Nypd Designates Mosques As Terrorism Organizations

[Aloysius]

as far as the NYPD goes, we're not talking about listening and taking notes of public sermons.  that was just your example.

 

we're talking about infiltration and informants and spying in private settings.  which would be comparable to spying on your private prayer meetings, bible studies, private consultations with priests, even confessionals.  

 

the problem is with the way they're doing it, too.  if there was an individual who was encouraging and promoting violence, you are able to get probable cause for a warrant specific to that person which would allow you to spy on that individual.  what the NYPD did here was acknowledge they didn't have any probable cause, but they generally figure mosques are places terrorists might go so they should be under constant investigation and surveillance.  

[Didacus]

of course it's a leap, but that's the only direction you'er going in when you start allowing spying in places of worship.  not necessarily that far, but the official sitting in the pew taking notes could be determining what kind of tax status the church is qualifyied to receive based on what's being said in the pews, for instance, as a means of intimidation against the priest being free to speak freely from the pulpit.  of course these things are being said in public, but the SECOND you have someone in the pews taking notes in an official capacity as a representative of the government, you have intimidation.  I guarantee you that even though you, personally, might be naively okay with that, the Church would never stand for it.  it's a matter of principle.

 

(snip)

 

1.  A matter of which principal?  The principal that we Catholics invite some, but not all?

 

2.  I am not so naïve as you may think, you shouldn't assume things like that of corporations.  (no T-shirt for you!)

 

3.  The tax status thing is already being adamantly debated in Quebec, and in very poisonous ways.  And this is happening without police-pews.  Content of the sermons would add, nor remove anything to this particular example.  Actually I fail to see what the priest could possibly say.  BTW, the current particular debate is being pushed by a few (who I hope remains few) to have churches pay all their back taxes as well (in the hopes of bankrupting the whole of the catholic church in Quebec in one blow).

 

4.  Intimidation: this argument picks at straws.  What do you do when you're intimidated?  Stop, Drop and roll?  OR do you pull the courage you have and meet the intimidator face to face - then Sop Drop and Roll?  I've dealt with plenty of intimation, and some borderline outright blackmail; I never backed down, and yes it cost me at times but I upheld the right thing thus I can always claim the moral victory, but I never, ever, ever, Stopped Dropped and Rolled.

[Didacus]

(snip)

  what the NYPD did here was acknowledge they didn't have any probable cause, but they generally figure mosques are places terrorists might go so they should be under constant investigation and surveillance.  

 

:detective:

How in the world did they get that crazy idea?!  Shouldn't they have invested their time at the clown school across the street instead?

[Didacus]

as far as the NYPD goes, we're not talking about listening and taking notes of public sermons.  that was just your example.

 

we're talking about infiltration and informants and spying in private settings.  which would be comparable to spying on your private prayer meetings, bible studies, private consultations with priests, even confessionals.  

Indeed - Here I would start to have a problem.

 

 

 

(snip)  if there was an individual who was encouraging and promoting violence, you are able to get probable cause for a warrant specific to that person which would allow you to spy on that individual.   

 

And you wouldn't want that?  If the degree of encouraging and promoting violence was severe enough, I could find it in my duty to call the police and ensure the man gets followed or even arrested.

[Aloysius]

sigh... but they're not following any individual that they have any probable cause to suspect of a crime.  they're generally surveying everyone.  and the tactics they're using are the kinds of things that led to Ruby Ridge, they push people until they break.

 

anyone is welcome, but as a matter of principle we would of course object to someone being there in an official capacity as someone engaging in surveillance over priests' sermons.

 

again: there are certain situations in which everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  a government is ONLY supposed to be able to infringe upon that expectation of privacy when they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, submitted to a judge, who signs a warrant related to a specific individual.  terrorists do have a tendency to go to mosques... they also have a tendency to drive cars, and rent apartments or own houses, to have mailboxes and receive mail... you need to suspect someone of terrorism before spying on them in any of those situations.  you cannot just spy on all mosques, spy on all homes, open all mail, even (actually ESPECIALLY) if you're targeting the particular class of people that terrorists also sometimes are.

 

I don't know about Canada, but we're supposed to live in a free society, we're supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights (things also enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights), a government's supposed to need probable cause and a judge-issued warrant before infringing upon anyone's privacy.