Democratic reasons? Like what? That you have the unalienable right to get on an airplane no matter who you are?

Last time I checked, that isn't a civil right.



Yeah, you believe that. I'm sure the Catholic nun, the little white old lady, is packing some C-4 in her purse.



Blah, blah, blah. You're willing to sacrifice people's lives to uphold this sacred value of "democracy" which you haven't defined. Some ideal of civil rights that are nonexistent?

They could do a lot better than they are, and I've already discussed that (even though you've neglected to read that).

I don't want it both ways. I want security improved. Part of that is racial and ethnic profiling, particularly based upon country of origin.

Senseless destruction. That's what it's all about.

I would certainly agree that Roosevelt shouldn't be lambasted for his decision. It was a different time, and I sincerely believe that his intentions were to do what he had to do for the safety of the citizens in this country. However, I do believe that it is a lesson to be learned from and that it should never be repeated. Learning from the past is history's greatest gift.

Capo, be it nature or nurture, I agree with DJ that all people are racist on some level. We tend to stereotype and generalize. It's not a good thing, but it is a reality.

9/11?

Let's talk about the various domestic terrorist cells uncovered, suicide bombings in London and Madrid, and a slew of other attacks on civilians over the past decade by Islamic terror.

Hey, I kind of started this, so let me say this: I really am middle of the road, politically speaking. I detest the "good old boy" racist mentality as much as I hate pandering to extreme Leftist Liberals.

I grew up in a VERY segregated East Bronx, where if you brought a black kid into my neighborhood, you'd get the same dirty look from an 85 year old woman as you would from a 20 year old male. However, like Capo, I've tried to distance myself from that mentality, while remaining close to some unfortunates who still think that way. It's not inherent, in my opinion, it's really the old nature vs. nurture, heredity vs. environment argument.

If your brought up around racism, you have to consider yourself lucky if you have the opportunity to get away from that kind of thinking. I know I do.

If by "We" you mean the civilised, sophisticated, educated Capitalist West, I agree. Once we're nurtured beyond childhood into wanting to serve the state, make money and retire with profit and so-called happiness, we tend to have been corrupted also into a dangerous, ruthless and quite insane state of mind which tends to think about others more than the self.

But yeah, that entire paragraph could probably be met with a really great, extensive, convincing argument such as "Blah blah blah".


It isn't, no. But I don't see how anybody could have the right or be in any position to judge who gets on a plane and who doesn't based solely on skin colour. Next you'll be saying, "Woah, he smells of curry, he's not getting on this fucking plane." (Save the rant about the racist tones in that, I'm aware of them and used them for a reason.)

I don't, actually. But I have as much reason to believe she doesn't as I believe the Arab sitting next to me doesn't. And I think that checking everyone makes it more systematic, fair, and less of a lottery. Contrary to what your pal Goldberg says, I can't "worry about [consequences] later". Goldberg, you and others are like a small unit of police who run from place A, where you're killing off Soviets, then rest in the shadows and get bored, and then rush to place B to kill off the Arabs. The kind who scream "WAR!" when you see a plane going into a building and then rush off without really thinking about it. Self-proclaimed moral upkeepers.

It's horseshit. And your "blah blah blah" sarcastic hostility and extremist intolerance is outright fucking annoying. The only reason I'm posting this is that if I didn't, you'd probably be stroking your cock saying, "I won! I won! He doesn't have an answer to my profound way of thinking!!!!"

Well I do, just so you know if you respond to this, but I shan't even bother typing it out.

Actually, no, let's say 9/11. I said "on a simple level" for a purpose. Don't fucking ignore things I deliberately put in there to guard against that kind of reply.

The article or poll does not state that one in four Muslims in the US supports suicide bombers. But it is written in such a way as to heighten or inflame our fears against Muslims.

Reading these posts, it is so surprising to me that they contain no reference to the US Constitution. Some of you need to read (or reread) my post above. Also, your posts do not contain any reference to due process, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or the 5th or 14th amendments to the US Constitution. That Constitution is not something we work around, or the provisions of which we skirt. In case you elect not to read my post above, let me reiterate: those who composed and ratified the US Constitution and its subsequent amendments feared government.

Alright, having just read Lead's original posts, and none of the replies, I think that guys thoughts are fucking ridiculous.

Here's a little antidote: my grandmother fell and broke her hip a few weeks prior to 9/11 (I know, I know, old lady breaks her hip, a bit of a humorous stereotype). So, then she had to get surgery on it. Now, my grandmother still works; She's 78, and refuses to retire, and I think that's great, seeing as its her choice. I don't think I'd make the same choice, but good for her. Part of her job involves a lot of traveling. So on one of the first few days after the 11th in which they began allotting commercial flights around the US, she had a plane to catch. Because of her hip she was in a wheelchair. And security stopped her, and did a thorough search for about a half hour. And I don't think a single member of my family blames the security. An old lady in a wheel chair at a time when terrorism threat is a possibility... It just makes sense to search her. I mean, an old lady is an easy decoy.

Not to mention the extreme racism implicated in this practice. If I were to meet Bernard Goldberg, I'd probably rape him. Right after asking him about some advice on my disproportional perspiration.

I'll bet raping an elderly fellow like Goldberg would hardly give you cause to even break a sweat, young man.

Speaking of Bernie, he calls himself a conservative, but imho, he's a moderate. He's pro abortion and stem cell research. He's actually a pretty bright fellow. I think you'd enjoy some of what he has to say, LLC.


"I don't feel I have to profile everyone, just my enemies. That's all."

Maybe so. But this passage just comes off really fucking arrogant.

"One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says."

Quotable?

And yet, as I've given examples (perhaps you should re-read mine), Constitutional rights can be suspended in dire times...

Except for Habeas Corpus, please cite that provision(s)of the US Constitution that permits Constitutional rights to be "suspended" and by whom.

Note that I said to re-read my post, not the Constitution...

Executive orders? I realize they aren't part of the Constitution, but they have superseded it. I mean, some of FDR's programs and measures (including #9066) were essentially beyond the reach of the necessary and proper clause, yet they were done through executive order. And if Martial Law is declared, if I'm not mistaken, "all bets are off," so to speak.

Either way, given the previous terrorist attacks, and also the overwhelming predisposition of certain ethnicities and countries of origin connected to terror, I'd say that's probable cause, at least in the case of airport security. I'm not saying a secret police. Not even illegal search and seizure. There is no right to travel, and therefore, I would think that airport security would certainly be subject to different measures than, for example, a typical traffic stop.

Only Jack Ryan can give out Executive Orders!

How about Harrison Ford?

FDR's programs did not violate the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

Your application of probable cause is also misplaced. To apply probable cause to racial profiling you have to establish that there is a probability or likelihood that each individual within the subject class is involved in planning to do harm. The fact that the September 11 hijackings were carried out by Arabs or Muslims does not make it probable that the 25 year old Arab graduate student getting on a plane in Kansas City is a terrorist.

And there is a Constitutional right to travel, guaranteed by the Interstate Commerce Clause. In fact, this right was critical in the Civil Rights movement as it was used to strike down racially discriminatory practices of restaurants and hotels because it inhibited the ability of Blacks to travel if they could not be provided food or lodging.

I re-read the original article posted. 85 year old american grandmas being searched in airports is such a big problem?

For all those going by statistics against young arab males, I want to ask: if you want to selectively remove certain groups from being scrutinized (at airport), what would be your decision on:

1) All American citizens
2) Muslim American citizens
3) Muslim American citizens of middle-eastern origin
4) Non-muslim citizens from friendly european countries
5) Muslim citizens belonging to those friendly countries above
6) All middle-east asian citizens
7) Non-muslims from a friendly Asian country
8) Muslims from a friendly asian country.
9) Women from anywhere.
10)All those who do not belong to any of the categories above.

Put R against an entry you want to remove from the scrutinized list.

Kudos Klydon. We need more erudite people like you. There is a paucity of knowledge about our Constitution, laws, and legal concepts among Americans. I'm glad that I have company on this Board when it comes to an understanding of Constitutional issues. It is frustrating to experience the alacrity with which some Americans regard the Constitution's provisions. I become very concerned when someone views executive orders as "supercedng" the Constitution. That betrays a mindset of which the Founding Fathers et al were quite wary.

As far as martial law goes, there is not any provision in the US Constitution for dispensing with any provisions of the US Constitution (except Habeas Corpus) regardless of the circumstances.

Forgive me for not being either a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer...obviously in such matters I'd defer to more educated, thoughtful posters.

That being said, I hope we're ready for this again:



Though I suspect even that won't wake some people up.

I liken this racial profiling business to getting checked for knives and drugs in a nightclub over here. They've started to introduce it. Just last night, in fact, my mate was searched very, very thoroughly on his way into the club. He looked like a "thug" more than he did a student, I suppose, and I suppose I often do too. But he got checked because of the way he looked last night.

There's another nightclub nearby that checks everyone. It means the queues are long and entry is slow, but I feel much safer and better walking into that place knowing everyone's been checked, not just people who "look" dangerous, which is easy to do and easy not to do.

It's not a case of me saying, "Well, look, I don't have anything on me so I don't see why I should be checked." It's a case of, if I want to gain entry into the club, I've got to go by their profiling system - and I'd prefer an all-encompassing one, or none at all, than a lottery based bias(however you wish to base it on "probability").

Like I said, I think that the system needs to be increased across the board.

But it's also painstakingly clear that there is a better chance that someone who is a Muslim/Arab is more likely to blow up the plane than the 85-year-old white grandma, so we shouldn't be blind to that either. Not saying don't check them both - wouldn't be prudent at this juncture - just saying to use your head.

Certainly, I would agree that the grandma is less likely to be a terrorist, but I also think that the overwhelming majority of young Arab or Muslim males travelling on airlines is doing so for work or pleasure. Fortunately, without racial profiling we haven't had a commercial flight blown up since 9/11 (knock on wood). I think that because of the security measures implemented after the attacks, we have deterred, if not thwarted, some attempts at terror. I honestly don't fly much and don't know enough about the airline industry to suggest what more can be done to maintain and improve vigilance.

I too am not a frequent flier, but I have seen the security at big airports like Dallas and Chicago in US, London and Mumbai. The security check in India is pretty poor, with a lot of flagged stuff not being detected. But in US and London, it is amazing. You cannot take anything with you which they don't want you to. I have missed my connecting flights in Chicago twice flying from India, with all the elaborate security checks. They basically make you unpack everything in your hand baggage, separate the liquids and put in a separate cover, put your laptop in a separate tray, all metallic objects, cellphones, shoes, etc separately. On top of all this, the immigration guys take my finger prints when I leave and enter. Infact, even before i was granted visa as a student, they had my finger prints taken at the US consulate in India. That means even if they reject my visa and I were never to enter US, they would still have my finger prints recorded. Now talk of the statistics! How many Hindu males from India (the demographic I fit in) have blown up buildings in US? If I am not mistaken, a UK citizen neither needs a visa nor is he/she finger printed in US. Guys who worry about being extra poilitically correct, don't worry at all. Profiling is in place already. My room-mate's friend was called for separate questioning twice at airport because of his looks. My room-mate does acknowledge that his friend looks a little suspicious, but hey that is not his fault! I think the security at US airports is sufficiently elaborate. I personally don't mind being subjected to whatever security measures, if it makes other travellers comfortable. But passengers complaining to airline staff about some arab looking passengers behaving suspiciously (as it happened a couple of times) is a deadly combination of paranoia, prejudice and racism. If you look at them suspiciously, they are going to behave differently than normal The security should be left to airport authorities and not passengers and airline staff.

It was on the morning of September 11th 2001.

First of all, you haven't quoted me right, I am not even in favor of airline staff looking at security, I want only airport staff to do that.

Secondly, the security after 9/11 is way tighter than what it was before. So, you can trust the airport security now, even if there was a lapse before. At anyday better than some racist passenger who knows well that any alarm raised will definitely be attended to with utmost importance.

I misread that last part of your post. I corrected my quote.

However, security was left to "Airport staff" on the morning of September 11th 2001.

I am absolutely convinced that the 9/11 highjackers picke dup their weapons once they were admitted to the gate areas. I just cannot accept that 15 people were able to get through security with weapons and not at least one of them be detected. I welcome input on this.

If this system of racial profiling would be effective when it would be implantated in airport security, I would be in favor of it. If that is the cost of preventing acts of terror to happen, then screw political correctness.

However, I sincerely doubt the effectiveness of this system.
First of all, making such a system operational, actually carrying it out the way some people want it to, right now, looks quite impossible. What's more, even if operational, it wouldn't give the results that were planned.