Romney Taking Heat about Mosque Comments

[Woodmonkey]

Click here for the source
of this article

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

BOSTON (AP) - Muslim groups and civil libertarians demanded an apology from Gov. Mitt Romney on Friday for his comments about wiretapping mosques and monitoring foreign students. But the governor refused, saying he was only advocating for improved homeland security.

An apology but not citing specific laws that Gov. Romney has broken. What isn't said but is obvious free speech only flows one way.

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

The groups delivered a letter to Romney that said "your desire to wiretap mosques is an affront to the values and principles that make America a great country." The groups include the American Civil Liberties Union and various mosques and Islamic organizations.

After the letter was delivered, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor would not apologize or retract his comments.

An affront to question if something should take place? It's an affront to me that he can't ask questions that have basis for asking.

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Romney made the remarks Wednesday during a speech in Washington at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. He referred to the state's 120 colleges and universities and speculated about students who are from countries that sponsor terrorism, asking "Do we know where they are, are we tracking them?"

He also spoke about gathering intelligence at mosques "that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror."

"Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping?" he asked. "Are we following what's going on? Are we seeing who's coming in, who's coming out? Are we eavesdropping, carrying out surveillance on those individuals from places that sponsor domestic terror?"

Questions that need to be answered. Not muffled under the guise of some political incorrectness. For Gov. Romney or any politicin to remain silent for fear of upsetting a particular group is wrong.

As we can see the people with the most to lose if survelience were to find any wrong doing have no trouble spending time trying to intimidate. Smoke & mirrors are in place. I would respect their opinion if they were to show that questioning has broken laws.

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Romney, who is considering a run for president in 2008, said Friday morning he wasn't suggesting anything beyond the scope of what's done by the FBI today. But some Muslims said that Romney is stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists and promoting dangerous policies that erode civil liberties.

Sterotyping all muslims? Aren't Mosques, meetings of Islamic organizations & foreign school students all out in public places? Rounding up all muslims and confining them would be sterotyping.Discovering the source if any in public places where reasonable suspicion dictates isn't sterotyping.

Erosion of civil liberties? Promoting "dangerous policies" nice trigger words to stir the imagination. My imagination goes more like this. Left hand find out who may be responsible for a future attack. Right hand how would surveilence of those cited by Gov. Romney affect me & my rights? My right hand swings to the side of finding out. I don't view the process if implemented as reducing my civil liberties but more as improving my chances of enjoying them.

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Hamza Pelletier, spokesman for the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, said his group planned to attend all of Romney's public appearances until he retracts the statements.

WHAT??? Hamza Pelletier doesn't view this as a double standard? He & his group can monitor but the questions asked by Romney are off limits. No monitoring.

There must be a book out there somewhere on how to use the freedoms Americans have against them. This is an instance where there has to be a chapter devoted to intimidating politicians into not speaking out about what makes sense.

[JohnRN]

Originally Posted by BrianK

An apology but not citing specific laws that Gov. Romney has broken. What isn't said but is obvious free speech only flows one way.

Huh? An apology need not be meted simply because a law has been broken. Apology and laws don't always go hand in hand. Just because you don't break a law doesn't mean you aren't being rude and insensitive.

Originally Posted by BrianK

An affront to question if something should take place? It's an affront to me that he can't ask questions that have basis for asking.

The "affront" isn't in asking the question. The "affront" is in the kind of questions being asked.

Originally Posted by BrianK

Questions that need to be answered. Not muffled under the guise of some political incorrectness. For Gov. Romney or any politicin to remain silent for fear of upsetting a particular group is wrong.

I agree that it is wrong. But just as Gov. Romney has the right to ask them questions, so have others the right to ask for justification/apology based on those remarks.

Originally Posted by BrianK

As we can see the people with the most to lose if survelience were to find any wrong doing have no trouble spending time trying to intimidate. Smoke & mirrors are in place.

I fail to understand the whole reasoning behind "Well if you aren't guilty, what do you have to be afraid of?" line of argument. The question is never primarily about guilt or innocence but about government power and authority. Govt. isn't allowed to put in surveilance without a court order and proper evidence to deem such a court order necessary.

Originally Posted by BrianK

I would respect their opinion if they were to show that questioning has broken laws.

Again, they aren't claiming that the Gov. has broken any laws. They merely resent his opinion.

Originally Posted by BrianK

Sterotyping all muslims? Aren't Mosques, meetings of Islamic organizations & foreign school students all out in public places? Rounding up all muslims and confining them would be sterotyping.Discovering the source if any in public places where reasonable suspicion dictates isn't sterotyping.

I DO see stereotyping. The Gov. isn't talking about all foreign students but specifically of students from "terrorist nations" and the Gov. has mentioned no religion nor place of worship other than Islam and Mosques.

If this isn't a blanket application, what is?

Originally Posted by BrianK

Erosion of civil liberties? Promoting "dangerous policies" nice trigger words to stir the imagination. My imagination goes more like this. Left hand find out who may be responsible for a future attack. Right hand how would surveilence of those cited by Gov. Romney affect me & my rights? My right hand swings to the side of finding out. I don't view the process if implemented as reducing my civil liberties but more as improving my chances of enjoying them.

Here's what I see. Today, blanket accusations against Muslims and mosques enable Govt. to set up surveilance. Tomorrow, the same is used against Mormons and Quakers. The day after....

You get the picture.

By the way, it IS an erosion of civil liberties:

e also spoke about gathering intelligence at mosques "that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror."

Just mosques. Just muslims.

Originally Posted by BrianK

WHAT??? Hamza Pelletier doesn't view this as a double standard? He & his group can monitor but the questions asked by Romney are off limits. No monitoring.

Difference being that one group that is advocating for the "monitoring" is actively asking for Governmental interference to do so while the other group is simply attending all the public meetings of said Gov.

Me thinks you stretch it too far to claim that what the group who will shadow the Gov. to be the same as "monitoring" on the same level as the "FBI of today".

Originally Posted by BrianK

There must be a book out there somewhere on how to use the freedoms Americans have against them. This is an instance where there has to be a chapter devoted to intimidating politicians into not speaking out about what makes sense.

Actually, the founders themselves acknowledged that the mere existence of rights means that some will abuse them, but that doesn't mean due process and the rights themselves be ignored.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Justice Louis Brandeis:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

Justice William Douglas

A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.

James Madison:

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

[Woodmonkey]

Part of their problem is that many of them come from countries where questioning Islam is illegal. I've seen Islamics in this country get bent many times because of that. It's freedom in action, whether they like it or not.

It is a fact that hate is being taught in many madrassahs (sp) and mosques. A government which must protect the citizens must investigate known problems.

[Toome]

The way I interpret it is asking if everything that can be done is being done to monitor potential terrorist groups. Unfortunately, during the 60's, the FBI, CIA and Army Intelligence violated many Americans' rights at college campuses which resulted in the various Executive Orders that limit foreign counterintelligence activities that may be conducted within the continental United States. There tends to be an interpretation that mosques, universities and other similar places are "off limits" to bona fide counterintelligence, counterespionage and/or counterterrorism efforts. I don't see it that way. If there's a legitimate suspicion that an illegal activity is taking place, even if inside a church, mosque or synagogue, then our law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies should be given the authority to investigate. This should be based on the same constitutional principles that guide wiretapping of someone's home, mobile or buisness phone.

Romney shouldn't apologize at all. We should be asking the same questions, too.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Toome

The way I interpret it is asking if everything that can be done is being done to monitor potential terrorist groups. Unfortunately, during the 60's, the FBI, CIA and Army Intelligence violated many Americans' rights at college campuses which resulted in the various Executive Orders that limit foreign counterintelligence activities that may be conducted within the continental United States. There tends to be an interpretation that mosques, universities and other similar places are "off limits" to bona fide counterintelligence, counterespionage and/or counterterrorism efforts. I don't see it that way. If there's a legitimate suspicion that an illegal activity is taking place, even if inside a church, mosque or synagogue, then our law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies should be given the authority to investigate. This should be based on the same constitutional principles that guide wiretapping of someone's home, mobile or buisness phone.

Romney shouldn't apologize at all. We should be asking the same questions, too.

I couldn't agree more, Toome. For the most part I've avoided posting here - I'm a liberal conservative, which to me means I believe in being kind - just not soft headed. We know that some of the mosques built and staffed here have been teaching insurrection. Really - don't we have enough of that with our own weirdos? Do we need to have it imported from Wahhabi Islam?

Of course we must do whatever is needed to safeguard against this. To go about with the on-going lack of proper profiling, allow the politically correct organizations and groups to tell us what we cannot do to protect this nation, is absolute brain-free. It cannot go on - unless we want to become like Europe, quietly folding ourselves into Islamic tents and living under shari'a law.

It's one thing to criticize a man who sees this threat - it's another to expect him to take that criticism seriously, let alone to act on it.

Well - my knowledge of Islam is somewhat extensive considering I've only been looking into it in any depth since 1981, when people in Jerusalem who I met (yes, and loved) were telling me they would protect me if the jihad began while I was there. It nearly did, come to think of it. I was packing gifts to take in 2000 when Sharon took the soldiers to the Temple Mount, thus precipitating the current war there. I was to have stayed for three weeks in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, where I had visited before. If he had not gone up there that day, it well may have started during those three weeks while I was there. It would have started; it was really already taking place in Gaza.

What is it about "Islam means 'submission' " that is so hard for some people to understand? Does it mean every Muslim is our enemy? Of course not. It does mean that our enemy is found within Islam and nowhere else. If they are not Muslims, then we don't have to worry about them. If they are not Muslims, they could be enemies - however, right now we must concentrate on Wahhabi Islam - that heretic sect within Sunni Islam, which is the home guard of bin Laden, Zarkawi, and all those who follow them.

So do we need to listen in on what they say within this nation? Darn right - or lie down and die. I don't know about others, but I'm not old enough to die like that. Fighting, perhaps - not just to give them the leeway they need to overtake our country.