Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-13-2013, 08:15   #1
SF-TX
Quiet Professional
 
SF-TX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,585
Surveillance of Mosques Off Limits

It is reassuring that our federal government is more concerned about hurting the feelings of our fragile muslim 'brothers' than actually focusing on those intent on destroying western civilization. Absurd.

Quote:
Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers

Posted 06/12/2013 06:34 PM ET

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.

The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.

One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?

Link
__________________
Ubi libertas habitat ibi nostra patria est

I hold it as a principle that the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict on the enemy. –Gen. Mikhail Skobelev
SF-TX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 08:41   #2
SF-TX
Quiet Professional
 
SF-TX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,585
CAIR's 'Build a Wall of Resistance, Don't Talk to the F.B.I.' campaign was apparently quite effective.

Quote:
CAIR Imagery Makes Obstructionist Goal Clear

IPT News
January 12, 2011

Any question about the Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) attitude toward law enforcement in terrorism investigations has been put to rest by the group's San Francisco chapter.

"Build a Wall of Resistance," a poster announcing a Feb. 9 event published on the group's website says, "Don't Talk to the FBI."

A dark, sinister FBI agent is shown lurking in front of people's homes as doors slam shut.

Source
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 440_large.jpg (87.1 KB, 62 views)
__________________
Ubi libertas habitat ibi nostra patria est

I hold it as a principle that the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict on the enemy. –Gen. Mikhail Skobelev
SF-TX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 09:15   #3
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
An interesting article. Fits here or in NSA thread.

Could/should US allies infiltrate (monitor) where and when needed?

Intel Outside

Could the NSA just use foreign governments to spy on Americans?

BY DAVID COLE | JUNE 12, 2013

Last week's revelations about the scope of the National Security Agency's surveillance shocked many Americans, who learned that the top-secret agency was keeping records on literally every time they picked up the phone -- recording who they called, for how long, and their location when they called. But the concern was not limited to Americans. Edward Snowden's leaks also disclosed that the NSA had put in place the technology to sweep up large amounts of foreigners' phone calls, emails, social networking, and Internet usage. Citizens abroad immediately began objecting that their rights were being infringed by this U.S. program.

The U.S. response on both fronts is that no rights have been violated. On the domestic front, the Obama administration notes that the Supreme Court long ago ruled that Americans have no Fourth Amendment protection in the phone numbers they call, because when they pick up the phone they necessarily share that information with their phone provider for billing purposes. They therefore assume the risk that the phone company will turn around and give the information to the government. As such, the Court ruled, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis the government obtaining that information from the phone provider. This "third-party disclosure" rule has largely eviscerated Fourth Amendment protection in the digital age, because virtually everything we do shares information with a third party these days. When we browse the Internet, dial a phone number, make a credit or debit card purchase, use EZ Pass on the highway, send an email, or carry a cellphone, we are necessarily sharing information with our "service providers." Under the Supreme Court's rule, we have no constitutional protection against the government getting that information from those providers. And with that information, the government can construct a picture of our private lives more intimate than even our family members have.

But this is not the only loophole in privacy protections. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to searches of foreigners overseas. The Court announced that rule in a case involving a search of a Mexican's home in Mexico. But as with the third-party disclosure rule, the digital age transforms this principle into a massive loophole. Because of modern communications technology and computer capabilities, we can now sweep up and analyze massive amounts of electronic communications. The NSA could monitor every phone call, email, and Internet search in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, or Canada without any constitutional checks whatsoever.

Why should Americans care? Because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In international relations, reciprocity is a core principle. If we can monitor British citizens' emails and Internet use without meaningful legal limits, why should the British be restrained in their monitoring of our emails and Internet usage? And once a foreign government has obtained such information about our private activities, no law prohibits it from sharing that information with our government. As long as our government did not instigate the acquisition of the information, there is no bar under U.S. law on our government getting it from another government and using it against us.

Again, the modern era makes all of this much more feasible. Electronic communications travel around the world on cables that often pass through many different countries. In this sense, our communications are only as protected as they are in the least protective jurisdiction through which they pass -- and one generally cannot even know through which countries one's communications are likely to pass.

Developments in communications technology have brought the world closer together and have put a previously unimaginable wealth of information at our fingertips. This is all to the good. But those same developments have created the potential for vast loopholes in our privacy protections. Without constitutional constraint, the U.S. government can obtain from private companies data about our daily digital habits that can reveal what doctors we see, what magazines and websites we read, where we travel, and with whom we associate on a 24/7 basis. And computers make it possible to collect and analyze that data for "suspicious" behavior. And because foreign nationals abroad enjoy no protections whatsoever, Americans are likely to be fair game to foreign government surveillance operations directed at us.

<snip>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...A_surveillance
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 18:10   #4
Paragrouper
Quiet Professional
 
Paragrouper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 515
I wonder if they afford the same courtesy to other religious institutions?
__________________
DCC

"Beware the fury of of the patient man." ~John Dryden
Paragrouper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 06:27   #5
ddoering
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,511
There are no other religions. Move along, nothing to see here.
ddoering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 07:48   #6
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddoering View Post
There are no other religions. Move along, nothing to see here.
By definition there are alot of religions. Only one GOD.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:29.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies