Video

More Video
Civil rights groups sue NYPD over Muslim spying
by ADAM GOLDMAN and EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press
Jun 19, 2013 | 1 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
WASHINGTON (AP) — Civil rights lawyers urged a federal judge to declare the New York Police Department's widespread spying programs directed at Muslims to be unconstitutional, order police to stop their surveillance and destroy any records in police files. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the lawyers said the spying has hindered the ability of residents to freely practice their religion. It is the third significant legal action filed against the NYPD Muslim surveillance program since details of the spy program were revealed in a series of Associated Press reports in 2011 and 2012. The lawsuit said that Muslim religious leaders in New York have modified their sermons and other behavior so as not to draw additional police attention. The suit was filed against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, police commissioner Raymond Kelly and the deputy commissioner of intelligence, David Cohen. The lawsuit, which accuses the city of violating the First and Fourteenth amendments, is the latest legal challenge to the activities of the NYPD Intelligence Division. A year ago, the California-based civil rights organization Muslim Advocates sued the NYPD over its counterterrorism programs. Earlier this year, civil rights lawyers urged a judge to stop the NYPD from routinely observing Muslims in restaurants, bookstores and mosques, saying the practice violates a landmark 1985 court settlement that restricted the kind of surveillance used against war protesters in the 1960s and '70s. "Through the Muslim Surveillance Program, the NYPD has imposed an unwarranted badge of suspicion and stigma on law-abiding Muslim New Yorkers, including plaintiffs in this action," according to the complaint, which was filed in federal court in Brooklyn on behalf of religious and community leaders, mosques, and a charitable organization. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at CUNY School of Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYPD did not immediately respond to a phone call and email asking for comment. The lawsuit describes a pattern of NYPD spying directed at Muslims in New York since the 2001 terrorist attacks. One of the plaintiffs, Hamid Hassan Raza, said he began taping his sermons at a Brooklyn mosque because of concerns that the NYPD was monitoring what he said and would take his words out of context. In addition, Raza and other religious leaders became highly suspicious of new members eager to join their communities because of the department's rampant use of secret informants, the complaint said. "Knowledge and justifiable fear of NYPD surveillance of Masjid Al-Ansar have forced Imam Raza to keep his distance from newcomers to the mosque," the complaint said. "Almost every time that a new, unfamiliar person attends the mosque, one of the mosque's regular worshippers warns Imam Raza about the newcomer and shares suspicions that he might be a police informant." The lawsuit also details how the NYPD used an informant to spy on 20-year-old Asad Dandia, who ran a charitable organization called "Muslims Giving Back." Dandia's group gave food to needy community members. An NYPD informant, Shamiur Rahman, acknowledged last year in an interview with the AP that he had spied on Dandia on others. "Once it became public that Rahman had infiltrated Muslims Giving Back as an NYPD informant, the charity was stigmatized, and its reputation and legitimacy within the Brighton Beach community was deeply damaged," the complaint said. The charity's ability to raise money and help the community has declined because it's been targeted by NYPD counterterrorism programs. The plaintiffs asked a judge to appoint a monitor to ensure the police department follows the law. This is second time this month that the prospect of a court-appointed monitor has been raised for the NYPD. The department's stop-and-frisk tactic that overwhelming targets minorities has come under fire, with a trial recently ending in federal court that could decide whether the policing practice is unconstitutional. If the judge rules against the NYPD in the stop-and-frisk case, the Justice Department said it would support appointing a federal monitor. Kelly and Bloomberg have defended both programs and said federal oversight would put the city in danger. ___ Contact the Washington investigative team at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Sullivan at http://twitter.com/goldmandc and http://twitter.com/esullivanap
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
FliesInTheirEyes
|
June 18, 2013
I bet they got room for one more.
anonymous
|
June 18, 2013
Hey what happened to the real farmers in Zimbabwe? Do you know oblivious soccer moms? You should.
House takes up far-reaching anti-abortion bill
by JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press
Jun 18, 2013 | 106 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. Republicans in the House of Representatives on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change U.S. abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. Republicans in the House of Representatives on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change U.S. abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
slideshow
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change federal abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," expected to pass by a comfortable margin late Tuesday, would be a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions up to the time a fetus becomes viable. Fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy. The measure will be ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and the White House, saying the bill is "an assault on a woman's right to choose," has issued a veto threat. Even if the policy were to become law, it would almost certainly face a legal challenge. That's a prospect supporters hope for as part of the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. The two sides in the abortion debate agreed at least on the importance of the measure. National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said it was the "most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" that was enacted in 2003. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill "clearly is an attack on women's constitutional right to choose and is one of the most far-reaching bans on abortion this committee has ever considered." Some 11 state legislatures have passed similar measures. Several have been challenged in court and a federal court last month struck down a slightly different Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion groups said the time frame in the House bill and other state laws, which ban abortion 20 weeks after conception, is equal to 22 weeks of pregnancy. The sponsors of the bill also cited evidence — which opponents say is disputed — that fetuses can feel pain after five months. House GOP leaders, stymied by a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House, have chosen to focus on economic issues rather than contentious social topics such as abortion. "Jobs continue to be our number one concern," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week when asked about the abortion bill. But he said that "after the Kermit Gosnell case and the publicity that it received, I think the legislation is appropriate." Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortion provider who last month received a life sentence for what prosecutors said was the murder of three babies delivered alive. The case energized anti-abortion groups, who said it exemplified the inhumanity of late-term abortions. The original House bill, sponsored by anti-abortion leader Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was aimed only at the District of Columbia, but was expanded to cover the entire nation after the Gosnell case received national attention. Pro-choice groups argued that the 20-week ban, in addition to being unconstitutional, would affect women just at the point of learning of a fetal anomaly or determining that the pregnancy could put the mother's life in danger. As introduced, the bill provided for an exception to the ban only in cases of a physical condition that endangers the life of the mother. In the Judiciary Committee last week, Republicans rejected Democratic attempts to include rape, incest and other health problems as grounds for exceptions. But Franks, during debate on the rape exception, angered Democrats and drew unwanted publicity to the bill when he stated that cases of "rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." Franks later rephrased his remark, but GOP leaders rushed to impose damage control. A provision was inserted in the bill heading to the House floor including a rape and incest exception, and Franks, who heads the Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution and civil justice, was replaced as floor manager for the bill by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee. Democrats had pointed out that every Republican on the Judiciary Committee that approved the anti-abortion bill was a man. With the changes, said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, "the GOP is desperately trying to hide that the party has a deep hostility to women's rights and freedom."
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
TheReaganDemocrat
|
June 18, 2013
FITE, Very condescending of you. Piedmont Alabama is a wonderful place.
Latest Videos
Civil rights groups sue NYPD over Muslim spying
by ADAM GOLDMAN and EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press
Jun 19, 2013 | 1 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
WASHINGTON (AP) — Civil rights lawyers urged a federal judge to declare the New York Police Department's widespread spying programs directed at Muslims to be unconstitutional, order police to stop their surveillance and destroy any records in police files. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the lawyers said the spying has hindered the ability of residents to freely practice their religion. It is the third significant legal action filed against the NYPD Muslim surveillance program since details of the spy program were revealed in a series of Associated Press reports in 2011 and 2012. The lawsuit said that Muslim religious leaders in New York have modified their sermons and other behavior so as not to draw additional police attention. The suit was filed against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, police commissioner Raymond Kelly and the deputy commissioner of intelligence, David Cohen. The lawsuit, which accuses the city of violating the First and Fourteenth amendments, is the latest legal challenge to the activities of the NYPD Intelligence Division. A year ago, the California-based civil rights organization Muslim Advocates sued the NYPD over its counterterrorism programs. Earlier this year, civil rights lawyers urged a judge to stop the NYPD from routinely observing Muslims in restaurants, bookstores and mosques, saying the practice violates a landmark 1985 court settlement that restricted the kind of surveillance used against war protesters in the 1960s and '70s. "Through the Muslim Surveillance Program, the NYPD has imposed an unwarranted badge of suspicion and stigma on law-abiding Muslim New Yorkers, including plaintiffs in this action," according to the complaint, which was filed in federal court in Brooklyn on behalf of religious and community leaders, mosques, and a charitable organization. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at CUNY School of Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYPD did not immediately respond to a phone call and email asking for comment. The lawsuit describes a pattern of NYPD spying directed at Muslims in New York since the 2001 terrorist attacks. One of the plaintiffs, Hamid Hassan Raza, said he began taping his sermons at a Brooklyn mosque because of concerns that the NYPD was monitoring what he said and would take his words out of context. In addition, Raza and other religious leaders became highly suspicious of new members eager to join their communities because of the department's rampant use of secret informants, the complaint said. "Knowledge and justifiable fear of NYPD surveillance of Masjid Al-Ansar have forced Imam Raza to keep his distance from newcomers to the mosque," the complaint said. "Almost every time that a new, unfamiliar person attends the mosque, one of the mosque's regular worshippers warns Imam Raza about the newcomer and shares suspicions that he might be a police informant." The lawsuit also details how the NYPD used an informant to spy on 20-year-old Asad Dandia, who ran a charitable organization called "Muslims Giving Back." Dandia's group gave food to needy community members. An NYPD informant, Shamiur Rahman, acknowledged last year in an interview with the AP that he had spied on Dandia on others. "Once it became public that Rahman had infiltrated Muslims Giving Back as an NYPD informant, the charity was stigmatized, and its reputation and legitimacy within the Brighton Beach community was deeply damaged," the complaint said. The charity's ability to raise money and help the community has declined because it's been targeted by NYPD counterterrorism programs. The plaintiffs asked a judge to appoint a monitor to ensure the police department follows the law. This is second time this month that the prospect of a court-appointed monitor has been raised for the NYPD. The department's stop-and-frisk tactic that overwhelming targets minorities has come under fire, with a trial recently ending in federal court that could decide whether the policing practice is unconstitutional. If the judge rules against the NYPD in the stop-and-frisk case, the Justice Department said it would support appointing a federal monitor. Kelly and Bloomberg have defended both programs and said federal oversight would put the city in danger. ___ Contact the Washington investigative team at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Sullivan at http://twitter.com/goldmandc and http://twitter.com/esullivanap
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
FliesInTheirEyes
|
June 18, 2013
I bet they got room for one more.
anonymous
|
June 18, 2013
Hey what happened to the real farmers in Zimbabwe? Do you know oblivious soccer moms? You should.
House takes up far-reaching anti-abortion bill
by JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press
Jun 18, 2013 | 106 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. Republicans in the House of Representatives on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change U.S. abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. Republicans in the House of Representatives on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change U.S. abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
slideshow
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change federal abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks. The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," expected to pass by a comfortable margin late Tuesday, would be a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions up to the time a fetus becomes viable. Fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy. The measure will be ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and the White House, saying the bill is "an assault on a woman's right to choose," has issued a veto threat. Even if the policy were to become law, it would almost certainly face a legal challenge. That's a prospect supporters hope for as part of the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. The two sides in the abortion debate agreed at least on the importance of the measure. National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said it was the "most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" that was enacted in 2003. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill "clearly is an attack on women's constitutional right to choose and is one of the most far-reaching bans on abortion this committee has ever considered." Some 11 state legislatures have passed similar measures. Several have been challenged in court and a federal court last month struck down a slightly different Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion groups said the time frame in the House bill and other state laws, which ban abortion 20 weeks after conception, is equal to 22 weeks of pregnancy. The sponsors of the bill also cited evidence — which opponents say is disputed — that fetuses can feel pain after five months. House GOP leaders, stymied by a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House, have chosen to focus on economic issues rather than contentious social topics such as abortion. "Jobs continue to be our number one concern," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week when asked about the abortion bill. But he said that "after the Kermit Gosnell case and the publicity that it received, I think the legislation is appropriate." Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortion provider who last month received a life sentence for what prosecutors said was the murder of three babies delivered alive. The case energized anti-abortion groups, who said it exemplified the inhumanity of late-term abortions. The original House bill, sponsored by anti-abortion leader Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was aimed only at the District of Columbia, but was expanded to cover the entire nation after the Gosnell case received national attention. Pro-choice groups argued that the 20-week ban, in addition to being unconstitutional, would affect women just at the point of learning of a fetal anomaly or determining that the pregnancy could put the mother's life in danger. As introduced, the bill provided for an exception to the ban only in cases of a physical condition that endangers the life of the mother. In the Judiciary Committee last week, Republicans rejected Democratic attempts to include rape, incest and other health problems as grounds for exceptions. But Franks, during debate on the rape exception, angered Democrats and drew unwanted publicity to the bill when he stated that cases of "rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." Franks later rephrased his remark, but GOP leaders rushed to impose damage control. A provision was inserted in the bill heading to the House floor including a rape and incest exception, and Franks, who heads the Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution and civil justice, was replaced as floor manager for the bill by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee. Democrats had pointed out that every Republican on the Judiciary Committee that approved the anti-abortion bill was a man. With the changes, said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, "the GOP is desperately trying to hide that the party has a deep hostility to women's rights and freedom."
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
TheReaganDemocrat
|
June 18, 2013
FITE, Very condescending of you. Piedmont Alabama is a wonderful place.