Concettina Died and Other Stories of the East Side
PhotographsDownloadsLinksSelf-portraitContact


"Covert Police Surveillance. Welcome to NYC!" posted December 22, 2005 at 03:00 AM

Am I imagining this?

Despite all the bad news of the last five years, despite witnessing the 9/11 attacks from six blocks north of the World Trade Center, despite weeping in drunken despair on election night 2004, I didn't really think I'd be reading about secretive police infiltration in politic gatherings in New York. I mean, New York Fuckin' City. Wake me when the nightmare ends.

The New York Times is reporting that "undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."

In some politcal blogs I read, there have been a number of articles in recent days comparing present day USA with 1930s Germany. My history isn't good enough to draw real lines, but if this shit doesn't send shivers down your spine, then I don't know what will:

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

And when asked, what does the NYPD say the reason for such activity is? Well, simple: "not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech." Oh, well I feel much better. Thank you.

The history of this activity is apparently tied directly to our wonderfully liberal Republican mayor, who buys elections at over $100 per vote, and who thinks union leaders who strike should be imprisoned. The Times reports (all emphasis is mine):

In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded a federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We live in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said."

The article goes into good detail about a 1970s-era case (known as "Handschu"), settled in 1985, that restricted police surveillance until the 9/11 attacks:

The lawyers who brought the Handschu lawsuit say that such concerns were exaggerated to make limits on police behavior seem unreasonable. The city's concessions in the Handschu settlement, while similar to those enacted during that era in other states and by the federal government, surpassed the ordinary limits on police actions.

"It was to remedy what was a very egregious violation of people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assemble," said Jeremy Travis, the deputy police commissioner for legal affairs from 1990 to 1994.

At both the local and federal level, many of these reforms effectively discouraged many worthy investigations, Chief Timoney said. "The police departments screw up and we go to extremes to fix it," Chief Timoney said. "In going to extremes, we leave ourselves vulnerable."

Mr. Travis, who was on the Handschu oversight panel, said that intelligence officers understood they could collect information, provided they had good reason.

"A number of courts decided there should be some mechanism set up to make sure the police didn't overstep the boundary," said Mr. Travis, who is now the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "It was complicated finding that boundary." The authority to determine the boundary would be handed back to the Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sept. 12, 2002, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence, David Cohen, wrote in an affidavit that the police should not be required to have a "specific indication" of a crime before investigating. "In the case of terrorism, to wait for an indication of crime before investigating is to wait far too long," he wrote.

Mr. Cohen also took strong exception to limits on police surveillance of public events.

In granting the city's request, Charles S. Haight, a federal judge in Manhattan, ruled that the dangers of terrorism were "perils sufficient to outweigh any First Amendment cost."

How serious is all this? Well, we just don't know:

Could police officers take part in pot-luck suppers of antiwar groups, buy drinks for activists? Could they offer political opinions for broadcast or publication while on duty but disguised as civilians?

Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, declined to answer those questions. Nor would he say how often - if ever - covert surveillance at public events has been approved by the deputy commissioner for intelligence, as the new guidelines require.

Sleep well, everyone....


Comments (0)