NYPD: All mosques are terrorism organizations
timesofindia.indiatimes.comI don't get "all" from the article.
From the original article from Time: http://nation.time.com/2013/08/28/nypd-designates-mosques-as...
"NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the “facts or circumstances reasonably indicate” that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent crime." and
"Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who attends prayer services as a potential suspect. Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First Amendment, could be monitored and recorded." and also,
"And under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could question the secret practice."
While I agree that the NYPD explicitly hasn't labeled all mosques, the laws mentioned above allow them to treat all mosques as potential trrorst organizations. And no one can question them.
The headline still seems incorrect and unnecessarily inflammatory.
I agree on that.
Maybe one of these will fit our sensibilities:
"NYPD's actions suggest they can label all mosques as potential terrorism organizations."
"NYPD's actions suggest they have a right to secretly or openly spy on men praying in any mosque in New York."
"NYPD's actions suggest they are overriding constitutional rights of Muslims praying in mosques, in the name of security."
(All of these are straightforward conclusions from the article.)
With regard to the first, "any" would be more correct than "all" - otherwise, I agree with those.
I agree. Thanks for your comments!