Slashdot Mirror


Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On

Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans — including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers — under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies. From the article: "The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called 'FISA recap.' Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also 'are or may be' engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens. ... The five Americans whose email accounts were monitored by the NSA and FBI have all led highly public, outwardly exemplary lives. All five vehemently deny any involvement in terrorism or espionage, and none advocates violent jihad or is known to have been implicated in any crime, despite years of intense scrutiny by the government and the press. Some have even climbed the ranks of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishments."

30 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Probable cause by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently being Muslim is good enough for probable cause. So much for freedom of religion.

    1. Re:Probable cause by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless, of course, you work for a multinational, are a serving member of the armed forces, you have traveled there and made friends, your forefathers came from the region, you still have family there, or lovers, you like to watch the news and have an inkling of an interest in international politics, history or economy it is indeed incredibly unlikely as an American citizen to be involved with anything happening in the Middle East.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Probable cause by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it is ok to profile people because they may be lying about who and what they are? Sounds like a police state to me.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Probable cause by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a Muslim American Said to Defend His Patriotism
      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what-a-muslim-american-said-to-defend-his-patriotism/374137/

      -"You should be active in your community. And I have done that. The fact that I was surveilled in spite of doing all thatâ"it just goes to show you the hysteria that everybody feels."
      -"I've never given a speech where I've said any ill feelings toward the United States."
      -"I was a very conservative, Reagan-loving Republican."
      -"I watch sports. I watch football. My kids are all raised here. My kids at that time went to Catholic school. It isn't as if I was raising them in a different way ..."

      Gill correctly perceives that we'll all know what he means when he invokes the characteristics he possesses that would seem to make him less suspicious. The fact that most people internalize these judgments to some degree illustrates how chilling effects work: Americans, especially those who belong to minority groups, formulate a sense of what speech and actions will cast suspicion on or away from them.

      Chilling Effects.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Probable cause by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      And there were "Commernists hiding under every beadstead" in the 50's.

      Your neo-Macarthyism is based in pure irrational hate/bias. As such, you will always find an unassailable, self-justification for insisting on your views.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:Probable cause by qbast · · Score: 2

      "I was a very conservative, Reagan-loving Republican." - obviously he is trying way too hard to appear harmless. Only most hardened jihadist fanatic would go this far, so good job NSA. He will slip sooner or later.

    6. Re:Probable cause by mjm1231 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      freedom of religion IS the seperation clause.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    7. Re:Probable cause by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it does include a freedom "from" religion clause. If you take the time to learn anything about the framers of the Constitution, you'll know that they were dead-set against allowing anything invoking divine authority to creep into the system of law and government which they were creating. Not all of them, but most, and that wisdom, thankfully, carried the day.

    8. Re:Probable cause by thaylin · · Score: 2

      You cannot have fee exercise of your religion without freedom from other religions... no where did he say it protects atheists from being around the religious, but keep on strawmaning.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    9. Re:Probable cause by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Informative

      After Ghandi got control of India he ordered _many_ killings in the future 'Pakistan' and 'Bangladesh'. Non violence is for when you don't have the power.

      You mean when he personally visited the riot-prone areas to stop the massacres:

      Gandhi suggested an agreement which required the Congress and Muslim League to cooperate and attain independence under a provisional government, thereafter, the question of partition could be resolved by a plebiscite in the districts with a Muslim majority. When Jinnah called for Direct Action, on 16 August 1946, Gandhi was infuriated and personally visited the most riot-prone areas to stop the massacres. He made strong efforts to unite the Indian Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and struggled for the emancipation of the "untouchables" in Hindu society.

      Read the reasons given for his assassination:

      Godse felt that it was Gandhi's fast (announced in the second week of January) which had forced the cabinet to reverse it's earlier recent decision not to give the cash balance of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan on 13 January 1948.

      [...] He also felt that Gandhi had not protested against these atrocities being suffered in Pakistan and instead resorted to fasts.

      [...] In Godse's own words during his final deposition in the court during the trial, "...it was not so much the Gandhian Ahimsa teachings that were opposed to by me and my group, but Gandhiji, while advocating his views, always showed or evinced a bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests.

      If Gandhi had been ordering murders in addition to his fasts and prayers and actions to stop them, I would imagine this would have been added to the list of reasons given for his assassination.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    10. Re:Probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you don't think the Crusades are relevant to mention?

      Well, since most of us weren't alive when they happened, and were done by a church we don't all agree with ... this constant reference to the Crusades is idiotic.

      Yes, a long time ago a Pope decided that killing anybody who didn't follow his teachings was a good idea.

      And somehow you think that all white people should bear the blame for that? Fuck that.

      Sorry, but I am not responsible for what some fucking idiot in a funny hat advocated for hundreds of years ago.

      Or, do you think in 500 years we should all be blaming all Muslims for 9/11? You can't have it both ways.

      The Crusades are fucking irrelevant, because they have nothing to do with the present. It's an excuse put forth by people who would simply find another reason if they didn't have that one.

      Fuck all of your gods. Let them fuck one another. But please, stop fucking the rest of us over your petty bullshit.

      Your god is a fucking myth, and if he/she/it did exist, would be far less narrow minded and stupid than the people who act in his name.

      You want to be angry at the people who did the Crusades? Run wild. You want to act like the rest of the world bears responsibility for that, then you're a fucking idiot.

    11. Re:Probable cause by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have nothing to hide, except the pron from my wife (she found it already) so why would I care what the FBI does? They aren't going to act on any of this unless these people actually plan to do something criminal and in that case, they should.

      If you think you have nothing to hide, you should probably spend a bit of time studying the history of the FBI. Leading an exemplary life has never been a protection from them, if they suspect you may be part of whatever conspiracy is popular at the time. A few decades ago, it was Communists, and having no connection to any Communist organization was never protection from them or their colleagues in organizations like HUAC. It's quite clear that the "anti-terrorist" push nowadays is no more concerned with whether you have anything to hide; if they need a scapegoat and you're handy (perhaps because your name is vaguely like some name on one of their lists), they'll go after you and make your life a hell on Earth.

      Having "nothing to hide" is one of the most naive misconceptions going around, and has been for at least a century. Dig into the history of the FBI and assorted other similar organizations. Google can find a lot of it for you. Then come back and tell us again whether you have anything to hide.

      (And they probably already have a copy of your pron collection, added to their own. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    12. Re:Probable cause by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      OK. To de-escalate, and in the interest of trying an educational dialogue, I will attempt to clarify what appears to be an assumption in the posting to which I responded.

      You mention "taqiyya" as a point of doctrine, or an approved mode for action, by those who profess a "witnessing" of Islam ("tashud").

      This is in most was incorrect. Certainly, it is misleading, as a generalization. Al-Taqiyya is usually translated as "dissimulation". There are numerous arguments about the permissibility of this specific shading of deceit or "lying" in the history of Islamic discourse. The most common, and widely known usage was for Shi'ite partisans of 'Ali and his descendants, immediately in the time of their political schism. This was during the lifetimes of the original 3 Imams. The purpose thereof was defensive - used to deflect persecution or compulsion by "Sunni" adherents.

      It is important to note this: In the first few centuries, Shi'a were a political distinction for legitimate leadership of the 'Ummah or community. Doctrinally there was not a separate school of theology or jurisprudence. Thusly, the term "Sunni" as a contrasting group is often a more modern anachronism when applied to the period - up to about the time of Jaffar Al-Siddiq, or so... "Shi'a" of that time - and indeed probably today - consider themselves to be following in the "Sunnah" of the prophet.

      All of this aside, dissimulation is a means to defensively avoid harm and persecution, without giving up or rejecting articles of belief. This is true of Shi'a or of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no corresponding school of thinking that has authorized Al-Taqiyya for means of "deception" versus "dissimulation" in pursuing acts of war or other hostility.

      There is in fact another term "Al-Makr" for "deception" that relates to concealment of intention. There are a number of debates about the use of this term in the Q'ran, as applied to God. Most of that discussion is quasi-theological for political ends and beyond the scope of discussion here. Let us only say that the message of the book is roughly "Those who try to trick God, have in the end only tricked themselves - for God is master over all things, including their trickery." Parse as you will.

      Let us conclude that Al-Makr, as a doctrine to promote the faith, is haram.

      To suggest that the existence of Al-Taqiyya provides a doctrinal basis under which one may make generalized assumptions about the threatening character of any Muslim believer is ignorant or provocative, at the least.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Civil Rights Activists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, it's a good thing they are monitoring civil rights activists because the last thing we want in America is civil liberties and rights. Civil rights and freedoms are unAmerican and have no business here.

    Why yes, I do watch Fox News. why do you ask?

    1. Re:Civil Rights Activists by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      Why yes, I do watch Fox News. why do you ask?

      Because citizens who do not watch Fox News are threats to national security, and are therefore placed under surveillance. No need for you to be concer...oh wait, you're posting on a known subversive site that is part of our selector set. I guess we'll be watching you after all.

  3. They're not a corporation by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until they incorporate they're not entitled to free speech or religious exemptions.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  4. Law Enforcement has been doing this forever. by timrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the 50s and 60s, when the Civil Rights Movement was starting to pick up, the FBI had files on most of the major civil rights leaders, even those that advocated purely peaceful resistance. I recall reading an interview with a high-ranking FBI official at the time who said that J. Edgar Hoover was particularly proud of the file he had on Martin Luther King. They tracked relationships between civil rights groups, and tried to watch them all. I'm fairly certain that there were also secret wiretaps done on some of the people they were tracking, though I don't remember if that was the case with MLK or not.

    If you look on the list, the agency responsible for maintaining the surveillance against the Muslim-Americans targeted in this case is the FBI. They haven't changed much since 1960, and it shows.

    1. Re:Law Enforcement has been doing this forever. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If memory serves, the ostensible logic was that civil rights groups were pawns of International Communism(because clearly only sinister foreign influences could have given the negro the crazy idea that certain aspects of American life were less than ideal) and thus a terrifying internal threat. That, and Hoover just didn't feel alive if he wasn't wiretapping somebody.

    2. Re:Law Enforcement has been doing this forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm fairly certain that there were also secret wiretaps done on some of the people they were tracking, though I don't remember if that was the case with MLK or not.

      Not only did they wiretap MLK, they bugged his hotel room and then used the recordings to try to blackmail him.

  5. No Warrant? by weilawei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Under the heading “Nationality,” the list designates 202 email addresses as belonging to “U.S. persons,” 1,782 as belonging to “non-U.S. persons,” and 5,501 as “unknown” or simply blank. The Intercept identified the five Americans placed under surveillance from their email addresses.

    It is unclear whether the government obtained any legal permission to monitor the Americans on the list. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. During the course of multiple conversations with The Intercept, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence urged against publication of any surveillance targets. “Except in exceptional circumstances,” they argued, surveillance directly targeting Americans is conducted only with court-approved warrants. Last week, anonymous officials told another news outlet that the government did not have a FISA warrant against at least one of the individuals named here during the timeframe covered by the spreadsheet.

    So, for all the idiots arguing that we have FISA to make sure mass surveillance isn't abused: it looks like they've decided to skip that step entirely.

  6. Re:i remember when by disposable60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's just pre-9/11 thinking.
    Everything's different now - we got the National Security State we always dreamed of. Better, even!

    --
    You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  7. Incorporate by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every American should incorporate themselves. It's the only way to guarantee you have rights. If you are a closely held corporation, your religious rights cannot be infringed, your property cannot be confiscated, you can commit heinous crimes and only face a fine (no jail time for CEOs); and furthermore, NSA "spying" can be sued over as industrial espionage or as copyright violations under intellectual property rights laws.

    Basically you have way more rights as a corporation. If you're an individual or "citizen", you're screwed.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  8. About that.... by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every American should incorporate themselves. It's the only way to guarantee you have rights. If you are a closely held corporation, your religious rights cannot be infringed, your property cannot be confiscated, you can commit heinous crimes and only face a fine (no jail time for CEOs); and furthermore, NSA "spying" can be sued over as industrial espionage or as copyright violations under intellectual property rights laws.

    Basically you have way more rights as a corporation. If you're an individual or "citizen", you're screwed.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're someone who hates the recent hobby lobby decision; nonetheless, the opinion delivered by Alito directly addresses this 'corporations are treated like people and it's wrong!!!' outrage perpetuated by the left.

    "As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

    In holding that Conestoga, as a “secular, for-profit corporation,” lacks RFRA protection, the Third Circuit wrote as follows: “General business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their individual owners or employees, exercise religion. They do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously-motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors.” 724 F. 3d, at 385 (emphasis added).

    All of this is true—but quite beside the point. Corporations, “separate and apart from” the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all."

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:About that.... by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was bs justifications. You dont need to give corporations 4th amendment rights to protect people, because the people individually have those rights for example.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  9. Comments by bughunter · · Score: 2

    Many of the comments on First Look and even here are disturbing, both in their rancor and in their bigotry. These kind of haters represent a tiny but vocal minority of the US population but they seem seem to swarm to the comments sections of any story that touches on one of their hot button issues. This is especially true at "mainstream" media sites like Yahoo News, CNN, etc. Clearly their intent is to disguise their minority status and make it appear as if their radical opinions are mainstream.

    Do they have RSS feeds or Twitter Bots or something that tell them "Muslim story on First Look - Troll Force GO!" or something? It's fkn amazing.

    And it does real damage to our society by promoting the kind of racism and abuse depicted in TFA, both institutional and cultural, even when the majority of the people hold no such opinions...

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:Comments by ilparatzo · · Score: 2

      These kind of haters represent a tiny but vocal minority of the US population but they seem seem to swarm to the comments sections of any story that touches on one of their hot button issues.

      This is true of many issues out there. There are techies that jump on everything they slightly disagree with. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc ... they all have their vocal minority. Seems there will always be a group within any cause or idea that lets out the vitriol at the slightest opportunity.

      It's the price of living in a free society, lest you have a group (with their own biases) overseeing it all and deciding what can and cannot be said. It relies on a majority not getting sucked into the wild conspiracies and vitriolic hatred that is present and being more level headed.

  10. Re:I thought FBI/NSA spied on everyone by idontgno · · Score: 2

    Yes, the moment model railroading is a Constitutionally-protected right.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  11. Islam has a problem by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The traditional understanding of the faith is that it is a military organisation, committed to the conquest of the world to establish the kingdom of Allah by force. Many Muslims have abandoned this belief - but there is an important element in Islam which allows a Muslim to lie if it will advance the cause of Islam. Therefore it is impossible to trust what Muslims say about their beliefs - because they are free to lie. In this context being a muslim could be argued to be 'probable cause' for surveillance. Harsh but true. http://www.thereligionofpeace.... offers Quaranic reference that enable this behaviour.

  12. Re:A republican political candidate! by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    Naw, he's still an a-rab, and terreristy trumps republican.

    This is, however, part of what I've been waiting for for a year. I've always wanted Snowden through Greenwald to name names. They say they pick up everything but it's only the targets who get their emails read and their phone calls listened to. Okay, who are the targets? Names.

    So first they told us it wasn't Americans, it was only foreign terrorists. Now we find out they were targeting Americans. Now the Fox News crowd is going to say "yeah but it was just scary mooslems!" and the NSA will lie and say that this was the extent of their targeting operations.

    The next article, then, I expect to show that no, they were also targeting Americans completely unrelated to Islam, like Occupy organizers or Tea Partiers. Or even political candidates. That is when the shit will really hit the fan.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  13. Quaran 9.3 by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    Clearly indicates that a Muslim is not bound by an oath to an 'idolater'. This provides plenty of space to justify lying in court, let alone in day to day discourse...