Will the NYPD Be Spying on Muslims to Learn What They Think of These Administrative Punishments?
The AP reports that 6 soldiers and 3 Marines responsible for burning Qurans in Afghanistan and for urinating on a corpse, respectively, will receive Administrative punishment (the punishments for other Marines involved in the urination incident have yet to be announced).
If NYC’s Muslims plan to talk about the adequacy of Administrative punishment for the defilement of a corpse, they should be aware that the NYPD finds such conversations legitimate topics for spying. As Adam Serwer noted last week, one of the things (incompetently) redacted in the transcript of NYPD Intelligence Chief Thomas Galati’s deposition was that officers were recording Muslims’ reaction to the treatment of a New Jersey Transit worker who had burned a Quran.
The improperly redacted conversations cited by the NYPD official, associate police chief Thomas Galati, in fact consist of Muslims discussing discrimination against Muslims after 9/11. The conversations contain no evidence of terrorist ties. In one of the redacted conversations, an Urdu-speaking man says, “This is unbelievable, that New Jersey Transit Worker who got fired for burning the Holy Quran by Ground Zero was rehired last week.”
As I noted, the NYPD justified recording such conversations because–Galati claimed–they indicated where terrorists might be comfortable.
So it’s probably safe to assume that NYPD’s spooks will head out to cafes in Pakistani neighborhoods so they can eavesdrop on the response to this punishment.
Likewise, if any Afghan security forces discuss the punishment as inadequate, they might run afoul of the guidelines suggested in the handy pocket reference on how to spot potential green on blue killers.
I would like to know if those who start the conversations are recorded and identified as well if they are in fact government agent provocateurs?
From Antiwar Radio/Scott Horton interview of Bruce Fein in 2010:
I’m picturing a kind of Rube Goldberg breeder reactor fail policy mechanism. The crappier a policy is, the more fuel it creates to feed itself.
P.S. I’ve posted that quote before, I remembered it, but when I went back to the Fein interview to find it, the part immediately before it seems kind of on topic and contributory to the wisdom of it all, if the NYPD/feds are interested in reasons and wisdom:
Look how far we’ve come in the two years since that interview. Now we know how to define a militant, thanks to the president: http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2012/08/14/today-is-terror-tuesday-say-a-prayer-for-the-chosen-ones/#comment-3
Naturally, “terrorists”, like the State Dept. and the CIA, operate only where and with whom they feel comfortable.
The assertion is so false that it begs the question why the NYPD is so blatant about its routine collection of private data about named individuals because they, their neighbors, friends, compatriots or even enemies sorta, outta, somehow, might, some day be upset enough to commit a crime.
Which is another way of saying that they admit to surveilling unknown numbers of little brown unchristianists as a way of avoiding saying how many other people they are also surveilling.
I hate to tread into such sordid waters, but can’t help but note this absurdity from the AP story:
And by the way, desecration of a corpse is a felony in many states (New York, Utah, Alabama, etc.). In some other states it’s a misdemeanor.
And then there’s Geneva (not this countryncares, having tossed Geneva so the nation can torture,