FBI

RECENT POSTS

November 18, 2011 | 12:22 PM | By

Making sense of the new hate crime numbers

Photo by seanbonner/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A church sign in Los Angeles, January 2010

This week, both the FBI and the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations released reports on 2010 hate crimes statistics; a few months ago, the California Department of Justice released hate crime numbers for the state.

Going just by the headlines this week, the messages have been mixed. “Hate crimes drop to 21-year low in L.A. County,” reads a headline today in the Los Angeles Times, while NBC Los Angeles’ website displayed a more ominous sounding “Hispanics Top Target of Hate Crimes.”

Which is it, bad news or good? A bit of both. While overall hate crimes in Los Angeles county have declined, down to 427 in 2010 from 593 in 2009, anti-Latino hate crimes within the county lines are up somewhat. This is reflected in the state numbers, which show the number of overall hate crimes in California staying fairly flat since 2009, but the number of anti-Latino crimes rising.

And the latter news, of course, is borne out in the new federal numbers, which show the number of hate crimes nationwide holding steady but anti-Latino hate crimes on the rise, and accounting for 66 percent of all ethnicity-related hate crime incidents in 2010. Here’s a quick digest of the numbers reflecting anti-Latino and other hate crimes from all three reports:

The nation:

The FBI report charts a very slight increase in overall hate crimes between 2010 (6,628 incidents) and 2009 (6,604). Of these, hate crimes motivated by bias against a particular ethnicity or national origin were directed at 1,122 victims in 2010 – and of these, 66.6 percent were targeted at victims due to “anti-Hispanic bias.”

Anti-Latino hate crimes went up (534 incidents in 2010 vs. 483 in 2009), as did anti-Islamic hate crimes (160 vs. 107) while incidents involving black victims declined (2,201 vs. 2,284). Hate crimes involving racial bias still account for almost half the reported offenses: Almost 48 percent involved race, 20 percent involved religion, 19 percent involved sexual orientation, and almost 13 percent involved a bias against “an ethnicity/national origin.” A small number of hate crimes were directed at victims suffering a physical or mental disability.

California:

While overall hate crimes held steady (an increase of just 0.6 percent between 2009 and 2010, seven incidents in all) anti-Latino hate crimes increased 46.9 percent in California, from 81 incidents in 2009 to 119 in 2010.

As anti-Latino hate crimes rose, anti-Jewish hate crimes decreased by 20 percent from the previous year, anti-black crimes decreased by 13.8 percent, and anti-gay crimes decreased by 10.8 percent. Still, hate crimes motivated by race and/or ethnicity topped the list, accounting for close to 60 percent of all incidents. While anti-black hate crimes decreased, they are still the most common hate crime in the state, accounting for “at least 26 percent of all hate crime events since 2001.” The second-most common hate crimes involved sexual orientation bias, followed by religious bias. Among these, anti-Jewish hate crimes continue to be the most common.

Los Angeles County:

Hate crimes decreased in Los Angeles County for the third year in a row, reaching a 21-year-low. However, the majority (51 percent) continue to be based on race.

In contrast to decreases in reported hate crimes among other groups, hate crimes against Latinos rose seven percent between 2009 and 2010. The report points out, however, that anti-Latino hate crimes were down 58 percent the previous year, so “the 60 anti-Latino crimes reported in 2010 is significantly fewer than the number reported each year for most of the past decade.”

Though anti-black hate crimes aren’t up in the county, this continues to be the most targeted group, with 53 percent of the total incidents targeting black victims and 26 percent targeting Latinos. The report points out “a troubling phenomenon” of hate crimes between the two groups, with 59 percent of black victims targeted by Latino suspects, and 68 percent of Latino victims targeted by black suspects. Anti-gay crimes held steady, but were “more likely to be of a violent nature than either racial or religious crimes.”

And while the number of anti-religious crimes in L.A. County has dropped, the report tracked an slight increase (five reported in 2010, vs. zero the previous year) in “hate crimes in which suspects called their victims ‘terrorists’ or in some other way blamed them for ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.”

Corrected: Nationwide, hate crimes targeting black victims as documented in the FBI report declined (2,201 in 2010 vs. 2,284 in 2009), not the other way around.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Anti-Latino hate crimes, California Department of Justice, FBI, Hate crimes, Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission
November 8, 2011 | 10:44 AM | By

Readers sound off on racial-ethnic profiling

Photo by Jeffrey Beall/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A post from Friday that featured five American Muslims discussing racial-ethnic profiling in light of the New York Police Department’s Muslim profiling case, a report on FBI profiling and other recent news drew a long string of comments over the weekend, and the discussion among readers continues on the site.

The reactions have been surprisingly civil, considering. Some readers believe that law enforcement officials are within their rights to target specific ethnic communities for surveillance, while others hold firm that this kind of law enforcement action is an infringement on the civil rights of law-abiding Americans. Here’s a taste of the discussion that’s been taking place:

The first comment this weekend came from Jason Van Bemmel, who wrote:

How do we expect anti-terror law enforcement to protect us from future terrorist attacks if they do not monitor communities most likely to have terrorists in them?  The terrorists who have attacked us and who have plotted to attack us are Muslims.  That doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists or even that most Muslims harbor or sympathize with terrorists.  However, if you’re looking for Islamic terrorists, the place to watch is Islamic communities.  That’s really just common sense and good police strategy.  We cannot realistically expect them to do otherwise.

The comment was rebuked by several readers, including Larry Woller, who replied:

Threats to my ability of pursuing life, liberty and freedom does not come from terrorists threats or Muslims but from within..only when law enforcement practices the same vigorous monitoring of all aspects of American society that they do Muslims and others will I concede they are not racial profiling..

Sulayman also replied:

That doesn’t mean the police can treat the entire community of millions of Muslim-Americans as suspects. When the JDL was terrorizing people, they didn’t start bugging mosques and compiling lists of all Jewish-owned businesses like the NYPD is doing today against Muslims.

Come on, that just goes against state and federal law. Police can’t target someone solely because they’re Muslim, courts have determined that it goes against the First Amendment.

Another reader has pointed out parallels between what Muslims in the U.S. are experiencing today and what Japanese Americans experienced in the era of internment camps during World War II. And reader Liam Foote brought up post-September 2001 hate crimes against people perceived to be Muslim, which the interviews in the post didn’t get into:

The story doesn’t mention other victims such as Sikh merchant Balbir Singh Sodhi, shot and killed by wingnut Frank Roque simply because he wore a turban and beard.

What are your thoughts on racial-ethnic profiling? Join the discussion here.

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Ethnic profiling, FBI, FBI counteterrorism training, Islam, Muslims, NYPD, Racial profiling
November 4, 2011 | 12:19 PM | By

Five American Muslims on racial-ethnic profiling: ‘This is my country. I feel insulted.’

Photo by Jeffrey Beall/Flickr (Creative COmmons)

Over the past several weeks, a growing number of law enforcement documents have surfaced pointing to the institutional profiling of Muslims in the decade after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. First, an Associated Press investigation revealed a large-scale New York Police Department effort to collect intelligence on Muslims in the New York area, with police conducted surveillance on Muslim neighborhoods, mosques and businesses, even checking out immigrants who changed their names to sound more American.

Also controversial has been the use of counterterrorism training materials by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, under fire for using materials portraying Muslims in a negative light. And late last month, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a report alleging that the FBI targeted specific ethnic communities across the United States based on race, ethnicity, religion and nationality for potential criminal investigation.

While Muslims weren’t the only ones scrutinized, the organization said that FBI documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act showed that agents monitored Muslim and Arab-American communities in Michigan as a probable terrorist recruitment ground. Law enforcement officials have contended they were engaging in effective crime mapping, not ethnic profiling.

KPCC intern Yasmin Nouh spoke with several American Muslims in California after the latter report was released, some of them community leaders, others rank-and-file citizens. Some have been subject to law enforcement scrutiny themselves, including the president of an Orange County, Calif. mosque infiltrated by an FBI informant.

While most aren’t surprised by the recent news, it’s disappointing, they say. Some have chosen not to engage with law enforcement for lack of trust; others see an opportunity to foster dialogue. “If you’re not at the table,” one man said, “you’ll be in the menu.” Some of their thoughts:

We continued to maintain our relationship because at the end of the day, although we were disappointed, we still gave the FBI the benefit of the doubt that they are doing what they need to do to protect citizens of the U.S..

It doesn’t make us happy to hear that FBI agents are being trained about Muslims and Islam by individuals that don’t know anything about Muslims and Islam and they’re feeding law enforcement agents with incorrect and inaccurate information. I’m pleased to see and hear that Muslim organizations have spoken out against this and as a result, Muslims are being called to the table to meet with law enforcement, and review materials, because if you’re not at the table, you’ll be in the menu.

  • Shakeel Syed, head of the Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella organization of local mosques and Muslim groups. After meeting with the FBI regularly since mid-2004, the council officially suspended relations with the agency in 2008, after Syed found out that the agency was collecting information on his activities. In 2007, the Shura Council and several other Muslim groups filed a lawsuit against the FBI over surveillance.

In terms of alienation, I don’t feel alienated. This is my country. I feel insulted. I feel betrayed. You fool me once, shame on you. You feel me twice, shame on me. And hence we [Shura Council] continue to remain engaged for the purpose of everything else except mutual understanding and dialogue, and all that time wasted on meeting with the FBI.

But if there is an imminent situation, they can reach out to us for the sake of communication. Our engagement will remain in the area of advocacy and righting these wrongs but not in getting to know one another.

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Ethnic profiling, FBI, FBI counterterrorism training, Islam, Muslims, NYPD, Racial profiling
February 24, 2011 | 12:51 PM | By

What’s alleged in the FBI Muslim surveillance lawsuit

Photo by sadaqah/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The Islamic Center of Irvine, a mosque allegedly targeted by the FBI informant

A federal lawsuit filed earlier this week alleges that a former FBI informant, an ex-fitness instructor and ex-convict named Craig Monteilh, violated Muslims’ freedom of religion when he spied on Orange County mosques for the FBI between 2006 and 2007.

Monteilh posed as a new convert to Islam, the lawsuit alleges, recording conversations and meetings with a device hidden in his key ring and a camera embedded in a shirt button.

What did some of these conversations entail? According to the complaint, the informant pressed people on the topic of “violent jihad,” scaring some at the Islamic Center of Irvine to the point of calling the cops:

Agents Allen and Armstrong had instructed Monteilh to ask general questions about jihad from the beginning of the operation. In early 2007, they instructed him to start asking more pointedly about jihad and armed conflict, then to more openly suggest his own willingness to engage in violence.

Pursuant to these instructions, in one-on-one conversations, Monteilh began asking people about violent jihad, expressing frustration over the oppression of Muslims around the world, pressing them for their views, and implying that he might be willing or able to take action.

In about May 2007, on instructions from his handlers, Monteilh told a number of individuals that he believed it was his duty as a Muslim to take violent actions, and that he had access to weapons.

Many members of the Muslim community at ICOI then reported these statements to community leaders, including Hussam Ayloush. Ayloush both called the FBI to report the statements and instructed the individuals who had heard the statements to report them to the Irvine Police Department, which they did.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, ACLU, CAIR, FBI, Islam, Islamic Center of Irvine, Muslims