Cam42 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 10 2005, 10:38 AM']Then why respond with 'It's still illegal'? Did I say it absolutely wasn't? I raised valid questions and suggested if it was currently illegal, then we should change the laws. Your response was thematically irrelevant to my post. You were responding to what wasn't there and I questioned you about it. Kick back and relax. I wasn't challenging your intelligence. [right][snapback]680111[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 10 2005, 11:43 AM']Excellent question. Societies always have a tension between individual liberties and group liberties. National security is security for the National Government. How about the security of the general populace to use Mass Transit with as little risk as possible? We have to sacrifice some individual freedoms for the betterment of the group. We are not only a group of individuals, but are organically connected and have to allow a certain amount of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the greater good. There can be tyranny of the minority just as there can be tyranny of the majority. [right][snapback]680126[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I understand the concept, but when is it too much? How do we define the point when the benefit of the greater good no longer outweighs the self-sacrifice? Is there no limit? I feel like we are giving up too many civil liberties in the name of national security. It almost seems like that term is thrown around to excuse political abuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Aug 10 2005, 11:50 AM']Isn't it? [right][snapback]680138[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It is and should remain that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Aug 10 2005, 06:43 AM']Fine, but that is not what you said. You said: That assumes that the Patriot Act existed and was not enforced PRIOR to 9/11. That simply is not the case. Had you said the 9/11 incident most likely wouldn't have happened had those two been IN FORCE. But you used it as a reason to defame the leadership of the country and cast blame.....no way. [right][snapback]679934[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Very much true. My words jumbled in my mouth and came out the wrong way. Sorry for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Discrimination is not a bad thing, it's a process like any other. Immoderate dsicrimination is bad, unjust discrimination is bad. One may not just disciminate against, but also between. Racial profiling discriminates between likely and unlikely (or ridiculously improbable) targets. We all profile. Profiling is common sense; profiling works. Example that everyone will feel comfortable with (because we all discriminate): if the KKK has threatened to blow up a bomb in a certain area, are we going to search 55 year old black women, or are we going to concentrate on white males and to a lesser degree, white females? Hopefully, in a sane society, we will do the latter. Why? Because there are, as one opponent of racial profiling pointed out, the percentage is so small. Yes, we will search plenty of innocent white people, but if we bypass some likely targets in favor of searching unlikelies to make sure we don't offend innocent white guys in Caterpillar hats chewing Red Man, we're likely to make some widows and orphans out of our supposed compassion. Most people are basing their decision against racial profiling on the media. I am sorry to break it to you, but the media is not in the business of telling the truth. They are in the business of getting ratings. I have personal experience in anti-terrorism, in counter terrorism, mostly in dealing with response to terrorism. I'm the guy who goes in after the primary attack, and I'm supposed to be on the lookout for the secondary, all the while treating the victims and securing the scene. If there is a large scale attack in my city while I'm on duty, I stand a very good chance of being killed in a long or short term manner. I know things from first hand experience and from training. I deal with things on a tactical level, not the political. The leaders of groups giving press conferences on how we're going to protect ourselves against terrorists are playing political games. The every five people search is so outlandishly stupid that I firmly believe it won't actually be followed by those on the front lines. If it is, I would strongly advise against travel in the areas where it it, because it's easy to mark off what number you are in line. To return to the percentqage issue: There are enough members of Al Qaida alone to sustain a significant guerilla war with the United States. In the US, there are active cells. Their bomb materials have been discovered in New York. And guess what, it wasn't in a place occupied by white protestants. Big shocker. I'm willing to embarass and inconvenience people to keep from having non-combatants blown to hell. The most children I've seen shot at one time is five. And that's just shot. That's not burned (that would be one. The result of a domestic dispute), stabbed (one), poisoned (0), suffocated (1). That's plenty for me, and anyone who votes down racial profiling, especially without some in depth non-media influenced studying, should be FORCED to go to the next attack and clean up the blood of the innocent. Then, should it happen again, they should be FORCED to go to the families of dead emergency workers and explain why they thought the feelings of some people were more important than the lives of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 I'd like to say this: Although most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists in this day (we are not talking historically here) are Muslim. To search an old Grandma and young girls while watching Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 waltz right through security simply because they weren't the 100th person to go through the airport. Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual events from history. Do you remember? 1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot by... a. Superman b. Jay Leno c. Harry Potter d. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by... a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by... a. Lost Norwegians b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by... a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male extremists mostley between the ages of 17 and 40 5. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by... a. A pizza delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male extremists mostely between the ages of 17 and 40 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by... a. The Smurfs b. Davy Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male extremists mostley between the ages of 17 and 40 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and the U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by... a. Captian Kidd c. Charles Lindberg d. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostely between the ages of 17 and 40 8. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed by... a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth Fairy c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by... a. Richard Simmons b. Johnney Cash c. Michael Jorden d. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 10. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by... a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton c. Tom Cruise d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11. On 9/11/01, four planes were hijacked: two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the U.S. Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands were killed by... a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Bono d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Alfghanistan against... a. Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Paerl was kidnapped and murdered by... a. Bonnie and Clyde b. Captian Kangaroo c. Billy Grahm d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 NOPE! I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? SO! To ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the president's security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Govener Joe Foss, but leave Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves--if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award-winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does." AND GUESS WHO JUST BOMBED LONDON? Racial profiling is necessary. It's not taking away from an individual's freedom, unlike the "patriot" act. But that's another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Yes ,racial profiling is necassary because you dont see many non muslims as terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 [quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 11 2005, 01:31 PM']I'd like to say this: Although most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists in this day (we are not talking historically here) are Muslim. To search an old Grandma and young girls while watching Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 waltz right through security simply because they weren't the 100th person to go through the airport. Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual events from history. Do you remember? 1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot by... a. Superman b. Jay Leno c. Harry Potter d. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by... a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by... a. Lost Norwegians b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by... a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male extremists mostley between the ages of 17 and 40 5. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by... a. A pizza delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male extremists mostely between the ages of 17 and 40 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by... a. The Smurfs b. Davy Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male extremists mostley between the ages of 17 and 40 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and the U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by... a. Captian Kidd c. Charles Lindberg d. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostely between the ages of 17 and 40 8. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed by... a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth Fairy c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by... a. Richard Simmons b. Johnney Cash c. Michael Jorden d. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 10. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by... a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton c. Tom Cruise d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11. On 9/11/01, four planes were hijacked: two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the U.S. Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands were killed by... a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Bono d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Alfghanistan against... a. Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Paerl was kidnapped and murdered by... a. Bonnie and Clyde b. Captian Kangaroo c. Billy Grahm d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 NOPE! I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? SO! To ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the president's security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Govener Joe Foss, but leave Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves--if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award-winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does." AND GUESS WHO JUST BOMBED LONDON? Racial profiling is necessary. It's not taking away from an individual's freedom, unlike the "patriot" act. But that's another topic. [right][snapback]682088[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LOL! Dead on! And we mustn't forget that not only is this profiling racially insensitive, it's ageist and sexist as well! It promotes the hatefual stereotype that males and younger people are intrinsically more prone to terrorism and violence! It ignores the fact that most males of this age are actually law-abiding citizens. As a male between the ages of 17-40, I find this practice extremely insensitive and degrading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Profiling is neccesary. Racial profiling is a subset, when race is applicable to the profile. If there is a conspiracy amongst hawaiian shirt wearers, we will be looking for hawaiian shirt wearers. The whole racial profiling issue was cooked up by the media and assorted narrow minded extremists to inflame people, cloud the issue and gain ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Carrie' date='Aug 4 2005, 09:32 AM']I don't think racial profiling is appropriate. The difference between your scenario and what is actually going on is that the police are not searching for one man who did one particular crime. They're not "keeping an eye out" like you said but rather being quite invasive. They are proposing profiling all people of a certain background because [b]some[/b] people of that background committed terrible crimes. Terrorists are not only of Middle Eastern backgrounds. They're the ones we associate with terrorism most because of recent history, but they are certainly not the only ones. [right][snapback]671557[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Another difference in his example and the current situation is that in the example, a crime was committed, whereas in the current situation, searches would be conducted in the spirit of 'preventing' as possible crime. that is one heck of a hypothesis to use in justifying walking around and checking people's bags. The correct ananlogy to the example would be: "Since a white man robbed the bank, we will now search all white men who wish to enter any banks in the city, just in case they might want to rob it." And I would disagree with this tactic. __________________________________ Oh, and I got 12 out of 13 on that test --- not bad eh? I think the main difference lies in searching for a criminal, based on a description that includes the criminal's race, and searching for a potential criminal based on the assumption that a crime might be committed. After the crime occurs - profile all you need to catch the perpetrator. If the crime was not committed, you cannot 'assume' that a certain group (based on age, race and sex) might intend to commit a crime and use this as a justification to intrude on people's privacy. Common sense will tell you to take note of certain groups - sure, human nature cannot be prevented at this level. But the difference stems from 'actions' taken thereof. Based on race alone, no specific actions may be taken (in my opinion), but coupled with suspicious behavior (long coat during summer), then you might have something. The race might have brougt your attention to the individual, but the suspicious behavior is the trigger that can prompt a search or questions. Based on the law that may be proposed, as i understand it, the aspect of suspicious behavior need no longer to be an element to justify searches? Race , age and sex would be suffficient - I would not support such a law. Why don't we ask muslims to wear a blue arm band on their left arms to make them eaiser to spot then? Or for additional safety, designate a certain sections on buses or subway cars just for muslims - we could also give them their own water fountains, you never know if one of them might want to poison the water. Sound good? Edited August 12, 2005 by Didacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 That's not analogous, either. We are not talking about isolated incidents or individual actions. We are talking about a united group of people who overwhelmingly share a certain characteristic. I gave an analogous situation. We are not talking about a loss of money or property, we are talking about a significant loss of life. We are dealing with an insurgent force, a military entity. This is not ordinary criminal activity, it's war, and war is approached in a different manner. Counter-terrorism, not counter-crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Not crime, but war, and war is different, and plyas with a different set of rules. Are you serious? The battle field on american soil is not divided into two camps, it intermingled within the citizenry of the US. Last I looked, this was not a civil war - yet. How many white men killed their wives in the US last year? Did you know that the number one cause of death of pregnant women in the US is murder? SFD!!! We better start profiling married men (those who married women, those who married other men are ok). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Didacus, We DO profile married men (and women). That's the general idea between certain domestic abuse laws. Co-habitators (married and un-married) are treated differently than the visiting boyfriend when a complaint is made. The standard to arrest is much lower. Try another example because you have hit on a key point. We are trying to use an identifying characteristic when applying limited resources. A lot of the discussion is over mis-perceptions of what 'racial' profiling is. The searches are being done to anyone on a random basis. It's not doing a more detailed or stringent search on certain groups, it adding certain characteristics to that get selected for the Same Search. Properly utilized profiling would decrease the selection of certain groups that statistically have a lower level of risk. ie: elderly women, young children; etc. I should have a higher chance of being searched than my mother, since I am a male between 15 and 50, regardless of my race. It also seems infrequent that Hispanics have been terrorists. I would think an ederly Mexican woman traveling to the US would never be searched. It's applying common sense and making rules that also protect rights. There is a balance and a middle road. It's not prudent to make the exception the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:21 AM']Another difference in his example and the current situation is that in the example, a crime was committed, whereas in the current situation, searches would be conducted in the spirit of 'preventing' as possible crime. that is one heck of a hypothesis to use in justifying walking around and checking people's bags. The correct ananlogy to the example would be: "Since a white man robbed the bank, we will now search all white men who wish to enter any banks in the city, just in case they might want to rob it." And I would disagree with this tactic. __________________________________ Oh, and I got 12 out of 13 on that test --- not bad eh? I think the main difference lies in searching for a criminal, based on a description that includes the criminal's race, and searching for a potential criminal based on the assumption that a crime might be committed. After the crime occurs - profile all you need to catch the perpetrator. If the crime was not committed, you cannot 'assume' that a certain group (based on age, race and sex) might intend to commit a crime and use this as a justification to intrude on people's privacy. Common sense will tell you to take note of certain groups - sure, human nature cannot be prevented at this level. But the difference stems from 'actions' taken thereof. Based on race alone, no specific actions may be taken (in my opinion), but coupled with suspicious behavior (long coat during summer), then you might have something. The race might have brougt your attention to the individual, but the suspicious behavior is the trigger that can prompt a search or questions. Based on the law that may be proposed, as i understand it, the aspect of suspicious behavior need no longer to be an element to justify searches? Race , age and sex would be suffficient - I would not support such a law. Why don't we ask muslims to wear a blue arm band on their left arms to make them eaiser to spot then? Or for additional safety, designate a certain sections on buses or subway cars just for muslims - we could also give them their own water fountains, you never know if one of them might want to poison the water. Sound good? [right][snapback]683110[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I agree with you 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:02 AM']Didacus, We DO profile married men (and women). [snip] [/quote] i was not aware of this fact - Canadien poking his nose in American opinions here. My apologies... [quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:02 AM']Try another example because you have hit on a key point. We are trying to use an identifying characteristic when applying limited resources. [snip][right][snapback]683178[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please specify which concept you think I should elaborate? Another example than married woman/men... hmmmm.... Let me... let me see... Should teenagers be profiled becasue they are the main sources of vandalism in the cities? Random searches of potential vandals would be a deterrant, wouldn't it? I would think twice about carying a can of spray paint if i knew I might be searched on the subway. let's see... another example... another example.... Did you know 100% of people obtaining abortions are women! Maybe the Cahtolic church should start profiling woman as potential 'mortal sinners' and forced the sacraments on them? And abortions casue more deaths in the US on a monthly basis than all terrorists actions in the past 10 years combined! Where is the urgency here? Where should we focus our efforts? Let's prioritize here people! Well, lets concentrate where the greatest threat and loss of life occurs - don't you agree. Power to the church - let them clean up and save the lives and profiling will be the key! I'm all out of examples now... get back if I think of any other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now