What's new

Reforms to protect New York Muslims from discriminatory surveillance.

Moonlight

MODERATOR
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
6,406
Reaction score
42
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
NEW YORK: New York will appoint an independent monitor to review police investigations as part of reforms designed to protect Muslims from discriminatory and blanket surveillance, officials said on Thursday.

Civil liberty campaigners welcomed the changes, which settle two lawsuits, saying the move by the country’s largest police force sent a powerful message at a time of rising anti-Muslim sentiment.

The lawsuits alleged that New York police stigmatised communities based solely on religion, and that lawful political and religious activities were subject to unwarranted police surveillance following the 9/11 attacks.

The terms of the settlement, which were reached after more than a year of negotiations, must be approved by a federal judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which helped bring one of the suits, welcomed what it called a “watershed” move.

Discriminatory surveillance sowed fear and mistrust, drove down mosque attendance and forced religious leaders to censor conversations out of concern that they might be misunderstood, the group said.

Hina Shamsi, ACLU National Security Project director, said it introduced “much-needed constraints on law enforcement’s discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of Muslims”. “At a time of rampant anti-Muslim hysteria and prejudice nationwide, this agreement with the country’s largest police force sends a forceful message that bias-based policing is unlawful, harmful and unnecessary,” she added.

Muslim community leaders have complained of an unprecedented backlash across the United States after extremist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, fuelled by rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail.

The new representative, an independent lawyer, would have the power to ensure that all safeguards were followed and served as a check on investigations directed at political and religious activities, ACLU said.

They would be required to report any violations to the police commissioner, who would investigate and report back, it added.

The reforms would also limit police use of undercover and confidential informants, and end open-ended investigations by imposing time limits and require status reviews every six months, ACLU said.

Rebuilding relations

Police would need facts alleging possible criminal activity before opening an investigation, the ACLU said.

The police denied the proposed settlement would weaken their ability to investigate and prevent terrorist activity. Mayor Bill de Blasio and police commissioner Bill Bratton welcomed the terms.

“This settlement represents another important step towards building our relationship with the Muslim community,” said de Blasio.

“The modifications also bring the guidelines closer in line with FBI practices, which is helpful in working collaboratively with our federal partners,” said Bratton.

Deputy police commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, John Miller, would retain “sole authority” over all intelligence investigations and decisions, the police department said.

The mayor will appoint the independent monitor in consultation with the police commissioner. “This additional voice will increase transparency while maintaining the confidentiality of investigations,” the police department said.

In April 2014, police announced the disbanding of the Demographics Unit, a deeply controversial and heavily criticised group that sent undercover officers to spy on local Muslims.

New York Muslims had challenged the spy programme, arguing it stigmatised hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The ACLU said that after 9/11, police officers monitored entire communities and sent paid infiltrators into mosques, student associations and community events, including a wedding, to take photos and keep tabs on Muslims.

The Pew Research Centre estimates that about 3.3 million Muslims were living in the United States in 2015. New York and the neighbouring state of New Jersey are among the biggest communities.

Published in Dawn, January 9th, 2016
 
.
Building a good relationship with the community is the best way to prevent extremism. Surveillance can only do so much, and get have negative consequences, but if you can get the community on your side, they'll find and report extremists themselves.
 
.
Buy gun, USA allows civilians to protect themselves from illegal surveillance or trespassers
Someone comes crash your Wedding or your home at night YOU TAKE OUT that freedom gun

That is why there are gun laws in USA

GUNS-articleLarge.jpg


gun-ownership-decline-us.si_.jpg


gun-store.jpg



gunshop_outside_chicago.jpg



3000.jpg


4601.jpg



news-and-politics-2012-09-gun-control-inset-02.jpg



That is the American way protect your family and freedom


USA bill or rights state , you can form militias if you feel that the authority is stepping out of its boundaries and attacking civil liberties


"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Is a state that has illegal surveillance free state?? No
Is it a free state where whole community is opressed ?? No
Is it free state where people go into student bodies and scare students?? No
Is it free state where people abuse the system ?? No

So that is why it is important for people to use the second Amendment rights and protect their families and values for a free state

The article clearly states it was a "ILLEGAL" surveillance

Why its illegal ? Because there is no GOD damn warrant!!

Amendment IV (4): Search and arrest warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Here is how Americans handle illegal Federal abuse


Summary of this problem: Ranchers used the land since 1700 , and the cattle use to graze there some time recent , Federal Authorities banned the grazing and forced the people to give up the land and ability to graze their cattle on land they lived on for ages, many families left becasue their cattle had no grass to feed on. Feds stated well they are not allowing cattle to feed in order to protect Turtles and then started to FORCE the people or using Illegal means
(Abuse of power) , similar to how it is done in New York illegal survailence


The farmers formed a militia and refused to acknowledge them



When state become abusive people in USA have right to bear arms


The US bill of rights is one amazing document
 
Last edited:
.
US bill of rights is one amazing document

As we all know this is the most diverse country, and this Bill of Rights is actually playing very important role to keep things going peacefully in USA in this diverse state. Yes, there are few particular groups facing some types of discrimination, but the best things is they are given the justice. This Bill of Rights limited the government's role and which is ultimate help to the citizens.

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you think this amendment should be compromised after all those shooting incidents? This is one of the hot topic these days among the people and the government of USA.
 
. .
Buy gun, USA allows civilians to protect themselves from illegal surveillance or trespassers
Someone comes crash your Wedding or your home at night YOU TAKE OUT that freedom gun

That is why there are gun laws in USA

GUNS-articleLarge.jpg


The US bill of rights is one amazing document

The bill of right is an amazing document indeed. It provides and protects basic freedom and rights to all Americans. I don't understand the reason behind your post on Gun Laws in a NYPD surveillance thread......how is the bill of rights linked to monitoring the terrorist threat? The monitoring and surveillance really comes from the Patriotic act. Not from the Bill of Rights!!

Do you think this amendment should be compromised after all those shooting incidents? This is one of the hot topic these days among the people and the government of USA.

The shooting incidents can NOT be linked to normal Americans' right to bear arms, as its our core right and principle of our society, and who we are.

An analogy (specially looking at the threads topic) would be what Trump says, ban all Muslims because a few have committed terrorist acts. So should we ban all Muslims? Or, per your post, all Guns to all Normal Americans? The simple answer is NO, it doesn't make sense. So how do you watch the terrorists and bad guys who could use these guns? By making it difficult for Jihadi nut jobs and other nut jobs to acquire weapons within the US. Background checks, mental health and other profiling would help. But there is no way that our Second Amendment will just be taken away. Both parties have plenty of leaders who know the basis of our society and our basic rights guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

I see one of your flags being the US flag. Remember, when a bad guy breaks into a house or faces an individual in any situation, you only have less than a minute or two to protect yourself. The 911 call can ONLY be made if you can actually talk and the response time is 3-5 minutes. Historically, its observed that a LOT can happen in a house, or in any situation within the first three minutes of an event starting.

Now imagine this, if you are armed and your weapon can be seen, OR, upon approach you WARN the intruder that you have a weapon, what would happen? Someone will REALLY need to be effing stupid to try to assault someone (or break into a house when they know the owner has a weapon to protect his family). This is what the Second Amendment means, essentially, "Weapons for Peace and Protection".

Another analogy in the military industry inside the US is: No two countries having the F-16's, have ever fought against each other". The primary meaning is because they BOTH know that the other party is JUST as capable in defending their country.
 
.
The bill of right is an amazing document indeed. It provides and protects basic freedom and rights to all Americans. I don't understand the reason behind your post on Gun Laws in a NYPD surveillance thread......how is the bill of rights linked to monitoring the terrorist threat? The monitoring and surveillance really comes from the Patriotic act. Not from the Bill of Rights!!



The shooting incidents can NOT be linked to normal Americans' right to bear arms, as its our core right and principle of our society, and who we are.

An analogy (specially looking at the threads topic) would be what Trump says, ban all Muslims because a few have committed terrorist acts. So should we ban all Muslims? Or, per your post, all Guns to all Normal Americans? The simple answer is NO, it doesn't make sense. So how do you watch the terrorists and bad guys who could use these guns? By making it difficult for Jihadi nut jobs and other nut jobs to acquire weapons within the US. Background checks, mental health and other profiling would help. But there is no way that our Second Amendment will just be taken away. Both parties have plenty of leaders who know the basis of our society and our basic rights guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

I see one of your flags being the US flag. Remember, when a bad guy breaks into a house or faces an individual in any situation, you only have less than a minute or two to protect yourself. The 911 call can ONLY be made if you can actually talk and the response time is 3-5 minutes. Historically, its observed that a LOT can happen in a house, or in any situation within the first three minutes of an event starting.

Now imagine this, if you are armed and your weapon can be seen, OR, upon approach you WARN the intruder that you have a weapon, what would happen? Someone will REALLY need to be effing stupid to try to assault someone (or break into a house when they know the owner has a weapon to protect his family). This is what the Second Amendment means, essentially, "Weapons for Peace and Protection".

Another analogy in the military industry inside the US is: No two countries having the F-16's, have ever fought against each other". The primary meaning is because they BOTH know that the other party is JUST as capable in defending their country.

I think the same, we should not compromise with the Bill of Rights and/or with 2nd amendment.
But how are we gonna handle this problem shooting problem then?
Well it's not true that every single time the shooter is mentally sick. Don't you think people are misusing this right?
 
.
But how are we gonna handle this problem shooting problem then?Well it's not true that every single time the shooter is mentally sick. Don't you think people are misusing this right?

More background checks, ensuring buyer's mental health, other criminal or violent records, previous issues with law enforcement, etc. Majority of these "active shooter" attacks, (I'd say 98%) due to bad mental hygiene. Otherwise, if one is SANE, he or she will never shoots at another civilian, let alone a CHILD!!

The fact that someone shot another person or many children in cold blood, tells you that they weren't in the right mental state to begin with. These kinds of people should never have a weapon to begin with. People who spread violent are a few (you can count them on your fingers, within the last decades). So putting that blame on hundreds of millions of law abiding US citizens and trying to take away their second amendment rights, is just plain silly IMO.

We need a better system to find a few handful of crazies who can go and commit these violent acts of terror with guns, before they can GET to a gun. Additionally, some loopholes need to be corrected or regulated.
 
.
Shooting problem? there are accidents on road don't see ppl riding horses

The shooting excuse is a , Gimmick used to pass legislation , in knee jerk reaction. Similar to how Bankers passed the decision to have Federal Reserves , which resulted in Trillions of debt and degradation in stand of life. Reference: Zeitgeist: The Movie The Zeitgeist Film Series Gateway | Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Law is very simple in US rights

1- Religion freedom
2- Right to bear arms , and right to not agree with state if it becomes "Oppressing"
3- No survailance unless there is a Warrant !! a just warrant & legal cause of concern


What is this lovely illegal program that was being run by some folks and illegal abuse of power
Every thing about that program was illegal , specially since the people who it was run against were law abiding citizens

No one sued anyone for $$$$ , because survailance is illegal on a innocent person

Just becasue someone is Muslim does not mean start a survailance program lol

Hey look those Muslims are having a birth day party , they must have many 10 year old Moslems lets start a surveillance program
 
Last edited:
.
More background checks, ensuring buyer's mental health, other criminal or violent records, previous issues with law enforcement, etc. Majority of these "active shooter" attacks, (I'd say 98%) due to bad mental hygiene. Otherwise, if one is SANE, he or she will never shoots at another civilian, let alone a CHILD!!

The fact that someone shot another person or many children in cold blood, tells you that they weren't in the right mental state to begin with. These kinds of people should never have a weapon to begin with. People who spread violent are a few (you can count them on your fingers, within the last decades). So putting that blame on hundreds of millions of law abiding US citizens and trying to take away their second amendment rights, is just plain silly IMO.

We need a better system to find a few handful of crazies who can go and commit these violent acts of terror with guns, before they can GET to a gun. Additionally, some loopholes need to be corrected or regulated.

All those points you mentioned above make totally sense. But the question is, so we are not currently looking into all these aspects before allowing gun permits?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom