Is America Awake?

Ten Years Later,

They Still Want

To Kill Us All.

Do We Know It?

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 has created a media stir of considerable magnitude. The tenth anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1951, caused relatively little stir. But by then, we had won World War II.

Anxiety has been augmented by the authorities reporting a "credible threat" of another terrorist attack on the date of the catastrophe in 1991. By the time you read this, another attack may or may not have occurred. If it did, it most likely was on a far lesser scale than 9/11, but may still inflict substantial damage and attract world attention. Unfortunately, to many people in other countries, an attack on the United States would be a cause for rejoicing.

Police Commissioner Kelly tells us that in the last ten years, thirteen credible plots to attack New York City have been foiled. In an article yesterday from The Daily Beast, John Avlon reports that nationwide 45 jihadist terrorist plots have been thwarted since 9/11. Some, like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, failed only because of the clumsiness of the plotter. Others were stopped by the excellent work of our intelligence community. Whatever the case, it is conceivable that some day our lucky streak will come to an end.

Meanwhile, the American people have differing levels of awareness as to threat of terror. Our government seems reluctant to think of this ongoing danger as directly related to a radical branch of Islam, which it clearly is. The army report on the Fort Hood massacre, where an Islamist army major, who had made no secret of where his sympathies lay, murdered 13 American soldiers on a military base in Texas, tiptoed around the issue of why Major Nidal Malik Hasan acted the way he did. And army psychiatrists approved his performance despite hearing his tirades about infidels.

Another fact that has remained below the radar screen is that "according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, in 2009 at least 43 American citizens or residents aligned with Sunni militant groups or their ideology were charged or convicted of terrorism crimes in the United States or elsewhere, the highest number in any year since 9/11." One incident in 2009, hardly remembered today, occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas when a Muslim convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the former Carlos Bledsoe, shot at soldiers waiting in line outside a military recruiting office, killing one soldier and injuring another. Many similar incidents have not been widely reported; they have become too common to attract great notice unless there are a number of fatalities.

The departure of American-born Muslim youths from Minnesota to join the jihad in Somalia, although not a crime, is cause for concern. Some of these young men were killed on the battlefield, one was slain when he tried to return to the United States.

A web of organizations in the United States have defended radical terrorists on First Amendment grounds as exercising their religious freedom. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting bomb makers, or people who commit acts of violence or exhort others to do so. Far beyond shouting 'fire' in crowded theaters, there are ideologues who would set fires in crowded theaters, or buses, or subways if they could. Just this Tuesday, Agron Hasbajrami, an Albanian citizen who had been living legally in Brooklyn since 2008, was arrested and indicted by a grand jury on charges that he provided material support to terrorists and had been planning to join a radical Islamic group in Pakistan. He had purchased a one-way ticket to Istanbul.

The struggle against Islamic terrorism is one that will continue well into the future. It has by no means ended with the death of Osama bin Laden. It is different from our previous wars in that it is not fought by national armies over defined territories, and concluded with the victory of one side and the surrender of the other. The enemy here is a malignant ideology which believes, as a matter of faith, that non-believers must become subservient to one particular theology, and that all who do not should be required to pay tribute, or be put to death..

That may sound ridiculous to you, but if millions of people believe it and thousands act on it, the matter is quite serious. And there may be billions of people who, even if they do not necessarily believe it and are highly unlikely to act on it, would not be enormously upset if that ideology prevailed and Earth became a theocracy.

The struggle for freedom and democracy, values we take for granted, can be a lonely effort. Another human impulse is submission, the desire to be guided by someone else and freed from personal responsibility. We saw that in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978, and in Germany in the 1930's. Circumstances do not require everyone to feel that way, just enough party members to control the government, the army and the police who rule the country.

With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the world has become more dangerous. The ability of individual non-state actors to do enormous damage has increased substantially and will continue to do so. Technology has brought a dazzling parade of inventions in recent years, especially in communications. The dark side is the ability of bad men to do evil, and we are not worried at this time about the world being ruled by mutant robots.

The survival of representative governments is complicated by the fact that many law-abiding people are unable or unwilling to identify and confront the enemy, despite repeated incidents of violence, like the mass killings in peaceful Norway, of all places. Sure the attackers can be called crazy, but their insanity sometimes takes the form of murdering others on behalf of particular causes. The Norway nut hated Muslims, and his act shows that violence is not confined by ethnicity or ideology. The Son of Sam obeyed his dog and killed retail, but that was 35 years ago, before the AK-47.

It makes good sense, however, to look for violence in or near places where it has occurred, and among people who have repeatedly committed violent aggressive. And it is important that the entire society be made aware of what is going on. The jihadists state their goals openly, as Adolf Hitler did in Mein Kampf, published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926. He followed his course unimpeded for thirteen years, while civilized Westerners, exemplified by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, averted their gaze and swallowed Hitler's lies.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, it is as important to look to the future as it is to honor the heroes and recall the past. Our efforts should be devoted to seeing that no such tragedy occurs again, and that the people of the United States and other nations be roused from their self-centered stupor, and begin to take actions to protect themselves before it is too late. At this point in world history, it appears highly unlikely, at least to us, that time is on our side.

StarQuest #778 9.9.2011 1231 words

When Will They Ever Learn?

Crime Down Over the Years

But Ignorance Holds Steady

Twenty years ago, crime was New York City's most serious problem. In the year 1990, the first year of the Dinkins mayoralty, the number of homicides recorded in the five boroughs was 2,245, an historic high. The murder total declined by about 10 percent during the remaining three years of the Dinkins administration, and fell sharply (about 50 per cent) under the eight years that Giuliani was mayor. It fell slightly during Bloomberg's first eight years, although there was a slight rise in year nine (2010). Statistics for other crimes over the past two decades compiled by COMPSTAT show substantial declines, particularly auto theft, which fell from 187,591 in 1990 to 21,870 in 2009.

There is no doubt that people feel much safer in New York City than they did twenty or thirty years ago, and that many neighborhoods previously regarded as dangerous are now considered safe. While total crime, particularly street crime, has been substantially reduced, men still murder their girlfriends or exes despite orders of protection from the courts, and children are still hit by stray bullets. The general public, however, has less fear of family violence than of external assault, because they feel their own relatives are unlikely to injure them. Our public safety comes at a high price; the budget for the Police Department is $4.4 billion.

Crime will always be a problem, with contributing factors like poverty, addiction, abandonment, broken families, unemployment, gang warfare, terrorism and violence resulting from mental illness. New Yorkers, however, have seen massive efforts by law enforcement in the last twenty years which have reduced the fear of crime and the limitations on citizens' daily lives which resulted from their legitimate fears of physical danger. Commissioners Bill Bratton (under Mayor Giuliani) and Ray Kelly (under Mayors Dinkins and Bloomberg) were particularly effective.

A TOUGHER NUT TO CRACK: TEACHING KIDS TO READ AND WRITE

DEVIANCY DEFINED DOWN TO BOLSTER CLAIMS OF ACHIEVEMENT

The city's success in dealing with crime has not, however, been matched by progress in education. One reason is that crime statistics are relatively reliable. To number murders, you count bodies. Other crime data is based on witnesses' and victims' accounts, precinct reports, and court convictions. In the schools, although there are now frequent tests to evaluate student performance, serious doubts remain about the value of the tests, the method by which they are scored, the alteration of test results, the standards required for passing the test, and the effect of testing and the consequent 'teaching to the test' on other parts of the curriculum. Educational testing is more susceptible to manipulation than counting corpses.

New Yorkers have been subjected over the years to a barrage of misleading information about test outcomes, some, but by no means all, coming from the New York City Department of Education. Recently, city test scores were challenged by the New York State Department of Education, which conducted its own study of test results at the request of the State Board of Regents. In the past, the State Education Department has been complicit in the misinterpretation of test results, because, to put it directly, they wanted as many people as possible to pass.

Years ago, we blamed school administrators for educational failures, and 110 Livingston Street became an address of ill repute. Although some public officials proposed in jest that the building be blown up, it was Mayor Bloomberg who sold it off for private condos and moved the educrats to the old Tweed Courthouse on Chambers Street, a symbol of corruption when it was built (over a century ago), and a symbol of futility as a new wave of bean counters rushed in to turn the old system inside out, and then undo what they had just done.

The mystery to us is how so many intelligent people could have been involved in a massive effort that has produced so little in the way of positive results. How many billions of tax dollars have been spent on new construction, renovation, and substantial salary increases with major pension consequences, but without a major effect on student outcomes?

The bottom line is that the people running the system really do not know what the best strategies are, and it is too late in the administration for them to admit it. It is understandable that the mayor wanted a new Chancellor - the two-term limit makes sense there as well. Bloomberg put his money where his mouth was in providing amply for education over the years. Sadly, money was no panacea.

Today, the teachers have become scapegoats, as they were in Ocean Hill-Brownsville in 1968. We know there are good ones and bad ones, and teachers should be dealt with on the merits as individuals, not as if they were all cut from the same cloth. Teachers should not be fired by arbitrary formulas (LIFO) without regard to their abilities. But unless there is justifiable confidence in the executives who would make the decisions as to who shall go and who shall stay, there is little likelihood that they will be given absolute authority over others. But that is a long way from giving them no authority, and protecting mediocrity and incompetence in the classroom.

Who thought that, over twenty years, crime would prove a far easier problem to deal with than education? But that is the way it has turned out to be.

Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg should appoint Ray Kelly as Schools Chancellor. He has no background in education, but neither does she. He has graduate degrees from St. John's (J.D.), NYU (LL.M.) and Harvard (M.P.A.). Kelly has been one of the mayor's best appointees, he knows what to say and what not to say, how to lead a major organization, and how to get people to do their best. His good example may encourage the children to do better.

To Catch A Thief

Budget Deadlock - Day 110



Albany Democrats, Paterson

Ignore Bloomberg and Kelly,

Limit Use of Stop and Frisk




In most places, state legislatures enact laws which assist local authorities to prevent crime or catch criminals.

New York State is an exception.

The New York State Senate and Assembly, with the signature of Governor Paterson, have enacted a law to prevent the Police Department from using information in its own database as leads in the investigation of violent crimes.

The bill was sponsored by Senator Eric Adams and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who represent Brooklyn districts where robbery, assault and rape are serious problems. Adams, a retired police officer, once headed One Hundred Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care. One would think that they would be particularly concerned with the apprehension of criminals who prey on their constituents. The predators, however, also include constituents.

Predictably, the New York Civil Liberties Union calls the database a "virtual police lineup of millions of completely innocent black and Latino New Yorkers". We are not surprised at the views of the NYCLU, who consistently oppose any measure considered helpful to the authorities. The group is not as concerned with the right of citizens not to be attacked, robbed or raped, in favor of the robbers and rapists’ interest in avoiding apprehension and punishment for their violent, sometimes fatal, assaults.

It depends on what kind of society one wants to live in. I value personal security, for myself, elderly parents, spouse and children. I would not mind being stopped and frisked if that would result in a safer community. Stop and frisk is usually employed for a reason, and that need not be criminal behavior at that instant. How do you know whether someone is carrying a gun unless you can check him and find out?

The Daily News and the Post have both editorialized on the subject. The News, on July 15, urged Governor Paterson to veto the bill in BE A CRIMESTOPPER, DAVE. Its lede: "The NYPD has an investigative tool that produced at least 170 arrests over the past 18 months, including for 17 murders, 36 robberies, 11 shootings and 7 rapes. It is a roaring public safety success -- and Gov. Paterson must guarantee its survival." Click here to read the well-reasoned and detailed editorial.

The Post, on July 16, in BEGGING FOR MORE CRIME, made this point: "[The bill's sponsors] pretend the database is racist -- or an intolerable infringement on privacy rights. In fact, the info it contains, and the steep drops in crime, have benefited minority communities in particular."

Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly, appealed to the governor for a veto. The mayor's comments were reported in an article by Celeste Katz and Adam Lisberg, BLOOMBERG: I DON’T LOSE ON STOP-AND-FRISK - CRIME VICTIMS DO. Click here to read an op-ed by Commissioner Kelly on the subject.

The Governor signed the bill on July 16, and issued a signing statement, along with comments by the bill's sponsors. We quote his words:

"In a democracy there are times when safety and liberty find themselves in conflict. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Japanese internment camps during WWII to the Patriot Act, we have experienced moments when liberty took a back seat. And each time, hindsight made our errors clear. Today, we have an opportunity to set the scales of safety and liberty in balance before we lose something we can’t get back…"

We did not know until reading Governor Paterson's words that, in his mind, the Patriot Act was an historic error. The United States Senate approved the Act, 98-1, on October 25, 2001, six weeks after 9/11. Was everyone but Russell Feingold mistaken? Perhaps the Governor or his amanuensis will enlighten us as to how "hindsight made our errors clear" with regard to the Patriot Act.

It is noteworthy that every one of the 32 Democratic state senators voted to prevent the use of the electronic stop and frisk database, while all 29 Republicans opposed restricting it. (To see how your State Senator voted, click here. For your Assemblymember, click here.) Also, all five candidates for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General supported the bill. If you can find a Democrat who agreed with Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the News and the Post, please advise us.

Someday soon technology will alleviate the frisking part of the encounter. But that would not satisfy its opponents, who would inhibit any contact with potential assailants that did not result in an immediate arrest. In a way, the issue here depends on with which group the observer identifies: predator or prey. The great majority of New Yorkers are not predators, but many are afraid, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on where they live or how old they are, of becoming prey. These are the people whose views are not heard or listened to by most members of our dysfunctional Legislature.





StarQuest #690 07.20.2010 802 words