Tell me this hasn't actually been implimented? That he put forth the idea and is int he process of being shot down, not that we just discovered it was already done?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And he's a favorite for the Republican nomination in 2008! Plenty of time to spin these comments as a good thing, or to say they were made so far in the past that they are not relevant, and it's just partisan sniping to bring them up.
posted
Umm, where in the article does he advocate wiretapping mosques? I know the headline says he does, but I only see a call for general wiretapping. He neven suggests that he thinks it's a good idea to put surveillance cameras in mosques. That seems to have hatched in your own fevered brain, Paul.
<to Bok> He would also be the most conservative MA presidential candidate from MA since, heck, forever. And since the state votes more on political ideals than favored son status, it isn't too surprising that he wouldn't carry it.
P.S.- I've been lurking at Hatrack for months waiting to be the 10,000 registered user, but this just seemed to be the right thread to jump in on.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:''How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror," Romney continued. ''Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"
This seems to be saying he's at least theoretically for wire-tapping mosques.
posted
He doesn't say wiretapping mosques. He advocates keeping track of people who are attending mosques. I read it to mean using mosque attendance to indicate a need for wiretapping individuals.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have much to contribute to this thread but wanted to say it's nice to see you, Paul. I haven't seen you post in quite a while, but maybe I've just been out of touch.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the point isn't whether wiretapping mosques would result in information, the question is whether Romney was calling for it or not.
Second, there are lots of less costly ways of determining the content of preaching at mosques than wiretapping.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So freedom of worship would have a caveat that if you go to a Mosque that is reason enough to have the government spy on you?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far I haven't claimed it's a good idea to wiretap individuals based on religious worship. I've just said that the article doesn't show Romney calling for mosque wiretaps and it _never_ mentions anything about surveillance cameras. The post is a misrepresentation of his comments, at least as summarized in the article.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have a friend who calls everyone by their names spelled backwards. Mine is rather unflattering: Nagem (pronounced Nag-eem).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad my screen name provides some enjoyment. Backwards names are a fond memory of my misspent youth.
As to Tom and quidscribis- Wiretapping mosques invades the privacy of mosque attendees _solely_ on the condition of their attendance. Wiretapping individuals who attend mosque allows for other considerations to be taken. I'm not claiming that Romney suggested any other considerations, I'm just saying that individual wiretaps are more justifiable in that they allow for them.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj- He doesn't suggest wiretapping for individuals who attend mosque. He suggests surveilance for people who are IN mosques. How do we know? Because he uses the word "in." He says "How about people who are in settings," and then says one of those settings he is about to be talking about includes mosques " mosques, for instance," because mosques might teach hate and terror "that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror" and then asks if we are monitoring those people, in those settings, including the situation of people who are in mosques "Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"
He phrases it in the form of a question with the clear implication we should be monitoring and wiretapping what is going on in mosques.
Someone says "monitor," in addition to "wiretapping" and I'm fairly certain they mean "cameras."
Next time you want to accuse me of something that is only "hatched in my fevered brain," please don't be dead wrong.
Jeniwren- I hadn't posted in about 8 months. I'm still not certain I'm going to stick around. I took severe umbrage with how this site was being modded, and so left.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, I didn't intend "hatched in <your> fevered brain" to sound as harsh as it did. More like a good natured dig. I really didn't intend to cause offense.
But as for being dead wrong, I don't concede. In reading the quote he's talking about people attending mosques. He asks "Are we monitoring that?" meaning are we monitoring who is attending specific mosques. Then he asks "Are we wiretapping?" which I take as a suggested way of monitoring people, but not of monitoring the mosque itself.
And I don't understand your assertion that "monitor" + "wiretapping" = "cameras". Are you saying monitoring using wiretaps requires cameras? Or that it's reasonable to assume that if he's pro-wiretap he's pro-camera? I just don't understand.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its a reasonable conclusion he wants to use cameras, based on the structure of the sentence. Is it true he wants to use cameras in mosques? Not necessarily. Its definetely true he wants to wiretap mosques.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But your initial post said Romney called for state surveillance cameras in mosques, not that you've concluded he's in favor of it. Those are very different things. Also, it's not "definetely (sic) true" that he wants wiretaps in mosques. That's just your reading of it. You can disagree but unless there's something more to the speech than what the Globe presented, I just don't see it.
What's the real outrage here? That it's a place of worship? What if he'd called for closer monitoring of flight school attendees? Or people who post to a specific webpage (not Hatrack, hopefully)?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But your initial post said Romney called for state surveillance cameras in mosques, not that you've concluded he's in favor of it."
Yup. I like hyberbole quite a bit.
People are then free to go find out about what I'm talking.
"Also, it's not "definetely (sic) true" that he wants wiretaps in mosques"
No? So you're saying that calling for wiretaps in mosques is not saying that he's calling for wiretaps in mosques?
"You can disagree but unless there's something more to the speech than what the Globe presented, I just don't see it."
This is just something hatched in your fevered imagination.
Seriously, I'm not sure how you can read that sentence, and conclude that he's not calling for surveilance of people in mosques. In order to get that reading, you have to change some of the language around, or conclude that the question he asks is not meant to be a leading question. Of course, from the usage, it clearly is a leading question.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Romney didn't say "I think we should wiretap a mosque." The question "Are we wiretapping?" was leading, I just think the subject of the leading question was the subject of the first sentence (people) and you've concluded it's the direct object (mosques). Or is the confusion because you think it reads wiretap the people (collective) and I read it wiretap the people (individuals)? I'm not being dogmatic, I'm sincerely trying to understand your reading.
But what about it. Is this outrageous because it's a mosque? Or is it just that our fool of a governor has the audacity to suggest anyone should be monitored at all?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's outrageous because he's singling out one religious group for persecution-- something that seems to me to go against the Bill of Rights.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What "Yeesh"? SCOTUS has found that First Amendment right to worship can be overridden by a compelling government interest. The reason I asked the question is because to me it seems more like a Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search) question than a First Amendment (freedom to worship) question. But I think the outrage is due to the religious element, which I think is misdirected.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My “yeesh” was for Romney feeling the need to say something calculated to get that particular audience to agree with him wholeheartedly. He’s promoting an “us and them” feeling to become more popular with whoever “us” is.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My yeesh is because the assumption is that mosques are places spreading hate. No, Mitt... its people making suggestions like yours. I suggest we put a wiretap on Mitt.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I haven't seen you post in quite a while, but maybe I've just been out of touch.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
