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

[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.

[Green Line]

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.

[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.

[Green Line]

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.

[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.

[DemPGH]

Without doubt, of course they should be. All of them. It's an authority-driven system, and that's the center their authority. And it's only time until they figure out that they can get guns almost anywhere. Ugh.

ALL of them?

Okay, as many as realistically warrant it and as many as can be feasibly monitored. I see no harm in it. And I don't talk much about Islam, but I assure you I do not share the head-in-the-sand view of it that many on the left espouse.

Without doubt, of course they should be. All of them. It's an authority-driven system, and that's the center their authority. And it's only time until they figure out that they can get guns almost anywhere. Ugh.

Who are you, and what have you done with the DemPGH I knew?

Oh, different cycle, different level of disappointment, although I do think the social aspect of the left has possibly passed me up, especially among the activist/SJW variety, and I'm not sure I got to "know" you. Still secular, still for protecting the worker (in America, I guess I have to add at this point), still very non-interventionist, etc.  

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[SillyAmerican]

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.

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is advocating indiscriminate, widespread monitoring of mosques, which is both impractical and unnecessary. No, the FBI knows the dozen or so most problematic mosques in the country.

Example: Masjed As-Saber, Oregon's largest mosque. Why the interest? Because of the following timeline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The top 10 or 12 problematic mosques should probably be monitored, given that, as Dr. Gorka mentions, radicalization takes place via either the internet or an imam within a problem mosque. As I say, I'm fairly sure we know which of the mosques is being used to radicalize members; we don't need to monitor all mosques in order to greatly improve our security situation vis-a-vis Islamic radicals.

[SillyAmerican]

Some argue that recognizing Islamic terrorism as coming from within the Muslim community is somehow inappropriate.

Source please.

As far as I know law enforcement follows leads no matter where they take them.  And I'm glad they don't monitor every mosque simply because it is a mosque.  That would be a low yield waste of tax dollars and divert resources from where they are needed.

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

A number of sources exist; here's one article related directly to the question of monitoring mosques (the emboldened text highlight is me):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SWE]

Without doubt, of course they should be. All of them. It's an authority-driven system, and that's the center their authority. And it's only time until they figure out that they can get guns almost anywhere. Ugh.

ALL of them?  Holy potatoes.  Who are you, and what have you done with the DemPGH I knew?

Wait, you knew a DemPGH who wasn't completely nuts? I'd love to meet him.

[ingemann]

Should American mosques be monitored? I think the answer to that is: some of them should, but most shouldn't. So more or less that the American government do today. It's rather obvious that in this case increased monitoring of mosques wouldn't have stopped the attack. This guy's network was under observation, but it's really hard to discover a Lone Wolf even if his general network is under observation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Without doubt, of course they should be. All of them. It's an authority-driven system, and that's the center their authority. And it's only time until they figure out that they can get guns almost anywhere. Ugh.

ALL of them?  Holy potatoes.  Who are you, and what have you done with the DemPGH I knew?

DemPGH was always a bootlicker, I guess he's just a little more open about it now?

[DemPGH]

DemPGH was always a bootlicker, I guess he's just a little more open about it now?

Well, I beat down your trolling so many times I lost track of it, and really without much effort. There were always a lot of trolls, but you were certainly a unique one! Sentiment understood.

Wait, you knew a DemPGH who wasn't completely nuts? I'd love to meet him.

Ah, I'd have to decline. Anyway, it's not hard to imagine that you don't go out/are not allowed out after hours.

[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.

[SillyAmerican]

Should American mosques be monitored? I think the answer to that is: some of them should, but most shouldn't. So more or less that the American government do today. It's rather obvious that in this case increased monitoring of mosques wouldn't have stopped the attack. This guy's network was under observation, but it's really hard to discover a Lone Wolf even if his general network is under observation.

A little off track, but one thing that bothers me are reports that multiple gun stores denied the sale of a gun to the Orlando shooter, for reasons of their own determination. Is there any way for the FBI to track such denials? I assume that if four or five stores deny the selling of a gun to someone, that the FBI might be interested in speaking with that someone. Could having access to such information have prevented these murders? And would a system to track such information be practical?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I mean, shouldn't they be monitoring everything?

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

It's already a false idea from a distant past that went the way of history a long time ago.

[TDAS04]

Only if there is good reason to suspect particular mosques.  Otherwise it's unconstitutional for government to pick on a specific religion.  

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

Oh, of course. Obviously anything a mosque puts out to the general public wouldn't require a warrant.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

More useful to monitor unregistered smaller madrassas etc. Most non stupid wannabe terrorists don't blab in mosques for fear of narcs and spooks. But yeah, better to have the less secretive arms of the state develop working partnerships with mosques and also oblige them to release their funding and details of their speakers than literally monitor everybody, because then you'll spend all your time chasing after nonsense and miss actual terrorists who (as I said) aren't typically the sort of person who brings attention to themselves in mosques.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If there is evidence that a mosque is connected to terrorism in some way, then yes of course.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If we monitor mosques, we should also monitor the right-wing megachurches.

[Blair]

What does this mean? Like do you want the FBI to bug every single Mosque?