• NYPD targeting Muslims for surveillance--across state lines
    39 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starpluck;34893891][img]http://s1-05.twitpicproxy.com/photos/full/524166066.png?key=662394[/img] This was on the New York Post yesterday[/QUOTE] This is just unfathomably racist.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34896141]This sounds really terrible, and I was annoyed at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more ridiculous being angry about it is. Muslims are by no means all terrorists or mostly terrorists or anything remotely similar. However, the terrorist factions which attack the US in recent years ARE Muslim in nature, so putting feelers into the community to hunt for terrorist recruiters makes sense. So long as they don't violate their rights or start getting warrants and such based solely on the fact that they are Muslim, then it is good police work, not some kind of violation of their rights. I can't say that I would be pleased if the police started looking into me for my religious affiliations, but I would be far more annoyed at the people who made it a problem in the first place by blowing shit up. I'd put good money on the FBI having done this for a decade.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact that Muslim extremism is responsible for a whopping 6% of all terrorism that has occured on U.S. soil over the past twenty years, and the fact that 0 U.S. civillians have died in any Islamic terrorism over the past decade.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34899415]It is absolutely nothing like the law in Arizona. The Arizona law is based on appearance entirely and permits police to violate your rights by effectively searching your person at any time. [/QUOTE] and this is a violation of their human right to peacefully practice their religion without government reprisal. The mechanism of action might be more abstract than a physical, immediate police search of their person, but again, [b]the end-line[/b] is that they become more afraid to worship as they please because they know that an arm of the government is watching over their shoulder. This is de facto religious persecution. [QUOTE=GunFox;34899415]This is not a law. This isn't anything. This is proactive police work. [/QUOTE] the end effect of the law in arizona was just police being more "proactive" about catching illegal immigrants which lead to de facto discrimination against a minority. It doesn't matter if it's a race (and appearance) or a religion, it's still the specific targeting of one broad group of people over the majority for police action. [QUOTE=GunFox;34899415]Even assuming they will wrongfully convict people, the alternative is that they continue wrongfully convicting minorities. The police are going to be doing SOMETHING with their time one way or the other.[/QUOTE] i don't accept this premise. Would it be too idealistic to expect them to do neither? I don't see supporting one transgression as an alternative to another transgression when they're both equally grievous as a logical position to take.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;34893891][img]http://s1-05.twitpicproxy.com/photos/full/524166066.png?key=662394[/img] This was on the New York Post yesterday[/QUOTE] I honestly wonder who takes the time to draw something so inconceivably stupid and racist. This is the kind of shit that ignorant people will reference back to when they meet a Muslim.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34901074]and this is a violation of their human right to peacefully practice their religion without government reprisal. The mechanism of action might be more abstract than a physical, immediate police search of their person, but again, [b]the end-line[/b] is that they become more afraid to worship as they please because they know that an arm of the government is watching over their shoulder. This is de facto religious persecution.[/quote] How. Nothing has happened to any of them. They are secure in their persons and effects. Their homes and vehicles remain secure. A mosque might randomly have an officer in the mix. Unless they want to institute memberships, the police are free to attend. [quote]the end effect of the law in arizona was just police being more "proactive" about catching illegal immigrants which lead to de facto discrimination against a minority. It doesn't matter if it's a race (and appearance) or a religion, it's still the specific targeting of one broad group of people over the majority for police action.[/quote] The police normally target poor areas. Poor people have less of a choice about being poor than Muslims do about being Muslims. But of course we don't have a problem with that because poverty has a link to crime. Islam tends to show up frequently as being a motivator for terrorism. [quote]i don't accept this premise. Would it be too idealistic to expect them to do neither? I don't see supporting one transgression as an alternative to another transgression when they're both equally grievous as a logical position to take.[/QUOTE] I was using your premise. You were the one who pointed out that police wrongfully convict people. I pointed out that they wrongfully convict people anyways regardless of the case. That also isn't the job of the police. The police do not convict people. They track down suspects and then the court system determines their guilt. [QUOTE=Starpluck;34893891][img]http://s1-05.twitpicproxy.com/photos/full/524166066.png?key=662394[/img] This was on the New York Post yesterday[/QUOTE] Pffft what a terrible cartoon. TNT isn't black.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;34893891][img]http://s1-05.twitpicproxy.com/photos/full/524166066.png?key=662394[/img] This was on the New York Post yesterday[/QUOTE] Pffft what a terrible cartoon. TNT isn't black.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34901375] But of course we don't have a problem with that because poverty has a link to crime. Islam tends to show up frequently as being a motivator for terrorism. [/QUOTE] You repeatedly ignoring what numerous people have already brought up; that Islam has motivated a relatively miniscule amount of terrorism over the past couple of decades.
[QUOTE=The Epidemic;34901404]You repeatedly ignoring what numerous people have already brought up; that Islam has motivated a relatively miniscule amount of terrorism over the past couple of decades.[/QUOTE] Mostly because it wasn't a very good point. First of all, they are pretty much the only terrorism we have had over the past couple of decades. Afghanistan is an entire conflict devoted to mass scale counter terrorism. We have spent a decade in that country and nearly three thousand lives hunting down and destroying terrorist groups. And, of the domestic terrorism we HAVE had, they remain the only faction to have ever landed a serious blow on the US mainland. Even the Japanese during WWII managed to kill a grand total of something like three people on the mainland United States when an incendiary balloon killed some people having a picnic in the northwest. Everything else is almost petty by comparison. The alternative to these sorts of operations is basically the TSA groping everyone forever.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34901375]How. Nothing has happened to any of them. They are secure in their persons and effects. Their homes and vehicles remain secure. A mosque might randomly have an officer in the mix. Unless they want to institute memberships, the police are free to attend.[/quote] the same could be said about video surveillance and phone tapping, the person isn't necessarily affected but in the end it's still discriminatory surveillance and investigation. there are more factors to determining a terrorist threat than "are they muslim". its an over-generalization to consider all muslims as a potential threat that needs surveillance. there's a whole lot of serial killers and one-off felons that happen to be christian, but we aren't storming the churches making sure there aren't groups of rapists and murderers plotting for their next attack. [QUOTE=GunFox;34901375]The police normally target poor areas. Poor people have less of a choice about being poor than Muslims do about being Muslims. But of course we don't have a problem with that because poverty has a link to crime. Islam tends to show up frequently as being a motivator for terrorism.[/quote] the link between islam and terrorism is still vague and overly general. there are more factors that play into the likelihood of a terrorist attack than just being muslim. a vast majority of people who create the link between islam and terrorism are insurgents living in a foreign nation engulfed in guerrilla warfare and unstable, often extremist governments. i get a strange feeling that the political climate and war-centric lifestyle some of these terrorists live in is a big factor in their terrorist actions. there's plenty of non-muslim and even christian terrorists on the domestic front, so why not keep an eye on the churches as well? [editline]28th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;34901474]And, of the domestic terrorism we HAVE had, they remain the only faction to have ever landed a serious blow on the US mainland. Even the Japanese during WWII managed to kill a grand total of something like three people on the mainland United States when an incendiary balloon killed some people having a picnic in the northwest. Everything else is almost petty by comparison. The alternative to these sorts of operations is basically the TSA groping everyone forever.[/QUOTE] erm so because one group of muslims managed to land a heavy blow on american soil that invalidates all of the non-muslim terrorist attacks we've experienced for decades and decades? and no, the alternative isnt the TSA groping everyone forever. we'll do just fine without the TSA and without discriminatory surveillance and investigation of a huge group of american citizens. neither route is an effective counter-terrorism precaution but they both further deplete the rights and privacy of american citizens, at least they're effective at doing that.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34901474]Mostly because it wasn't a very good point. First of all, they are pretty much the only terrorism we have had over the past couple of decades. Afghanistan is an entire conflict devoted to mass scale counter terrorism. We have spent a decade in that country and nearly three thousand lives hunting down and destroying terrorist groups. And, of the domestic terrorism we HAVE had, they remain the only faction to have ever landed a serious blow on the US mainland. Even the Japanese during WWII managed to kill a grand total of something like three people on the mainland United States when an incendiary balloon killed some people having a picnic in the northwest. Everything else is almost petty by comparison. The alternative to these sorts of operations is basically the TSA groping everyone forever.[/QUOTE] The FBI page[URL="http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05"] itself[/URL] totals out 6% of all domestic terrorism occuring between 1980-2005 to be motivated by Islamic extremism. That's even less than the percentage of Jewish extremism (7%) and yet if the NYPD were caught spying on Synogogues they would have all been fired. You could argue that Islamic extremism has caused more casualties than other terrorist groups (mainly due to 9/11), but that does not neccessarily mean that it motivates more terrorism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.