Pulitzer Rewarded to Reporters Critical of the NYPD’s Successful Counterterrorism Efforts

Earlier in the week, Zarein Ahmedzay testified in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.  In his testimony he stated that co-conspirator Adis Medunjanin “was committed” to executing a sequence of terrorist attacks in New York City.  Another man, Najibullah Zazi, pleaded  guilty to the plot which was uncovered by the FBI and the NYPD.

It just so happens that on the same day, the Associated Press (AP) won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles “revealing” the New York Police Department’s widespread spying on Muslims.  This would be the spying which circumvented several terrorist plots—all of which were formulated to kill an untold amount of people. Maybe another 3,000 or more?

For castigating those who prevent terrorist attacks, four AP reporters were rewarded with a Pulitzer, by the Pulitzer Board at Columbia University.  The board described the four’s efforts as “their spotlighting of the New York Police Department’s clandestine spying program that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, resulting in congressional calls for a federal investigation, and a debate over the proper role of domestic intelligence gathering.”

And yet, the NYPD has managed to stop 14 terrorist attacks since 9/11.  Moreover, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, 82% are of the opinion that the NYPD has been vigilant in combating terrorism.

But, to those with self-imposed blindness, facts and statistics mean nothing.  FrontPageMag.Com reports:

“None of it matters to those determined to undermine the strategy. In February, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) demanded that the NYPD be investigated for using federal drug fighting funds to help underwrite its surveillance of Muslim mosques and businesses. “We are deeply concerned that federal resources may have been used and spying information stored in violation of federal regulations that protect Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights against law enforcement overreach,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. In March, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed he was “disturbed,” and that the NYPD’s methods for combatting terrorism are “under review at the Justice Department.” 34 members of Congress demanded a federal investigation, as did the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), while schools such as Yale, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Buffalo condemned surveillance aimed at their students.”

Predictably, the New York Times did not eviscerate the would be attackers, but instead went after the NYPD.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLI), an organization specializing in Constitutional law, the surveillance techniques used by the NYPD were constitutional.  Jay Sekulow, Chief Counself of the ACLI states: “The surveillance techniques used by the NYPD pose no constitutional concerns and reflect a sound and legitimate response to ongoing terrorist threats facing New York and America.”  The ACLI’s analysis can be viewed here.

At the same time, consider the mainstream media’s perpetually biased reporting of Gaza strikes on Israel.  Headlines usually make it appear as though the Gaza strikes on Israel are merely a response to an attack, though in actuality the Israeli strikes are a taken as a defensive measure.  Arutz Sheva reports:

‘One of the most blatant biased versions was printed in the Denver Post, which headlined, “Israel launches Gaza airstrikes; Palestinians Reply with Rockets.” If the reader went past the headline, he then could discover that an Israeli spokesman “said the first attack specifically targeted a cell responsible for a Wednesday rocket attack that exploded deep inside Israel.”’

The New York Times is legendary in twisting headlines in order to make it appear that Israel is the instigator of attacks in the region.  For example:

“Israeli Drone Strike Kills Militants in Southern Gaza.”

The headline omits the fact that the IDF was responding to a missile attack.

The Washington Post has shown an image of a Gazan who was reportedly wounded in IDF aerial strikes and initially indicated the terrorists were simply responding to an Israeli strike (instead of having initiated the aggression):

“ Israeli aircraft struck at Palestinian militants on Saturday who responded with a volley of rockets which rained on southern Israeli towns, Israeli and Palestinian officials said.”

Frequently, in mainstream media reporting, terrorists are not described as such–they are usually painted as “militants.”   The terrorists are humanized while Israel is portrayed as an oppressor.  For instance, the AP has featured a photo of a member of the terrorist group, Islamic Jihad, being taken to a morgue, while not bothering to cover any of the damage done to Israel.

Arutz Sheva points out that:

“The world’s media shows no difference between barbarians who kill innocent people and an army for a democratic civilized nation that kills people trained to destroy harm and maim.  The world holds the Jews to a different standard.

There is no moral equivalency between Islamic Jihad targeting women and children going about their daily lives and a democratic state protecting its own civilians. “

 Following is Mark Steyn’s four stage process of how the mainstream media chooses to cover situations such as the aforementioned:

Stage One: The strange compulsion to assure us that the killer is a “right wing conservative extremist,”…

Stage Two: Okay, he may be called Mohammed but he’s a “lone wolf.” Sure, he says he was trained by al-Qaeda, but what does he know? Don’t worry, folks, he’s just a lone wolf like Major Hasan and Faisal Shahzad and all the other card-carrying members of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves. All jihad is local.

Stage Three: Okay, even if there are enough lone wolves around to form their own Radio City Rockette line, it’s still nothing to do with Islam. I’m sad to see the usually perceptive Ed West of the London Telegraph planting his flag on this wobbling blancmange.

Stage Four: The backlash that never happens. Because apparently the really bad thing about actual dead Jews is that it might lead to dead non-Jews: “French Muslims Fear Backlash After Shooting.” Likewise, after Major Hasan’s mountain of dead infidels, “Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army.” Likewise, after the London Tube slaughter, “British Muslims Fear Repercussions After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.” Oh, no, wait, that’s a parody, though it’s hard to tell.

It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword.  Is it any wonder, then, that the dispensers of terror world-wide are believed, by many, to be the victims?

Candice Lanier