Despite being located in New York City, home of the tragic September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks perpetrated by radical Muslims, The New York Times has an ax to grind whenever it comes to “profiling” Muslims for the purposes of keeping New York residents safe, according to Steve Emerson. A recent Times article decries what it considers to be the coercive attempts by a squad of detectives—known as the Citywide Debriefing Team—to gauge the type and depth of religious commitment of immigrants picked up for crimes. The debriefing team described these conversations as “noncoercive sessions where people had the ability to opt out at any time” with the goal of establishing relationships, according to the Times.
But the Times presented these conversations as frightening, coercive, and problematic.
“As part of the paranoid Times narrative, the reporter portrayed as unethical and racist the tried and proven law-enforcement technique of recruiting informants among different ethnic population pools,” writes Emerson. “The same tactic is applied in the fight against illegal gangs, druggies, and criminal organizations: street gangs, Mexican drug cartels, Japanese yakuza gangs, Italian mafia, etc. Recruiting members of different ethnic and racial groups to infiltrate gangs and criminals has been a successful, legal and proven technique of collecting vital intelligence by law-enforcement officials across the country.”
“The Times deliberately omitted numerous examples of successful cases in which intelligence gathered from speaking to an individual in jail led to the thwarting of a terrorist act,” Emerson adds. Pat Dunleavy, former deputy inspector-general of the New York State Department of Corrections, told Emerson in an interview that the question, “What is your religion?” had been asked of people going to jail for over 40 years.
Combatting the “Islamophobic” label, Emerson and his group, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), have gone on the offensive by publishing an ad in The New York Times which asserts that “It is undeniable that those behind the 9-11 attacks and other Islamic terrorism were motivated by radical Islamic ideology.” To deny this truth, they argue, is “an insult to the memory of the 9-11 victims and all other victims of Islamic terrorism.”
The ad takes aim squarely at Muslim “civil rights” groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which denounces critics of Islam as Islamaphobes, and was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. CAIR has a “censorship agenda” against free speech, IPT alleges.
This latest salvo comes after the National Counter Terrorism Center’s annual report showing that more than 70 percent of international terrorist groups were Islamic.
“How can we win the war against terrorism if we can’t even name the enemy?” the group asks.