This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Pretty much this. As long as they go through the proper court first, there would be no issues in wiretapping a religious institution.
Legal issues at least. There are moral ramifications to be considered. Besides the obvious spiritual connotations of violating a place that many people consider sacred, many people also consider places like that almost like a place of therapy. It might not hold the same legal protection as a psychiatrists office, but many people still consider it the same thing.
Although I'm sure that many government agencies would, and do, just bypass the proper channels. Illegally obtained information can't be used in court, but the goal of anti terror is to prevent attacks. Getting convictions is more a secondary objective, and somewhat irrelevant since suspected terrorists can often be held indefinitely without any kind of a trial.
They'd have to divulge where they got their information at some point, though. If information is obtained illegally that led to the detention of terrorists or whatnot and ended up convicting them, serious lawsuits, criminal accusations and loss of jobs are possible outcomes.
For example, look up the PALMETTOS in Operation SHOCKER. It's a fascinating story.
Post by
Adamsm
That's absolutely a violation of freedom of religion, in addition to being against everything America was founded on.
Reminds me of those comics where it shows someone yelling that all the immigrants should go home, and behind that guy is a Native American with a smirk on his face.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Do people in churches sit around and plan terrorist attacks? I mean I doubt anyone would do that in a mosque so there is really no point in doing it. I mean really.
I believe the fear is that terrorists would use a mosque to plan things, or store bombs or whatever, knowing it's a safer place than their own homes.
Yeah now I just don't see that happening. The regulars of the mosque would probably notice a bomb laying around. It is completely islamophobic to assume that muslims are okay with terrorists. Of course that photoset clearly shows that those people don't care. Is that a fox news show btw? I can't tell.
Well the thing is, it
has
happened. While most Muslims don't support terrorism, there have been mosques that have been found harboring terrorists. Idk if it's happened on American soil or not, but it's certainly been found often enough over seas that you can't say it would never happen.
I completely agree that the idea that Muslims are predisposed to be sympathetic to terrorists is bigotry, and the guy who says we should bug all mosques is an idiot. But we still can't ignore the fact that some mosques have harbored terrorists in the past.
Discrimination against religion is still bigotry. For the past decade or so bigotry against the religious has been getting more and more acceptable by society. This crap is just one more example.
Post by
Adamsm
Well as seen up here in Canada, a local Mosque actually helped to stop a terror attack when they helped the RCMP get a hold of the two suspects; I linked the story a few pages back.
Post by
Gone
I just wanna be utterly clear. I'm not in favor if bugging Mosques, or any other religious institution/domicile, without evidence. I just don't like assumptions of any kind. It's wrong to assume all Mosques harbor terrorists, but it's just as bad to assume no Mosque could ever harbor a terrorist.
Every sect has it's extremists. Just like Christianity has those Westburo freaks, Islam has it's extremists as well. Acknowledging they exist isn't being anti Islam. Being anti Islam is assuming that any Muslim is more likely to be an extremist.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, I'd feel sorry for the terrorist =).
Post by
Gone
Every place ever could harbor a terrorist though. I could have a terrorist under my bed right now.
Skipping over the first thing that comes to my mind when reading that sentence...
If somebody had reasonable suspicion that a terrorist was there, a case could be made for bugging your bed.
Resisting making a joke about that too...
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I know, I was never advocating bugging Mosques, just pointing out why people would consider it. I certainly wasn't defending the jackass who made the original statement.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Now that I think of it, is it even possible to put ever Mosque in the country under surveillance? Listening to the tapes alone would take up a massive amount of time, nevermind trying to decrypt any messages that come off as suspicious. Plus you would have to bug the phones, and emails.
Even if the manpower for that was available, I don't even wanna think about how much money of American tax dollars it would cost.
Post by
432158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Surely putting all of them under surveillance would be against freedom of religion or something? I understand putting one under it because a member has shown suspicious behavior. But all of them just because one muslim did something?
If not you'd really have to put surveillance on everything in the country because I'm sure every group of people have someone who's been suspicious at some point.
I really don't understand how American laws work at all.
Idk if it is legally, since it doesn't really affect anybody being listened to. I think installing surveillance equipment without either permission from the property owner, or some kind of a court issued warrant counts as unlawful search and seizure, and thus a violation of the fourth amendment. Idk for sure though, I'm not a lawyer (yet). I'm pretty sure it's illegal, but idk if if it's unconstitutional.
Post by
Adamsm
If it's under the Patriot Act, they can do whatever they'd like sadly.
Post by
Gone
If it's under the Patriot Act, they can do whatever they'd like sadly.
In some cases the Constitution will trump the Patriot Act. With something this wide scale, public opinion alone would probably shut it down.
Post by
Adamsm
If it's under the Patriot Act, they can do whatever they'd like sadly.
In some cases the Constitution will trump the Patriot Act. With something this wide scale, public opinion alone would probably shut it down.
Not if they are using the terrorist 'smokescreen' to get the thing moving; and the sad fact that with the PA, they don't have to 'admit' anything; after all, the patriot act lets them break into a 'suspected' terrorist home without a warrant and take whatever they want.
Post by
Gone
I just wanna point out again, the perversity of naming something that violates the rules set down by our forefathers as the "Patriot" act.
I understand violating the Constitution in rare circumstances to save lives. I don't necessarily condone it, but I understand it. But giving the government an all access pass to trample the Bill of Rights is something completely different.
Did you know that in the two years after 9/11 the government rounded up over 5000 American citizens, no trials, no hearings, no lawyers or visitation, on suspicion of being terrorists. Of these 5000 there was enough evidence to prosecute three people. Of these three trials, only one was convicted.
In other words the criteria hey used to determine whose rights to violate had a .02% success rate.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.