Jun 12 2013
In a stunning move, (no doubt in part instigated by terror-linked CAIR) the Obama Administration has thrust itself into the middle of the explosive federal stop-and-frisk trial and is taking sides against the NYPD, raising the odds of a outside monitor being appointed to oversee the
controversial highly successful crime/terror-fighting program.
NY POST “This is very bad news,” said one City Hall source. The source said that Attorney General Eric Holder’s office notified the city that it intends to file briefs in support of claims by the Center for Constitutional Rights that cops are stopping suspects on the basis of race (and religion?).
Ten weeks of testimony in the case concluded last month. But the federal government has the right to intervene in any federal case and Holder’s office will do so before the end of the day, the last day for filing briefs, the source said.
The presiding judge, Shira Schiendlin, has yet to issue a ruling, (yet she has shown throughout her career to repeatedly come down on the side of the suspect against the NYPD)
City officials feel privately that the NYPD held its own during the trial, leading to the hope that the judge would stop short of naming a monitor. “This gives her the cover to do that,” said one concerned source.
Wall St. Journal The mayor has joined Mr. Kelly in criticizing a recent proposal from Democratic mayoral front-runner Christine Quinn to create a new inspector general to oversee the NYPD. The department is already overseen by two independent city agencies, plus the five district attorneys and two U.S. attorneys based in New York City. If police can’t do stops, he says, “you’d need another 50,000 cops” to protect the city, says Kelly.
Mr. Kelly’s tenure has also been marked by the lack of a successful terror attack. The NYPD’s 1,000-strong counterterrorism force works closely with Washington, and Mr. Kelly is concerned about a possible lowering of the federal guard.
“If you look at the latest National Intelligence Estimate,” he says, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense “are sort of now downplaying the threat of terrorism. . . . They look back historically, ‘Hey look how few really big events we’ve had.’ Meantime, I see New York City differently. We’ve had 16 plots against the city.”
One recent example: Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, who “thought he was blowing up the Federal Reserve Bank” of New York as part of an FBI sting operation, the commissioner says. “He goes to the New York Stock Exchange, sees the police that we have there and he decides he can’t do it. Too much security.” So the suspect instead parked what he thought was a van full of explosives in front of the Fed and tried to detonate it from a distance with a cellphone.
“There are other investigations of young (Muslim) people like this that are ongoing right now,” says Mr. Kelly. “We see ourselves as the number one target and we have this stream of young (Muslim) men who want to come here and kill us.”
Media reports have suggested that his department unfairly monitors the Muslim community—the Associated Press ran a Pulitzer Prize-winning series on that score in 2011. Asked what he has changed about the NYPD’s surveillance methods in the wake of those stories, Mr. Kelly says: “Nothing.”
An old judicial consent decree, modified after 9/11, lays out exactly what the police are allowed to do in gathering public information that may help prevent terrorism, he says. The department follows these rules. Next question.