|
Do you support racial profiling of Arabs/Muslims? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's nice, you'd probably feel right at home in Nazi Germany. |
Hahaha ... :haha: :haha: :haha: Shaolin, you made my day ;) Now I can go to sleep on a good note! :haha: :stongue:
EDIT: WOW ... 37 percent / 16 people support violation of the most important principle in the US Constitution? Hmmm, I guess Americans are really bored and scared of democracy, time to try out some dictatorship for fun.
After all, even this George W Bush quote says it all:
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator. " -- Washington, D.C.; December 18, 2002.
|
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
i don't believe these poll numbers are correct...
can everyone who voted "YES" to muslim profiling please state such in a reply in this thread...
That is...
those of you with more than 5 forum postings. :) |
|
|
| tubby |
Is this profiling statistically significant? Is the only factor considered that of race or religion?
I'm sure there are a lot of factors that would need to be considered, I used to get reasonably regular searches due to factors like age, travel patterns, history of working with explosives.
Slightly to one side of the race issue, my wife was once allowed through a UK citizen only queue at heathrow as we came off our flight at the same time as another from Jamaica. The immigration guy said that they would be searching every person off that flight for drugs, so let us through the wrong channel.
Is that wrong? Statistically there was an increased risk of drug carrying from that location? Is it racial?
The biggest problem with this is when it becomes only about race with no true science in the targetting, and i think it would be very easy for security to cross that line with current media trends. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not that I agree with you at all, but they way they go about it certainly isn't civil to say the least. If they're going to do it, they should atleast go about it in a dignified manner, which clearly isn't the case. By that logic, every black and hispanic guy should be hastled by the cops (which unfortunately happens pretty often). I also fail to see how there are "limited resources." Last time I checked, the bill of rights of kind of relevant to the Federal Branch too. I don't see how searches are warranted just because you have a certain ethnic make up or religious orientation. How is being Arab or Muslim probable cause? 19 out of 1.2 billion isn't exactly a high probability. |
What I mean by "limited resources" is that there are 300 million in this country and all could theoretically be possible "terrorists." In comparison, you have very few law enforcement officials to constantly monitor all 300 million people (which is a good thing). So, you have to allocate those officers to the most probable locations/people.
Again, I think racial profiling is horrible, however I don't see what alternatives there are besides increasing overall policing by a huge amount, or creating some sort of quota system so that no group is profiled.
Also, I just posted this in the CORe, but I don't think it's the actual 9/11 plane hijackers that are the cause of continued profiling. I think it's the constant threats from middle eastern groups proclaiming the war against the US is ongoing and promising continued terrorist attacks. If there weren't thousands of people in the middle east proclaiming "death to America," you would have no rationale for profiling here in the US.
--Also, I didn't vote. I'm not sure how clearly I've stated it, but I'm very torn with this issue. At heart and in principle I think it's wrong, however I don't know what alternatives we have. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
How is being Arab or Muslim probable cause? 19 out of 1.2 billion isn't exactly a high probability. |
Kind of a misleading statistic. Take the muslim/arab terrorists and put that over total terrorists. It would probably show the majority being muslim/arab. Let's hypothetically say it was a very high number, like 95%. If you could only search a limited number of people at an airport, it would be logical to target muslims/arabs.
Still, I think it's a bunch of B.S. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
What I mean by "limited resources" is that there are 300 million in this country and all could theoretically be possible "terrorists." In comparison, you have very few law enforcement officials to constantly monitor all 300 million people (which is a good thing). So, you have to allocate those officers to the most probable locations/people.
Again, I think racial profiling is horrible, however I don't see what alternatives there are besides increasing overall policing by a huge amount, or creating some sort of quota system so that no group is profiled. |
Wow  . You realize how much that sounds like proposing an Orwellian police state to deal with the 'problem', or atleast a very slippery slope?
I think I liked Groundhogboy's opinion on this which was along the lines of "I'd rather be blown up in terrorist attack than sacrifice liberty for real or percieved security."
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Also, I just posted this in the CORe, but I don't think it's the actual 9/11 plane hijackers that are the cause of continued profiling. I think it's the constant threats from middle eastern groups proclaiming the war against the US is ongoing and promising continued terrorist attacks. If there weren't thousands of people in the middle east proclaiming "death to America," you would have no rationale for profiling here in the US.
--Also, I didn't vote. I'm not sure how clearly I've stated it, but I'm very torn with this issue. At heart and in principle I think it's wrong, however I don't know what alternatives we have. |
Well, what could be the cause for that? Decades of state sponsored terrorism and puppet regimes in the Middle East doesn't sound like an unreasonable explanation. I fail to see how eigther is ethicaly, morally, or legally defensible. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Wow . You realize how much that sounds like proposing an Orwellian police state to deal with the 'problem', or atleast a very slippery slope?
I think I liked Groundhogboy's opinion on this which was along the lines of "I'd rather be blown up in terrorist attack than sacrifice liberty for real or percieved security." |
No, I agree that increasing policing is not the way I would go. However, I wouldn't just throw my arms up in the air and say "oh well, I'll just let someone blow me up in the name of freedom." Freedom doesn't mean much when you're dead.
| quote: |
Well, what could be the cause for that? Decades of state sponsored terrorism and puppet regimes in the Middle East doesn't sound like an unreasonable explanation. I fail to see how eigther is ethicaly, morally, or legally defensible. |
I think the cause is complex, but stateside the only issue is protecting civilians. How to stop the rage against the US is a complex issue and how that situation is resolved will be very difficult to find. That said, the government has the responsibility to deal with that situation as well as keeping its citizens safe. |
|
|
| Lilith |
Fear is a wonderful thing for keeping people in check, simply on a statistical sense its blown, way, way out of proportion.
In 2001, terrorists killed 2996 people in one fell swoop in a very big, flashy and photogenic way.
In slightly less exciting news in the USA in 2001 a total of 51,326 where as a result of violence-related, homicides, law enforcement and suicides. Which are more or less window dressing on the news unless its particually gruesome and certainly even then arent going to turn into a 6year saga of 'war'.
So in a particually bad year, 2001 there was if youre a statistic amongst those dead people around a 1 in 18, 1 in 17 chance of being the one killed by a madman in an aeroplane... as opposed to being killed by your run of the mill local madman next door, a cop, yourself, being beaten up in a pub car park somewhere by rednecks or your drug dealer.
Basically vehicles are pretty good compared to aeroplanes, youre a 11.7 in 100,000 chance of being smeared by something with wheels and a 1.0 in 100,000 chance of being killed by Angry Kebabs express flight to hell.
sourced it from the CDC website. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
No, I agree that increasing policing is not the way I would go. However, I wouldn't just throw my arms up in the air and say "oh well, I'll just let someone blow me up in the name of freedom." Freedom doesn't mean much when you're dead. |
Living in fear and/or sacrificing liberties and freedoms, that which makes America what it is, for real or percieved security doesn't sound like a wise decision eigther. Any temporary measures that are implemented must not undermine the very foundation of American life, or check and balances on the Goverment eigther. Like I said, it's a slipery slope.
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I think the cause is complex, but stateside the only issue is protecting civilians. How to stop the rage against the US is a complex issue and how that situation is resolved will be very difficult to find. That said, the government has the responsibility to deal with that situation as well as keeping its citizens safe. |
Correct. But it's doing the exact opposite at the moment. We, as citizens, also have the responsibility to keep the goverment under check and make it responsive to it's constituency. But that's a whole discussion on it's own that we could go on about forever. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Living in fear and/or sacrificing liberties and freedoms, that which makes America what it is, for real or percieved security doesn't sound like a wise decision eigther. Any temporary measures that are implemented must not undermine the very foundation of American life, or check and balances on the Goverment eigther. Like I said, it's a slipery slope. |
Exactly. They would destroy the very thing they are trying to protect. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Exactly. They would destroy the very thing they are trying to protect. |
And it means the terrorists/fundamentalists/other wackos win
BTW, Bosnians are Slavic Europeans, but are mostly Muslim. A lot of Central Asians (Uzbeks, Kazakhs and other Turkic tribes) don't look like typical Arab. Ditto on African Muslims south of Sahara Desert. Nevermind the Indian Muslims, Muslims in South East Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia) Heck, even some Iranians can pass for white people (Huns from Iran are direct ancestors of Germans to a degree)
So yeah. Have fun trying to filter out the possible terrorist through racial profiling. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
And it means the terrorists/fundamentalists/other wackos win
BTW, Bosnians are Slavic Europeans, but are mostly Muslim. A lot of Central Asians (Uzbeks, Kazakhs and other Turkic tribes) don't look like typical Arab. Ditto on African Muslims south of Sahara Desert. Nevermind the Indian Muslims, Muslims in South East Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia) Heck, even some Iranians can pass for white people (Huns from Iran are direct ancestors of Germans to a degree)
So yeah. Have fun trying to filter out the possible terrorist through racial profiling. |
True. Hence 'Arabs/Muslims' in the thread title. I guess I could have ommited the word 'racial', since Muslims aren't exactly an ethnicly homogenous group. |
|
|
|
|
