While I appreciate and understand your anger, you have to look at it from another perspective-- that of the government. I am not sure the degree to which what did the infringed on amendment rights (actually I'm pretty sure it did) but beyond the anger associated with that infringement, the actions of the government are not without comprehension.
Any large group has the ability to disguise their motives and cause real damage. That potential threat and liability is worth further investigation. It is completely an American concept that just because I've done nothing wrong, I therefore should not be tested as such. Whereas, I feel that testing is only reaffirmation and those that aren't doing anything wrong should feel secure. Now this is not to say that our government doesn't botch things up, say hold innocent people, but the premise of not being testing without doing something wrong is to me.
Side note: Do protests really sway opinion? This is a genuine question and I mean it earnestly. While I know that protests have had an effect historically, I feel like many protests or parades or marches are largely ignored by the general population today. As you said, it is most commonly done by people who have beliefs that are a little "out there." Not that these gatherings are wrong but they do arouse suspicions because of the potential for terrorism. While I admire you for standing up for your people (however you define that), it is just as likely (and happening across the US today) where terrorists fake a persona to fit into a group and can still commit whatever act they are planning or even con an American into marrying them for citizen status. Perhaps it would be worthy to note that the groups being investigated may have had other information that made them governmental targets besides just wanting to gather and protest and you may never have suspected the person(s) for whom the investigation is oriented. Just a thought.
Why are you angry if, in fact, Quakers (to continue the example you used above) aren't doing anything wrong? Do you want the government to ASSUME that you aren't? Better yet, do you think that the Muslim religion isn't about pacifism as well? It is only the extreme minority likened to the Christian portion that are members of the KKK (I know you've heard all this before) and to claim that just because they are Quaker or Muslim means that they obviously aren't out to "get us" is foolish and headstrong.
It is more dangerous to allow such a liability without an investigation than to investigate people who aren't doing anything wrong. I liken it to checking on kids at summer camp with a flashlight. If you hear a noise (which could be threatening or not) and you turn on your flashlight to check out the noise while all the kids are supposed to be in bed, then the good kids will be in bed and the bad kids won't be. Or the good kids will be helping the kid who just had a nightmare. Or the bad kids will be smoking up or something.
In our age of pretend "colorblindness" it is only appropriate that everyone doing something reasonably suspicious be examined. Be assured, we are also "hunting" the bad guys on bigger higher stronger threats as well. But are you not at all reassured that they aren't letting the little threats through as well? God forbid, they hunt the big powerful men while the unorganized factions of a terrorist group realize this and thus work in small political protest ways to effect the change they are seeking.
I do not believe that you are suspicious because you don't want your sister's rapist murderer to die, but to act on those beliefs in a way that creates a liability and potential threat absolutely is. That is just a fact. Nothing can be a better cover than to hide in a crowd, not only for gunfire, but also to kill you all. What makes a better frightening news headline than a bunch of pacifists killed? To me, that makes the terrorists more scary and I believe that a majority of Americans would agree, right up there will killing school kids.
Thanks for letting me respond. I do hope you are well (if you remember who I am at all). Second floor Talbot rules.
I respectfully disagree
Any large group has the ability to disguise their motives and cause real damage. That potential threat and liability is worth further investigation. It is completely an American concept that just because I've done nothing wrong, I therefore should not be tested as such. Whereas, I feel that testing is only reaffirmation and those that aren't doing anything wrong should feel secure. Now this is not to say that our government doesn't botch things up, say hold innocent people, but the premise of not being testing without doing something wrong is to me.
Side note: Do protests really sway opinion? This is a genuine question and I mean it earnestly. While I know that protests have had an effect historically, I feel like many protests or parades or marches are largely ignored by the general population today. As you said, it is most commonly done by people who have beliefs that are a little "out there." Not that these gatherings are wrong but they do arouse suspicions because of the potential for terrorism. While I admire you for standing up for your people (however you define that), it is just as likely (and happening across the US today) where terrorists fake a persona to fit into a group and can still commit whatever act they are planning or even con an American into marrying them for citizen status. Perhaps it would be worthy to note that the groups being investigated may have had other information that made them governmental targets besides just wanting to gather and protest and you may never have suspected the person(s) for whom the investigation is oriented. Just a thought.
Why are you angry if, in fact, Quakers (to continue the example you used above) aren't doing anything wrong? Do you want the government to ASSUME that you aren't? Better yet, do you think that the Muslim religion isn't about pacifism as well? It is only the extreme minority likened to the Christian portion that are members of the KKK (I know you've heard all this before) and to claim that just because they are Quaker or Muslim means that they obviously aren't out to "get us" is foolish and headstrong.
It is more dangerous to allow such a liability without an investigation than to investigate people who aren't doing anything wrong. I liken it to checking on kids at summer camp with a flashlight. If you hear a noise (which could be threatening or not) and you turn on your flashlight to check out the noise while all the kids are supposed to be in bed, then the good kids will be in bed and the bad kids won't be. Or the good kids will be helping the kid who just had a nightmare. Or the bad kids will be smoking up or something.
In our age of pretend "colorblindness" it is only appropriate that everyone doing something reasonably suspicious be examined. Be assured, we are also "hunting" the bad guys on bigger higher stronger threats as well. But are you not at all reassured that they aren't letting the little threats through as well? God forbid, they hunt the big powerful men while the unorganized factions of a terrorist group realize this and thus work in small political protest ways to effect the change they are seeking.
I do not believe that you are suspicious because you don't want your sister's rapist murderer to die, but to act on those beliefs in a way that creates a liability and potential threat absolutely is. That is just a fact. Nothing can be a better cover than to hide in a crowd, not only for gunfire, but also to kill you all. What makes a better frightening news headline than a bunch of pacifists killed? To me, that makes the terrorists more scary and I believe that a majority of Americans would agree, right up there will killing school kids.
Thanks for letting me respond. I do hope you are well (if you remember who I am at all). Second floor Talbot rules.