“Judge Finds Surveillance of Mosques Was Allowed”

I read this AP NYT piece about a federal judge’s decision and found it troubling.

Because I’m not a lawyer and do not have the tools to judge judges, I was relieved to see that the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit, also finds it troubling:

“In addition to willfully ignoring the harm that our innocent clients suffered from the N.Y.P.D.’s illegal spying program, by upholding the N.Y.P.D.’s blunderbuss Muslim surveillance practices, the court’s decision gives legal sanction to the targeted discrimination of Muslims anywhere and everywhere in this country, without limitation, for no other reason than their religion,” said Baher Azmy, the center’s legal director.

Is it worth mentioning that the federal judge sits on a bench in New Jersey? Not New York? And that his reasoning sounds like something from a high school junior who hasn’t done his homework?

Or am I taking a cheap shot, given what’s been going on in Jersey? (Speaking of Jersey, I just saw that one of Christie’s close aides, having departed from her Christie Close Aide job, has been given a new job … at the Port Authority! Is this a joke? Apparently not. Except that I just spent fifteen minutes searching through several days of my two newspapers and can’t find the item. Am I imagining it? Am I prescient? Her first name is Nicole.)

This entry was posted in Law, suits and order and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.