LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 142
0 members and 142 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 04-14-2004, 04:55 PM   #1559
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
Profiling: (was 9/11, Gorelick something or other)

Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I think the type of profiling being discussed is profiling that could result in a greater chance of Muslims being searched, questioned, tracked, whatever than non-Muslims. And, yes, in some cases, someone might in fact be questioned, tracked, etc., merely because they are Arab or Muslim, or even from a particular country. Example: the ACLU took issue with the FBI's decision to simply question Iraqi men who came to the US after the Gulf War. According to the ACLU, "Targeting people for investigation, interrogation or detention based on immutable characteristics like national origin, ethnicity or religion alone is, we believe, unconstitutional and inappropriate in all circumstances. (emphasis added)
This issue has come up before, and I think its important not to equate "investigation", "interrogation" and "detention" as if all are always substantively equivalent. I believe the proper standard, and one which will be upheld by the federal courts as reasonable, is something akin to a prohibition on substantive "punishments" based on the immutable characteristics, which would almost certainly include the sort of extended detentions carried out by the LA-area INS more than a year ago.

But things like fingerprinting visitors, or searching all veiled women getting on airplanes, is not a substantive "punishment" so much as it is providing an additional condition on someone's use and enjoyment of our nation's resources (roads, airplanes etc.)...

Its probably worth it to note how quickly the INS backed off the LA area mass-detentions back then, particularly after Japanese and Jewish-American groups got involved. To tell ya the truth, it was the kind of issue that I'd think should concern anybody in any group that has ever been on the receiving end of mass governmental punishments (i.e., everybody in every group).

But without getting into some details, it sounds like a lot of people here are talking past each other.

Is it okay to single out and stop a swarthy bearded guy in an airport for a pat down (with no other facts) before he gets on a plane? How about for a mandatory brief conversation in an interview room?

Fast forward to a 3 day stay in a local jail while the G turns up nothing, having never had an additional reason to detain, and you see where the street protests start. Next time y'all will join me, right?

Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 AM.