NYPD Surveillance of Muslims Compatibility with the Fourth Amendment

US Politics and Government

NYPD Surveillance of Muslims Compatibility with the Fourth Amendment

Once the planes struck towers one and two on September 11, 2001 a person and group of people would be persecuted and held responsible whether it was blatant or underhanded. “… local law enforcement official worked feverishly to investigate those responsible for the reprehensible crime on American Soil and to no assess our state of vulnerability to further acts of terrorism. As part of those efforts, conclusions about the ethnicity and national origin of the prime suspects were inescapable. This crime was committed by a group of foreign nationals of Middle Eastern decent.” McCarthyism is the practice of accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It is a term that was developed in the forties and fifties yet a term that is juxtaposed with the term Islamophobia which is a more modern term applicable to Muslim communities throughout the United States. Islamophobia is defined as prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam and/or Muslims. These issues shed light on the rights to the heavily debated fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was implemented into the Bill of Rights to grant citizens the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects against, unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. Cleary with regards to modern-day McCarthyism and Islamophobia fourth amendment rights are being violated. However, in hindsight, America has always kept a close eye on a group of people they were engaged in combat with overseas and domestic which may be or may not be necessary at the time.

Aside from the communist era that brought McCarthyism, the attack on Pearl Harbor shows us distinct instances of where Japanese Citizens fourth amendment rights were violated. From the concentration camps and the Alien Land Law, Japanese citizens were excluded from the fourth amendment on many instances. According to Peter Siggins, in his article, Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism, “Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the interest in preserving the safety and security of the nation was put in direct conflict with the American democratic ideal of racial equality.” Very similar, if not identical statements have been made recently in regards to Muslims in America.  Eleven years ago in 2001, “Attorney General Ashcroft condemned racial profiling as an unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection under our Constitution.” (Siggins 1-7)

Terry v. Ohio 1968 was the gateway case to condone racial profiling. Detaining and searching people based upon a police officer’s opinion and belief to deem someone as a dangerous threat doesn’t present itself as an appropriate responsible. The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision circle around the understanding that, the exclusionary rule has is limited. The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes. The Patriot Act of 2001 exacerbates that right on many different levels such as being detained without an explanation, wiretaps on phones also without explanation or notification either.  There is much controversy surrounding the Patriot Act’s violation of fourth amendment rights.

The Huffington Post article; 4 Myths That Led to the NYPD Attack on Muslim Civil Liberties; outlines “myths” that have caused the Muslim’s civil liberties to be violated. These stereotypical generalizations such as, extremist Muslims have permeated New York Muslim communities, Muslim’s level of religiosity is a sign of radicalization and support for terrorism, profiling Muslims is possible and necessary and Muslim community leaders and citizens do not need to be consulted in counterterrorism efforts, show the division and steps taken to secure other people outside the Muslim community.

Misnomers are a very common mistake that take place in New York City and the rest of the United States. Because the “brown” man is displayed on television and commonly associated with in media, many people assume it is only them that can be the terrorist. There are many other ethnic groups that have a large Muslim population, such as those from the Chez Republic, as well as Turkey, Russia, Yugoslavia amongst many other countries.  There are Caucasian, Hispanic and African American Muslims in the United States in addition to Middle Eastern Muslims. How does law enforcement surveillance these group of people? Do the same generalizations and stereotypes apply? Separating groups of people only causes and elevates tension between people.  However some positivity can come out of it such as “…the fight against bigotry and misunderstanding of their faith will result in a greater level of integration into the American experience in the long term.”  (Tutt 1-7)

This debate depends on how you perceive threats. Some people believe it is outrageous to spy on a group of people without a specific probable cause. It is ignorant and incorrect to say all Muslims are terrorists or can be influenced to become terrorists. However, some precautions have to be taken in order to guarantee safety for others such as some counterterrorism efforts that have been made by the NYPD. The amount of money spent on homeland security and other law enforcement agencies in the United States has to be put use in one way or the other. The Handschu guidelines described in the Wall Street Journal, article is interesting, but it doesn’t seem to apply to the fourth amendment but the first amendment instead. Though, the Handschu guidelines can and should be applicable to the fourth amendment in a sense that it would help the problem with racial profiling. There are good and bad people in every nation. Some people are absolutely offended to the most extent. Many people’s opinions in the opposition of this are displayed in the Daily News article; Ray Kelly defends spying on students, scalling it an essential safety strategy for city. There is a major problem with racial profiling because it is underhanded and/or unconscious and/or blatant racism. Acting upon that profiling, causing disparate impact on someone’s life due to race is racism. Racism describes a set of behaviors that have negative impact on the lives of people based on race. Bigoted or prejudiced mindsets, without action, which may include speech, do nothing to disparately affect others. The NYPD exceeding efforts and activities of the FBI seems a little overbearing. Is it really necessary for the NYPD to exceed law enforcement agencies that have a hierarchy over them?  New York City is such an essential and critical city in the states, and overall United States that it may seem slightly necessary. New York City is the origin of the 9/11 attack and with one of the most advanced local law enforcement agencies in the entire country, it seems like enough variables for Commissioner Ray Kelly to justify his excessive surveillance on Muslims.

The Bill of Rights shouldn’t have exceptions, but it does. Due to bills such as the Patriot Act, those exceptions to the rights grow larger and are a lot easier to take away. It is interesting that this war on terror has supporters and adversaries on both political party sides. In another Huffington Post article; Rep Peter King Condemns Chris Christie’s NYPD Criticism, Bloomberg Defends Surveillance, it shows the clear disagreement between republican governor Chris Christie and republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King. However in politics there is always a strategy and agenda behind the positions taken on certain issues. Chris Christie is a very popular republican politician right now with prospects of moving up the political latter in the future. Therefore, Christie may want to secure the support of the New Jersey citizens by attacking Ray Kelly’s efforts to surveillance Muslims beyond his turf.  In the article Peter King is said to have accused Christie of being driven by ego and was overreacting.  In another Huffington Post article, NYPD Monitored Muslim Students All Over Northeast shows us how vigorous and thoroughly Muslim groups are being watched. As a student who attends one of the schools that was monitored and knows of people who attend other schools that were in the article outside of New York City, it is daunting to say the least, but reassuring in a sense that the NYPD are going way beyond their job description to implement safety.  “The mission of responsible law enforcement officials in combating domestic terrorism is to take what they know to be true about the ethnic identity of the September 11^th assailants, and combine it with other factors developed through investigation and analysis to focus investigative efforts and avoid casting a net too wide.” (Siggins 1-7) I can’t really say the NYPD has or hasn’t done that intentionally or unconsciously.

-CP

Bibliography

Caruso, David. “Rep Peter King Condemn Chris Christie’s NYPD Criticism, Bloomberg Defends Surveillance.” Huffington Post . (2012): 1-7. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rep-peter-king-condemns-c_n_1318278

Tutt, Daniel. “4 Myths That Led to the NYPD Attack on Muslim Civil Liberties.” Huffington Post . (2012): 1-7. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-tutt/myths-about-islam-and-nypd-civil-liberties-violations_b_1289259.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

“NYPD Cheif Defends Monitoring of Muslims Students.” Wall Street Journal. (2012): 1-2. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/APfe4ec2c60f47455c96ccc6bfd15eeb4e.html

Moore, Tina, and Jonathan Lemire. “Ray Kelly Defends Spying on Students, Calling it an Essential Safety Strategy for City .” Daily News.com Crime. (2012): 1-3. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/raymond-kelly-defends-spying-calling-essential-safety-strategy-city-article-1.1032607

Siggins, Peter. “Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara. Keynote.

Hawley, Chris. “NYPD Monitored Students All Over Northeast.” Associated Press. (2012): 1-9. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/nypd-monitored-muslim-stu_0_1286647.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Political Interest Groups Influences and Motives in the United States

Intro to Politics & Government

April 27 2012

Political Interest Groups Influences and Motives in the United States

Interest groups are individuals who organize themselves to be influential on governmental programs and policies. In America there are many interest groups and lobby organizations that operate throughout the country. Some interest groups are more powerful than others and they clearly display the extent and power of the first amendment and the freedom to enjoy the right to organize and express views. Currently in today’s political climate the United States are clearly in favor of pluralism. The Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v Fec 2010 displays the theory that all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in the government without many restrictions or limitations. Some of the significances in interest groups are their motives and ability to radicalize and/or revolutionize an issue.  Interest groups specifically concern themselves with policies and laws of the government which we’ve seen some instances throughout American history to be world changing. Government programs are also a big concern for interest groups because they want to know if they would be affected or not.  Some interest groups have been extremely influential on all branches of government and some groups have protected and advocated rights that are important in American culture. The effects interest groups have on society can be negative or positive and can directly or indirectly affect society as a whole as well as individuals.

Specific interest groups have helped shaped American culture into what it is today. Dealing with racial issues, such groups like the Pennsylvania Abolish society dates back to the 1700’s who was in favor of abolishing slavery. The Suffragettes was a political interest group that was pro women’s voting rights in the United Kingdom which spread onto many nations thereafter. The Civil Rights Movement was composed of many interest groups that aimed to get equal rights for African Americans and end all segregation and Jim Crow laws.  Also, described in “We the People”, the NAACP has been an influential interest group specifically because they used the courts dating back to Brown v. Board of Ed. Without these interest groups radical movements would not have taken place which inevitably benefited all citizens and races in the United States. Today America has its first African-American president, women are more powerful and dominant than they’ve ever been and apparently we are living in a “post-racial” America. Interest groups and lobby organizations can’t solely take full responsibility for making all of those things happen but they have helped influence many of those movements.

Extremism can be an issue in interest groups. Specifically the National Rifle Association has been in favor of some extreme laws in favor of the second amendment as they are non-profit 501 (c) lobby group that promotes firearm ownership, marksmanship, and the protection of hunting and self defense. “The NRA has systematically manipulated Congress and many State Legislatures into adopting dangerous gun policies, allowing virtually unrestricted and undetectable access to powerful firearms by criminals including gang members, convicted felons, and terrorists.” (Rosenthal, 2) The NRA is indisputably one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America, surrounded by much support and controversy.  It was formed in 1871 and had member in high profiles, including some presidents of the United States. They have influenced a number of cases such as NRA v. Mayor Ray Nagin, NRA v. Chicago, McDonald v. City of Chicago, among others which has basically kept guns on the streets and in the homes of civilians with as little restriction as possible.

Recently notable cases showing the effects of the extremely lacked gun laws are former representative Gabby Giffords and slain victim Trayvon Martin. These are people who were directly affected by the troubling gun laws in America.  “NRA opposed a federal ban on military style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips used to shoot Rep. Gabby Giffords and those used at most school shootings … even opposed a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles capable of disabling an armored vehicle, an airplane or a helicopter at distances of over a mile.” (Rosenthal 2) Not many people can understand the rationale behind why a civilian would need such a weapon for sport or defense. The Trayvon Martin case has sparked new interest groups and charities that focus on opposing the NRA and gun laws that allowed this unfortunate young boy to be shot and killed while en route to his family members’ house because a self appointed neighborhood watchman felt suspicious, falling under the Stand Your Ground law in the state of Florida. There have been equal interest groups and growing support for the NRA as a result to this case.

NORML is a non-profit organization group that stands for National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws. This interest group has been established since 1970 and currently operates out of Washington. They too are surrounded with support and controversy. NORML’s primary focus is on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana on a federal and local level. Most recently they’ve sent a petition to President Barack Obama requesting that a “Drug Czar” be appointed who will treat drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal issue and will move end a “War on Drugs”. NORML’s goal for this petition is 100,000 signatures. NORML does receive benefits and incentives as most interest and lobbying groups do, one being, tax exemption. Most of the group’s efforts go into research and educational activities. NORML’s opponents are very strong though and have a lot more motive and incentive to oppose the marijuana legalization movement. Police Unions are on the opposition because they would lose money. Many police unions have become dependent on war on drug grants and they would lose out in a major way. Also the private prison corporations would lose money because they have a large monetary interest in the incarceration of drug crime related offenders. The alcohol and tobacco companies are opposed to any marijuana legalization laws in fear of competition with their own products. The lobbying and interest groups who represent the opposition to NORML spends lots of money advocating for harsher sentences and electing politicians who are pro-war on drugs. (Wikipedia Contributors)

The NRA is a distinct organization in American political culture because nothing outside the U.S. exists like it. The statistics that are directly and indirectly affected by the NRA and the second amendment are quite amazing and alarming. “Over 30,000 Americans die and more than 100,000 are injured every year from largely preventable gun violence.” (Rosenthal 2) Compared to other countries those numbers are disgusting. The United Kingdom has had one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world. According to the Wikipedia article “Gun Politics in the United Kingdom” it stated: “In 2009 0.7 recorded intentional homicides were committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants.”  It is extremely difficult to become a gun owner in the United Kingdom and there isn’t a strong force, or pressure group as they are called, in Britain like the NRA. Solely stating ‘self defense’, is not a good enough reason to obtain a gun in the U.K. either.

Interest groups are important and necessary in American society and politics because it is a representation of American’s freedom to free speech and expression. However there needs to be a balance in the power that some of these groups gain like that of the NRA. It’s difficult to try to regulate and limit these groups in the climate of pluralism and without putting an unconstitutional strain on the first amendment. However, we have yet to see what the outcome will be in this new political arena as it is an election year. The benefits and incentives in interest groups are what are most alarming. The “free-rider” issue is a very serious one. Those who enjoy the benefits and incentives of collective goods but did not participate in acquiring them are free riders. There are a variety of benefits, those being; informational, material, solidary and purposive benefits. Most interest and lobbying groups reap all if not most types of those benefits.  The NRA and NORML are just two out of many organizations in the United States influencing policies, bills and court cases. They represent two completely different sets of people that are controversial and difficult to discuss in public political conversations by government officials. While there are many common types of interest groups such as business, agricultural, labor, professional, public interest, ideological, public sector groups and others, they all reach different demographics and represent something of significance. The disadvantage to the influence political interest groups have on governmental policies is how it may take attention off other competing groups like those described with the different opposing channels against NORML . That same example applies to the competition between the NRA and pro-environmental interest groups. “Despite the array of interest groups in American politics, however, we can be sure that not all interests are represented equally nor that the results of this group competition are always consistent with the common good.”  (Ginberg, Lowi 405)

~CP

Bibliography

Ginsberg, Benjamin, and Theodore Lowi. We the People An Introduction to American Politics. 8th Essential Edition . 2010. 453. Print.

Rosenthal , John . “Standing Your Ground in the NRA’s America.” Huffington Post . (2012): 6. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/nra-gun-violence

Wikipedia contributors. “National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 19 Mar 2012. Web. 27 Apr 2012.