The thing is, to the New York Post, you're all just a bunch of dirty hippies - and potential terrorists. Oh, you may say you're just an ordinary American citizen and New Yorker, who wanted to demonstrate your disapproval of the Republican machine that chose to exploit 9/11 once again by flaunting itself at Madison Square Garden. Your nefarious plans may involve little more than wearing satirical costumes, helping poor folks with AIDS get housing, or even, say, being black and on the City Council.

But, according to the Post's editorial board, there's every reason to believe you're a terrorist like the ones who attacked the World Trade Center. As Oliver Koppel so insightfully noted, "vigorous advocacy can turn into violent acts." So try to keep your advocacy as tepid as possible.

In response to yesterday's revelations in the Times about the extent of the NYPD's pre-RNC domestic spying program, the Post has launched a typical right-wing broadside, once again ditching common sense for fluttery hysteria. Accusing the Times of "smearing the NYPD," the editorial breathlessly asks:

What will it take to make The New York Times wake up? Another 9/11? Madrid-like bombings? Violence like that of the '99 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle?

(More...)

I'm no fan of the silly "anarchist" brigade. But neither do I equate them to the people who hijacked four commercial jets and flew them into the Pentagon and the twin towers. Unlike the Post, I can tell the difference between mass murder and a bunch of teenagers breaking windows at Niketown. But then, unlike the Post, I'm not trying to blur those distinctions to further a political agenda. The Post means to draw a continuous line from Mohammad Atta through the guy with the foam sea turtle on his head, to you, dear reader, if you ever get so out of line as to consider exercising your right to freedom of speech (that would be one of the freedoms for which the terrorists hate us - evidently the right's strategy is to stop the terrorists from hating us by ditching the freedoms that bug them so much).

Don't get me wrong. I respect the NYPD and I know how necessary good intelligence is in fighting terrorism. Given how badly the Bush administration has wrecked the American intelligence apparatus, we need all the help we can get. But good judgment is required, and we have reason to believe that the NYPD's judgment was atrocious. Every minute they spent spying on a bunch of pacifists from Schenectady was a minute they could have spent doing something useful to improve security plans. It was a minute they could have spent tracking real terrorists, if that's what they were trying to do. Instead, it was a minute they spent chilling freedom of speech.

The Post plays dumb:

Sunday's gripe: Cops traveled far and wide "to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention."

No wonder the convention went off without a hitch, most normal folks might think. Thank God! Good for the NYPD!

Clearly such a triumph by cops just doesn't sit well with Times editors.

Sunday's piece claimed that the NYPD's Intelligence Division "chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law."

Is that so?

But how can cops know a group's intentions unless they first review its actions - and maybe chronicle them?

The Post asks: was this legal? Yes, they tell us.

Okay - so why doesn't the Bloomberg administration want to release the surveillance records? It if was legal, show us. The only excuse the mayor's lawyers are giving is that people might “fixate upon and sensationalize” the information. That's no excuse. The burden of proof is on Mayor Bloomberg's administration to show that it did not go over the line when it allowed the NYPD to spy on peaceful demonstrators - demonstrators whom anyone with any modicum of judgment should have known posed no harm to anything but the mayor's ego.

If the Post is so sure that everything was on the up and up, why don't they join the Times in demanding the release of the surveillance records? Then, if the records support their contention that the spying program was fruitful and not abusive, they can flaunt the "triumph" even more.

Instead, the Post resorts to scaremongering and casual contempt for those with non-Murdoch-approved opinions - and the temerity to express those opinions in the street.

But supporters of such domestic spying programs should be cautious. It was the excesses of COINTELPRO that led to the Handschu limitations on undercover surveillance. Some complain that Handschu places undue burden on intelligence-gathering activities. If that's the case, one would think that advocates for such domestic spying programs would want to be very careful to avoid another backlash - which could ultimately result in even tighter restrictions.

So let's see the evidence. Prove that this program was justified, rather than oppressive and wasteful. Release the surveillance records, Mayor Bloomberg.

(Cross-posted at The Albany Project)

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |