quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Look at the context in which respect was written in.

There's a big difference between acknowledging and respecting something that occurred in the past and allowing it to proliferate its negative effects by affecting an overcompensation in the present. That isn't respect, that's just being politically correct, which in reality is the opposite of respect, because it is a lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Today, my sister and my brother were supposed to go to Los Angeles from Toronto until the immigration officer noticed her place of birth was Tehran, Iran. From here, they brought my sister into an interrogation room where she waited a good hour until questions began. Ultimately, she missed her flight over studpid questions that could have been answered at the desk as she was boarding the flight,,, but no,, the immigration services finds it right to racially profile, and discriminate people based on where they were born as a precaution for weeding out what they consider terrorists. At some points,, the immigration officers couldnt even answer questions my sister gave them....they were completely dumbfounded and knew what they were participating in was wrong and unethical. What if my sister had to go to a wedding, or an important business meeting? A jamaican woman who even worked at the airport told us that it was something all Jamaicans had to go through as well. This is truly very inconsiderate on behalf of the American government....and in a way.... it disgusts me on an extreme level. There is so much anger in me right now that it is hard to phrase in words... and this is all due to the ignorance and prejudice that may people have to face. I would would thiink that racial discrimination executed on a federal level would have been a thing of the past, but sadly, we live in the year 2002 and this still occurs. What are your opinions on this? I would espescially like to see responses from the Americans on this board to the unjust racial profiling that has been issued in Airports this passed year on Koreans, Arabs, Iranians, south Asians and even some Europeans.

just say thanks that you weren't thrown in camps like the Japanese were in WWII... But, as a nation dedicated to survival first & foremost, you cant be too careful, & Tehran Iran has been a known exporter of terrorism in the past...

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians

quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My just say thanks that you weren't thrown in camps like the Japanese were in WWII... But, as a nation dedicated to survival first & foremost, you cant be too careful, & Tehran Iran has been a known exporter of terrorism in the past...

No im not going to say "thanks" becuase that isnt something that would happen in this day. Also.. tell me exactly what Iranians have done in the past... how are they the exporters of terrorism. Yes every country has terrorists... but the American media has a tendancy to utilize fear in its news broadcasting in order for their political agenda to take place. And with that said... there is no better place than the middle east to make them the enemy.. except Israel. First it was the Japanese/Germans...then Cuba and Russia... then Vietnam...China....now its the mid East. For fucks sake.. cant you see the trend....everyone is an "enemy" to yoour country

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

There are two valid points raised here:

1) Post Sept 11, airline security must be increased to prevent a similar event from happenning in the future.
2) We must ensure that an entire population of people are not targetted as a result of the actions of a very small few.

Reconciling these two points are undeniably difficult, as it really asks for a compromise between security and civil liberties. The question then must be which - if either - of the two goals are more important? Is it worth sacrificing civil liberties to improve national security? Is it worth preserving civil liberties at the expense of national security? Is the issue so evenly split into this dichotemic either/or situation?

Fundamentally, a nation has the right to thoroughly check those who enter its borders (so long as it is done in accordance with the UN human rights charter - not that the US pays much attention to what the UN thinks mind) and refuse entry to those individuals who they may deem "a risk". I see nothing wrong with this. In the times we live in, it would be wrong to consider national borders mere turnstiles that allow through anyone with a passport. I certainly wouldn't allow anyone into my country that I consider to be in any way a risk to its overall security. A nation has the right to thoroughly check anyone that enters its borders.

Does that mean that they have the right to detain an Iranian woman for no other reason than because she's Iranian? Theoretically, yes they do have the right (i.e. one of the premises of entering a country is that you abide by their national laws) but, at the same time, merely because some entity has the "right" to commit a certain action, it does not make this action in-and-of-itself "right" (for instance, I have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but it does not make this mode of action "right" in the moral sense). The US had every right to detain your sister Cyrus, but it does not mean they should have done so.

If the US Imigration Dept wishes to discriminate on the basis of race (and nothing else from the information you've given me) then, while they have the theoretical right to do so (a country is free to determine it's own immigration/temporary visa laws) I would argue, from a moral imperitive, that it is wrong to preclude the civil liberties of an entire race of people, for no other reason than their birth place. If there were a bomb shaped implement in your sisters bag then I may be able to understand, otherwise this incident is merely representative of the irrational, anti-terrorist paranoia sweeping the US at the moment.

If the US are so willing to disregard civil-liberties - the overriding premise of our human civilization - in favour of ridiculously strict security (for all - citizens of the US or not) then I agree with Stunt: even if no more bombs are exploded on US soil, the terroirsts are already winning.

Having said that, given the xenophobic tendencies of my PM, I wouldn't be suprised if Australia has similar legislation in place by the time parliament resumes next year.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade There are two valid points raised here: 1) Post Sept 11, airline security must be increased to prevent a similar event from happenning in the future. 2) We must ensure that an entire population of people are not targetted as a result of the actions of a very small few. Reconciling these two points are undeniably difficult, as it really asks for a compromise between security and civil liberties. The question then must be which - if either - of the two goals are more important? Is it worth sacrificing civil liberties to improve national security? Is it worth preserving civil liberties at the expense of national security? Is the issue so evenly split into this dichotemic either/or situation? Fundamentally, a nation has the right to thoroughly check those who enter its borders (so long as it is done in accordance with the UN human rights charter - not that the US pays much attention to what the UN thinks mind) and refuse entry to those individuals who they may deem "a risk". I see nothing wrong with this. In the times we live in, it would be wrong to consider national borders mere turnstiles that allow through anyone with a passport. I certainly wouldn't allow anyone into my country that I consider to be in any way a risk to its overall security. A nation has the right to thoroughly check anyone that enters its borders. Does that mean that they have the right to detain an Iranian woman for no other reason than because she's Iranian? Theoretically, yes they do have the right (i.e. one of the premises of entering a country is that you abide by their national laws) but, at the same time, merely because some entity has the "right" to commit a certain action, it does not make this action in-and-of-itself "right" (for instance, I have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but it does not make this mode of action "right" in the moral sense). The US had every right to detain your sister Cyrus, but it does not mean they should have done so. If the US Imigration Dept wishes to discriminate on the basis of race (and nothing else from the information you've given me) then, while they have the theoretical right to do so (a country is free to determine it's own immigration/temporary visa laws) I would argue, from a moral imperitive, that it is wrong to preclude the civil liberties of an entire race of people, for no other reason than their birth place. If there were a bomb shaped implement in your sisters bag then I may be able to understand, otherwise this incident is merely representative of the irrational, anti-terrorist paranoia sweeping the US at the moment. If the US are so willing to disregard civil-liberties - the overriding premise of our human civilization - in favour of ridiculously strict security (for all - citizens of the US or not) then I agree with Stunt: even if no more bombs are exploded on US soil, the terroirsts are already winning. Having said that, given the xenophobic tendencies of my PM, I wouldn't be suprised if Australia has similar legislation in place by the time parliament resumes next year.

Very well said Renegade.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

I concur.

But would it be so difficult to merely install X-ray-scanners in addition to those metal detectors? Surely, you're invading people's privacy with that (people could be concealing an unwanted pregnancy) but it would be easier and fairer then just selecting people at random or based on race or origin.

And if the technology isn't their to apply it in a cost-effective on such a large scale, then apply for government funding (which shouldn't be that difficult). It would be a visible enhancement to airport security, sending a positive message to the general public that they are improving security without suspending civil rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade it does not make this action in-and-of-itself "right" (for instance, I have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but it does not make this mode of action "right" in the moral sense).

In the USA, you do not have this right unless there is indeed a fire in the theatre. Otherwise if you do so, it is a crime.

quote:

If the US Imigration Dept wishes to discriminate on the basis of race (and nothing else from the information you've given me) then, while

In this certain case they are not 'racially' profiling, but are doing so nationally.

Considering that Iran is one of the three 'axis of evil' nations, the nations the USA government considers enemies of gravest threats to it's security. Then it is understandable if they would want to question every citizen of those nations entering their borders, or at least a large precentage of those nationals.

Cyrus wrote what terrorist-exproting has Iran done. And I could list a lot, but I won't do this now and simply says the USA as a government can say which countries it sees as enemies and which as friends. That is part of it's soverignthy. It might not always do this RIGHT like Renegade said, but it can do this as it choses, and it has chosen Iran as an enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King No im not going to say "thanks" becuase that isnt something that would happen in this day. Also.. tell me exactly what Iranians have done in the past... how are they the exporters of terrorism. Yes every country has terrorists... but the American media has a tendancy to utilize fear in its news broadcasting in order for their political agenda to take place. And with that said... there is no better place than the middle east to make them the enemy.. except Israel. First it was the Japanese/Germans...then Cuba and Russia... then Vietnam...China....now its the mid East. For fucks sake.. cant you see the trend....everyone is an "enemy" to yoour country

i think that you should perhaps research terrorism a little more before you go and acuse the US government of "picking" on the middle east. if you knew anything about the evolution of modern terrorism you might see the point of view i'm talking about..."exporters of terrorism". i'm not saying that racial profiling is justifiable under any circumstances, but the governments that we live in are forced to make tough desicions in order to protect our way of life. of course the middle east isn't the only terrorist producing nation, but i will say that under the circumstances and the repeated attacks by middle easterners not just on the US but around the world causes them to be put under a little closer watch. i think that the war against the germans and their allies the japanese is obviously legitimate yes? the genocide of people cannot be tolerated. Cuba and russia not only because of the communist way of life but the threat to NATIONAL SECURITY. now vietnam...i don't know how justified that is simply because it was an economic conflict. china similar to the russian problem...national security. and now the middle east as well.

quote:

just say thanks that you weren't thrown in camps like the Japanese were in WWII... But, as a nation dedicated to survival first & foremost, you cant be too careful, & Tehran Iran has been a known exporter of terrorism in the past...

i don't understand why the US is looked upon so badly for the internment of japanese civilians during the war...i'm not saying that it was ok, but it should at least be acknowledge that other nations in the world at the same time...for one japan that had similar if not worse marks on their cultures...ask some chinese TA's about the japaneses part in their country during WW2...i don't think japan has officially apologized?

no one is dissing anyone's ancestry background at checkpoints. The last time I checked, the terrorist attacks kill anyone in that area no matter what race, creed, or background.

___________________
When you start to criticize the times you live in, your time is over. ~Karl Lagerfeld

why should I be humiliated because I am treated like a criminal every time i go to the states? all this because a handful of men commited an idiocy, millions of arabs, black, indians, pakistani, anyone not white should suffer this tiresome questionning, arogant attitude, etc. well one thing for sure, i'm not gonna set foot there anymore ever till this hysterical craziness of regulation is gone...

burning down a house because of a few cockaroaches is not a solution.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

just read thru some of the stories, and points made so far and i hav to say im kinda sickened that this kind of thing still happens in this day and age. Why just because ur of a certain race make u more likely to be a terrorist? Bah! fuck America, and fuck george bush.

quote:

Originally posted by Busy Child Its life, get over it.

and u i must say, are one of the most arrogant persons i hav ever come across not that u'd care tho