NY cops and burqa-clad Muslim women scuffle at amusement park on Eid

[gubbi]

Steering clear of that, you still haven't answered the main question, as to why a CIA agent working for the CIA under the CIA payroll for this program, was an active of this NYPD program.

Multiple people, including yours humbly, have already answered your, dare i say, silly question! Its you who has a pre-conceived notion and is unable to believe or accept what people are telling you. The problem lies with you.

 

[JonAsad]

Muslim women living abroad should be a bit more careful in western countries- they should not expect the special privileges given to them in Asian countries- in west they will be man handled and shoved to the ground for arrest just like any other man-

 

[53fd]

Multiple people, including yours humbly, have already answered your, dare i say, silly question! Its you who has a pre-conceived notion and is unable to believe or accept what people are telling you. The problem lies with you.

Tell me where the problem lies. Here, I'll break it down one by one:

a) CIA officer creates the program, oversees it & executes it. Making him an active member of this program, not a passive one.

b) His salary is paid by the CIA, not the NYPD, meaning he is working for the CIA

c) He is a CIA agent working on a NYPD project for the CIA, getting paid by the CIA.

d) He is using intelligence resources of the CIA to manage this NYPD program.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/127444-inside-nypd-art-spying-muslims.html

You see no problem with this scenario, considering the fact that the US constitution explicitly states that the CIA is not authorized to spy on US citizens in any capacity?

 

[AmberDutt]

The article says they recruited & infiltrated secret agents into the community, posing them as civilians. Read the article carefully:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/127444-inside-nypd-art-spying-muslims.html

And for your other question, read this:

Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service

The words used by the article are the author's words.. And who says monitoring can only be explicit and not covert. ??

Steve vs US SS is irrelevant here till you establish its relevance

 

[gubbi]

Tell me where the problem lies. Here, I'll break it down one by one:

a) CIA officer creates the program, oversees it & executes it. Making him an active member of this program, not a passive one.

b) His salary is paid by the CIA, not the NYPD, meaning he is working for the CIA

c) He is a CIA agent working on a NYPD project for the CIA, getting paid by the CIA.

d) He is using intelligence resources of the CIA to manage this NYPD program.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/127444-inside-nypd-art-spying-muslims.html

You see no problem with this scenario, considering the fact that the US constitution explicitly states that the CIA is not authorized to spy on US citizens in any capacity?

Points A and C conflict - you are getting ahead of yourself here. Your interpretation, A is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anything else, nothing is illegal.

 

[JonAsad]

there should be a limit to blindly following and accepting amrikan policies- or its just blind hatred towards muslims that many indian inherently seems to agree with every action of the US and Israel against Muslims-

 

[53fd]

Points A and C conflict - you are getting ahead of yourself here. Your interpretation, A is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anything else, nothing is illegal.

Yes, they are in conflict, but they are true nevertheless. This conflict is where the problem lies.

The CIA officer created the program, he oversees it & executes it. Read the article.

C is correct as well, read the article posted in the link.

 

[AmberDutt]

Undercover cops fall under the jurisdiction of the US Secret Service I believe, not the NYPD.

US Secret Service doesnt manage undercover cops.. It's charter is to protect the US President, and the US currency..

 

[53fd]

US Secret Service doesnt manage undercover cops.. It's charter is to protect the US President, and the US currency..

The US Secret Services manages undercover officers.

 

[AmberDutt]

Tell me where the problem lies. Here, I'll break it down one by one:

a) CIA officer creates the program, oversees it & executes it. Making him an active member of this program, not a passive one.

b) His salary is paid by the CIA, not the NYPD, meaning he is working for the CIA

c) He is a CIA agent working on a NYPD project for the CIA, getting paid by the CIA.

d) He is using intelligence resources of the CIA to manage this NYPD program.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/127444-inside-nypd-art-spying-muslims.html

You see no problem with this scenario, considering the fact that the US constitution explicitly states that the CIA is not authorized to spy on US citizens in any capacity?

Wrong again.. CIA Can operate inside US if certain procedures are followed. Prove that they were not...

 

[53fd]

Wrong again.. CIA Can operate inside US if certain procedures are followed. Prove that they were not...

They were not, because there is no evidence of it. Please stop speculating rubbish & read the article. Talk facts, not baseless speculation. You're asking me to prove a negative here.

 

[AmberDutt]

The US Secret Services manages undercover officers.

That way every LEA does..

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

They were not, because there is no evidence of it. Please stop speculating rubbish & read the article. Talk facts, not baseless speculation.

Dude, you are the one alleging that the operation was illegal. You have to show evidence that the procedures were not followed. Getting hot under the collar and throwing words like rubbish wont cut it.

If the article does not show evidence of procedures being followed, doesnt automatically imply that they were not followed. If you want to imply illegality, you will have to prove they were not followed..

 

[53fd]

That way every LEA does..

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------



Dude, you are the one alleging that the operation was illegal. You have to show evidence that the procedures were not followed. Getting hot under the collar and throwing words like rubbish wont cut it.

If the article does not show evidence of procedures being followed, doesnt automatically imply that they were not followed. If you want to imply illegality, you will have to prove they were not followed..

The operation is illegal because there is no evidence that shows prior authorization was given to the CIA to act that way. Plain & simple.

Now prove it that prior authorization was given, the onus of the proof lies on you. Simple.

Which is why the NYPD & the CIA are denying such a program even exists in the first place.

 

[AmberDutt]

The operation is illegal because there is no evidence that shows prior authorization was given to the CIA to act that way. Plain & simple.

Now prove it that prior authorization was given, the onus of the proof lies on you. Simple.

Which is why the NYPD & the CIA are denying such a program exists in the first place.

The onus of proof is always on the accuser and not on the defendant. Get the fundas right matey..

That way, there is no evidence to show that you are not a terrorist. Now prove that you are not one

see what I mean

 

[53fd]

The onus of proof is always on the accuser and not on the defendant. Get the fundas right matey..

That way, there is no evidence to show that you are not a terrorist. Now prove that you are not one

see what I mean

Who is the accuser? You are. There is no evidence that prior authorization was given, as you can see from the article. You are saying that's not true. Prove it.