Breaking:US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT

[LeftNYC]

IMPEACH NOW!


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/nest/051222nest.htm


EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
Posted 12/22/05
By David E. Kaplan

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. 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 program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.



Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders. These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.

The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.

FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, U.S. News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST

[funflower]

1. Sorry, but, presuming these are public sites, it's legal.

There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in or around a mosque that is open to the public.

[gauguin57]

3. Homes, businesses and warehouses are public?

I think not

[LeftNYC]

4. Read further in the article

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property -- the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."

[grytpype]

20. Monitoring for radiation is not an intrusion on privacy.

I'm as pro-civil-liberties as anyone can be, but monitoring for radiation leaks is not anything like eavesdropping on conversations or visually spying and monitoring a person's activities.

I'm actually quite glad they're doing this and I don't think we should go ballistic over this.

[LeftNYC]

24. Monitoring for radiation

is one thing. Being suspicious of and monitoring the property of a blanket group of select American people is another. Why cant they go through the proper channels? If they have some specific info fine, get a court order, do what you need to do. None of these "monitors" turned up any information. Why put yourself, as the leader of the free world, in such a precarious situation?

[rocktivity]

63. DING DING DING! LeftNYC, you're our grand prize winner!

Monitoring for radiation is one thing. Being suspicious of and monitoring the property of a blanket group of select American people is another.

That's what doesn't "sit right" with me about it--not the monitoring itself, but that they were doing it to Muslims just because they were Muslims. Somewhere, Timothy McVeigh must be smiling.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Barkley]

85. I wonder if the 'monitored' Muslims also included the Nation of Islam?

I suspect many people will say its only the Muslims that are being targeted.

But no one is safe now.

This is NOT the former USSR!

We've got to take back our nation.

Impeach Bush NOW!

[Captain Hilts]

28. I agree. They monitor LOTS of places for nuclear material.

Try walking through Penn Station after some nuclear medicine. You WILL be stopped.

[Peter Frank]

30. I agree...

This is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Another one.

Read the article. They are going into private property to plant monitoring devices. That is a violation of the 4th amendment.

You too have fallen for the scary bad muslim with nukular device meme. Get a grip.


p.s. they haven't found anything remotely radioactive. Go figure.

[Guaranteed]

55. It is when you go on people's private property. nt

[Jawja]

111. Yes, I agree with this one.

Monitoring for radiation levels is a good thing and does not violate anyone's personal privacy. I'm glad to see that they really are doing something to keep us safe.

[funflower]

69. Professor Cole and I agree. The issue turns on whether the technology

is sufficiently intrusive to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. As he points out, the agents don't need a warrant to drive onto the property.

[displacedtexan]

9. Mosques are not "public" places. Want them monitoring your "church?"

And looking for nuclear bombs or even pieces parts is so 1950's "duck and cover" that it hurts!

[funflower]

34. It doesn't matter what I want. There is no reasonable expectation of

privacy in a church or mosque (or mall or art museum or restaurant)that opens its doors to the public. I doubt it would be legal to search the private offices or file cabinets of a such a place without a warrant, but if they're observing an area that anybody off of the street could walk in and observe, a warrant is not required.

[merwin]

42. so they could legally bug a confessional?

i think not. at least not without a warrant. and no, that is no different from what they are doing. monitoring is monitoring, no matter what the form.

[funflower]

57. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy within the confines of a

confessional, as there is within the confines of a locked office. In fact, a conversation between a priest and a person making a confession to him is probably privileged under state law and would therefore be inadmissable in court. However, the courts would find no such expectation in the pews. Furthermore, we are not talking about "bugs" but about monitors that record air quality information. And, according to the Supreme Court, there is a great deal of difference between monitoring the air for escaping radiation (since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air) and using technology that invades otherwise impenetrable space.

I'm not giving you my personal opinion. This is what the courts have held. Our freedom from search and seizure is not nearly as broad as many people think.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Oh nonsense.

The USSC ruled that the police could monitor private property from public property. They could stand on the sidewalk and 'sniff' for some value of sniff. This is not what is being reported. What is being reported, and it is now clear that you know this, is that the police entered private property to install monitors. That is quite simply a violation of the 4th amendment as the police had no warrant to do what they did.

[funflower]

71. However, what is described here is police pressuring people to give

consent to let them enter the property. This happens all the time. How do you think the police get "consent" to search glove compartments and trunks when the driver knows perfectly well there is pot in there? People don't realize they can say "no" to the police, but their "consent" holds up in court nonethless.

Scary but true.

[chicagiana]

121. Even if the office isn't locked ...

... even if the office isn't locked, there is a expectation of privacy. And you can't go in if the church/mosque/temple is CLOSED at the time.

Sitting on the road and pointing a geiger counter at the facility is no big deal. Everybody would agree on this and that is why these stories are written in such a deceptive way to make you think all they are doing is remote monitoring in the first two paragraphs.

[wishlist]

10. Homes and businesses mentioned in article are not public sites n/t

[funflower]

36. Whoops. Quite true. The question then turns on whether they were

surreptitiously installing the montoring equipment inside of homes or merely monitoring the air surrounding the home.

[Occulus]

89. Hasn't the SCOTUS ruled that thermal monitoring

for marijuana grow operations outside the abode is unconstitutional?

I'm talking about the thermal monitors that reveal grow lamps inside the abode FROM OUTSIDE the abode.

I do believe they ruled that that is unconstitutional, and it seems to me any radiation monitoring would fall under the same ruling...

[funflower]

98. I think the distinction is that the nuclear monitiors just measure air

quality, while thermal imaging allows the police to practically see through walls. At least that's my understanding.

[longship]

12. Legal? I do not think so.

Yes, in public areas it might be legal. However, read the following from the post.

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 program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Would you consider it legal if federal officials went into your house to install monitoring equipment without your knowledge and without a warrant or court order?

[funflower]

35. Were they entering otherwise closed buildings or merely driving onto

the publicly viewable areas outside? I don't know a lot about the equipment involved, but if they are merely measuring radiation levels in the (publicly observable) airspace around such a building, I don't believe this would require a warrant. The Kyllo case mentioned in the article was different because the police used thermal imaging technology to basically X-ray a house looking for grow lights inside. If the alleged radiation would be escaping into the outside air and is being measured from there, a warrant is not legally required.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Did you read the article or even the excerpt?

Here, let me help: "U.S. News has learned. 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 program."

You are falling for the scary bad muslim nukular bomb meme. Get a grip.

[funflower]

60. I am saying it's legal, not falling for any "meme." "Going on" property,

according to many years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, is not comparable to entering an otherwise secured building. Basically, with some exceptions, the police cannot enter your house without a warrant, but they can sit across the street and photograph you in your backyard. Get the difference?

I am not commenting on the advisability of the program, only on its legality. I think the results (zip, zero, nunca, nada) speak for themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. They cannot enter my property.

You are now into desperately parsing the plain meaning of the words to find some justification for your position. The police cannot enter my yard to install a surveillence device, not legally, not without a warrant. Please go re-read the 4th amendment. By the way are you sure you read the article? People working on the surveillence had problems with it - these were FBI agents - and they were threatened with their jobs if they didn't sit down and shut up.

[funflower]

67. "Parsing" words is the Supreme Court's job. What position do you

think I am justifying?

I'm saying monitoring for radiation from outside of a building would likely be held Constitutional were it to come before the Supreme Court. Also, it is well-established law that police may pressure or trick people verbally into permitting them to enter premises or "consent" to searches of automobiles, purses and such.

I'm not saying I like it. I'm saying the courts have interpreted the Constitution to permit the police a great deal of latitude.

[teryang]

72. In what country is that well established?

Pressuring people into consent to search is not well established constitutional law. In fact, the law is quite different than that. A totality of the circumstances test is used to determine whether the party with standing to challenge the search knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search or whether the circumstances were such that they merely acquiesced to police authority.

You're really putting out some bad poop.

[funflower]

73. "Acquiescing to police authority" usually happens because people feel

pressured and don't realize they have the power to refuse. I'm not saying the police put a gun to their heads. The reality is that police don't have the "authority" to make you open your trunk; if you do it, you are acquiescing to what you mitakenly perceive to be their authority.

[teryang]

74. You don't have a clue

Where did you get your law degree?

[funflower]

75. Do you think when Mr. Pothead "consents" to a search when he knows

perfectly well there is pot in the glove box he does so under full knowledge that he is free to refuse? He "consents" because he feels pressured.

I will disregard the personal attack.

[teryang]

77. Your responses indicate you have no understanding of the law

It's an attack on your credibility. Every time you say something, it gets worse because you obviously have no training in constitutional law especially that concerning the Fourth Amendment.

[funflower]

94. So, does this have some relevance to whether the nuclear monitoring

program would be upheld by the courts?
:shrug:

[teryang]

109. You brought up the consent issue not me

You demonstrated that you don't understand that the meaning of consent in the law.

As far as the relevance to the search of private property without a warrant, my legal opinion is that entry into private property such as a church, mosque or temple, by government to conduct a search is presumptively unlawful. I never heard of a legal doctrine where consent to search inside a religious institution is presumed for police or other government agencies. Relevant to this consideration is the fact that expectancy of privacy in a church and the freedom from government intrusion during worship is great.

Again, the existence of enclosures is relevant. I don't agree that churches or mosques, or any other religious building or enclosure is open to the public. In fact, many religious institutions post security guards and no trespassing signs these days. If one enters a religious property for legimate religious purposes or functions related to that facility in good faith, then a license to enter exists. If one is a member of that church community, then one is an invited guest. An univited law enforcement official entering an enclosed religious facility to search is a trespasser without a warrant unless there is a REASONABLE belief that a crime has been or is being committed and an exigency exists that does not permit the issuance of a warrant. In that case why enter under disguise? A law enforcement official or other agent entering for the purpose of search is not effectively getting consent to enter or search by acting deceitfully.

There is a difficult question of standing to oppose the illegal search and to what purpose the search is being conducted. If no one is prosecuted as a result of the search, what is the remedy for the religious community? An injunction probably. Better yet, a Congressional investigation. How practical is this when the unlawful domestic activities of the putative national security agency is concealed by the "top secret" designation? If the government can't detect radiation or other particulates in the public domain, tough luck, get a warrant. Intelligence data usually does not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The real problem here is emerging tyranny.

[unschooler]

124. I have no idea what you just said, and I'm pretty sure the average

Arab-American immigrant deciding whether to let somebody with an FBI badge come on his property doesn't either.

[madeline_con]

78. Can't the police detain the motorist until...

a warrant is issued, if said motorist refuses a search?

[funflower]

95. Have you been told that if you did not consent to a search you would

be detained?

[teryang]

107. A motorist can only be delayed for the time necessary to write...

...a non criminal law citation for an infraction. If held for a longer period the detention may be challenged. If a traffic stop is for a misdemeanor or felony offense based upon probable cause, he can be detained, arrested, and searched incident to arrest.

Some interesting cases involve detentions for non-criminal citations where consent is not obtained for search and the officer wants to extend the detention to call the canine unit for an exterior sniff.

Police know the litany - to stop and search a vehicle and/or driver, say they committed a traffic infraction, say he or she then consented to search: if not, say you smelled dope or saw it in plain view. Most police reports give three reasons to justify the stop, detention and subsequent search. One or more are often fabrications. A justification for unlawful detentions and searches now being used more often is the exigency exception. A common one is I saw someone reaching or grabbing for something, this is the officer safety exigency, the magic words are "furtive movements." I was checking on the drivers welfare is another of those. If you pull over in a rest area or parking lot to nap you may have a bad police experience.

Giving three or more reasons covers them in court and makes the motion to suppress an uphill battle event though the burden of proof is on the state; it's not much of a burden unless the movant can prove the police action was unlawful. Since the Supreme Court did away with the "pretextual stop" rule, the police can almost do whatever they want in most traffic stop situations.

Never consent to a search.

[Garbo 2004]

87. In the "old days" didn't the police have to show some probable cause,

some reason to search a vehicle for example? Not just relying on pressuring the person to consent if there was no reasonable justifiable basis for the search to begin with? Not that the police might not come up with a reason that might past muster in court, but just pressuring someone to waive constitutional rights they probably didn't realize they had wasn't necessarily enough to be able to use the "fruits" of the search in court.

I think that's sort of along the lines of what I may have been taught about 30 years ago but my memory of that is fuzzy at the moment and Lord knows times have changed.

[teryang]

112. The standard for traffic stops is reasonable suspicion to believe

...that a traffic infraction (or other crime) has been, is or will be committed. It is an objective standard but somewhat less than probable cause for searches. This is because the stop is viewed as a temporary intrusion necessitated by the nature of public safety issues implicit in transportation. The public has a great interest in safe driving and safe vehicles. In order to search the car or the person you do need probable cause to believe a crime has been or is being committed.

See my post 107 for a discussion of how this plays out in practice.

[TheGunslinger]

80. "across the street" "going on the property"

[Occulus]

90. Don't mineral rights include the ground AND sky?

This is becoming ridiculous. The ONLY reason we have these "exceptions" to our Constitutional rights is because we have ALLOWED those exceptions.

At ANY time, the People could amend the Fourth to read ". No exceptions to this Amendment carry any legal force" and that would be the END of it.

WHY don't the People realize WE are in control, and NOT "the powers that be"?

[funflower]

99. Hey there! Don't be searchin' my sky minerals!

[Occulus]

115. Oh, you know what I meant

"sky minerals"

:rofl:

[chicagiana]

120. The doors open at 9am ...

If I break into a Baptist church at 3am, that's trespassing. If I show up for the 10am service on Sunday morning, it's worship. If I show up on Tuesday @9am and pry open a door, that will probably be back to trespassing.

If some court is idiotic enough to uphold this notion I think I'm going to start wandering through the offices at Wal-Mart and taking pictures of all the documents on the Manager's desk.

No doubt that "seizure" on public property will be considered as needing no warrant. In which case, I'll just take the documents of the Wal-Mart manager's desk.

[ny_liberal]

2. wow - great find!

talk about breaking news

great find!

[LeftNYC]

5. www.thinkprogress.org

thank them...more proof that this is a war on Muslims.

[LeftNYC]

15. Jets fan here

Its tough being green this year...any year for that matter...

[johnnybaseball]

83. Also a Jets fan ...

... at least Brooksie had a nice game against Miami!

[Botany]

6. If the FBI or whomever had real info and could stop a nuke fine

just do it under the rule of law ..... you can get as judge up 24/7 for a warrant.

I wonder how much * and company are screwing up our real war w/ terrorists?

BTW any word on bin Laden?

[LeftNYC]

8. exactly...why does the law not matter? nt

[Botany]

16. Especially because the law has been written so as to aid

law enforcement personal. If they suspect that a nuke is out there, fine go get it.
Do what you need to do ..... The D o J has in house judges that will grant the
needed paper work in a heartbeat. Local Judges do the same thing too.

[kevinbgoode]

7. Ok...this is where I have to ask the question. . .

Didn't Pat Robertson....oh, just a few short years ago, make the public statement that someone should nuke the U.S. State Department?

So how come the feds weren't busily sniffing around the mansions of Robertson and the campus of CBN and the 700 Club?

[danalytical]

11. Why couldn't they get a warrant?

Was it a general sweep looking radiation levels of random Muslim frequented places? If so, then I wouldn't mind seeing a law change for this to happen legally. I don't mind the govt searching for Nuclear Weapons if they are sincerely worried. Secret wire taps and spying on American citizens when there is a legal way to do it is a different story. But if there is no way to do radiation level sweeps, what are they supposed to do?

[LeftNYC]

13. Surprised Dubya

didnt put all Muslims, except for oil princes, on a barge and float them out into the middle of the ocean. This is disgusting.

[Ian David]

19. All Muslims radioactive after all the depleted Uranium we shoot at them?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Because a warrant requires probable cause

and you have to specify the persons and places to be searched and what you are looking for. These fascist bastards aren't interested in any of that, they are interested in setting up a police state, in monitoring the activities of everyone all the time, and they are using every excuse they can come up with to put their nightmare vision into practice.

Ah we will all be so very safe though, and that is what is important.

[Guaranteed]

53. Right- they had no reason whatsoever to believe that there

was any terrorist activity going on in any of these places.

Therefore- no warrant.

[grytpype]

25. I doubt that this is a "search."

It depends on how and where they are doing the monitoring, but authorities don't need a warrant for a lot of things, and I doubt they need a warrant to sit in a van and monitor for radiation.

Wiretapping is a totally different matter, and let's not get the two things confused.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Go back and read the article.

They entered private establishments in order to place monitoring equipment on site. That is absolutely a violation of the 4th.

The confusion would appear to be yours.

[merwin]

45. none of that would hold up in court.

they are going on to private property to plant devices. Who cases whether the area that the device is planted in is publically viewable? it is private property so without a warrant they are not allowed to do anything on their property.

[funflower]

70. Sorry. You'd be surprised what the courts have permitted.

It's not about whether the property is privately owned. It's about whether the property is sufficiently secured as to create a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[merwin]

103. The 4th amendment doesn't mention anything about that. I could leave my

front door wide open and they're not allowed to enter it (unless they see illegal activity). They can't even so much as legally enter a doghouse on my property without a warrant.

[Guaranteed]

54. It's invasive when they're going onto private property.

They need cause. They had ZERO.

[Occulus]

92. I'm quickly becoming a purist on the Fourth

and my opinion is that ANY search, lacking a warrant, is unconstitutional.

THE DAMN DOCUMENT SAYS SO IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH!!!

"No warrants shall be issued" means NO WARRANTS, PERIOD, without specification. I'm getting fucking tired of the exceptions. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. Any exceptions REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT.

We need to disallow trunk searches and the like. NO WARRANTS SHALL BE ISSUED means NO WARRANTS SHALL BE ISSUED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED means SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

Trunk searches, plain sight, and ALL THE REST should be DUMPED as unconstitutional. And NO, I do NOT care what that does to the ability of law enforcement to "do their jobs".

If they have to violate the Constitution, they are not doing their jobs, and I see ALL OF THE ABOVE as a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights, SCOTUS ruling be fucking bloody chunky DAMNED!

I'm tired of this country. I long to be truly free.

[funflower]

100. You are right. Monitoring what's in the air around a building is not a

"search."

[Catrina]

31. Muslim Americans are US citizens also.

Why all the snooping on one group of people? It's always excused by the 'we're just protecting you all', and 'it's for national security reasons'. That's what all totalitarian governments do, isn't it? I mean when Jews were targeted in Germany, it was for 'the good of the homeland' despite the fact that they too were German citizens.

Has everyone in this country forgotten Oklahoma City? These were not Muslims, were they? Why are they only targeting Muslims? How about the Texas guy last year who had more bombs in his house than any terrorist could dream of, and our crack, terrorist detectors would have never known were it not for a mistake made by the PO when they delivered his WMDs to the wrong address!! THEY were too busy watching Muslims.

Fear!! As Ledeen and Goebbels and Machiavelli et al know full well, if you scare people enough they'll submit to anything. Some people, that is. Some of us would rather be free than live in a constant state of fear and paranoia.

How come this same government watched, and let die, so many American citizens in NOLA if they're so concerned about protecting us.

Imo, they don't give a damn about the people of the US. None of this is for our safety. And what's to stop this crowd from planting something in the home of someone who does not know they are being monitored? That's what I would be afraid of if I were a Muslim American in this country today.

This whole 9/11 fear factor, imo, has released all those who have deep-rooted prejudices against blacks and others, from having to keep their hatred to themselves anymore. They now feel free to express their hatred. Just go to their rightwing sites and you can see it.

How about we have some probable cause before we start entering people's homes and spying on them? Is that such a tough thing to do in a democracy? This is very concerning, especially with this administration in charge who would think nothing of victimizing some innocent Muslim to make themselves look like they're doing something.

[MisterP]

46. why target Muslims?

that's the unspoken question behind all this snooping?
Heck, William Krar had a compound with 500,000 ammo rounds, a few dozen kilos cyanide, and race-war propaganda--but he was a Christian white guy, so he hardly gets national attention, let alone a massive sweep of Christian neighborhoods and "frequented places"

[Captain Hilts]

51. The '93 WTC bomber was assoc. with a mosque as were some of ...

those in Britain. The guy with the shoe bomb evidently met the folks who hired him attending a mosque.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. OK then take that to a judge and see if he buys it as probable cause.

What? No honest judge would agree to that? No shit.

[Captain Hilts]

82. I agree they should get a warrant. nt

[Ian David]

14. See prior thread

EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5676576

[Demeter]

17. There's Paranoia, and then there's Just Plain Stupid

and we are seeing rather more of the latter from BushCo.

[unschooler]

127. And then there's stupinoia!

[Finder]

18. Geesh--Mushroom cloud imagery is just what they need...

to get the average joe to see illegal search as required for safety. Expect the talking heads to use as an example.

[SpiralHawk]

22. This whole Domestic spying THING is mushrooming

I would wager a bag of bizcochitos* that more plug-ugly revelations are coming in the weeks ahead.

Tell the truth.


* bizcochitos are a northern New Mexican holiday cookie, flavored with anise seeds and outrageously good with a cup of pinon coffee (straight up, no sugar or cream, puh-lease).

[daleo]

23. This certainly strikes one as profiling - racial, ethnic and/or religious.

Imagine if Saddam's Iraq had done this at Christian churches, homes or businesses - it would certainly have been spun as anti-Christian and/or anti-western persecution. The same goes for Iran.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

26. It is bad enough that they break the law unnecessarily if they are

honest about what they are doing.

However, even worse is the fact that in the process of this so called monitoring they could be gathering other information if they go into private offices, homes, and mosques.

That is why these operations need to be monitored carefully, because of the enormous potential for abuse, and therefore violation of the civil liberties of Americans in this case, Americans of Muslim faith in particular.

[Trillo]

27. Environmental Radiation?

It would seem that "radiation sampling" would be prudent under health and safety regulations, provided that sampling was either random, or geographically complete. Targeting Muslims would seem to undermine any argument that it was done for everyone's health and safety.

[HuffleClaw]

29. busted again!

"Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts."

yup, they are busted again. and i just bet this is only one of many such instances where they 'bent' the law to suit themselves.

[jseankil]

32. If they thought there was a threat then I support this move.

we are talking radation monitoring folks, go at it I say. I would like them to answer why they didnt get the retro-active warrent though?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Can't get a warrant withou probable cause.

I'm amazed at the general ignorance of what our rights are: the very rights that our 'founding fathers' fought and died to establish as the foundation of this republic. The government is not allowed to do this. You have the concrete right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The government is required to obtain a warrant from a judge stating probable cause and identifying the persons and places to be searched and what they are searching for.

This was not limited to monitoring public spaces for radiation. This involved targeting an entire class of people: muslims, and conducting warrantless intrusions into private property for the purpose of collecting information about these people absent any probable cause whatsoever.

[tirechewer]

96. You're right....

They were and probably still are targeting Muslims. Somewhere further up this thread Timothy McVeigh was mentioned.

He was a Gulf War veteran who hated the federal government. He put together a bomb which blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building and killed most of the people who were in it. He had the help of Terry Nichols and his brother. They did much of the planning and assembling at the Nichols farm.

Did the government immediately start sweeping and monitoring farms in that same area for explosives and munitions with or without a warrant? Did they start monitoring everyone who was a veteran of the Gulf War, who expressed bitterness toward the federal government? Not to my knowledge.

Many militia type groups were operating at that time, who were known to be heavily armed and advocating the overthrow of the US government. They were simply allowed to go on collecting and stockpiling guns, in plain view. They made threats against the government and government workers, which were illegal. That surely gave a lot more cause for suspicion than simply being the member of the Muslim faith, or attending a Mosque. No one secretly monitored them, though they had shown that they were quite capable of terrorism and had targeted many of the same areas and national treasures as foreign terrorists.

One last thing, anyone who equates a church of any denomination with "public property" which has no expectation of privacy should remember that people go into churches to speak to their clerics or to utter prayers with every reasonable expectation that they will be safe there from intrusion. A church is not a shopping mall. There is more of a person's private self offered in a church. You do not have the expectation of someone sneaking in and planting "monitoring devices" for radiation or anything else. And how sensitive were these devices anyway? Is radiation the only thing they monitored. I have not yet seen a description of what all they did. Knowing this administration as I do, I somehow doubt that they were only looking for signs of radioactivity.

I am a Quaker. They eavesdrop on our meeting houses. To what extent I do not know. Neither does anyone else. We simply know that they have been caught on a few occasions. Our meeting houses are public in the sense that anyone is welcome to attend. That openness is not an invitation to any governmental entity to "monitor" or spy or listen. It is a very great violation, just as it is in a Mosque.

[Divine Discontent]

33. my Goodness, the SHIT hits the FAN

I just called about the ALITO memo approving spying without a warrant, I can't call the Senator's office AGAIN about this!!! I'll wait a couple days. This shit just keeps piling up. Only one thing to do, IMPEACH!


http://www.cafepress.com/impeachtheliarw
http://www.cafepress.com/bushstunnedlook
http://www.cafepress.com/dontmakemedoit

[gulliver]

41. Convenient timing on this

This strikes me as a red herring, a sort of "good" warrantless search of Muslims for nuclear around Washington DC.

[Straight Shooter]

43. To all those who think this type of "monitoring" is just hunky-dory ...

Let's just have law enforcement and/or government agents erect random road blockades and search everyone's car, including the trunk, for potential terrorism devices. And while they've got us stopped, give everyone a little body patdown and rifle through our purses to make sure we aren't concealing a weapon. How about citizens being pulled over and taken somewhere for random drug testing, too. There's a war on drugs, just like there's a war on terror. So I say let's pull out all the stops and go for the big enchilada Police State with bush as our Lord Divine Savior and Benefactor. Why not? It's for our safety, isn't it? To hell with the right to privacy, we need protection and bush is straining at the reins to give it to us.

:sarcasm:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

44. Agreed, see post 26 by me.

[Straight Shooter]

48. The only ones being fooled are the fools.

Unfortunately, they keep insisting on running the show.

[Boojatta]

58. Radiation, searches, and privacy

When David's Geiger counter began picking up radiation five doors from his mom's house, he decided that he had "too much radioactive stuff in one place" and began to disassemble the reactor. He hid some of the material in his mother's house, left some in the shed, and packed most of the rest into the trunk of his Pontiac.

At 2:40 a.m. on August 31, 1994, Clinton Township police responded to a call concerning a young man who had been apparently stealing tires from a car. When the police arrived, David told them he was meeting a friend. Unconvinced, officers decided to search his car.

They opened the trunk and discovered a toolbox shut with a padlock and sealed with duct tape. The trunk also contained foil-wrapped cubes of mysterious gray powder, small disks and cylindrical metal objects, and mercury switches. The police were especially alarmed by the toolbox, which David said was radioactive ...

The discovery eventually triggered the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and state officials would become involved in consultations with the EPA and NRC.

Source:
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

What if David hadn't said anything about radioactivity? Presumably, tire thieves don't have a habit of using a lot of radioactive materials.

[Straight Shooter]

62. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Please re-read the article, or read it if you haven't read it. Your example has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. No one is saying the police should not investigate legitimate reports.

[Boojatta]

66. No one is saying the police should not investigate legitimate reports.

Correct, no one is saying the police should not investigate legitimate reports. In the case I quoted, was the report legitimate?

Was there any connection between what was reported and the true information that the boy chose to disclose to the police?

[Straight Shooter]

76. Write the author of the article and make the inquiry of him/her.

You can also write the police department involved. Of course, such an inquiry would put you under suspicion, because they would wonder why you want to know about the case in more depth than has been publicly revealed.

Good luck.

[Boojatta]

105. You expected everybody who reads this message board to accept your claims

but, now that you are running into trouble supporting your own claims and/or insinuations, you expect me to do the work to support them for you?

[Straight Shooter]

117. You're the one who wants me to do your homework.

Go on now and do it yourself.

[Boojatta]

118. Why did you say: "No one is saying the police should not investigate

legitimate reports"?

[donheld]

47. I can't believe any of you are defending this

Private homes, private businesses are not open to the general public.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Bingo. If this is allowed to go on, what will they want to monitor next?

[Boojatta]

61. Who said anything about the general public entering?

"Private homes, private businesses are not open to the general public."

[Hyernel]

49. The monitoring of mosques presumes that they are the enemy...

...whereas I though the enemy was TERRA!!!!

Maybe this is a "Crusade"

[Solon]

50. What did Earth ever do to us? :)

[madeline_con]

79. And if there's nothing to fear but fear itself...

the whole thing becomes moot. :crazy:

[PsychoDad]

91. Crusade

Some of us have been calling it that for a while now....

Turns out to be true.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

59. Considering all this domestic spying

Why haven't they caught the guy who sent out the anthrax several years ago?

[Boojatta]

68. Why haven't they caught the senders of anthrax?

Analysis of the actual anthrax substance will reveal what information about the person who sent it?

Maybe the anthrax didn't leak out of envelopes into the local mailbox. Even if it did leak, does the local mailbox contain an anthrax detector? What if the culprit used a mailbox far from home?

Maybe there is a need for information from people who know the anthrax sender(s). Was the writing on or in the envelopes something that could be recognized and used to find the author/scribe? How much writing was there and how distinctive was it?

[TheGunslinger]

81. Why would they go after themselves?

[Barkley]

86. Ans: the same reason the Bin Ladens got to fly home right after 9-11!

This whole domestic spying fiasco is about finding scapegoats.

I truly believe that the U.S. has prepared 'internment camps' for
Muslim people should another '9-11' occur.

Muslim citizens born in certain countries already have to register with the U.S. government; isnt that enough survellience?

Apparently not.

I believe the extent to which the U.S. government has prepared for establishing marshal law is very extensive.

I believe that one reason the U.S. government is spying on domestic peace groups/people/leaders is to determine which groups would challenge marshal law and internment with civil disobedience.

[goforit]

84. I do believe this story is to cover all the OTHER illegal wiretaps, like

specific political groups and individuals pegged as enemies of
their Fascist regime.

[unschooler]

125. Tell me more. How would this cover up other illegal wiretaps?

[PsychoDad]

88. They found no nukes.....

But plenty of Haleem and Curry that could tear you up! :silly:

These folks find new ways to piss away civil rights and our tax money every day.

[Peace Patriot]

93. Four big problems:

1. No warrant - not even a secret FISA warrant that they can get after the fact. No warrant LEADS INEVITABLY to abuses! It is the "slow boil" of fascism that occurred in Germany. And it is ILLEGAL if it involves private residences, homes, businesses with not even a FISA warrant.

2. "Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation..." What does THAT tell you? Can't even QUESTION it. Der Feurher sprach!

3. "Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program." There is GREAT CONCERN among security personnel--so great they're risking their careers to blow the whistle! This undoubtedly means that the program is ALREADY out of control.

4. Do you trust Bush? Do you think Bush & co. have YOUR safety at heart? If you think they are only checking mosques, and are only driving around with high tech equipment testing for nukes, you are very naive.

[greiner3]

97. If the testers went onto the site;

Then it's illegal. If done from a public place, then it's arguably within the Constitution. IMHO

[soda]

101. whats next

if you consent to this now don´t complain when it becomes normal to be monitored 24/7 with no need for a court order
and who else is under survailence that we dont yet know of, is what we type here also being watched?

[tirechewer]

102. The one more thing.....

This is the one more thing that I forgot to put in my previous post. So I dragged my shivering body in its scrofulous jammies over to the computer to stick it in, because I couldn't fall asleep until I did so. Don't you hate when that happens?

If the Muslims were storing radioactive materials in their mosques in the first place to perform an act of terror, they would know that radioactivity is harmful to the human body. Especially to children and unborn babies. They would also know that it contaminates places where it is stored for the half life of whatever radioactive material is being stored. That is for a very long time. So that whenever anyone went back into a contaminated area, they would be exposed again and again to radioactivity.

So if Bush and his Merry Men were monitoring the Mosques for radioactivity, they were presuming that radioactive materials were being stored there. This would arise from one of two conclusions.

The first would be that all Muslims were so fanatical, bloodthirsty and bent on destruction that they would sacrifice their own health, the health of their children, and the health of their future children because at heart they are all maniacs with no feelings. This also presupposes that they would be willing to sacrifice their place of worship, which would also be rendered uninhabitable for future use. This would be because they were so very fanatical about their religion that its practice and relics would have less meaning than mindless destruction.

The second conclusion could have been that all Muslims were so stupid that they would store radioactive material which they knew would harm other human beings, but would think that in some magical way it would not harm Muslims or their places of worship. Take your pick. Neither conclusion is reasonable.

Assumptions like these are the reason that most of the Japanese Americans living along the west coast of the united states were taken and put into camps like Manzanar by the government during World War II. Even though they were born and raised here for the most part, because they were of another race they had their assets stolen by the government and they were interned until the war was over. Many died or had their health destroyed permanently. They were not given any form of reparation until 1990 when $20,000 was paid to each of the 60,000 survivors by President Bush senior. The reparations had been authorized in 1988. Not much for losing everything and spending years in a concentration camp is it? Still it was the same type of hysteria that drove President Bush Jr. to illegally monitor the Muslims.

I remember with great irony listening to several speeches that Bush made after 9/11 when he said there would be zero tolerance of hate crimes against Muslims. Now I know why he said that. He was planning to commit the hate crimes himself.

[Boojatta]

104. Background radiation, radiation above that level, and detection

"If Muslims were storing radioactive materials in mosques, they would know that radioactivity is harmful to the human body. Especially to children and unborn babies. They would also know that it contaminates places where it is stored ... for a very long time. So that whenever anyone went back into a contaminated area, they would be exposed again and again to radioactivity."

Are you saying that if it is possible to detect any radiation above the ordinary level of background radiation then the excess amount of radiation is high enough to cause serious harm to people?

If reactor number four at Chernobyl is the center of imaginary circles, what happens to the radiation level as one looks at a series of circles with gradually increasing values for the radius? Have you researched that question?

Have you read the article "Tale of the Radioactive Boy Scout" that I linked to?

As for something "contaminating places where it is stored", did it occur to you that radioactive material might be stored in some type of container that prevents radiation from escaping? In other words, did it occur to you that the "place" that gets contaminated is not necessarily a building, but may be simply some type of container?

[tirechewer]

106. It has occurred to me...

Please follow the link to this article I researched for my board.

http://platypuspool.com/blog/platypuspool/2005/12/05/the-depletion-allowance/

Read it carefully. Follow the link in the article. The answers to your questions should be self evident. Any further questions?

[Boojatta]

108. If you have answers to the questions, then post them here.

I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase.

[gudshoveler]

113. What were they REALLY looking for, anyway?

I take offense at your remark that visiting an article is a "wild goose chase." I wrote the article you were so dismissive of, after having done a lot of research. Chewey worked on it with me. It's a shame to have so many questions but be unwilling to do a little work and check things out for oneself.

If the feds were looking for radioactivity in mosques and the like by measuring from the common areas, and we accept their assertion to this effect at face value, then they must have some reasonable expectation of finding something. If they felt sure that they would not find anything I don't think that they would have bothered. This leads to one of two conclusions.

First, they had reason to think that the radioactive materials were not well shielded. Think of dental x-rays. They carefully cover one's body with a lead apron. The x-rays can't penetrate this. If the suspected radioactive materials were hidden in lead, then the feds wouldn't have detected them. That's the only thing I know of that blocks high levels of radiation. But lead is very heavy. Unless they were planning a very small scale attack, the amount of lead they would have needed would have been impossible to move or hide. People would have seen it. It wouldn't have been necessary to monitor for the stray gamma ray.

The second conclusion, and I think, the likely one, is that the feds weren't looking for radiation at all. I have no way of knowing what they were looking for, but I seriously doubt it is radiation. As has been the case with this administration time and again, this sounds like a plausible cover story, designed to distract us from the real, and much more sinister, real story.

We should all be outraged by this. This administration is systematically, little bit by little bit, persuading us to surrender the rights guaranteed to us by the constitution. And so many of us are going along with it. What is a little personal freedom or privacy when the big bad terrorist is hiding in the closet. If we are allowed to keep all our freedoms, there will be another 9/11. That is the unspoken message. And a lot of people are buying it. Shame on them. Freedom cannot be taken away from us, but we can give it away. It is up to me, and you, and everyone to resist these unconstitutional attacks with all our strength. If we don't defend our rights, who will?

[tirechewer]

114. Are you having a bad day?

That's too bad. Maybe you'll feel more like clicking on the link a little later. Or maybe not. I hope you feel better soon. It's there for you in any case.:hi:

[baal]

110. Sorry, I hate this guy mor than any of you

But this is the RIGHT thing to do regardless.

[gudshoveler]

116. I don't get what you are saying.

What are you saying here? I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

[chicagiana]

119. By Muslim ...

By Muslim, I assume they mean anyone who has ever:
* owned
* touched
* borrowed
* seen
* heard of

the Kuran.


I know how these guys work. If we get the list of who they have illegally searched, you will probably find a lot of peace activists.

I have no trouble searching for nuclear materials. That's great, good job. But get a fucking warrant to do it.


Finally given the timing, I wouldn't be surprised if this story is a Rovian plant.
"See, we're looking for nukes with our powers. That's what we're doing." And you know all those knuckle-draggin covervatives are lapping it up. "Yep, Yep, gotta have no warrant searches to find nuclear bombs in mosques, yup, yup!!!"

[Coastie for Truth]

122. Expert Professional Opinion

<>

<>

<><>

Let's stop the bull. Do we want to find and prevent a "dirty bomb" incident. Or do we just want to flex our texas muscles and say "See, we can do it without a court order."

If we want to find and prevent a "dirty bomb" incident - the way to do it is with sophistiocated screening at the container ports - done by professionals. The measuring scintillations around mosques is just so much bull crap.

My mentee, Retired Coast Guard Commander Steve Flynn, has discussed this very issue in his book, America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism. I have read Steve's book I am quite familiar with issues Steve raises, and I think Steve is right on target.

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0060571284.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

[unschooler]

126. But that would make tooooo much sense!

[grahamhgreen]

123. This story is meant to deflect attention from "Big-Brother" gate

As well as conflate it with same.

[unschooler]

128. I agree. It confuses a lot of people.

[Charles19]

129. Agree 100%, it is so suburbia will say "oh they only spy on the Muslims"

they can do that.

[Prisonerohio]

130. This seems to be a common method of media manipulation. Release info on

a certain aspect of something that doesn't sound so bad and make it so it overshadows the really bad stuff like wiretapping without warrants. In a few weeks its all under the rug and Americas short attention span insures that its all forgotten and Bush's approval rating rises. I am so tired of this kind of obvious manipulation by the media. News in America is joke.