Politics: J'accuse!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
That wasn't what was proposed. They didn't have the resources to investigate all students in flight schools. Pre-9/11, they did have the resources (according to journalists who quoted former FBI agents) to investigate all Arabs in flight schools but believed that would be racial profiling and so it wasn't done.

Yes, I understand what you have said, but you are missing the point. We are 2.5 years too late to stop 9/11. The next attack may not involve hijacked airliners, or people who go to flight school just before committing that attack. So saying "we should engage in racial profiling" is not enough.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's contrary to what you said:

"It means using race (or ethnicity, religion, etc) as a factor in your investigations. For instance, investigating Arabs in flight school but not investigating non-Arabs."

No it is not. Just because you use race/religion/ethnicity as a factor to profile potential terrorists doesn't mean that you don't investigate those from other groups when evidence points to them.

It means that at this particular point in history, given the limited resources we have to use to prevent these attacks, focusing efforts on muslims will provide us with the most safety. That doesn't mean that the resources shouldn't be used to investigate non-muslims as the evidence points to them. But the focus needs to be on muslims, in particular non-American Arab muslims, but as Richard Reid shows, other muslims are willing to commit suicide attacks, too.

Yes, that sucks if you are an innocent muslim and you get investigated. So I call on innocent muslims to better police their own community and provide information and assistance to the authorities when there is reason to suspect someone. That would go a long way toward preventing innocent muslims from being investigated.

[Shape Shifter]

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)

FWIW, I do not agree with the ACLU's position on this.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The next attack may not involve hijacked airliners, or people who go to flight school just before committing that attack.

But it is likely to involve muslims.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So saying "we should engage in racial profiling" is not enough.

Of course it is not enough. You have to investigate non-muslims as the evidence points to them. But preventing the investigators from racial profiling will tie their hands.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
FWIW, I do not agree with the ACLU's position on this.

Republican-pleaser.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What was Timothy McVeigh's ancestry? Terry Nichols? Should we target white American males with short haircuts and NRA stickers on their pickups?

And middle aged white guys who make sodium-cyanide bombs in East Texas. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by dtb
Hell -- I was given the "extra-special once-over" by El Al when I was traveling back to the US from Israel by myself , because I fit whatever "profile" I fit (actually, I remember reading an article recently that young females traveling alone are targeted because a common Arab "plan" is to befriend/seduce a naif and plant explosives in her suitcase, so I'm guessing that's what triggered the search) -- and could not have been more pleased. Whatever it takes, man. What do I care that I fit a profile and was given extra scrutiny?

Pleased to be thought of as a seduce-a-ble naif? I would be too.

Seriously, I guess that the point is that profiling solely on the basis of skin color, or religion, or whatever, can lead very easily into mistreatment. Extra scrutiny is one thing (I got it recently, too -- I think that it is because I really am an evil-looking person, but I'll try to convince myself that I looked like a naif). Singling out a dark-skinned passenger without paying attention to other factors that may be relevant (where is she from? how did he pay for his ticket? did they check bags?) just seems like an ineffective anti-terrorism tactic.

And will our grandchildren have the same reaction to this sort of thing as we now have to Japanese internment camps? Someone (burger?) pointed out the Korematsu decision already. The same arguments about group suspiscion were made in the 1940s, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think the AMT sucks. At least now. But, in five years or so it will become cheaper to repeal the regular income tax instead of the AMT, which gives me sizable hope for something closer to a flat tax, or at least one that's a hell of a lot simpler.

Philosophically, I really don't mind some of the provisions of the AMT, simply because it does approach the flat tax idea. I find it odd that we would allow a group of state residents to chose to spend tons of money on their own state services, have a much nicer place to live, and then allow them to pay less of the federal tax burden because, poor dears, they've built 2.1 libraries per 100 residents for themselves and paid taxes to do so. It's like allowing liquor expenditures to be deductible on fed forms.

The lack of indexing, unfortunately, made it a wonderful hidden source of tax growth. (Yes, "wonderful" is in sarcasm brackets.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
and could not have been more pleased. Whatever it takes, man. What do I care that I fit a profile and was given extra scrutiny?

This is what pisses me off so much about innocent muslims. It is their safety that is being protected, too. They endanger us all when they make a big deal out of this.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop I don't believe that the police should be able to pick up someone on suspicion of being a terrorist simply because they are of Arab descent.

What do you mean "pick up someone"? What bothers you about that? We're not talking about picking someone up and throwing them across the room, or picking someone up while simultaneously beating them with the Yellow Pages. Thousands and thousands of men of Arab descent, or Muslims, were questioned by the FBI immediately after 9/11 Some were questioned on the street, some brought to an office for questioning, etc. And the point was to see if the person being questioned had information that could lead to information about the attacks or the attackers. Not every profiling is going to end with an Arab at the airport with his pants down and a finger up his butt searching for box cutters. One could argue this point philosophically till the cows come home, but to me the wrongness of profiling DOES depend on the activity in question. Just ask a (heterosexual) Muslim whether he'd rather answer a few questions or submit to the box cutter search.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
But it [the next attack] is likely to involve muslims.

Pretty much everyone would have said that the day before the Oklahoma City bombings, too (in fact, most people believed that even the day of the bombings).

Of course it is not enough. You have to investigate non-muslims as the evidence points to them. But preventing the investigators from racial profiling will tie their hands.

No one on this board has suggested that the FBI should not consider race, ethnicity, and religion given the current circumstances. But you keep declaring that "we should investigate all muslims" -- except when I point out that this is impossible, and then you say "no, I meant all muslims in flight school" -- and then I point out that the next attack may not involve recent flight school trainees, and you say "but it will probably involve muslims, so we should investigate them all."

A quick google search pulls up a number of sources that place the number of Muslims living in the US at around 7 million. The FBI -- more specifically, the portions of the FBI dedicated to counter-terror (as opposed to drug interdiction, organized crime, white collar crime, etc) cannot possibly investigate more than a tiny fraction of these people. Let alone do that, plus investigate non-Muslim members of the militia who buy a lot of fertilizer.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What was Timothy McVeigh's ancestry? Terry Nichols? Should we target white American males with short haircuts and NRA stickers on their pickups?

The FBI should and did and does target the white supremist/militia/anti-one world order groups. They look for clues that someone belongs to a group like that as part of their investigations. Blacks aren't often found in those groups.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Philosophically, I really don't mind some of the provisions of the AMT, simply because it does approach the flat tax idea.

My issue with the AMT is essentially the same as it is with the deductions phase-out of the regular tax. It's a bullshit-sneaky way of raising marginal rates, by reducing deductions dollar for dollar (or 20c for dollar) if your income is over a certain amount. I know it's a bit much to expect anything other than disingenuous politicians, but it still cheeses me off.

[Say_hello_for_me]

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by dtb
Hell -- I was given the "extra-special once-over" by El Al when I was traveling back to the US from Israel by myself , because I fit whatever "profile" I fit (actually, I remember reading an article recently that young females traveling alone are targeted because a common Arab "plan" is to befriend/seduce a naif and plant explosives in her suitcase, so I'm guessing that's what triggered the search) -- and could not have been more pleased. Whatever it takes, man. What do I care that I fit a profile and was given extra scrutiny?

I agree.

But they'd better not ask me to keep quiet during the safety announcements.


(sorry, sorry)