Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Muslims Radiation Tested  
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 39
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

jeeeez, if you thought you couldn't alienate a particular group of people anymore then read this...  Sad

US Muslims radiation tested
From correspondents in Washington
24dec05

THE US Government has a top secret program to monitor the homes, workplaces and mosques of Muslims in at least six cities for signs of nuclear radiation, the magazine US News and World Report reported on its website.

But a senior Muslim community official said yesterday the program amounted to "scapegoating" US Muslims and "governing by fear".

Up to 120 Muslim sites in the Washington area, and more in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Detroit and Las Vegas, have been regularly monitored for radiation for more than three years over concerns about nuclear terrorism following the September 11, 2001 attacks, US News reported.

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/c...ge/0,7034,17657083%255E401,00.html


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

The monitoring was done in public, so there's no reason for a search warrant. You can monitor a building's radiation from the outside.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
But a senior Muslim community official said yesterday the program amounted to "scapegoating" US Muslims and "governing by fear".

Tell them from my side that if they don't understand the dangers after 9/11 from a lot of people who call themselves muslims, then I suggest they leave.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

I don't guess I have a real problem with this.

If the monitoring was done legally, and the reasons are as stated in the article, then it makes sense.

I'm sure a threat of a nucular attack within the borders of this country won't come from Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Buddists . . . so - why look there? Why monitor things there? Why not go where the trouble might be? Regardless of whether you find anything . . . . rather like the TSA checking Granny's knitting bag or suspiciously eyeing a bottle of breast milk . . . don't really think either of those is a hazard to flight. Pay attention to the things that could present a problem!

By the by - Merry Christmas Monte!


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

I read about this and have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. I think the media just blew it way out of proportion today.

The real story is that certain Muslim groups and organizations were surveyed for radiation OUTSIDE of each property in question. Not every Muslim in the nation was targeted, which is what the media and this thread would have you believe. The DoD and DoE have loooooooonnnnnnngggggggg been monitoring the U.S. mainland, territories, and territorial waters for nuclear objects and radiation. This isn't anything new.

The nation has a right to test its own land for radiation and similar threats. I'm assure you that other groups of significant interest have been tested before, but you won't see those on the news because the ratings aren't behind them. None of the tests were done illegally and no rights of the individuals were breached. Simple as that.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1335 times:

On the CBS radio news roundup, they said that the searches were done without warrants. If this is true, and warrants were needed, this is unaccpetable.

Even so, I still find it exceptionally stupid. We're trying so hard to say we're fighting a "war on terror" and not a "war on Islam", and yet we do this. Its basically saying they're suspects or threats even though they're ordinary citizens.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
Tell them from my side that if they don't understand the dangers after 9/11 from a lot of people who call themselves muslims, then I suggest they leave.

thanks for the "brilliant" comment........ butthead 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1331 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
On the CBS radio news roundup, they said that the searches were done without warrants. If this is true, and warrants were needed, this is unaccpetable.

A warrant is only required if one is to break the curtilage of the property - except I know for sure in Oregon.

Thermal or Radioactive Detecting or Infra-Red sights do not count as searches and are non-invasive.

Therefore no warrant required. Except in Oregon . . . where some nutjobs think a thermal site can see through walls and clothes and skin and all that rot.

CBS didn't do their research TBar . . .


User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
Tell them from my side that if they don't understand the dangers after 9/11 from a lot of people who call themselves muslims, then I suggest they leave.

I agree with ANCFlyer and others: I don't see a problem here. Yet, I find the last words of your post unacceptable. I bet many of those Muslims complaining are Americans, plenty of them by birth. Why they should leave their own country??? They have every right to express themselves, even if most of us don't agree with their complaints.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
A warrant is only required if one is to break the curtilage of the property

Yep. You don't need a thing besides detection equipment to search for this stuff. The media outlets who have been bitching about rights of the individuals obviously didn't do ANY homework. In the cases documented so far, the scanning was done off of the property nearby...........you'll never get a court to overturn that.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1297 times:

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 8):
I agree with ANCFlyer and others: I don't see a problem here. Yet, I find the last words of your post unacceptable. I bet many of those Muslims complaining are Americans, plenty of them by birth. Why they should leave their own country??? They have every right to express themselves, even if most of us don't agree with their complaints.

I'm not suggesting that muslims should leave. I'm saying that any reasonable muslim will recognize that 9/11 and all the other terrorist actions that "muslims" have committed over the past 20-30 years, combined with the fact that most muslim nations and communities have still refused to this day to unequivicably condemn and repudiate all such behaviour (they usually bring in Israel or something stupid), has earned the muslim community special attention from police and anti-terrorist organizations.

We've been beating around the bush for several years, saying things like "islam is not the problem, it's terrorists." But people need to recognize that Islam, or more precisely certain interpretations of Islamic teaching are directly at the core of the problem. Decent Muslims around the world should be the first to join in the fight, in effect saying, "We feel our faith has been horribly perverted by these people, and we will help in every way we can to stop them".


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

Why worry if you have done nothing wrong? If you are Muslim American and there is a possibility that some of your "fellow" Muslims are possibly up to something illegal I would think you would welcome it.

Let them deal with it. It's all part of the world we live in post 9-11. You remember that right? When "Muslim" terrorists decided that their cause and Allah were more important than the ramifications their acts would cause.

Deal with it. Just deal with it.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineLesMainwaring From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
I don't guess I have a real problem with this.

If the monitoring was done legally, and the reasons are as stated in the article, then it makes sense.



 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

It was done outside the building and no personal liberties seemed to be intruded upon. With probable cause (and an appropriate search warrant given by a court) I wouldn't even have a problem with searching inside.

No one was personally affronted, and nothing illegal was done.

...
The Lester Mainwaring Party
...



I want something under my wheels thats plenty long and mighty dry --- Vern Demarest
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
Tell them from my side that if they don't understand the dangers after 9/11 from a lot of people who call themselves muslims, then I suggest they leave.



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):

I'm not suggesting that muslims should leave. I'm saying that any reasonable muslim will recognize that 9/11 and all the other terrorist actions that "muslims" have committed over the past 20-30 years, combined with the fact that most muslim nations and communities have still refused to this day to unequivicably condemn and repudiate all such behaviour (they usually bring in Israel or something stupid), has earned the muslim community special attention from police and anti-terrorist organizations.

I guess we should also watch out for white Christian males, after one blew up a building in Oklahoma and lots hole up in various mountain ranges, under the guise of supremacists. How about all Irish after all the bombs set by the IRA and related terrorist groups?

Do. Not. Stereotype. People.


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
Do. Not. Stereotype. People.

Agreed. Just profile them.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
from a lot of people who call themselves muslims,

"a lot of people" ? really so many ? not rather simply SOME ?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
I suggest they leave.

you conclude that whomever criticizes steps of the US federal administration does NOT "understand" realities. While in reality simply many people simply regard steps of that administration as wrong. Are you always demanding people who oppose the government to get out of the country in question ?


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
I have a real problem with this

my problem with this is that to have such a thing public automatically results in potential culprits moving whatever stuff they (whomever) may have to a "secure" location. The mistake happened when it became known.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 4):
The real story is that certain Muslim groups and organizations were surveyed for radiation OUTSIDE of each property in question. Not every Muslim in the nation was targeted, which is what the media and this thread would have you believe.

but why did it become KNOWN ? Whomever has such material in the cupboard will when hearing about such a "supervision" try to move the stuff to another more secure place.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1170 times:

The news story I watched on two different networks (neither of them Fox) mentioned that not one surveillance was done on the basis of Islamicness but in response to "other" intelligence.

Is the thread starter claiming that this is not so?
Has this been disproven?

or

Is this thread overblown?

* * *


Unless one thinks that there is some inherent human right to keep highly radioactive materials in the home, I cannot think of any way anyone was harmed by sweeps for radiation. What harm has been done? Hell, sweep my house too!

[Edited 2005-12-27 01:32:27]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
The news story I watched on two different networks (neither of them Fox) mentioned that not one surveillance was done on the basis of Islamicness but in response to "other" intelligence.

but, again and again, WHY do such things become PUBLIC in the USA before they are done ? to warn potential culprits ? yours is a most weird country indeed !


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
Is this thread overblown?

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 19):
but, again and again, WHY do such things become PUBLIC in the USA before they are done ? to warn potential culprits ? yours is a most weird country indeed !

Because someone wants to sabotage the program by making it public and drumming up opposition to it?


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
A warrant is only required if one is to break the curtilage of the property - except I know for sure in Oregon.

Thermal or Radioactive Detecting or Infra-Red sights do not count as searches and are non-invasive.

Therefore no warrant required. Except in Oregon . . . where some nutjobs think a thermal site can see through walls and clothes and skin and all that rot.

CBS didn't do their research TBar . . .

If there's no prosecution in the offing, then the 4th amendment is not implicated even if there's a warrantless search, because the right arises only in response to a resulting prosecution. And, it's personal. So let's say that we were monitoring house A and Mr. X, and we used the information gathered to get a warrant and search house B and Mr. Y, Mister Y doesn't have anything to complain about because the right's personal.

At least that's what they taught me in con law I & II LOL

And anyway, why not just wait til dark, suit up in lead underwear and grab the ones that glow in the dark?


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Because someone wants to sabotage the program by making it public and drumming up opposition to it?

the BAD thing about it is that you may be right. If the suspicion has been correct it is bad for the security of your nation and possibly the world, if it was wrong it is bad as the suspicion will linger on and damage many many innocent Muslims in the USA, without ANY advantage what might be called "national security interests" . A mind-boggling contradiction in itself !


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 22):
So let's say that we were monitoring house A and Mr. X, and we used the information gathered to get a warrant and search house B and Mr. Y, Mister Y doesn't have anything to complain about because the right's personal.

 checkmark 

If I'm on a surveillance of some scumbag A and happen to notice another scumbag B doing something stupid, then I can use that against scumbag B, and he has no rights against it. NO different than seeing a felony in progress and taking appropriate action. Too bad for Scumbag B, wrong place at wrong time.


25 Post contains images Jacobin777 : yah....tell that to the families of the Oklahoma city bombing that white anglo/saxon men don't commit terror/bombing...... he finds every excuse/thre
26 Dougloid : Well, it's a little more remote than that. The point is that the 4th amendment is personal. If evidence is discovered in the course of an illegal sea
27 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I did NOT bring anything about race into this conversation . . . . I did NOT say anything about white anglo/saxon. Let me refresh your short memory:
28 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : ummm....and where did I quote you for a response to respond..it isn't.....i was making a comparison of the situation where I feel muslims, of which t
29 Post contains images Emirates773ER : Indirectly thats what the guy quoted below is accusing muslims off. Read between the lines
30 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Nope, not wrong . . . . And therefore, they qualify for this comment. Racial Profiling - profiling based on RACE is wrong as hell. Profiling for a sp
31 Newark777 : I'll trust the cop over the ACLU. Harry
32 Joness0154 : Theres a huge difference between a nutjob that blew up the building in OKC and thousands of "religious" individuals who are fighting a religious based
33 ME AVN FAN : sorry, "our buildings" "our airplanes" ?? ALL of them ? you all now live in tents and travel by horse ? it was 4/four airplanes and it was 3/three bu
34 ME AVN FAN : I hear "RACIAL profiling" while it may at worst be "ethnic" or "cultural" profiling. And I think it rather is prejudice, which will slowly die down if
35 ANCFlyer : Geezuz, do I have to spell it out for you??? You know exactly what I mean, and so does anyone else reading this . . . your lame attempt at turning th
36 ME AVN FAN : No reason for any search as THIS is how I understand the situation. It however is the usual thing worldwide to adjust such "profilings" in the "fine
37 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Generally predicated by and blown out of proportion by the damned media. Every dimbulb talk show host and news show host will beat the horse to death
38 Halls120 : If a law enforcement officer tells you he/she doesn't profile, they are either lying or are incompetent. Every experienced law enforcement officer pr
39 ANCFlyer : Which is one reason the TSA is a failure. . . a prime example of how to fail utterly is to "not look in the right place" for the bad guys . . . I'll
40 Pilotaydin : I myself am Muslim, and to be honest, if this is the process, and it helps security and safety, then why oppose it. It's factual now that this is a wa
41 Post contains images Cfalk : Let's see. One bombing was done by a couple of guys who wanted something or other, and who just happened by chance to be non-practicing christians. T
42 ME AVN FAN : maybe some 10000 upto 20'000, not more, and THAT is a relatively small group, whenever extremely dangerous I did NOT make anything up, it was you who
43 Post contains images Cfalk : If I had to invite them all to a party, that's a lot of people to me. You are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned, nor do I care of what the
44 ME AVN FAN : understandable. BUT who does decide about who is "rational" and who is "irrational" ? people in Syria are mostly rational people and NOT "kooks". I n
45 ME AVN FAN : Really ? You said :: which clearly shows that you expect some people NOT to understand your statement. While I do NOT believe that there is anybody o
46 Joness0154 : 10k or 20k people is a ton of people hell bent on delivering destruction to the United States. They did it with less than 20 people on Sept 11th but
47 Toulouse : The best post so far on this thread. It's so nice to have somebody such as Richard who posts sensible things on a.net. Cfalk, sorry for asking, but y
48 Joness0154 : His post made no sense at all. He was comparing apples to oranges. The reason some muslims are being profiled is because they are fighting a war base
49 RichardPrice : My comment made perfect sense, when taken into context, and has nothing to do with profiling. It was made in reply that essentially stereotyped ALL I
50 Toulouse : That is YOUR interpretation, or should I say misinterpretation of his post. I'm sorry you don't see the sense behind his post, which makes perfect se
51 N1120A : Actually, they do count as searches and are illegal without a warrant. The Supreme Court decided this subject in a marijuana case.
52 ME AVN FAN : a HUGE threat to EVERYBODY (Bali, Casablanca, Sharm-el-Sheikh, London, etc) indeed ! BUT a huge threat does NOT mean a "huge mass" of people
53 ME AVN FAN : sorry, I realize something right now. I understood "our buildings" as THE buildings, while you apparently understand it as "buildings of us". I am NO
54 ME AVN FAN : we all had to suffer under the damage done to the world economy by the WTC attack, but "downfall" sounds exaggerated neither the war against the Tali
55 Halls120 : I wouldn't be so quick to extend the case you are referring to regarding infrared sensing to the detection of radioactive materials. The case you ref
56 DaddiesSecret : I bet you all the tea in China the first terrorist attack using a nuke will be on the US by a christian lunatic. How the world will laugh then...
57 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Exactly why Oregon has outlawed it . . . and exactly the experience I speaking of . . . Please cite a reference for the SCOTUS decision. Not that I d
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Unacceptable For Muslims To Target US Civilians? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:07:51 by Cedarjet
US Blaims Europe For Not Integrating Muslims posted Thu Apr 6 2006 09:22:13 by Mrniji
PAL In The US? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 20:47:00 by Spencer
UK Kerb US Curb - Question posted Fri Nov 17 2006 18:03:36 by 808TWA
An Adv/re Of A Polish Guy With A Bigot US Family posted Tue Nov 14 2006 15:43:24 by Rammstein
See, This Is My Beef With The US Government posted Mon Nov 13 2006 05:04:39 by Derico
Gerald Ford: Oldest Living US President posted Sun Nov 12 2006 15:01:24 by September11
US Vetoes Beit Hanoun Resolution posted Sat Nov 11 2006 21:35:33 by Cedars747
Finger-printing Of US Citizens In Brazil posted Sat Nov 11 2006 15:30:51 by BOAC911
Public Opinion In The US - State By State (Ohio) posted Sat Nov 11 2006 03:44:52 by SKYSERVICE_330