• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYPD surveillance of students called 'disgusting'

Surveillance is fine, you want to cross state lines, you need to get the permission of the state you are invading.

I am troubled by the idea of the NYPD conducting recconnaissance missions and stings, in other cities & states, without the consent of the local police & Mayor.

And the fact that Ray Kelly justifies this by discussing arrests made...and NOT any convictions...suggests that the operations have been fruitless.

It would be a good idea, and would send a strong message, if Christie or one of the Mayors in Jersey filed charges with the DA. Bloomy needs to come down to Earth.
 
I am troubled by the idea of the NYPD conducting recconnaissance missions and stings, in other cities & states, without the consent of the local police & Mayor.

And the fact that Ray Kelly justifies this by discussing arrests made...and NOT any convictions...suggests that the operations have been fruitless.

It would be a good idea, and would send a strong message, if Christie or one of the Mayors in Jersey filed charges with the DA. Bloomy needs to come down to Earth.



Didn't you argue in support of his AZ gun stings?
 
Didn't you argue in support of his AZ gun stings?

actually, I suggested that if the local authorities have a problem with the stings, they should file charges. I have no problem with that.

its their jurisdiction, they can do as they want.

The NYPD should have some professional courtesy, and inform local authorities when they engage in such operations.

doing stings and snooping on citizens, should not be done without the knowledge of the local authorities.
 
would someone please point out what is disgusting about law enforcement performing legal surveillance in an effort to prevent covert action against our citizens
 
would someone please point out what is disgusting about law enforcement performing legal surveillance in an effort to prevent covert action against our citizens

the police of New York City have no jurisdiction to set up operations in another city, let alone another state.

its highly inappropriate for them to be doing such things, without the consent of the local authorities.

one could even argue that any information gathered from such operations, are inadmissable in court. Imagine the egg on the face of the NYPD, if they arrest a big-time terrorist, only to have the charges tossed out because the operation is deemed illegal.
 
the police of New York City have no jurisdiction to set up operations in another city, let alone another state.

its highly inappropriate for them to be doing such things, without the consent of the local authorities.

one could even argue that any information gathered from such operations, are inadmissable in court. Imagine the egg on the face of the NYPD, if they arrest a big-time terrorist, only to have the charges tossed out because the operation is deemed illegal.

are the potential terrorists going to be restricted to a particular jurisdiction - the one in which they are planning to attack? if so, then you concern is legitimate. if not, then your alarm is without any prudent basis

i want to see another jurisdiction raise its objection to the prospect of law enforcement from another locale working to prevent another terrorist strike. i do not anticipate the citizens re-electing any official who would put out such a welcome mat for terrorists

why would the information gathered in another jurisdiction be found inadmissable or the evidence be deemed illegal?
 
are the potential terrorists going to be restricted to a particular jurisdiction - the one in which they are planning to attack? if so, then you concern is legitimate. if not, then your alarm is without any prudent basis...

what part of the words NEW YORK Police Department, don't you understand?

the fact is, there are perfectly legal and legitimate ways for cross-border police investigations to take place. They involve cooperation & coordination.

however, Bloomberg & Ray Kelly, seem to think they are above all that. I can understand why Bloomy feels that way, as he is very rich man and therefore feels he can do whatever the **** he wants and get whatever the **** he wants.
 
Last edited:
what part of the words NEW YORK Police Department, don't you understand?
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdiction

the fact is, there are perfectly legal and legitimate ways for cross-border police investigations to take place. They involve cooperation & coordination.
why is this believed to be necessary?
you want the police to interrupt terrorists while they are plotting their attacks or do you want them to expose their covert sources. choose one

however, Bloomberg & Ray Kelly, seem to think they are above all that. I can understand why Bloomy feels that way, as he is very rich man and therefore feels he can do whatever the **** he wants and get whatever the **** he wants.
that very rich man is also very smart. he recognizes that his ass will be on the line to answer to his constituents if it is learned that his police were able to ferret out terrorist activity but stopped their interdiction because the terrorists crossed the NYC border into another jurisdiction
i believe intercepting terrorists is more important that coloring between the lines, only because you have always colored between the lines and expect everyone else to do the same
it is that kind of mentality which exposes our society to the harm of terrorists. they exploit our rules against us. it's like the british pissing and moaning because the patriots refused to line up and fight according to the then accepted rules of war. they thought it was uncivil for those patriots to use guerrilla warfare against them, hiding and firing at their officers. notice which side prevailed. (hint: it was not the one that insisted on coloring within the lines)
 
Surveillance is fine, you want to cross state lines, you need to get the permission of the state you are invading.

Good point - I didn't readily notice that he had gone out of his boundaries - again.

I think he's a little bit off his rocker - encroaching on overzealous dictator if you contrast him with others in the past.
 
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdiction...

why is it unreasonable to ask the NYPD to coordinate their efforts with the police that DO have jurisdiction?

you seem to think that EVERY police department should be able to conduct operations wherever they want, regardless of the views of the citizens where the operation is done.

what if the people of Seattle, the Mayor, the City Council, and the police, don't want the NYPD conducting operations on their territory?

are their views irrelevant, when terrorism is concerned?

if some hillybilly, redneck sheriff wanted to do some investigation in NY, I'd expect the NYPD to kindly ask the guy to get the **** out or be arrested.
 
Last edited:
why is it unreasonable to ask the NYPD to coordinate their efforts with the police that DO have jurisdiction?

there is a reason that these activities are termed "covert"
coloring within the lines as you insist will not aid their efforts. so, choose between process or results
 
there is a reason that these activities are termed "covert"
coloring within the lines as you insist will not aid their efforts. so, choose between process or results

what results?

NYPD Commissioner talked about more than 40 arrests...but no convictions.

Looks like the results are nill.

Oh, except for the possible FBI investigations that were ruined, because the NYPD thinks they can do whatever the **** they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.
 
what results?
the results that accrue when a covert operation does not expose its covert activities to interdict terrorist activities

NYPD Commissioner talked about more than 40 arrests...but no convictions.
tell us how many of that 40 have walked. until then, you have nothing

Looks like the results are nill.
looks like the results are actually 40 arrested for engaging in terrorist activities
arrests that may not have been possible had they followed your desire and exposed their covert actors

Oh, except for the possible FBI investigations that were ruined, because the NYPD thinks they can do whatever the **** they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.
please identify any such ruined fbi investigations. i am betting that is nothing but a fabrication on your part because you have an inability to defend your position in this thread
 
...looks like the results are actually 40 arrested for engaging in terrorist activities...

looks like? says who?

where are you getting your info from?

I could just as easily say that they were arrested for suspcion of involvement in terrorist activities, and none of them were charged and they are ALL free.

trust me, if ANY of those arrests led to a conviction, Ray Kelly would have used it as propaganda to justify his operation.

the fact that they can't flaunt even ONE conviction, stemming from this operation, tells us the value & success of this operation.
 
looks like? says who?

where are you getting your info from?
here you go:
to defend the program, Ray Kelly claims that more than 40 suspected terrorists have been arrested, due to this program.

no mention of convictions, of course. maybe cause there were none?

I could just as easily say that they were arrested for suspcion of involvement in terrorist activities, and none of them were charged and they are ALL free.

trust me, if ANY of those arrests led to a conviction, Ray Kelly would have used it as propaganda to justify his operation.

the fact that they can't flaunt even ONE conviction, stemming from this operation, tells us the value & success of this operation.
you mentioned the 40 arrests
now tell us how many of those 40 have been released
until then, it appears the covert anti-terrorism task force was effective in taking 40 potential terrorists off the streets
 
...you mentioned the 40 arrests...

well, if no charges have been filed, then they have ALL been released.

the fact that Kelly didn't mention any convictions......or even any charges being filed...says a lot about how valuable this program was.

hundreds of folks were detained after 9-11, and almost all of them were released with no charges being pressed.

getting arrested, doesn't mean **** if no charges are pressed.
 
there is a reason that these activities are termed "covert"
coloring within the lines as you insist will not aid their efforts. so, choose between process or results




So when a Newark cop puts two in the chest and one in the head of an NYPD under cover officer, You still will consider it "good policing"?
 
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdiction
why is this believed to be necessary?
you want the police to interrupt terrorists while they are plotting their attacks or do you want them to expose their covert sources. choose one
that very rich man is also very smart. he recognizes that his ass will be on the line to answer to his constituents if it is learned that his police were able to ferret out terrorist activity but stopped their interdiction because the terrorists crossed the NYC border into another jurisdiction
i believe intercepting terrorists is more important that coloring between the lines, only because you have always colored between the lines and expect everyone else to do the same
it is that kind of mentality which exposes our society to the harm of terrorists. they exploit our rules against us. it's like the british pissing and moaning because the patriots refused to line up and fight according to the then accepted rules of war. they thought it was uncivil for those patriots to use guerrilla warfare against them, hiding and firing at their officers. notice which side prevailed. (hint: it was not the one that insisted on coloring within the lines)

Your argument fails on many levels. First, Daley states that his first priority is to protect the people. No it's not. The first priority of any police force is to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction, in their jurisdiction. Both Daley and Bloomie seem to take the position that since they believe in something, it is therefore their duty to enforce wherever their ideas take them. If you believe that students in NJ are planning something or NYC criminals are hiding or operating in AZ, there are ways to proceed, and they all involve cooperation between the affected LE agencies. Going on a fishing expedition outside your own boundaries, or setting up stings in other jurisdictions are outside their job description. In any case, a warrant is required, and most likely would not be issued to an outside LE group without the knowledge of local jurisdictions.

Surveillance of groups or citizens requires a warrant. I did not agree with Bush authorizing warrantless wire taps, I do not agree with NYC officials taking it upon themselves to enforce laws outside their own jurisdiction. For that matter, I am not even sure that terrorist issues fall under local jurisdiction. Isn't that a matter for Homeland Security?

All of your arguments can be overcome without violating the law. Daley and Bloomie simply think they are above the law. Unfortunately, there is the Constitution and rule of law that says otherwise.
 
hence, the need for coordination between police departments.

One question, Thumder, does MYC or NY even have an anti terrorist law for Kelley to enforce? I'm asking because I do not know.
 
Last edited:
Well, from what I can tell, there is nothing illegal about what the NYC cops did. Can someone point it out please? Unethtical, discriminatory, maybe, but illegal? Not seeing it. Cops from any jurisdiction are not barred legally from surveilling potential suspects or persons of interest from any other jurisdiction. Tis true that there is a courtesy involved but nothing that I can see that mandates a police organization from practicing policing in another jurisdiction?


Tim-
 
Well, from what I can tell, there is nothing illegal about what the NYC cops did. Can someone point it out please? Unethtical, discriminatory, maybe, but illegal? Not seeing it. Cops from any jurisdiction are not barred legally from surveilling potential suspects or persons of interest from any other jurisdiction. Tis true that there is a courtesy involved but nothing that I can see that mandates a police organization from practicing policing in another jurisdiction?

Tim-

well, first we have to see if there actions would be considered illegal, if done by a private citizen. if that's the case, then charges can be pressed.

however, if no laws were actually broken, and this is simply a matter of juridictional over-stepping, then perhaps states need to pass a law making it a crime for law enforcement from another state to conduct any investigation or surveillance in their state, without the knowledge and cooperation of the jurisdictionally relevant police department.
 
well, first we have to see if there actions would be considered illegal, if done by a private citizen. if that's the case, then charges can be pressed.

however, if no laws were actually broken, and this is simply a matter of juridictional over-stepping, then perhaps states need to pass a law making it a crime for law enforcement from another state to conduct any investigation or surveillance in their state, without the knowledge and cooperation of the jurisdictionally relevant police department.


Why? If they make an arrest then sure, but why the need to alert local authorities of surveillance alone? heck, I'm not even sure that any police force cannot already make an arrest in any other juridiction? Of course the courts look at it differently and the prosecution needs to occur in the proper jursidiction but as far as arrests are concerned, I see no legal barrier??


Tim-
 
Why? If they make an arrest then sure...

what makes you think NYPD have the right to make an arrest outside of New York?

guess what....they don't.

when they leave New York State, they are regular citizens.....and have no right to carry their guns or make arrests.
 
Back
Top Bottom