NYPD’s Spying Program: Not a Single Lead

All the spying on Muslims the NYPD has been doing for the last decade plus?

It has not led to a single investigation.

That’s what the head of NYPD’s intelligence program, Thomas Galati, said in a deposition in June on whether the Department was violating the Handschu Guidelines.

Q If they make an assessment of what’s being brought in, warrants, some action, does that indicate that an investigation has commenced?

MR. FARRELL: Objection.

A Related to Demographics, I can tell you that information that have come in has not commenced an investigation.

And the one investigation that Galati says might have derived from Demographics Unit information–which has been referred to elsewhere as a case that came from this spying–is that of James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, where the NYPD paid lots of money to an informant to coax two troubled young men into declaring the intent to attack a subway station.

Q You’re saying that based on what has occurred during your tenor, correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether that was also the case before you took over the Intelligence Division?

A I think that prior to me, there had been indication that there was one place that was visited later, that later on became subject of an investigation. However, I have not been able to determine that. That case involved a prosecution, but I have not been able to definitively say that it was because of Demographics.

That it. That’s what has come out of all the money and time invested in mapping out the Muslim hangouts in NYC.

The AP article describes other details Galati admitted to (better not speak Urdu in the city) and I’ll have a few more things to say later today. But we now have confirmation from the guy heading the program: all this spying has not identified a single terrorist.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

5 Responses to NYPD’s Spying Program: Not a Single Lead

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler Post hoc evidence not relevant.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @bmaz I'm sure it is important. Internet records prolly are important. @astepanovich
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @astepanovich @emptywheel She does view it as "important" though.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler After the fact? If they are arguing that as significant on King? Yes, absolutely.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler Them self servingly arguing that is of no necessary moment. b/c they support "your view" doesn't make "serious"
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @brianbeutler @ThePlumLineGS You are doing fine, and so is Greg! That is why I read you.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @OrinKerr: Judge in the Barrett Brown case explains the sentence calculation: http://t.co/UzE0un7gb1
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich Yes. But credit card program would not, as described, count as bulk, even if it collects all intl transfers @Robyn_Greene
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich Probably exactly. So non-denial may just be reasonable effor to avoid addressing crazy definition @Robyn_Greene
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Jurors also found in that 4:11 of convos, Sterling "caused" Risen to try to publish NYT article. http://t.co/7JLqk8Tb59 Risen=empty vehicle
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich "Bulk" of what they use it for is Internet production that Internet cos somehow refuse NSLs for. Is that bulk? @Robyn_Greene
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Jurors found 4:11 seconds of phone convo sufficient to prove Sterling directly or indirectly leaked info to Risen. http://t.co/7JLqk8Tb59
17mreplyretweetfavorite
August 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031