Mosques under surveillance

**bigfootedfred** · December 24, 2005, 02:34 PM

US authorities have been secretly monitoring radiation levels at Muslim sites amid fears that terrorists might obtain nuclear weapons, it has emerged.
Scores of mosques and private addresses have been checked for radiation, the US News and World Report says.
A Justice Department spokesman said the programme was necessary in the fight against al-Qaeda.
Last week, President George W Bush admitted allowing the wiretapping of Americans with suspected terror links.
Mr Bush has defended the covert programme and vowed to continue the practice, saying it was vital to protect the country.

Nearly all of the targets were key Muslim sites.
"In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the programme," the publication said.
"The targets were almost all US citizens," an unnamed source involved in the programme told the magazine.
"A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs," the source said.

Federal officials cited by US News and World Report said that monitoring on public property, such as driveways and parking lots, was legal and that warrants were not needed for the kind of radiation sampling it conducted.
They also rejected the claim that the programme specifically targeted Muslims.

"This creates the appearance that Muslims are targeted simply for being Muslims. I don't think this is the message the government wants to send at this time."

source

**Denny Crane!** · December 24, 2005, 03:36 PM

Makes sense to me. If they are the most probable people to commit terrorism it is not prejudice or discrimintation it is playing the odds.

Peter

**danzig** · December 24, 2005, 03:44 PM

Given the history of radical muslims using religious sites as 'bases' or storage houses regardless of what other muslims think or want and in most cases even know its going on...I see nothing wrong with this. We 'scan' alot of things as it is, from people going thru airport terminals to shipping (though really that is the area the US is lacking in).

**Erik** · December 27, 2005, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by danzig

Given the history of radical muslims using religious sites as 'bases' or storage houses

What history?
I can't think of a single instance where terrorists used a mosque as their "base".
This would also be a stupid thing to do because hundreds of people visit a mosque each week, and only one of them could spoil the operation.

They do however have a history of using their private homes as "bases".

I see nothing wrong with this.

I do:
Muslims wil feel discriminated and get angry at the US government.
It wil create more terrorists than it wil stop.

**danzig** · December 27, 2005, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Erik

What history?
I can't think of a single instance where terrorists used a mosque as their "base".
This would also be a stupid thing to do because hundreds of people visit a mosque each week, and only one of them could spoil the operation.

They do however have a history of using their private homes as "bases".

You dont follow much middle eastern news then? Mosques have routinely been used as storage houses, safe 'havens by insurgents and muslim radicals in Iraq counting on the fact the US wouldnt launch attacks on them or storm them because of the backlash. Remember whole Sadr thing? Being held up in a Mosque with his people and weapons? The article didnt really state what Mosques were being looked at just that they were, we have a number of 'groups' in the US that tend to preach the Saudi 'brand' of Islam that while not breaking any laws wouldnt suprise me if these were the main focus of monitoring.

**Erik** · December 27, 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by danzig

You dont follow much middle eastern news then? Mosques have routinely been used as storage houses, safe 'havens by insurgents and muslim radicals in Iraq counting on the fact the US wouldnt launch attacks on them or storm them because of the backlash. Remember whole Sadr thing? Being held up in a Mosque with his people and weapons? The article didnt really state what Mosques were being looked at just that they were, we have a number of 'groups' in the US that tend to preach the Saudi 'brand' of Islam that while not breaking any laws wouldnt suprise me if these were the main focus of monitoring.

Oh, I thought you were talking about terrorists in western countries, not about insurgents in Iraq.
Or do you just want to generalize?

If you want to know what's been preached at Mosques you could simply attend one, you don't need to tap their telephones.

My advice to you: don't let your preconceptions lead you.

**MaximiIian** · December 25, 2005, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by cowen70

Makes sense to me. If they are the most probable people to commit terrorism it is not prejudice or discrimintation it is playing the odds.

Peter

Why noy monitor Christian worship places as well? Unless you mean to imply that christians can't be terrorists...

**Denny Crane!** · December 26, 2005, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Why noy monitor Christian worship places as well? Unless you mean to imply that christians can't be terrorists...

Of course not, but like I said playing the odds, odds are at the minute the source of terrorism will come from a muslim source.

Its like during the height of IRA terrorism monitoring Irish people instead of English.

Peter

**MaximiIian** · December 27, 2005, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by cowen70

Of course not, but like I said playing the odds, odds are at the minute the source of terrorism will come from a muslim source.

Its like during the height of IRA terrorism monitoring Irish people instead of English.

Peter

Eh, I say they should monitor all centers of religious worship. Religious fanatics are all equally capable of terroristic levels of violence. If the government is going to prejudiced against one religion and not another, then something seems very, very, wrong.

**Denny Crane!** · December 27, 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Eh, I say they should monitor all centers of religious worship. Religious fanatics are all equally capable of terroristic levels of violence. If the government is going to prejudiced against one religion and not another, then something seems very, very, wrong.

Lets use for an example England.

When we have a high likely hood of IRA terrorism we do not take special efforts to equally monitor english and Irish people.

When we have a high likelyhood of muslim terrorism we watch Muslim sights.

If we start having a high likelyhood of christian terrorism we will watch christian hotspots.

Saying we should watch all religous sites is the very height of politically correct BS. There is zero chance of hindu terrorism in this country right now so why would we bother watching them. When was the last time in the UK a sikh planted a bomb? What about jehovas witness (unless you can count their door to door activities as terrorism)?

Better watch those scientology nutballs too eh?

Peter

**Vash_the_stampede** · December 27, 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Eh, I say they should monitor all centers of religious worship. Religious fanatics are all equally capable of terroristic levels of violence. If the government is going to prejudiced against one religion and not another, then something seems very, very, wrong.

BS. I don't see many Christian Terrorists blow themselves up these days, do you?
It's plain simple: People get observated all of the time. In every bigger city, there are cams in the center, in front of banks, etc. But that observation is just general and inefficient. So what's wrong about making it more specific and more efficient?

**GeneralLee** · December 26, 2005, 10:29 AM

Sounds bad, but it's just common sence when think about it.

**mike^_^** · December 26, 2005, 10:43 AM

Why noy monitor Christian worship places as well? Unless you mean to imply that christians can't be terrorists...

because most churches in america are already usurped. just watch the 700club where pat robertson tells you to enjoy the microchips "they're of the lord"

**Denny Crane!** · December 26, 2005, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by mike^_^

because most churches in america are already usurped. just watch the 700club where pat robertson tells you to enjoy the microchips "they're of the lord"

I'm lost. What?

Peter

**Marshal Qin** · December 27, 2005, 04:40 AM

Its provocative. It will create bad feeling and it was 'almost' all muslim sites. That means that other sites were inspected too - other Americans had their private property invaded. How many freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of freedom? It seems that Osama achieved his aims and retired. No-one has heard from him in a year and the US' way of life has changed along with much of the rest of the western world.