Racial Profiling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

No, I don’t think that everyone should be searched everywhere. I think that it’s legitimate to take greater precautions against individuals who have a greater likelihood of being involved in terrorism (through the unfortuante fact of belonging to a an ethnic or religous group) in government and private businesses that deem it necessary to and already employ significant security protocols.

As far as the Patriot Act, I think it’s too sweeping. The government has too much power to access to medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow and so much else without establishing probable cause. One of my biggest problems is that the government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that any search they seek to do related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

They do not have to show any proof or show whatsoever as to HOW it is related or why they suspect an individual or group of being related to terrorist activity. The just need assert that they ARE, and the judge must rubber stamp it.

The potential for abuse is just so high. It’s so sweeping, and the likelihood that the administration (whatever the political affliliaton is in office at the time) will use their enhanced powers of search and seizure not to seek information related to terrorism but to further their agenda in some way or discredit the oppostion does not sit well with me.

62

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

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

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.

[/quote]

I agree with that. However effective our security is in the airports and otherwise, it becomes a moot point if anyone can just walk across the Mexican border.

63

Vroom, let me ask you a question. Do your think enhanced security checks of a particular group at airports enhances our security in any way? Forget about rights or liberty, just for this one second (obviously this can’t be overlooked when considering the entire situation), and tell what you think of it from a security standpoint.

64

Everything you dislike about the Patriot Act is already in place in this country. You don’t think right now, with no provocation, that if they saw fit, the gov’t could get that info. Look at the past abuses by the FBI,CIA,IRS…etc

Believe it or not this means absolutely nothing to the average American Joe. Yes–potentially–if your activities fall into certain catagories, this would make gathering this info a little easier and by definition legal, but it has little carry-over to the general public.

We need more covert, deeply underground individuals to do the work that will in the long run have the most value and potential for real National Security. Checking out what books people check out of the library is of little concern to me.

This is where my problem lies. We are doing all these ‘things’ in the name of security and spending billions for a few cents of actual security. It’s just all to look good. To look like we are doing something. It is all so–close the barn door after the cows get out–

The Patriot Act is sweeping. It just really means so little

65

JS,

I’m not arguing that safety and security should be ignored. That isn’t what I’m saying at all!

At the same time, with all the new rules and regulations concening what can or can not be brought on to an airplane, is profiling going to make a difference?

Part of being free is to accept risks. We accept them every day, in situations that are unrelated to terrorism. Due to fear, terrorism has become some special situation, fear of which allows justification of anything.

It takes courage to stand up in the face of fear and not let it influence you in terms of finding ways to combat terrorism without creating a subclass of citizen.

Creating the subclass of citizen is the easy way. Giving up liberties is the easy way. The fact these solutions are cheap and probably easy does not mean they are the best solutions.

The basic concept behind the US was that “all men are created equal”. You should try to find solutions that uphold that basic concept. They might be more expensive and more inconvenient to the general populace. However, look at the cost of the war in Iraq. Tell me we can’t afford to spend more instead of creating subclasses of citizens.

I think people are too quick to surrender either their own or especially the liberties of others in their urgent desire to feel protected from the threat of terrorism.

Too bad the government itself went to great lengths to promote this level of concern in the populace. Fear is a lever, and it is being pulled pretty hard these days.

66

On what sasquatch wrote:

Yes-but before when those things were done it wasn’t legal. Making it legal makes it that much easier. I agree with you; the Patriot Act is sweeping and has the potential to erode our civil liberities and right to privacy without actually really being effective.

I’ve said many times that I think liberty must be balanced against the need for security. But the Patriot Act doesn’t do this well. So, we are sacrificing liberty without actually gaining any measure of safety. Overall bad.

67

Good discussion on this thread. I’m headed out for the day. But I’ll check back on it later.

68

JS,

Good question. What is it that we don’t do in our regular checks that we can do in these enhanced screenings?

We’ve got metal detectors, x-ray checks of luggage, identification checks, verbal questioning and bomb sniffing dogs already right?

What increased security do we actually achieve by pulling people into some other process based on appearance of being Muslim?

Is it just so that everyone else at the checkpoint who witnesses the action will feel more secure? If that is all it is for, then damn, I’d certainly think it was wrong.

So, I’m not aware of how these security checks will enhance security. Anyone who wants to enlighten me, feel free. There certainly could be extra things that are worth checking that don’t occur to me, especially since I’m not trying to find my past any of the current security measures.

69

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actually, to be honest, unless I have you mistaken with someone else, you do often show thought and analysis in your posts.

Yes - that’s why I chided you for “Hahahahahaha”. There is no ‘thought’ or ‘analysis’ in “Hahahaha” - just a smug, weak reply.

Thanks for the insults, but something was funny. Instincts don’t always serve us very well in the modern world…

instinct (2)a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

Nor does reason.[/quote]

FYI, what is being discussed is a heuristic, not instinct. Heuristics have their place, but in this case it is ridiculous; the “search field” is narrowed too much.

70

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
On what sasquatch wrote:

Yes-but before when those things were done it wasn’t legal. Making it legal makes it that much easier. I agree with you; the Patriot Act is sweeping and has the potential to erode our civil liberities and right to privacy without actually really being effective.

I’ve said many times that I think liberty must be balanced against the need for security. But the Patriot Act doesn’t do this well. So, we are sacrificing liberty without actually gaining any measure of safety. Overall bad.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I was saying. We are just saying it differently. Just input the economic value instead of liberty into your equation and that is my stance. I just don’t believe that on an actual individual basis we are giving up true liberties per th P>A.

I do, however, think that we are not gaining any appreciable security through ANY of our current measures! It’s all so that on reelection, they can say “Hey look at what I’ve done/supported to enhance your safety.”
Vote for me.

71

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

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

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.

[/quote]

no matter what happen, you will never be safe. Get over it, that’s life.

72

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actually, to be honest, unless I have you mistaken with someone else, you do often show thought and analysis in your posts.

Yes - that’s why I chided you for “Hahahahahaha”. There is no ‘thought’ or ‘analysis’ in “Hahahaha” - just a smug, weak reply.

Thanks for the insults, but something was funny. Instincts don’t always serve us very well in the modern world…

instinct (2)a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

Nor does reason.

FYI, what is being discussed is a heuristic, not instinct. Heuristics have their place, but in this case it is ridiculous; the “search field” is narrowed too much.[/quote]

TSB

73

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
no matter what happen, you will never be safe. Get over it, that’s life.[/quote]

I realize we can never be totally safe & free at the same time. However, one of the responsibilies of the federal gov’t, as spelled out in the Constitution, is the security of our borders. At which they have been a complete & utter failure. If we had secure borders, our risk from terrorist attack would decrease an order of magnitude. IMO

74

[quote]orion wrote:
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. [/quote]

This is an outstanding post!

75

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

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

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.

[/quote]

As most know I too am a strong Bush supporter. However, I totally agree with your accurate assemssment.

76

Let me apologize up front, this post is gonna rant and go in a few different directions… When you have people(male muslim extremists typically age 17-40) willing to die for their cause you have to level the playing field by any reasonable means necessary. Obviously rounding up every male muslim and throwing them in camps like the U.S. did in WWII is ridiculously out of the question.

The fact of the matter is that racial profiling in this new age of terrorism is a necessary evil. Morally and ethically racial profiling might be wrong, but in order to protect a free society such as ours law enforcement may have to push the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong.

The problem we have is that you have the liberal left in this country who just wants to appease the agressor or apologize for whatever we Americans did to anger these TERRORISTS. Let me tell you from first hand experience as being in law enforcement now and taking place in special operations in the Balkans during the late 90’s, until there is a complete muslim run world these terrorists are not going to stop killing.

I’m not saying all male muslims are bad, hell 99.9% are not bad. It’s the extremist .1% that we are looking for, and frankly if you have nothing to hide profiling is no more of a nuissance than added security measures at the airport. Since 9/11 I have been stopped for additional screening 3 of my 6 flights, carrying my badge, my gun and my authorization from the state and I was still screened from head to toe.

Did it bother me? Not in the least, I had nothing to hide and realized it was only making air travel safer. The problem is the government is trying to fight on an unlevel playing field, we are fighting people hell bent on killing us and our way of life. These people acquire student visas at alarming rates, come over here for half a semester of college and disappear into the woodwork surfacing only to commit heinous crimes on the country that gave them this visa and this opportunity to “LEARN”.

I have personally pulled expired student ID from 3 muslim males of egyptian descent. When I contacted INS on the status of these males I was told to hold them, there visas expired and they were on a final deportation list due to links to terrorist cells. I know what I am saying is never gonna get though to the hard core civil rights activist or michael moore leftist.

I am a firm believer in our constitutional rights as Americans otherwise I wouldn’t have served this country for 6 plus years, the problem is when the lines are blurred and the same protection we are offered is offered to enemy combatants detained in cuba and iraq. It is not possible for the common person to understand what is going on in either of these places.

One minute you have these terrorists trying to kill you on the battlefield and the next they have more rights than the people guarding them in these prisons. Certain techniques designed to make these TERRORISTS uncomfortable are necessary to stop the death of tens of hundreds of innocent people. If you ask the Moore left or ACLU though this TERRORISTS comfort and rights are more important than the lives of those about to be lost through withheld information.

The fact of the matter is that these killers issue “fatwas” against Americans around the world, the same people the Michael Moore left and ACLU are trying to protect and apologize to would kill them in half a heartbeat if they had the opportunity. We are not dealing with normal everyday people here, this hate is pounded in to their heads from the time they learn to walk and talk and by the time they are 17 they hate you “the infidel” enough to strap C4 explosive laced with nails, screws and whatever else to their body and blow themselves up on the off chance one of them may take out 1 or more “infidels”.

The problem with alot of people in this country is they are way to damn sensitive, get thicker skin, get over it, if it doesn’t kill you it only makes you stronger. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard one of my first sergeants say if it doesn’t kill you it will only make you stronger I would be rich.

I think the problem with our country is that most people don’t serve in the military, if they did all this sensitivity crap would take a backseat. I’m done, I know I ranted and shot off in several different directions, but hey much like the left I did apologize up front. Even if I did offend you I apologized so now you can’t get mad and flame me.

Oh yeah I almost forgot, racial profiling. One last thing to say about it, quit your damn crying and get over it.

77

[quote]Morally and ethically racial profiling might be wrong, but in order to protect a free society such as ours law enforcement may have to push the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong.

The problem we have is that you have the liberal left in this country who just wants to appease the agressor or apologize for whatever we Americans did to anger these TERRORISTS.[/quote]

Snipe,

You are doing what a lot of republicans do. You are confusing different issues because of your hatred for liberal viewpoints.

Your second paragraph above has nothing to do with anything being discussed, really, except it vents against liberals and may in some way justify actions against US citizens, who are not in fact terrorists.

I’m often called a liberal, but I certainly oppose appeasement. I do think things can be done to help slow the recruitment of new terrorists, but I certainly am not talking about “apologizing” as a means to achieve it. Get past the “talking points” if you can.

Anyway, your first paragraph is very interesting. My argument is that it takes courage to fight against committing such wrongs in the face of fear – such as the risk of terrorist attacks.

Your statement goes all the way back to an earlier inquiry about moral relativism. Is there a defined “right and wrong” and republicans are simply allowed to commit wrong when they feel it is justified?

Why then are liberals often decried as moral relativists…?

Anyway, certainly not trying to blast you or anything, you are certainly allowed to your opinion on the matter, as is anyone. Not trying to say otherwise – just to dig a little deeper around the edges and get a better understanding of the thinking involved.

78

[quote]vroom wrote:
Vroom, let me ask you a question. Do your think enhanced security checks of a particular group at airports enhances our security in any way?

JS,

Good question. What is it that we don’t do in our regular checks that we can do in these enhanced screenings?

We’ve got metal detectors, x-ray checks of luggage, identification checks, verbal questioning and bomb sniffing dogs already right?

What increased security do we actually achieve by pulling people into some other process based on appearance of being Muslim?

Is it just so that everyone else at the checkpoint who witnesses the action will feel more secure? If that is all it is for, then damn, I’d certainly think it was wrong.

So, I’m not aware of how these security checks will enhance security. Anyone who wants to enlighten me, feel free. There certainly could be extra things that are worth checking that don’t occur to me, especially since I’m not trying to find my past any of the current security measures.[/quote]

I don’t know Vroom. I think the effectiveness is a big part of it. And I don’t know enough about it to say whether it’s worth it. It could just be like a bandaid on a gunshot wound and/or simply an action that makes it look like terrorism is being combated when the measure really has no little effect on it.

The facts are that various terrorists dressed in traditional Muslim garb did get through security without any problems. Security was just lousy pre-911. I hope that improvements have been made that will ensure the likelihood of catching terrorists whatever their appearance.

Perhaps with current safeguards, they would have been caught without any special checks due to their appearance. If there’s reason to believe that racial profiling in no way makes us safer, then I think it should not be instituted. But, though I’m not as well-versed on this as other issues, if there’s appropriate reason to believe that it does help make us safer beyond what general enhanced security could accomplish, I think it is the right policy.

I don’t see it as a violation of rights. The unfortuante thing is that it has the potential to further inflame racial tensions. But so do any number of things. And another attack by a Muslim terrorist group would be even worse. Profiling may help prevent this.

79

On what sasquatch wrote:

Yes, exactly. I think economics are a part of it too. The Patriot Act is lousy because we’re spending a lot of money to provide a legal means that potentially infringes on our liberties and does very little to make us safer.

80

Vroom, how much courage are you gonna show in avoiding committing a “wrong” act when you are directly affected by terrorism? I’m not talking the WTC or something indirectly which affected all of America. I mean when you are almost killed, a loved one is directly affected, either killed or seriously injured.

I understand your viewpoint, but your courage in the face of terrorism is not going to prevent that nail laden C4 strapped homicide bomber from killing you and the people around you. We are always so worried about offending someone, oh no we can’t do that they may be offended. GET OVER IT!!

Is racial profiling going to kill anyone or cause any form of serious bodily injury? You don’t fight a war, i.e. a war on terror by not offending certain people or groups.