If they advocate violence, I see no problem monitoring them. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 08/08/2012 08:23:47 PM
I wonder if the shooter in the Sikh temple confused the Sikh community for Muslims because of the turbans..or if he just wanted to kill "foreigners"....either way...two attacks on minorities in 24 hours. Since the Shooter in the Sikh mosque was a white supremacist, I wonder if the FBI and Homeland Security are going to step up their efforts to phone tap, infiltrate, and monitor white supremacy hate groups in this country to prevent further attacks.
This stuff makes my skin crawl 10X worse.
It is not exactly unprecedented; the FBI and other government agencies have infiltrated and surveilled the Klan, Black Panthers and similar groups for decades. They did it with US Al Qaeda operatives well before 911; my only regret is that better inter-agency coordination would have been prevented 911. The SCOTUS has been very clear there is no First Amendment right to falsely shout, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
We are not talking about government surveilling EVERYONE (at least I am not,) only people with documented histories of advocating and/or committing violence. I would certainly never support fishing expeditions through everyones private life, without evidence (e.g. the "USA PATRIOT" Acts warrantless wiretaps.) Yet disputing that "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear," is not the same as disputing that "those with exposed crimes should be free of scrutiny." It is similar to the difference between saying, "no one should have a gun," and saying, "no one proven a criminal and/or mentally ill should have a gun."