In the last few years, terrorism has struck repeatedly in the USA. We had the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino attacks, the Orlando massacre at a gay club and many other small attacks, attempted attack or possible attacks stopped by the police. The one thing that all these attacks had in common is that the person committing or trying to commit the crime was a Moslem.
Okay, we have to stop her to deal with all the haters in the audience. No, not all Moslems are terrorists, but lately all terrorists have been Moslems.
Given the common background of all these terror perpetrators and wannabe terrorists, does it make sense to have police surveillance inside mosques when there is suspicion of wrongdoing? After all, there is police surveillance inside churches and synagogues if there is suspicion of wrongdoing. Why not in mosques? The answer, however, is that in many parts of the USA, surveillance inside mosques is banned by the local government. For example, the mayor of New York barred police surveillance inside mosques. There have also been limitations place on the FBI by president Obama in this regard. Indeed, a reasonable case can be made that the San Bernardino terrorists were missed rather than apprehended because FBI surveillance was not allowed in the local mosque due to Obama's orders.
So I say again, "does this make sense?" Can we really have a country in which the sensibilities of Moslems are more important than the lives of citizens? Are we willing to accept this limitation on law enforcement if it means there will be terror attacks that will not get stopped?
The clear answer ought to be a resounding NO. There ought to be no limitation on surveillance in public places like mosques, churches and other houses of worship. No one goes to church expecting that everything said or done is private. The point of churches and mosques is to pray in public with others. They are community centers in addition to houses of worship.
Certainly there can be limitations on the nature of the surveillance. There could easily be reasonable rules worked out to limit any unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the church or mosque. The conclusion, however, must be that the lives of people are more important than the sensibilities of any group to expect privacy in public.
I'm writing this now because Donald Trump said earlier today that he is not opposed to profiling people as part of the anti-terrorist effort in the USA. Good for him for speaking common sense. Trump said that he does not like profiling and that he would not support it normally, but these are not normal times. We need to focus our law enforcement efforts on the people who are actually threats. Profiling clearly helps identify those people.
For years now, the politically correct forces in this country have forced the TSA at the airports to screen everyone with equal application. Extra searching is done at random, not by the use of common sense. If a guy in Middle Eastern dress is going through security, he has to have the same chance for extra surveillance as the 87 year old woman in the wheelchair. It makes no sense.
It is not discrimination to use common sense to look for those who are trying to commit acts of terror.
Okay, we have to stop her to deal with all the haters in the audience. No, not all Moslems are terrorists, but lately all terrorists have been Moslems.
Given the common background of all these terror perpetrators and wannabe terrorists, does it make sense to have police surveillance inside mosques when there is suspicion of wrongdoing? After all, there is police surveillance inside churches and synagogues if there is suspicion of wrongdoing. Why not in mosques? The answer, however, is that in many parts of the USA, surveillance inside mosques is banned by the local government. For example, the mayor of New York barred police surveillance inside mosques. There have also been limitations place on the FBI by president Obama in this regard. Indeed, a reasonable case can be made that the San Bernardino terrorists were missed rather than apprehended because FBI surveillance was not allowed in the local mosque due to Obama's orders.
So I say again, "does this make sense?" Can we really have a country in which the sensibilities of Moslems are more important than the lives of citizens? Are we willing to accept this limitation on law enforcement if it means there will be terror attacks that will not get stopped?
The clear answer ought to be a resounding NO. There ought to be no limitation on surveillance in public places like mosques, churches and other houses of worship. No one goes to church expecting that everything said or done is private. The point of churches and mosques is to pray in public with others. They are community centers in addition to houses of worship.
Certainly there can be limitations on the nature of the surveillance. There could easily be reasonable rules worked out to limit any unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the church or mosque. The conclusion, however, must be that the lives of people are more important than the sensibilities of any group to expect privacy in public.
I'm writing this now because Donald Trump said earlier today that he is not opposed to profiling people as part of the anti-terrorist effort in the USA. Good for him for speaking common sense. Trump said that he does not like profiling and that he would not support it normally, but these are not normal times. We need to focus our law enforcement efforts on the people who are actually threats. Profiling clearly helps identify those people.
For years now, the politically correct forces in this country have forced the TSA at the airports to screen everyone with equal application. Extra searching is done at random, not by the use of common sense. If a guy in Middle Eastern dress is going through security, he has to have the same chance for extra surveillance as the 87 year old woman in the wheelchair. It makes no sense.
It is not discrimination to use common sense to look for those who are trying to commit acts of terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment