Racial Profiling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]slimjim wrote:
Alrighty. How about this example of racial profiling. A friend of mine, a captain in the Army, is in Walmart when the power goes out. Everyone is told to leave the store. As he’s walking out he is stopped by the security guard at the door and asked to empty his pockets. He looks around and notices that only he and another black guy have been stopped while there are plenty of white people leaving the store, not one of them are challenged. So he refuses. The security guard then calls the cops who show up and tell him it would make things easier for everyone if he would just comply. His lawsuit against Walmart was settled out of court and he didn’t have shit in his pockets. Was it his priviledge to be searched, or is he just lucky to be here in America when he could be starving in Africa?
[/quote]

Different set of circumstances. He shouldn’t have been singled out, but because he was he had a justified lawsuit. Sounds like justice was done.

42

[quote]Oddjob wrote:
Pulling someone over for being black is taking it too far.

Doing a security check on a muslim guy wearing a trenchcoat is not.

I don’t think any issues (or at least, most) are black and white, the right answer is always somewhere in the middle. [/quote]

But this is exactly where the dilemma lies, how do we regulate something like this? How is it possible to ensure that what is okay in one instance does not bleed over to become policy in another area.

43

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Alrighty. How about this example of racial profiling. A friend of mine, a captain in the Army, is in Walmart when the power goes out. Everyone is told to leave the store. As he’s walking out he is stopped by the security guard at the door and asked to empty his pockets. He looks around and notices that only he and another black guy have been stopped while there are plenty of white people leaving the store, not one of them are challenged. So he refuses. The security guard then calls the cops who show up and tell him it would make things easier for everyone if he would just comply. His lawsuit against Walmart was settled out of court and he didn’t have shit in his pockets. Was it his priviledge to be searched, or is he just lucky to be here in America when he could be starving in Africa?

Different set of circumstances. He shouldn’t have been singled out, but because he was he had a justified lawsuit. Sounds like justice was done.

[/quote]

I agree.

44

[quote]slimjim wrote:
Oddjob wrote:
Pulling someone over for being black is taking it too far.

Doing a security check on a muslim guy wearing a trenchcoat is not.

I don’t think any issues (or at least, most) are black and white, the right answer is always somewhere in the middle.

But this is exactly where the dilemma lies, how do we regulate something like this? How is it possible to ensure that what is okay in one instance does not bleed over to become policy in another area.[/quote]

In my mind, it’s ok when it’s legitimately in the interests of national security. It’s still unfortunate for the member of a group that happens to be highly linked to terrorist activity. It’s not ok when the purpose to single someone out when the interest is protecting your store from theft because of the belief that blacks are often criminals. Either everyone or no one should have been checked.

45

[quote]slimjim wrote:
But this is exactly where the dilemma lies, how do we regulate something like this? How is it possible to ensure that what is okay in one instance does not bleed over to become policy in another area.[/quote]

You are right though that it is a delicate issue. Applying this and making sure it is not misapplied is a challenge. But I don’t think that means it should just be ignored in the case of airport security.

46

JS,

Today airports. Tomorrow all federal, state and municipal public buildings. Why not?

47

[quote]vroom wrote:
JS,

Today airports. Tomorrow all federal, state and municipal public buildings. Why not?[/quote]

Why don’t all federal, state and municipal building have the kind of security checks airports do? If you can’t answer that, it’s a moot point.

48

[quote]vroom wrote:
JS,

Today airports. Tomorrow all federal, state and municipal public buildings. Why not?[/quote]

Shit, you have to go through a metal detector and they search your bags going into courthouses.

My 3 year olds change purse was searched going into a stadium. You couldn’t fit enough dynamite in it to blow your nose.

I have had my backpack searched and they missed the pistol on my hip at a zoo.

Most of these searches are examples of gross incompetence.

49

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
vroom wrote:
JS,

Today airports. Tomorrow all federal, state and municipal public buildings. Why not?

Why don’t all federal, state and municipal building have the kind of security checks airports do? If you can’t answer that, it’s a moot point.[/quote]

Very interesting. In Pittsburgh, this does happen, except in municipal buildings. All federal, state, and county buildings are so tight you couldn’t get a lighter through unless it was stuffed up your ass. There is also no parking any where near the federal building downtown.

50

[quote]vroom wrote:
JS,

I’m not actually disagreeing with you, but I think it is an interesting discussion point.

You’ve just said that it does make sense to trade liberties for security. Above and beyond using metal scanners, checking ID, x-raying luggage and so on, we also will have our security improved by impinging on the rights of citizens, so we should do it.

Doesn’t that sound like slippery slope to you? Do you decide these issues on a case by case basis, such as whether or not it appears to make the nation safer? Why not apply this thinking in all cases where lives can be saved?

Heck, maybe less lives would be lost every year if guns were collected and destroyed. I mean, yes, criminals will still have them, but over time it would slowly be harder to get them. Young criminals would have to kill the old ones to get them. So, if it saves lives, shouldn’t it be done?

Maybe we should ban steroids, since that could save a few lives. Also, ephedrine was obviously a huge killer (not), so lets ban that. Is there anything we should not do in the effort to save lives, especially when it isn’t all that difficult to do?

So, questions, questions, I know. As I said, I don’t think I actually disagree, but it is a conundrum that I find hard to answer. What makes the airport scenario okay, while others not? Is it the level of risk? The amount of fear in the populace? The amount of distrust or hatred towards muslims by some?

What is it, really?

What types of security should the government focus on, only those caused by terrorists? If so, why is it different? A lot of people die due to drunk drivers, but we don’t simply pull everyone over driving around closing time – even though there are often (non-profiled) spot check programs.

Oh well, I guess nobody really gives a shit about the points I make anyway. That’s what I keep hearing around here.[/quote]

vroom:

I think you make a compelling argument relative to how much safety is to much safety, especially when advanced by the government!

I have always stated that those who are worried about hand guns, for example, should turn their focus to automobiles where almost 50,000 people in the US are killed each year. Compare that to firearm fatalities: only 1,441.

Naturally automobiles should not be banned. It’s not the handgun or the automobile that kills- It’s the person behind each!

As to terrorism, I think that we are indeed on a slippery slope already. I am not at all fond of the Patriot Act and feel that it, eventually will be ripe for abuse. Just as the government has abused the RICO act on a regular basis.

However relative to terrorism; the 64 thousand dollar question is…what the heck are we supposed to do?

51

JS,

You ducked the question. The issue wasn’t whether such buildings should be kept secure, but really, if profiling should be used to segregate those appearing muslim for additional screening before entry.

So, every time US born Mohammed tries to renew his license, borrow a book at the library, pay a parking fine downtown or otherwise utilize services for upstanding citizens like himself, he gets the rubber glove up the ass strip search, where as those who don’t appear muslim don’t get this pleasure.

Is this appropriate? It is very similar to the concept of profiling at the airport, for special search procedures… isn’t it?

–

Zeb,

Good points. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with airport screening, but I am very concerned about liberties being curtailed for law abiding citizens. Where is the balance point?

52

[quote]Oddjob wrote:
Doing a security check on a muslim guy wearing a trenchcoat is not.
[/quote]

How would you know he’s a muslim?

53

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As to terrorism, I think that we are indeed on a slippery slope already. I am not at all fond of the Patriot Act and feel that it, eventually will be ripe for abuse. Just as the government has abused the RICO act on a regular basis.

However relative to terrorism; the 64 thousand dollar question is…what the heck are we supposed to do?[/quote]

I agree. There are a lot of aspects of the Patriot Act that I disagree with. A very delicate balance must be struck between security and safety and preserving liberty.

Ben Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

They are pretty words and to a large extent true. But a lot harder to live by and base policy on.

54

They are very easy words to live by. It takes courage and the ability to accept risk…

55

[quote]vroom wrote:
JS,

You ducked the question. The issue wasn’t whether such buildings should be kept secure, but really, if profiling should be used to segregate those appearing muslim for additional screening before entry.

So, every time US born Mohammed tries to renew his license, borrow a book at the library, pay a parking fine downtown or otherwise utilize services for upstanding citizens like himself, he gets the rubber glove up the ass strip search, where as those who don’t appear muslim don’t get this pleasure.

Is this appropriate? It is very similar to the concept of profiling at the airport, for special search procedures… isn’t it?

–

Zeb,

Good points. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with airport screening, but I am very concerned about liberties being curtailed for law abiding citizens. Where is the balance point?[/quote]

I didn’t duck the question. It’s a legitimate issue and question for buildings that already go to the security measures of airports with metal detectors, etc… If my local library down the street has no security to speak of and no plans for any anytime soon, there’s no reason why Muslims should be singled out.

No one considers that particular place compelling enough for any terrorists to attack and no enhanced measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the inhabitants to a greater degree. Greater security exists in places that are perceived to be at a higher risk of terrorist activy or other violent activty.

At her old law firm, my sister worked in the CitiGroups building in NYC. It was one of the key terrorist targets according to information the government uncovered. The security was quite high-metal detectors, badges, guests had to sign in, etc… Many things I’m sure I don’t know about. You better believe I think that it’s just as legitimate for the security team to focus more heavily on Muslims in this situation as at the airport.

56

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

As to terrorism, I think that we are indeed on a slippery slope already. I am not at all fond of the Patriot Act and feel that it, eventually will be ripe for abuse. Just as the government has abused the RICO act on a regular basis.

However relative to terrorism; the 64 thousand dollar question is…what the heck are we supposed to do?

I agree. There are a lot of aspects of the Patriot Act that I disagree with. A very delicate balance must be struck between security and safety and preserving liberty.

Ben Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

They are pretty words and to a large extent true. But a lot harder to live by and base policy on.
[/quote]

What ‘aspects’ of the Patriot Act don’t you agree with. You’ve basically taken a stance on everyone should be searched everywhere. You have no problem with that. That we should give up certain liberties for the chance of more security? Show me some instance where we are being proactive instead of reactive and possibly we’ve hit on something here.

Right now it’s all for political correctness with little effect on actual national security.

57

Just to piss everyone off:

Let them on the plane. Them blowing up planes is probably the least dangerous things they could do.

The truth is, and I doubt that anyone is going to say that on national american television soon is that you cannot stop terror attacks by tightened security.

If druglords can smuggle in tons of drugs each year and gazillions of mexicans can make it over the american border terrorists can do the same thing. I do not know how many containers arrive in America each day but I do know that 90% are not even screened (as if that would change anything).

If I were so inclined I could fly to the US with let?s say 50000$ and kill a few hundred people and so could every one of you.

Let?s play terrorist for a moment: They search me on airplanes? I?ll derail a train, preferably on or before a bridge. There are about 5-10 main knots where gas,water and internet for manhattan could be shut down? Let?s find out where they are and blow them up. Let us get a job at Coca Cola or Pepsi, preferably at production level and poison a few thousand bottles. Or the water supply. Or blood pressure drugs. Or baby food.

Racial profiling at airports is a nonissue because these searches are only implemented to cover the administrations ass. All that could be achieved is to inspire terrorists to find new targets, because frankly that whole airplane thing is sooooo 70?s and 80?s.

58

[quote]ZEB wrote:

However relative to terrorism; the 64 thousand dollar question is…what the heck are we supposed to do?[/quote]

We need to start by controlling our borders. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Republican/Bush supporter, but the way he has (or more accurately; has not) handled border security completely pisses me off. As long as a terrorist can walk across the border at will, we will never be safe.

59

JS,

Okay, and again, I’m really just probing on the issue.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that for the time being it is appropriate for Muslim American’s to be second class citizens whenever they are accessing public resources (assuming a resource is deemed at possible risk in some way).

Why don’t we go a step further then? Why don’t we gather up all US Muslims and ship them off to GITMO, where you can be sure that everyone else will be protected from any of their actions? This would increase safety as well. Who cares if it is a bit inconvenient to some innocent folks, right?

Okay, sure, I know most people will agree that this would be way too much. It would be going too far. What if terrorists were to have another large successful strike? Who would be willing to stand up AFTER that in order to defend US Muslims living in America?

There is danger in singling out segments of society for seperate treatment. Imagine the nation in a situation where everyone has national ID cards, which can be machine read, identifying you as a Muslim anywhere you go, after a few more terrorist strikes on American soil. Wouldn’t that be a fine world to live in.

I say screen every package. Screen all luggage. Probe every person. Make the lines and waits even longer. Inconvenience everyone across the board and incur more expense. Get the same level of safety, or better, but try to find ways to do it without saying it is okay to make a subclass of citizens. You’ve had subclasses of citizens in the past…

60

[quote]vroom wrote:
They are pretty words and to a large extent true. But a lot harder to live by and base policy on.

They are very easy words to live by. It takes courage and the ability to accept risk…[/quote]

The courage and responsibility to make bad choices and put safety and security at a low premium instead to striking a balance.