Should the monitoring of mosques be part of U.S. security activities?

[ag]

On the same basis as churches and sinagogues or other similar institutions. A mosque is no different from any other such place of worship.

[ag]

Most of the rapists in this country are Christian white men.  Should the FBI monitor all Christian white men?

They don't develop rapist tendencies in church, though. (perhaps seminary... ) .

Ok, should the seminaries, in the absence of any further evidence of misconduct, be monitored by the FBI? I mean, there is ample evidence, that particular setting is very frequently associated with law-breaking.

[ag]

I mean, shouldn't they be monitoring everything?

Hopefully, not. At least, if the word "liberty" still means anything.

[ag]

Of course.

Yes, we wouldn't let the Westboro Baptist Church go unmonitored would we? Why should a potential Muslim version of that be unmonitored?

The WBC is a single, known organization mostly limited to one extended family and is relatively harmless other than for their inflammatory speech and offensive behavior. Religious fundamentalists who plot and commit dangerous activities (e.g. FLDS) should be investigated and put under surveillance, and we should not be so politically correct as to treat mosques any differently.

Well, mosques are not a single, known organization. Islam (at least, Sunni Islam) has no rigid hierarchy. Organizationally, mosques are as distinct between each other as are sinagogues. Same goes for their ideology: actually, Judaism is a lot more doctrinally homogeneous these days.

[ag]

I mean, shouldn't they be monitoring everything?

Hopefully, not. At least, if the word "liberty" still means anything.

I think you meant "privacy". In any case, both are intangible inventions.

No, I mean "liberty".

In 1984 my parents got "1984" to read. For one night. In secret. My mother remembers that, as she was reading, she vividly imagined the telescreen on the wall in front of her. It may not have been tangible. But the fear, certainly, was.

[ag]

Of course.

Yes, we wouldn't let the Westboro Baptist Church go unmonitored would we? Why should a potential Muslim version of that be unmonitored?

The WBC is a single, known organization mostly limited to one extended family and is relatively harmless other than for their inflammatory speech and offensive behavior. Religious fundamentalists who plot and commit dangerous activities (e.g. FLDS) should be investigated and put under surveillance, and we should not be so politically correct as to treat mosques any differently.

Well, mosques are not a single, known organization. Islam (at least, Sunni Islam) has no rigid hierarchy. Organizationally, mosques are as distinct between each other as are sinagogues. Same goes for their ideology: actually, Judaism is a lot more doctrinally homogeneous these days.

I did not mean that all mosques should be monitored. (unconstitutional and a gross waste of resources) As you said, Islam is organized congregationally. Wherever there is any suspicion, evidence or another lead of any sort of heinous activities (e.g. child abuse, money laundering, terrorism) in any religious setting, law enforcement agencies should fully investigate and not hesitate to use any tools in doing so.

As long as they present sufficient evidence to get a court order, they should be able to do it. A mosque, or Daughters of the American Revolution chapter. But, honestly, do you have any doubts that, if anything, they already go far beyond that? If anything, I think there is ample evidence they plant agents far and wide, with or without particular suspicions.

[ag]

I mean, shouldn't they be monitoring everything?

Hopefully, not. At least, if the word "liberty" still means anything.

I think you meant "privacy". In any case, both are intangible inventions.

No, I mean "liberty".

In 1984 my parents got "1984" to read. For one night. In secret. My mother remembers that, as she was reading, she vividly imagined the telescreen on the wall in front of her. It may not have been tangible. But the fear, certainly, was.

A fictional novel from decades ago is not what we should base our surveillance policy around.

Well, I guessed it right. The world "liberty" has no meaning to you.

At least, thanks for being honest. We all know, we are dealing with a committed enemy of the principles America has been founded on. I have seen something, and I will be saying something. On my way to be reporting to you to the FBI.

[ag]

I mean, shouldn't they be monitoring everything?

Hopefully, not. At least, if the word "liberty" still means anything.

I think you meant "privacy". In any case, both are intangible inventions.

No, I mean "liberty".

In 1984 my parents got "1984" to read. For one night. In secret. My mother remembers that, as she was reading, she vividly imagined the telescreen on the wall in front of her. It may not have been tangible. But the fear, certainly, was.

A fictional novel from decades ago is not what we should base our surveillance policy around.

Well, I guessed it right. The world "liberty" has no meaning to you.

At least, thanks for being honest. We all know, we are dealing with a committed enemy of the principles America has been founded on. I have seen something, and I will be saying something. On my way to be reporting to you to the FBI.

Rude.

Why?

Merely honest and factual.

[ag]

If there's probable cause and a warrant, sure--just like there should be anywhere.  But no, warrantless mass surveillance of mosques just because they're mosques would be a significantly unconstitutional overreach.

Seems like a reasonable statement.

It is, with the one caveat that sending in informants doesn't require a warrant generally. But the idea of widespread monitoring of mosques is a bad idea.

And I do not like reliance on informants. Remember: the leader of the main terrorist group in Tsarist Russia was an informant, who betrayed many of his comrades to the government. Nevertheless, that the Tsar was not killed by the terrorists was no fault of his (and, in fact, many top officials of the empire, were killed). Dangerous guys they are, those informants.

[ag]

The idea that US is somehow at present doing too little monitoring of mosques because of whatever "pc" reasons seems, which some of the posters here seem imply, is so much at odds with everything that is publically known, as to be completely ridiculous. Whatever has been made public suggests that US agents are getting dangerously close to being provocateurs, generating potential plots in numerous Islamic communities for the purpose of being able to uncover them. As far as I am concerned, this is hugely dangerous: historic experience shows that such provocateurship gets out of hand and leads to real damage - aside from generating justified mistrust in the overall community being targeted. But one thing we pretty much know for certain: if anything, US security services do not, at present, feel themselves much restricted by any privacy or liberty considerations when targeting American Muslims for investigation.