Hoax or Lie? (monitoring Mosques for radiation)

[shraby]

(snip)
Before I go on, I'll say that I believe the government was right to consider mosques (and temples, synagogues, churches) as legitimate locations for surveillance. I also believe that, if specific intelligence said nuclear material was being held or moved, that radiation monitoring is the right step to take.

I don't believe that they would have to circumvent the legal protections afforded people and the institutions they comprise. I also don't believe this statement:

"We have not violated the law; we have not violated the Constitution; we have not gone on private property," Mason said.

"Mason" is Michael Mason, who oversees the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

Mason's statement is either a lie or a statement of incompetance. You cannot adequately monitor a building for dangerous radiation without going into it. Let me explain why.

<http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/105334/12>

They lied about the monitoring from what I understand about radiation detection too.

[guruoo]

1. Might the Bush regime have leaked this story...

as backhanded damage control for the wiretap issue,
and as a scare tactic to justify Bush's circumvention
of the FISA oversight process?

Violate the law, justify it with fear.

Think about it.

[shraby]

2. Probably. I do know if there was enough

radiation on the outside of the building to detect from a vehicle, it would be either making people inside the building pretty sick or killing them.

[Silverhair]

4. False.

Instruments are capable of detecting extremely minute levels of radiation. In fact, in the 1970's, a Soviet submarine had some sort of problem in Swedish waters and had to surface. The Swedes were able to detect the radiation signature of nuclear weapons on the sub from instruments on the ships that escorted the sub out of their waters.

In the 1970's, in the Navy, I was around nuclear weapons (our ship had them) and I am still here.

If a nuke is in a building, with proper instruments you can dectect by driving by on the street.

It is NOT illegal for the gov't to monitor radiation levels at a public street.

[guruoo]

6. I know there's been a noticeable spike in the number

of anti-Muslim wingnut op-eds since
the wiretapping story broke.

Here's one that's been making the rounds
of the local freeptard forums:
Muslim Rape Spree for ethnic reasons
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646

[porphyrian]

3. They don't have to "go" on private property.

They have scary invasive surveillance techniques they can use from outside that are, in some ways, better than being in the room.

[jayfish]

5. Sounds Like Kyllo Applies Here.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1304/

Question Presented

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Conclusion

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-8508

Jay