INSECURE AIRSPACE ABOVE NYC?

HARMLESS HOBBYISTS PROVIDE

TERRORISTS WITH INTELLIGENCE

TERRORISTS TAKE NOTE OF RECENT

EPISODE ABOVE GWB.

RADIO CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT HOBBYISTS

UNINTENTIONALLY GIVE A DEMONSTRATION

ABOUT SECURITY OF AIRSPACE ABOVE NYC

TAGS: NYPD AVIATION DIVISION, RADIO CONTROLLED

AIRCRAFT, “NEAR MISS” NEAR GWB?,

NYPD INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, NYC METRO AREA

 THREE MAJOR AIRPORTS IN NYC METRO AREA

(Tuesday July 8, 2014, Upper Manhattan, NYC) Minutes after midnight yesterday an NYPD Aviation Unit helicopter encountered a pair of “drones” while conducting regular aerial patrol operations near the George Washington Bridge (GWB).  According to the NYPD pilots report they were forced to make an evasive maneuver to avoid the small unmanned crafts.  The NYPD helicopter crew was able to provide Patrol Officers on the ground as to where the devices had landed.  Two men were arrested here in Inwood on the uppermost tip of Manhattan after they were discovered with the pilotless aircrafts and radio control devices in their possession.

AGAIN

Time and again we have here reported on security breaches occurring at high-value terrorist targets in New York City and beyond. Just as such lapses in security procedures and policies have been duly noted by the appropriate authorities, there should be no doubt that these  events have been as scrutinized by those bent on bringing asymmetrical terrorist tactics to their war against the United States itself and our overseas interests. 

Just days before this early morning drone incident near the GBW, new heightened security measures had been announced.  Intelligence officials here and abroad were cautioning that bombs undetectable by current technology and screening practices may be concealed in small digital devices including laptops, tablets and cell phones.  Our adversaries in this fight against terrorist have proven their abilities to adapt and be nimble enough to counter some of  our most sophisticated technology, armament, and tactics.  Terrorists have been honing their ruthlessly brutal tactics on the killing fields of Afghanistan and Iraq and many have become particularly adept in constructing Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) and in urban warfare.  As their sphere of influence has broadened significantly since September 11, 2001 there has been an alarming proliferation of terrorist groups and alliances and none of them have trouble recruiting new members.  In a perverse twist the Laws of Unintended Consequences has seen the ranks of terrorist groups swell even as our high powered military engaged them in fierce, unforgiving guerilla warfare that required some serious realignment of our military’s doctrine over the course of our protracted engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

ONE TRUE STRATEGY

We have also widely reported on the importance and value of the lowest common denominator, that being vigilance.  Constant rigorous vigilance enlists virtually every citizen to be on the alert when something or someone looks “out of place” near our jobs sites, during our daily commutes and in proximity to the locations we are most intimately familiar with such as our blocks and neighborhoods.   NYPD’s “See Something, Say Something” campaign has proven effective and people riding the MTA buses and subways are much more likely to report an unattended item such as a case, knapsack or shopping bag than they were prior to the rollout of this campaign in 2011. 

FROM A HOBBY TO A WEAPON OF WAR

Flying small radio controlled aircraft has long been a staple of the hobbyist community.  With the advent of smaller, lighter electronics and more sophisticated high resolution digital cameras, radio controlled aircrafts are being flown by a greater number of people than ever before.  In a real sense the pilotless aircraft currently employed by the United States Military and Intelligence communities known as drones, are products of the evolutionary process of pilotless flight. They are the next leap forward in technology and the use of highly advanced air power during military engagements. This generation of drones can be outfitted with a wide range of armament and surveillance platforms.  The military drones can fire rockets and missiles, can fly and hover at impressive altitudes while providing “real time” actual intelligence.  More controversially, the use of drones is not always as precise as it is touted to be.  Drones deployed over combat areas remove the pilot from harm’s way and there have been reported instances when drone attacks have been widely off target and, in reports, claim to have been responsible for the loss of innocent civilians.  In many ways the sophistication of the drones and their weaponry as well as having the “pilot” safely ensconced at a computer station half a world away, have seen the overall incidents of “collateral damage” drastically decreased when compared to conventional air tactics.

RADIO CONTROLLED CONCERNS

There have been several reported security breaches at the three major New York City Metropolitan Area airports since 9/11/01.  Investigative reporters have been able to gain entry to the fuel storage area at JKF approaching the airport via a small watercraft.  Others have gone unchallenged as they sought and gained entry into restricted areas at Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey.  The most valuable and dangerous airspace for any aircraft  is in the “transition zones” from approximately 2,500 feet above the tarmac when the planes are approaching to land or gearing up for takeoff.  With the volume of air traffic in the NYC Metro airspace, a radio controlled aircraft, even if unequipped with any explosive device could still cause havoc.  A large flock of seagulls brought down US Airways Flight 1549 on January 15, 2009 forcing veteran Pilot Sully Sullenberger to make an emergency landing of the Airbus A320-200 in the middle of the Hudson River.  A single radio controlled craft could be deliberately aimed at an engine during takeoff or landing potentially resulting in mass casualties and fatalities.  We have even seen the airspace over the White House and central area of Washington, DC compromised on several occasions in the last decade.  These incidences expose faults and flaws to our national security and have certainly not gone unnoticed by our adversaries. Given the magnitude of the ineptitude of the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.), and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on the morning of September 11, 2001, one would think that the airspace over such vital locations would be far more robust and responsive than it has been at times recently.

As radio control flight enthusiasts defend their activities as a simple hobby, akin to flying a kite, others beg to differ.  Typically, radio controlled aircraft had a top ceiling between 250 and 300 feet.  Now there are models constructed of alloys, carbon-fiber and PCV that are capable of attaining altitudes over 5000 feet. Some of the more advanced and dedicated enthusiasts report their crafts reaching altitudes above 10,000 feet. Granted, the overwhelming majority of radio control flight operators are in fact just hobbyists using this latest generation of materials and electronics for benign purposes.  But an event such as that which occurred at low altitude in close proximity to one of New York City’s most iconic bridges could inspire more malevolent types to undertake different kind of “missions”.

Since the attacks on 9/11/01 were airborne with fully fuelled passenger jets used as guided missiles one would think that the NYC Metro airports would be the most cognizant of the security of the airspace they control.  True, a small radio controlled device that that used yesterday is too small and typically flies far too low to have a radar “signature”, it is disconcerting to imagine the possibilities that commercial jets may encounter at low altitude on the final approach or on the liftoff.  These two phases are the most vulnerable for any aircraft but one need spend too much energy realizing what a bomb or explosive-laden radio controlled craft could do to such a low flying large aircraft.

IRONY

This morning’s edition of the New York Daily News on-line featured a long piece titled, “Beyond the Smoking Guns: Inside NYPD’s 21^st Century Arsenal”,  detailing some of the ultrahigh tech hardware and software currently in use by the NYPD assisting in their historical mission as the City’s Law Enforcement Agency and in its far more shadowy mission regarding Anti - and Counter Terrorism as well as in Intelligence.  NYPD’s efforts and innovation now serve as models for cities around the world.  Everything from top shelf surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, advanced ballistics and other innovative technologies some that were developed under former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly who early on identified our City’s needs as far as Intelligence gathering, analysis and threat assessments are concerned. 

While NYC, all our waterways, bridges, transportation networks, infrastructure and harbors are under the jurisdiction of NYPD, the United States Coast Guard, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, and MTA Police work in cooperation with each other in an array of unified operations that provide the level of safety and security our City demands and circumstances dictate.  That is why it is so ironic that two men from Inwood were able to navigate their radio controlled airplanes so close to the GWB and NYPD Aviation Unit’s copter.  An historical hallmark of terrorists tactically is the use of sometimes simple, crude almost primitive devices. Those who manufacture IED’s and bombs have gotten increasingly more capable over the last 12 years.  The complexity, efficacy and lethality of the bomb making skills of the insurgency in Iraq increased over the years we were engaged there and much of that bomb making knowledge and technical acumen has been shared between different terrorist factions throughout the world.  Iraq provided a convenient proving ground for IED manufacturers.  Terrorists intent to do us harm continue to refine their devices to better conceal them and construct them with elements that standard screening technology and processes at airports are unable to detect. 

UNDERESTIMATING AT OUR PERIL

We have learned a great deal about our threats over the last 13 years but all of that learning has been reactive.  Our Military, Intelligence, Counter Terrorism and Law Enforcement communities have each had to “adapt on the fly” as one retired Department of Defense Intelligence analyst recently noted.  “They (terrorists) are always forward thinking, always looking for new ways to create the type of destruction and havoc they seek”, he continued.  His sentiments have been echoed by others in the corridors of power in the CIA, DOD, FBI as well as in many foreign countries intelligence services including Interpol and Scotland Yard, that partner with us in our broader national security efforts.  Still, despite all our combined resources and efforts terrorists will always have something of an advantage.  As it has been said since the earliest days of our “War on Terror”, the terrorists only need to be right one time; we, on the other hand, have to be right 100% of the time.  It is such a lopsided equation that it has steered some to promote policies and procedures that take the path of least resistance.  A new measure of “stovepipe thinking”, that narrow focus that came to light after 9/11/01 when we were made aware of the inertia, ineptitude, and inefficiency among our sprawling federal intelligence  apparatus seems to be creeping in to some areas of the vast bureaucracy.  Such return to the pre – 9/11 mindset should not be tolerated and it ought to be countered at every turn.  

While we here in New York City can remain confident that NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and his Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence John Miller have largely left the outstanding handiwork of former Commissioner Ray Kelly’s Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Divisions intact, we are ever mindful of what our City represents to terrorists.  Conducting another successful attack in NYC is their Holy Grail; their ultimate goal, their preeminent target.

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/how-long-will-unregulated-fpv-and-rc-last

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/that-toy-is-now-a-drone-says-the-faa

http://nypost.com/2014/07/07/two-drones-in-near-miss-with-nypd-copter-over-gwb/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/two-drones-nearly-collide-with-nypd-helicopter-operators-arrested/

http://gothamist.com/2014/07/08/drones_nypd.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/two-men-arrested-after-drone-flies-near-new-york-police-helicopter.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

 Copyright The Brooding Cynyx 2014 © All Rights Reserved

JUSTICE MAY BE BLIND BUT SHE SURE IS RIGHTEOUS

HOBBY LOBBY SUPREME COURT VICTORY:

CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION?

The Supreme Court Justices and how they voted

In the Hobby Lobby case yesterday.

TAGS: SUPREME COURT HOBBY LOBBY DECISION,

MAJORITY VOTES AGAINST WOMEN’S HEALTH,

LAW V. DOCTRINE?, CONSERVATIVE VICTORY,

RULING WILL NOT BE “NARROWLY APPLIED”,

EXPOSING HOW MUCH OF THEIR OWN RELIGIOSITY

THEY BRING TO THEIR JOB,REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY,

(Tuesday July 1, 2014 Washington, DC)   In the wake of yesterday’s highly controversial decision in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), there have been passionate reactions on both sides of the argument.  Obviously the “Religious Right” faction of the Republican Party perceives the ruling as a clear victory while the “Left”, primarily Democrats, envision a dimmer future for women’s health issues. As is so often the case the Court’s 5 – 4 decision broke along Party lines with the majority representing Justices appointed by Republican presidents and the dissenting minority having made it to the Court during Democratic administrations.  Looking beneath this equation one catches a glimpse of the religiosity (or lack thereof) that influences the Justices that is by itself worthy of further examination.  When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960 there were many who were suspicious of his Catholicism fearing his allegiance to the Pope and Vatican would overly influence his decision making process.  That did not happen at that time but religious influences have ever so slowly come to shroud the political landscape like a creeping ground fog.

Despite our form of jurisprudence as defined in the Constitution and its Amendments, politics is an influential element in our courts on all levels and it is most prominent when one looks at the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justices are appointed to a lifelong tenure on the bench; they retire when they want to; there is no method by which to alter the make-up of the Court besides having a president of one Party or other presented with the opportunity to nominate a candidate of his or her own political persuasion if a vacancy occurs during their tenure in the White House.  So, by its very nature SCOTUS is a political body in that each Justice brings a political ideology and philosophy with them to our highest court.  Anyone who doubts this reality need look no further back in our recent history to the Bush v. Gore case.  The Supreme Court literally interfered with the recount of presidential recounts in certain counties in Florida and abruptly shut that process down essentially handing the United States presidency to George W. Bush.  The political aspect of that decision has resulted in the current composition of the Supreme Court in that two of the sitting Justices’ were appointed by President George W. Bush.

A LONG RUNNING CONFLICT

Beginning in the middle of the last century the Supreme Court - and all lower courts in the land - found themselves confronting issues that were not explicitly delineated in the Constitution.  As they faced issues involving ethics and morals as much as the law itself, there developed two brands of judicial identity.  On one hand were the “Strict Constructionists” claiming their position as the “one and only true” application of the Constitution and the volumes of precedents predicated upon Constitutional law.  The other hand held those justices who were inclined to claim the constitutionality of a particular issue using their “interpretation” of the Constitution, known as “loose Constructionism”, were paving roads far afield from the “original intent” of the men who wrote our Constitution. There have been groundbreaking, precedent setting decisions based on the “Framers Intent” which is often derisively viewed as “extra-Constitutional” reasoning by its critics.  After all, as the decades went by an increasing number of SCOTUS cases involved matters the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned and in some of these cases the overarching contention was one of applying Framer’s Intent. 

As this divide became a deeper schism, the strict constitutionalists labelled their opponents as “activist judges” meaning, under a guise of smoke and mirrors, semantics and some degree of theoretical extrapolation, these judges were actually “legislating from the bench” usurping those powers granted only to Congress.  Perhaps each side of this gulf had some merit to their assertions.  After all, the American Constitution was meant to be, as some assert, to be a “living document” allowing for the continued relevance in our ever evolving society.  But was it truly meant to be living?  Those who oppose this interpretation find little, if any, leeway, malleability or room to maneuver when it comes to the Constitution. They hold the Constitution in great esteem and view it to be aging gracefully and adroitly, still vigorously adept enough to handle the complex issues of today.  The other side sees it more of a growing organism that needs to periodically be pulled or pushed in a direction that it might otherwise not find on its own accord as a means of keeping the Constitution relevant as we continue to grow as a Country, develop an increasingly diverse and disparate populace and exist in a cultural/social milieu the Founders could not foresee.   Both viewpoints are each part of the same double-edged sword; their arguments are off-setting in that they cancel each other out.

SHAKING A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE?

We are a country founded on the notion of freedom of religion.  Some of our earliest settlers were fleeing religious oppression in European countries many of which enforced a “State Religion”.  In those countries there was no choice as to whom or what to believe in, pray to, or what catechism to hold allegiance with.  Some of the darkest periods in the history of mankind saw gross atrocities committed in the name of one god or another, one religious view or another, or the usually ill-fated attempts to convert others by force and violence.  It has been written that if God was to appear before us today and hold us account for all of our transgressions committed in His name, He would be appalled.  But human nature seems to predispose us towards beliefs of a higher being, a divine entity, a life force, maker, grand designer or some other superior elder ever watchful over his people.  But, as our Founding Fathers saw with such brilliant crystal clarity, there must be a complete separation between Church and State.  Freedom demands it.

For most of our history the separation of Church and State was accepted unambiguously. While the exact words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution, the First Amendment does say that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  It has only been in the last 50 years or so that there have been legal issues with either overt religious questions at their core or some with inclinations encroaching on that hallowed barrier between Church and State that have led to some dubiously ambiguous judgments obscuring that heretofore hallowed barrier.

Since the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction the SCOTUS has had to rule on some very thorny issues with each side of the argument finding some biblical footing.  In some landmark cases such as the Dred Scott Decision where the Court ruled that a slave, even a “freed” slave was not a citizen of the United States their judgment would not stand the test of time.  Years later a different Court in a different time reversed that ruling providing a clear starting point to what would develop into many decades of a Civil Rights movement seeking equality for “all men” no matter the color of their skin.  After all the bruising years of that often bloody movement the first issue with unbridled religious overtones, an issue that plagues us to this very day despite being legalized by the Supreme Court in the seminal Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, is the right for a woman to have an abortion.  Before that case abortions were often performed in unsanitary conditions by untrained practitioners and an untold number of pregnant women died in obscurity sometimes alienated from their families. Many of those survived the “back alley” procedures scarred and unable to conceive due to damage inflicted during the “illegal” aborting a pregnancy by choice.  If there is any point of reference and prominence in the last 40 years of SCOTUS rulings that has ignited a debate between Right and Left, Republican and Democrat it is abortion.  Republicans lean to the “Right to Life” of the unborn child while the Democrats staunchly defend their hard fought “Pro Choice” position which has been the law of the land since 1973.  Despite the legal status of abortion for the last 41 years, it remains one of the most hotly contested issues and, as we saw yesterday, it and other womens health matters such as birth control, remains under attack from a vicious far rightwing faction of the Religious Right as well as “mainstream” Republicans.  It is what both sides consider as a “red meat” issue used to inflame the passions of their respective “base” constituents.

MORALS AND ETHICS

What good are all of our Constitutional rights and the huge body of laws built atop them if, for all intents and purposes, they appear devoid of any sense of morals or ethics.  We live with some laws that outright trump the lowest of the low clearances of morality and ethics with casual ease while wantonly cloaking other more trenchant matters in quasi-sacrosanct absolutes with questionable moral and ethical underpinnings.  We use our Faith as a weapon to bludgeon those of other Faiths, or no apparent faith, or self-proclaimed agnostics and atheists.  Yes, we are a church-going, God-fearing nation of stalwart true believers as long as it all comports well with our affiliations, politics and personal liberties.  If my god is the one “true” god, by virtue of that lone belief, I possess the high moral ground. Where is the moral “high ground”; is it codified in law or doctrine, statutes or dogma?

This thinking begs the question that just because something is or is not legal does that make it – or not – moral and ethical?  This is no rhetorical exercise or verbal sleight of hand; it speaks directly to matters that can deeply impact us as individuals, as American citizens while also impacting all of us as a society.  Most of us will likely never be in a position where our own morals and ethics will have a direct impact on those of another however; there are times when the wider world intersects with our own beliefs.  At such times many would run for the protection of the “law” and hide behind it rather than navigate that intersection alone. 

REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY

If one is to adhere to the “Right to Life” there can be no escaping the fact that that very same live, as yet unborn, once birthed, is automatically imbued with the same rights as any of us are.  The Rightwing zealots battle over an unborn fetus yet deny health care and coverage to the infant.  Holding to the Right to Life one must accept in a moral and ethical sense that there exists as urgent an imperative to see that that newborn is able to be tended to in a proper, humane manner; a manner as detailed in several passages of the Bible.  Protecting a zygote from the nanosecond of conception until birth is one matter; there comes with that “legal protection” a far greater, long termed plethora of responsibilities.  It is obvious that the most rabid of the Right to Lifers are among the most recalcitrant when it comes to the realities and needs that young girls and women face trying to properly provide for and raise that child.  Abortions are often the last recourse for young women many of whom simply have no access to proper health care, housing, nutrition or even the most remedial parenting skills.  So, one cannot truly, morally and ethically be a Pro-Lifer if in fact, you shirk the responsibilities.  Having a Congress populated by older, self-righteous white men crafting laws and bills that neglect, actually blatantly ignore, the very real, basic needs of a young mother and her infant is the apex of hypocrisy.

This latest assault on women’s health care issues focus on having their expenses covered under the insurance coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act derisively called “Obamacare” by its Republican and Conservative opponents.  Since the Supreme Court has yet to have the balance of power to reverse the Roe decision of 1973.  But, if none of the sitting Justices retire providing President Obama with the golden opportunity to put hi mark on the highest court, the day may come when Roe v. Wade is revisited.  In the meantime the Republican Party has vehemently chipped around the edges making it increasingly difficult for women to have access to proper health care including contraception and abortions.  Particularly hard hit are young women eking out a living below the poverty line be they White, African American or Latino.  How so called “Christian Conservatives” can reconcile their proud religiosity with their immoral politics defies all logic.  How these proponents of “small government” time and again insinuate themselves into the reproductive rights of women is another mind twisting logical summersault.   

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that this ruling was “narrow” in regards to its practical application.  Alito is either unaware of the wider world or he is simply ambivalent, callously indifferent, and disingenuous.  In this day and age it is quite unbelievable that any Supreme Court Justice could actually believe that their decisions can be “narrowly applied”.  The SCOTUS rulings set legal precedent that will no doubt open the floodgates for broader applications concerning what constitutes a “private, sole ownership corporation”, one in which the employers personal beliefs can trump the health care needs of its employees.  Already there are those on the Right gearing up to widen the scope of this ruling.  To think that this decision hasn’t opened a Pandora’s Box and will only bolster and empower those on the Right to pursue further litigation is just dead wrong.  In many states it is already nearly impossible for a woman to get a medical abortion and this Hobby Lobby case will leave even more needy women out in the cold driving some of them to the horrid practices once so common prior to the Roe v. Wade case.

For all the self-professed Christianity of the Right it is stunning that they can be so devoid of conscience.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision-puts-faith-in-compromise/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/01/the-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision-didnt-overturn-a-single-word-of-obamacare/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-30/court-birth-control-ruling-opens-door-to-more-challenges.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-bush-v-gore

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/there_was_nothing_limited_about_scotus_hobby_lobby_ruling_why_it_matters_for_everyone/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/supreme-courts-lack-of-re_b_5545989.html

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-ginsburg-should-resign-20140316-story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

 Copyright The Brooding Cynyx 2014 © All Rights Reserved

BRATTON FINDS HIS FOOTING

THE NEW “OLD” BRATTON :

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES COMING TO NYPD

William J. Bratton has made a name for himself

 based largely on a “broken windows” theory of policing.

(Credit Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

TAGS: NYPD COMMISSIONER BILL BRATTON,

NEW INITIATIVES FOR BRATTON’S NYPD,

USING OLDER “PROVEN” METHODS IN SECOND TENURE IN 1PP,

BRATTON’S SIGNATURE METHODOLOGY,

SALUTE TO BRATTON ON LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS

(Thursday, June 26, 2014 University Heights, The Bronx, NYC)  Welcome back Bill.  After six months in his second tenure as the NYPD Commissioner the Bill Bratton we knew and respected back in the early 1990’s is once again asserting himself in old familiar ways and we applaud the return of this Bill Bratton. All New Yorkers of a certain age can vividly recall the “bad old days” when New York City ranked at the top of all major crime categories and the City itself seemed at times to be tenuously balanced on life support as the NYPD fought crime tooth and nail in some of the most crime ridden Precincts in the nation.  As our City sank ever deeper into the scalding molten lava of crime, low quality of life, wide spread crime in our subways and on our streets during the disastrous years of the hapless administration of David Dinkens, the arrival of Rudy Giuliani into City Hall as our Mayor was welcomed by all.  Giuliani, a tough former Federal Prosecutor for the Southern District of New York was a well-known and highly regarded crime fighter that a beleaguered population looked to for solutions despite his political affiliation as a Republican in one of, if not the most Democratic cities in America.  Giuliani tapped one-time Chief of the NYC Transit Police, a native Bostonian highly regarded in Law Enforcement circles, Bill Bratton to serve as his NYPD Commissioner.  The rest of that chapter in the storied past of NYC and the NYPD is, as they say, history.

A MORE FAMILIAR BILL

After getting off to somewhat of a rocky start in his second term as NYPD Commissioner, Bill Bratton seems to have found his sea legs.  Some of his earliest restructuring of the top cops in One Police Plaza, alterations of patrol tactics and anti-crime strategies, as well as a handful of profound shifts in the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Divisions, the “old” Bill Bratton is once again seeking novel approaches to policing the City that has changed and been changed so much since his last go round in the first Giuliani administration.  It was during that tenure that Bratton, an innovative flamboyant Cop, Jack Maple who designed the technological template for what became CompStat, implemented a variety of measures that ultimately resulted in the most amazing turn around and elevated the City of New York to the literal “safest big City” in the United States.  That Bratton has returned to a City that he had an integral role in making safer in his first term in 1PP cannot be denied.  The initiatives put in place in the post 9/11 years under Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly have proven to be successful in the constant overcast of another terrorist attack.

As the initial shock of September 11^th, 2001 began to fade some of the initiatives Ray Kelly implemented in both the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Divisions, as well as a sound patrol practice known as “Stop, Question and Frisk” (SQF) became controversial.  The “See Something, Say Something” campaign enlisted all New Yorkers  to be constantly vigilant of any suspicious activity such as unattended packages or backpacks left on subway trains, and it paid off.  Some have questioned the legality of the means to the ends in this equation as well as the right to privacy and freedom of religion citing the enhanced monitoring of New York City’s large Muslim community as “racial targeting”.  Such knee-jerk reactions are typical here in this bastion of Liberal Democrats however every step Kelly implemented in his Department was upheld in the Courts despite repeated attempts to have NYPD’s operations curtailed.  The activists’ version of an effective policy dropped the “question” element from the equation as it became derisively known as simply “Stop and Frisk”.  It was in this legal battle as well as the enhanced surveillance in Muslim neighborhoods coffee shops and Mosques that forced Bloomberg and Kelly to scale down their efforts.  Yet, it cannot be dismissed that the NYPD thwarted, averted or prevented (some would add "allegedly") 13 terrorist plots.  That NYC has not seen another terrorist atrocity since 9/11 is an undeniable fact and arguably should be credited to Kelly and his Department.

When our current Mayor Bill de Blasio was a candidate he ran on a strong anti-Stop, Questions and Frisk platform, called for an end to what he viewed as “racial profiling” by the NYPD and vowed to “reform” the NYPD with measures that included the installation of an Inspector General, Philip Eure, as the supreme “watchdog” over NYPD.  Eure’s purview remains ill-defined given the already existing Civilian Review Board that has been in operation for many years. During the earliest days of the de Blasio/Bratton tag team it appeared that Bratton was prepared to be more of a contrite penitent seeking the approval of all the varied “disenfranchised” communities within our Five Boroughs.  After all, candidate de Blasio was never shy in his criticism of the NYPD, Ray Kelly, Mayor Bloomberg and any and all of their policing initiatives.  When the candidate became our Mayor and appointed Bratton as his Top Cop many rank and file Member of Service (MOS) of the NYPD were uncertain of what, if any changes Bratton would enact.  Others among the ranks had only been newborns during Bratton’s first stint in 1PP. 

SURVEILLANCE CITY: EYES IN THE SKIES

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack there has been a dramatic increase in the number of surveillance cameras operated by the NYPD, private security firms, local shops and other public places.  While the exact number will not be released by the NYPD, personnel in the Intel Division unofficially claim that they operate upwards of 22,000 closed circuit monitoring cameras including at least half that number having long term recording capabilities.  As any New Yorker knows all those tinted dome affixed to street corners, building lobbies and exteriors as well as the portable NYPD surveillance towers are keeping a watchful eye on us all.  In recent years in NYC and other locations across the country closed circuit cameras have contributed mightily in the identification and arrests of criminals of every ilk.  Yes, there are privacy issues and it will always be a hotly debated topic among civil libertarians and public advocacy groups and Law Enforcement.  Certainly it is a valid debate but in the world of asymmetrical warfare and non-state sponsored terrorism, it could reasonably be posited that the security of the “great good” can trump the absolute privacy of people in public domains.  In this age of exploitive, narcissistic “social media” where people willingly, if not wantonly reveal themselves in a cyber/viral manner, there seems to be a cognitive dissonance when it comes to individual privacy. That the very same technology we use privately can also be utilized for public safety should not be as controversial as it often is.

EYES UNDERGOUND

Yesterday Commissioner Bratton announced his plans to have surveillance cameras installed in all subway stations and subway cars.  That he man who first employed some high-tech algorithms and innovations back in the 1990’s would seek novel approaches in an effort to keep the crime rates decreasing only seems logical.  His idea is to enable the NYPD to do “more with less”, to utilize the available technology in the on-going fight against crime throughout our vast, largely subterranean rail transportation system.

If all the subway track in the service of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) was laid out end to end it would reach from Times Square to Detroit, a distance of approximately 829 miles.  That’s a lot of track and the subway system has an average weekday ridership of 5.5 million commuters.  There are 484 subway stations in the complex City-wide network that presents, and always has, a host of challenges for the NYPD to effectively monitor and police.

Bratton envisions an underground surveillance array of cameras that will be monitored by Cops armed with tablet computers and other hi-tech, hand held devices.  This would represent the latest innovative method of “smart policing”; of doing more actual crime intervention with fewer Cops assigned to a designated locale.  Such an MTA-wide network of cameras and communications technology could and would prove its value and financial “return on investment” in a very brief time as one NYPD Three Star Chief commented in a phone conversation earlier today.  He spoke under the condition of anonymity because he is not officially authorized to speak to the media on behalf of the NYPD. 

TWEAKING COMPSTAT

Another of Commissioner Bratton’s announcements yesterday was directly related to the as yet to be determined relationship between the decrease in Stop, Question and Frisk usage and the uptick in crime, particularly gun violence in some off the highest crime Precincts in the City.  Here, at the 46^th Precinct in the University Heights neighborhood of The Bronx there has been a troubling increase in violent crime since the orders from 1PP to reduce the frequency of SQF.  Returning to his penchant for statistically derived patterns and trends, Bratton has ordered a review focusing in the seven other Precincts besides the 46^th that are experiencing the most disturbing increases in gun crime after reductions in SQF.  As a “numbers guy” and a stickler for accountability among the ranks he commands, it is only natural that he would revitalize some of the methods that had yielded some much of the NYPD’s success during his initial tenure as Commissioner. He has announced some plans to revamp deployment of his Officers as determined by CompStat and seasonal specifics such as increasing the police presence in Coney Island as the summer beach and boardwalk activity heats up. We view these as more proactive, practical applications of a Police Department that must always be dynamic due to the nature of our City both as the home to almost 9 million residents and a world renowned, international capitol.   

WE STAND CORRECTED

As even the most casual reader of the Brooding Cynyx knows, we have been highly critical of the second incarnation of Bill Bratton.  We had been very skeptical regarding the return of Bratton and never missed an opportunity to make our opinions known.  We have received a great deal of criticism for our negative stance on Bratton Version 2.0 and have respected all opinions voiced including those most critical of our own opinion.  While much remains to be seen in the not too distant future we have begun to turn the objective corner on our assessment of the return of Bill Bratton.

It is encouraging to watch as Bratton settles more comfortably into his Office and begins to assert himself and emerge from beneath the shadow of the Mayor who chose him specifically to perform an extremely challenging job.  Without doubt there will be troubles along the way; as we all realize here in Gotham City anything can happen in the blink of an eye.  We live and move at a pace that can only ever be natural for the native born.  We’re tough and resilient, we don’t suffer fools easily, we can be aggressive and abrasive to the outside world but among our diverse and disparate selves we are one, we all share this 326 square miles with each other and are the only people on the planet who can proudly claim the title of  "New Yorker". 

Copyright The Brooding Cynyx 2014 © All Rights Reserved

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/bratton-advocates-security-cameras-city-subway-cars-article-1.1837813

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-transit-chief-won-war-subway-crime-article-1.1841307

http://online.wsj.com/articles/nypd-studies-frisk-decline-consequences-1403745924

http://www.officer.com/news/11535379/nypd-officials-consider-task-force-merger

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/daily-news-analysis-reveals-perverted-subway-stations-article-1.1836952

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/daily-news-analysis-reveals-crime-rankings-city-subway-system-article-1.1836918

http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/7321310-NYPD-considers-task-force-merger-as-shootings-continue-to-climb/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-adding-1g-patrol-cops-commissioner-bratton-article-1.1838366

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nypd-inspector-general/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/philip-eure_n_5430906.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/05/big_apple_is_watching_you.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/nyregion/for-a-much-safer-new-york-bratton-redefines-role.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C[%22RI%3A5%22%2C%22RI%3A16%22]&_r=0