About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

March 10, 2011

The Problem With King

Peter King sees nothing wrong with the hearings he's holding on Muslim radicalization in America. I can't imagine anything productive or less radical coming from these hearings.

But my main objection--even fear--is that these hearings will allow the next terrorist attempt to be successful, thus "proving" their point, and creating a horrible vicious cycle.

How are these hearings dangerous? Because, as any intel expert will tell you, plots get foiled because somebody talks. Have you noticed there hasn't been a successful attack recently? Perhaps we're doing something right.

The NYPD has worked long and hard to build connections (which includes everything from friendly talks to infiltration to snitches to calls to 311). These connections have paid off. Plots have been foiled. The NYPD doesn't need help identifying radical groups; they need help infiltrating and gathering information from these groups. The police need to keep friendly lines of communication open, and they fear that this hearings will destroy years of hard work. The second people stop talking, we're in trouble.

Pissing off good Muslim-Americans for no real gain (unless you could political points as a real gain) is not the answer. Doing things to piss off young Muslim Americans to the point where they might learn to hate America--creating radicals--is certainly not the answer.

Seriously now, what am I missing? What are we going to learn? Except for pissing off pansy-ass terrorist-loving unpatriotic people me (I write that sarcastically), what are the potential benefits to these hearing? What is Peter King, a supporter of past IRA terrorism, going to tell law enforcement that we don't already know?

[And does anybody notice that King sounds like a bit like Barney Frank? That's got to be the next worst thing to Santorum.]

No comments: