Thank goodness those evil Republicans were defeated in 2008; otherwise White House funded snoops would be keeping innocent Muslims under surveillance.
Oh wait — what’s this? “White House Helps Pay For NYPD Muslim Surveillance:” It turns out the Obama administration has been forking over chunks of money to the NYPD that did exactly that — almost as if Dick Cheney were still orchestrating US policy from an undisclosed location.
We need to know more about the NYPD program before drawing too many conclusions. Unless you already know who the dangerous people are, you will have to ‘surveil’ some completely innocent people as well, and it is much easier to get on a high horse and denounce the unrighteousness of others than to actually conduct these kinds of operations in a thoughtful, sensitive and truly fair way. At the same time, inconvenient as it is for government agents to remember this, citizens do still have some rights in this country, and the police can’t just do any old thing they may want — even when those citizens belong to minority religious faiths.
It would be a step forward if these issues could be discussed calmly and rationally without hurling epithets. This isn’t at its heart a debate between those who want a police state and those who care more about the civil rights of terrorists than about the safety of citizens. These questions are difficult to address thoughtfully and demagoguery only makes it harder to get the job done in the right way.
Perhaps in office the Obama administration now understands these problems more clearly than its members did back in those days when attacking the evil Bush-monster’s policies on Guantanamo Bay and domestic surveillance was so much fun. Campaigning is easy; governing is hard.
Muslim groups should be monitored and infiltrated just like what is done with other hate groups like the KKK, Nazis, etc.
It feels like we are getting the worst of both worlds – a police state and the privileging of a minority religion some of whose members are convinced, like the Blues Brothers, that they are on a mission from God. On the other hand I have no objection to using presidential findings to render harmless such people as bin Laden or al Awlaki, despite the laters American citizenship. Part of the responsibility of governing a powerful country is the ability to take secret, swift, direct action to defend it. I don’t ascribe to the Nixon Doctrine that if the president does it is’ legal, but I want a president who can act decisevely. Right now I think the bigger problem is government agencies like the ATF misusing law to create situations like Waco and Ruby Ridge which we are seeing now in scandals like the GunWalker fiasco.
The Law Firm of Bush, Cheney Hitlerburton now owns ALL political perspectives in Amerika! Bow before your overlords.
Some people are in denial about the threat posed to us by Muslim extremists who want to establish a worldwide caliphate. It’s a threat they can’t emotionally deal with, and they get very nasty with anyone who dares remind them that the world isn’t the safe place they want to believe it is.
Don’t liberals owe John Yoo an apology?
Combining optimism and realism: This understanding will come to an end around, oh, January 20th.
I’m waiting for Justice to prosecute the guy that was beat up by a Muslim for mocking Islam. The (Islam convert) US war-vet turned judge dismissed the charges on the grounds that under Sharia law, the perp was obligated to defend Islam from ridicule (an admittedly increasingly more difficult thing to do when they repeatedly behave so poorly, but he gave it his best shot!). http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981142579
Difficult issues sensibly weighed and compared. I suppose if this Age were intellectually consistent with itself, Via Meadia would be ostracized for journalistic heresy.
“This isn’t at its heart a debate between those who want a police state and those who care more about the civil rights of terrorists than about the safety of citizens.”
True enough. On the other hand, suppose my aim were to facilitate the growth of what in other circumstances might be called a police state (in this case, however, merely to enhance the information-gathering capabilities of vendors, fundraisers and employers). In that case I’d make it a point to draw as little distinction as possible between the civil rights of terrorists and the safety of citizens. The result would be escalating risk and apprehensiveness all around, thereby reinforcing the need for “better” information-gathering, and opening the door to ever more thorough and intrusive surveillance.