by Patrick Dunleavy –
Interview on Fox News –
TUCKER CARLSON: Until yesterday afternoon probably against all odds, New York City had enjoyed 16 years without anyone being killed by Islamist violence. Could this latest bloodshed have been prevented with different law enforcement practices? You hate to ask that question, but it arises in this case because in 2005 the NYPD created a report, radicalization in the West is a homegrown threat it was called, and it laid out how U.S. Muslims could become radicalized.
But that guide was subsequently denounced as Islamaphobic. The De Blasio administration purged it in 2016 in response to a lawsuit by, you will be surprise, the ACLU.
Patrick Dunleavy is a former deputy inspector general of New York, he is the author of “The Fertile Soil of Jihad,” and he joins us tonight. Patrick, thanks for coming on.
PATRICK DUNLEAVY, FORMER DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF NEW YORK: Oh, my pleasure, thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, I mean, New York is famous for having a very serious kind of world class literally, Police Department, and they took this threat seriously after the two World Trade Center bombings, obviously. They produced this report. What does it mean that the de Blasio administration jettisoned it?
DUNLEAVY: Well, what they basically did is they caved into political correctness. Nobody was looking at the fact that what the NYPD was doing was normal police practices when it came to investigating crime. And if we’re going to say that terrorism is a crime, which obviously we’ve just charge this individual in federal court and we’ve given him Miranda rights, then there are certain police practices that are normal.
DUNLEAVY: Surveillance, undercover operatives, knowing the neighborhood to which you are going to go. For instance, if you’re going to look for clean shirt for your show tomorrow, you will probably go to your closet or to your dresser. You will not go to the refrigerator. In the same way, if I’m looking for an organized crime figure from a mafia, I’m probably going to go to an Italian neighborhood.
So now if we are looking for radical Islamic terrorists, we should probably be going to predominantly Muslim neighborhoods. That would just become a police practice.
CARLSON: So, of course it would. So what about that changed under de Blasio?
DUNLEAVY: Well, there were complaints made by not just the ACLU, but certain Muslim activist groups, like the Council on American Islamic Relations —
DUNLEAVY: — and other groups that said that we were profiling, that it was unfair, that we ought not to do it. This has never been happening before. And instead of actually showing that it was a normal police practice to do these things, they just caved in. It was like throwing up the white flag and saying, oh, no, we don’t want it, we want to be perfectly polite, we don’t want to offend anybody. Meanwhile, the cost was the public safety.
CARLSON: Really quickly, Patrick, was there any evidence that the police in New York were violating peoples civil rights, hassling people, hurting people under the current policing regime?
DUNLEAVY: No, in fact that particular lawsuit that was filed was ruled on by — Judge Martini was the individual who ruled on the case, and said there were no damages. One of the things that they sued with damages. There were no damages done by the New York City Police Department when they surveilled these particular neighborhoods.
DUNLEAVY: And then when the case was reinstated on appeal, instead of fighting the case, and it was probably a 99.9 percent chance that they were going to — the NYPD would win the case on appeal, because a new regime had come in. Bloomberg had no longer been mayor, de Blasio came in, and he caved. And when you look at the fact that the new procedure calls for a civilian to be appointed to oversee any request to go into particular neighborhoods or particular religious organizations, that person is appointed by the mayor. Now, the mayor of New York City has praised domestic terrorists.
CARLSON: Right. I mean, that’s exactly right.
DUNLEAVY: So when we say we’re going to do that, instead of letting the police be the police, we caved in.
CARLSON: Of course we have. Patrick, thank you, that was really interesting and important.
DUNLEAVY: Oh, my pleasure.
CARLSON: Thank you. |November 1, 2017
The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.