments are closed.