Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers

[FrankRep]

Update:

Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, The Struggle Between Liberty and Security (http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/homeland-insecurity-after-boston-the-struggle-between-liberty-and-security/)

Time
May 01, 2013



But the new guidelines also featured added restrictions on an especially sensitive area of FBI counterterrorism work: mosques. Under the new rules, agents could no longer enter a religious organization without special new approval—in some cases directly from FBI headquarters. Moreover, according to still-classified sections of the new rules made available to Time, any plan to go undercover in a place of worship—a tactic employed by the bureau after Sept. 11, 2001, that drew protests from Muslim Americans and at least one lawsuit from a California mosque—would now need special approval from a newly established oversight body at Department of Justice headquarters called the Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC.


Another:

Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for TIME: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/02/cnr.12.html)


CNN.com
May 2, 2013



They just have a suspicion and they could do what was called assessments of that situation. In 2011, President Obama revised those guidelines one more time. He actually expanded them in a lot of ways, now these assessments could include database searches of people using public records and things like that.

But they actually pulled back a little on how the assessments could deal with religious communities and mosques and they set up this new committee to oversee that. (Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC) It was part of a White House effort, a broader White House effort, to really build closer ties and cooperation with the Islamic community in the United States around these issues.




======


Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm)


Investor’s Business Daily
June 12, 2013


Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.
...


Full Story:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

[FrankRep]

Obama thinks it's cool to spy on everyone, well except for Muslims, that would be Islamophobic.

[UWDude]

I call bullshit. This story is groundwork to make people accept that we need broad surveillance to be safe.

It's just like telling Americans the TSA needs to fondle everybody's balls because anyone can be a terrorist, and it would be discriminatory otherwise.

Furthermore, it gives cover to explain why somehow, with this massive awesome surveillance state, did they still miss the Tsaernev brothers.

Now we will hear "I say we need MORE surveillance, not less, MORE!"

God, when will these deceivers be punished? If the answer is never, please bring the rocks upon my head now.

[kcchiefs6465]

I call bullshit. This story is groundwork to make people accept that we need broad surveillance to be safe.

It's just like telling Americans the TSA needs to fondle everybody's balls because anyone can be a terrorist, and it would be discriminatory otherwise.

Furthermore, it gives cover to explain why somehow, with this massive awesome surveillance state, did they still miss the Tsaernev brothers.

Now we will hear "I say we need MORE surveillance, not less, MORE!"

God, when will these deceivers be punished? If the answer is never, please bring the rocks upon my head now.
You mean Mosques being labeled as "jihad factories" didn't resonate?

[Cleaner44]

I call bullshit. This story is groundwork to make people accept that we need broad surveillance to be safe.

It's just like telling Americans the TSA needs to fondle everybody's balls because anyone can be a terrorist, and it would be discriminatory otherwise.

Furthermore, it gives cover to explain why somehow, with this massive awesome surveillance state, did they still miss the Tsaernev brothers.

Now we will hear "I say we need MORE surveillance, not less, MORE!"

God, when will these deceivers be punished? If the answer is never, please bring the rocks upon my head now.

+rep for the good call on the bullshit!

[FrankRep]

+rep for the good call on the bullshit!

Another Source:


Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, The Struggle Between Liberty and Security (http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/homeland-insecurity-after-boston-the-struggle-between-liberty-and-security/)

Time
May 01, 2013



But the new guidelines also featured added restrictions on an especially sensitive area of FBI counterterrorism work: mosques. Under the new rules, agents could no longer enter a religious organization without special new approval—in some cases directly from FBI headquarters. Moreover, according to still-classified sections of the new rules made available to Time, any plan to go undercover in a place of worship—a tactic employed by the bureau after Sept. 11, 2001, that drew protests from Muslim Americans and at least one lawsuit from a California mosque—would now need special approval from a newly established oversight body at Department of Justice headquarters called the Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC.


Another:

Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for TIME: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/02/cnr.12.html)


CNN.com
May 2, 2013



They just have a suspicion and they could do what was called assessments of that situation. In 2011, President Obama revised those guidelines one more time. He actually expanded them in a lot of ways, now these assessments could include database searches of people using public records and things like that.

But they actually pulled back a little on how the assessments could deal with religious communities and mosques and they set up this new committee to oversee that. (Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC) It was part of a White House effort, a broader White House effort, to really build closer ties and cooperation with the Islamic community in the United States around these issues.

[kcchiefs6465]

Because one group isn't unjustly surveilled on it is supposed to upset me?

Or because we are unjustly surveilled against I am supposed to advocate their surveillance as well?

I applaud. The vast majorities of mosques are not 'terror factories' and are not committing any crimes. If one is, strict probable cause needs to be shown. (random FBI leeches not being enough, in my opinion.. courts unfortunately have disagreed though)

To them I'd say congratulations, at least someone in America isn't being spied on.

If anyone is that worried about the threat, why waste resources? Gather them up and relocate them. Seems the Constitution already is ready to be used as TP in either case, why take half steps?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Bizarre. And you can't restrict immigration, but the NSA whistle blower is named a traitor for releasing information to the American public? The American public is the enemy.

[FrankRep]

Because one group isn't unjustly surveilled on it is supposed to upset me?

A reasonable person would ask why are Muslims getting special protections from surveillance.

[kcchiefs6465]

A reasonable person would ask why are Muslims getting special protections from surveillance.
Because of an era of ridiculous political correctness, pc related lawyers and lawsuits, and their appeasement to the American people to 'show' that they are fair and unbiased, one of the reasons which aside from casting doubt on their 'snare all' dragnet charges that have been alleged against them, is to show republicans as out of touch to the same politically correct cowards who are afraid to laugh at a Chris Rock joke.

Them not being warrantlessly spied upon is a start. Now if the general public could read a book or two about the incrementalism of tyranny, remove their balls from their stomach, and stand the hell up to say this is unacceptable we can all be happy.

Because one's rights aren't being violated doesn't mean I'd ever advocate them to be. It's a start. The first article you posted was very telling in my opinion, "jihad factories"... tfoh. Most are law abiding citizens trying to live their life the same as the next. If they have strict probable cause (moreso than what is needed now) then get a warrant. Same with any other American. Or whoever.

[UWDude]

Another Source:


Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, The Struggle Between Liberty and Security (http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/homeland-insecurity-after-boston-the-struggle-between-liberty-and-security/)

Time
May 01, 2013



But the new guidelines also featured added restrictions on an especially sensitive area of FBI counterterrorism work: mosques. Under the new rules, agents could no longer enter a religious organization without special new approval—in some cases directly from FBI headquarters. Moreover, according to still-classified sections of the new rules made available to Time, any plan to go undercover in a place of worship—a tactic employed by the bureau after Sept. 11, 2001, that drew protests from Muslim Americans and at least one lawsuit from a California mosque—would now need special approval from a newly established oversight body at Department of Justice headquarters called the Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC.


Another:

Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for TIME: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/02/cnr.12.html)


CNN.com
May 2, 2013



They just have a suspicion and they could do what was called assessments of that situation. In 2011, President Obama revised those guidelines one more time. He actually expanded them in a lot of ways, now these assessments could include database searches of people using public records and things like that.

But they actually pulled back a little on how the assessments could deal with religious communities and mosques and they set up this new committee to oversee that. (Sensitive Operations Review Committee, or SORC) It was part of a White House effort, a broader White House effort, to really build closer ties and cooperation with the Islamic community in the United States around these issues.

I look at where these stories come from, and call bullshit. Lying is these people's specialty. There is a very fine trick to wording they use, to sell that we need this. We need to be watched, all of us. And there are those who want out of the net by hoping the net is just cast on muslims. But I know it's bullshit. If the net is going to be cast on anybody, it will be cast on everybody in the end. No such thing as second class citizens here, because we are all second class citizens. There is a big club of first class above us, but as George Carlin says, "we ain't in it".

Indeed, perhaps we should turn the NSA collection into an open public library, where the public can view the contents, emails, records, everything, of the US government, and especially congress, and especially the executive branch, fast and furious, yada yada. They are the most dangerous. They are the ones thrusting us into wars to make themselves richer.

Or even more interesting, perhaps Snowden has all 400 terabytes on his four laptops he took with him. He may be holding the fate of the United States in his hand. He may have every single secret the US is trying to keep, in the very palm of his hand. The entire world is run by political blackmail and piles of cash. A dirty secret nobody likes to admit. But it as true as life not being fair and death and taxes.


So if the public were to seize the Palantir* of Sauron, and could turn it on anybody... ...is a dangerous question. Just as dangerous is having these... ...ultra-rich wierdo voyeurs, doing it for fun and profit. Yay! Wars entertain me, and get me in the history books! Huzzah! It is an incredible power, perhaps it is better in the public's hands. Perhaps it should just be destroyed. And then, eventually, other countries are going to make it, for their own citizens, unless humanity as a whole says enough is enough. And humanity might need a leader nation... ...again.

But, I like the whole Christian/muslim angle fault lines these articles are trying to draw. America is going to shatter into pieces. America hates itself like no other country in the world. People who say they love America are the most likely to hate a part of it. They love the America they envision. Ah lovez America, thatz why AH hates libruls! Really, the fracture lines are psycho-somatic, but that doesn't mean the hatred does not have real consequences, like the wind, it blows over the minds of people, and they lash out at each other over the seemingly pettiest of differences. They use laws to subjugate others they don't like. They use armies sometimes.

Does anybody truly believe America has hope?




*Palantir happens to be the name of one of the contractors involved in this TYT story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiAwSF_xZ8

[Feeding the Abscess]

A reasonable person would ask why are Muslims getting special protections from surveillance.

While being drone bombed overseas by the dozens every day. And being vilified by prominent members of the ruling class here at home. Some special protections.

[UWDude]

In other words:

This is "we taught that dog to shit, how dare he do that in our own backyard" type of scandal.

It is manufactured to turn the outrage of the people, upon finding they have been betrayed, from the very politicians and corporations that betrayed them, onto the outsiders. It is typical xenophobic propaganda. Used time and time again throughout the ages.

The professional liars known as pundits, politicians and public relations firms are going into freak out mode trying to channel the people's anger to the direction they want it channeled... ...those dirty Ay-rabs.*

[tangent4ronpaul]

The title says NSA, the articles say FBI and DHS.

I live up the road from NSA and have talked with people that work there. They are very interested in mosques.

Those documents that Snowden leaked - remember the exclusion for mosques in there? I didn't notice it either...

You know that judicial oversight obama keeps bragging about with the FISA court? The court that has only denied one wiretapping request in it's entire history (that was overturned and granted on appeal?) Why would this be any different? Just a rubber stamp shop...

-t

[amy31416]

A reasonable person would ask why are Muslims getting special protections from surveillance.

I think a reasonable person wouldn't believe it.

[compromise]

Why would Obama spy on his own place of worship? :D

[FrankRep]

The title says NSA, the articles say FBI and DHS.

Yeah, I asked for the title to be fixed.

[Anti Federalist]

Was just coming in to say exactly that.

This system is watching everybody, nobody is "excluded".

It is equal opportunity tyranny.


I call bullshit. This story is groundwork to make people accept that we need broad surveillance to be safe.

It's just like telling Americans the TSA needs to fondle everybody's balls because anyone can be a terrorist, and it would be discriminatory otherwise.

Furthermore, it gives cover to explain why somehow, with this massive awesome surveillance state, did they still miss the Tsaernev brothers.

Now we will hear "I say we need MORE surveillance, not less, MORE!"

God, when will these deceivers be punished? If the answer is never, please bring the rocks upon my head now.

[Anti Federalist]

A reasonable person would ask why are Muslims getting special protections from surveillance.

Because I don't think for one second that anybody, Muslims or otherwise, is getting special protections from surveillance, regardless of what government says.

And if that is the government's line, then my response is not to increase surveillance on Muslims but to demand those same "protections" for me.

I'll start with the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.