• You are not registered on MyBroadband, which means you miss out on great benefits. To join our community is very easy, and completely free. Register now.
  • New Two-Day Giveaway - Enter Here

New York police settle surveillance lawsuit after Muslims said they were illegally ta

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
37,652
#1
New York police settle surveillance lawsuit after Muslims said they were illegally targeted following 9/11

America’s largest police force*has agreed not to conduct*surveillance operations*based on religion or ethnicity, as part of a deal to settle claims*that it illegally spied on*Muslims*in the aftermath of the*9/11 attacks.

In an agreement announced in New York, the force agreed to put an end to such operations based solely on these factors and to pay $75,000 in damages and $1m in legal fees. It also agreed to meet with members of the Muslim community to discuss various issues.

We are proud that we stood up to the most powerful police force in the country and against the suspicion and ignorance that guided their discriminatory practices,” said Farhaj Hassan, the lead plaintiff in the case.

“We believe the legal rulings and settlement in this case will endure as part of a broader effort to hold this country to account for its stated commitment and its obligation to uphold religious liberty and equality.”

The lawsuit followed a series of award-wining article by the Associated Press that revealed how the city’s police department infiltrated Muslim student groups and put informants in mosques as part of a broad effort to prevent terrorist attacks.

In New Jersey, the department collected intelligence on ordinary people at mosques, restaurants and schools starting in 2002. At a press conference, the plaintiffs pointed out that the programme failed to produce a single lead despite spying on 20 mosques, 14 restaurants, 11 retail stores, 2 schools and 2 Muslim student associations in New Jersey.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter
 
Last edited:

Randhir

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
25,496
#4
Well, the people that are usually bitching about 'muh rights' and 'muh constitution' usually only want those rights applied to themselves and people like them.

Yes they did. The white nationalist terrorists are ecstatic that the authorities zeroed in on Muslims and have given them free reign to shoot up parts of the population whenever they'd like.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
294
#5
Well, the people that are usually bitching about 'muh rights' and 'muh constitution' usually only want those rights applied to themselves and people like them.



Yes they did. The white nationalist terrorists are ecstatic that the authorities zeroed in on Muslims and have given them free reign to shoot up parts of the population whenever they'd like.
Like they should be.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,548
#13
Well, the people that are usually bitching about 'muh rights' and 'muh constitution' usually only want those rights applied to themselves and people like them.
Like the NRA?
The National Rifle Association has formed an unlikely alliance with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in support of a court action over the NSA's collection of phone data of millions of Americans.

The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the intelligence agency's action, which was revealed in a top-secret document obtained by the whistleblower Ed Snowden and published in the Guardian in June.

The NRA, in an amicus brief in support of the ACLU, argues that the mass surveillance programme provides "the government not only with the means of identifying members and others who communicate with the NRA and other advocacy groups, but also with the means of identifying gun owners without their knowledge or consent".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-national-rifle-backs-aclu
 

Randhir

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
25,496
#15
I was thinking more about the tiki torch crowd of the above ilk, but your link kind of proves my point. The argument they make is because they want to push back against being surveilled as gun owners. Do you have a link that shows they came to support Muslims when the above case was going on, or just in the case that they were worried that surveillance might be used against their members, which is exactly what my post you quoted described?
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
39,482
#16
Top