Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or do you mean "all muslims"? Or do you mean "muslims who meet certain other criteria"?

No I don't mean all muslims. How you would focus the investigations depends on what it is you are talking about and how many resources you have at the time and how urgent the threat is.

So when pre-9/11 there were more and more attacks outside the US and the first WTC attack inside the US and other evidence that radical muslims were planning more attacks inside the US and there was evidence that they might hijack planes, when in that context the FBI wanted to investigate Arabs in flight schools, that is appropriate for the FBI to do. But yet it wasn't done (according to journalists claiming former FBI agent sources) because that would be racial profiling.

If is really fucking ridiculous for people to bring up the Japanese internment camps. No one is advocating rounding all muslims up and taking away their property and forcing them to live in internment camps. We are fucking talking about investigating people, not interning them in camps. And about being more concerned that someone is doing something in part because they are muslim. It isn't as concerning to have Swedes in flight school. There is nothing to support the idea that Swedes are planning on using airplanes to attack the US. Pre 9/11, there was evidence to support that muslims would at least try to hijack planes. And then the FBI noticed Arab male muslims in flight schools and wanted to investigate specifically the Arab males. Do I need to explain how that is different from the Japanese internment camps?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Gattigap
IThis statement, though, reminds me of the slightly different point that part of the reason "pick[ing] up someone" bothers some people is that when pulling people aside for additional questioning, we often don't do this very well.

I will agree with this. We DON'T do this well. Probably because "we" usually means some hick cop with an attitude (and small penis) who can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, or even a Hassid from an Amish dude, and so sucks at profiling anyway.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I don't like to take a partisan view on this but...my instincts tell me that if , before 9/11, , investigators began heavy profiling of Arabs and Muslims based on the types of reports Rice was criticized for not having "all principals meetings" on, there'd have been much protest by both left wing and so-called "mainstream" democrats.

Bombs away.

No bombs, but take a look at what Shape Shifter just posted, which includes comments critical of racial profiling. It's from the Cato Institute, that hot-bed of Democratic policy-making.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Do I need to explain how that is different from the Japanese internment camps?

Nope. Instead, find a post where I mention Japanese internment campls.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Your analogy to drug profiling is apt. It's easy to say "Arab in a flight school" now. Prior to 9/11, that would not have fit any profile. Suppose the next attack uses a car, do we start profiling Arabs in automobiles?

Alternately, how do you know he's an Arab? Or a Muslim? It's not like that's printed on your driver's license.

How long 'til Al Qaeda figures out that, if the FBI is picking up every non-resident with an Arab name, they should change their operatives' names to Mr. Brown, Mr. Pink, Mr. Orange....?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I don't like to take a partisan view on this but...my instincts tell me that if , before 9/11, , investigators began heavy profiling of Arabs and Muslims based on the types of reports Rice was criticized for not having "all principals meetings" on, there'd have been much protest by both left wing and so-called "mainstream" democrats.

If they had done this kind of profiling pre-9/11, I would have been squawking, too.

There's a big difference between "valid identifier" and "predictor of behavior". If there were forty Arabs of swarthiness in the country, and your information said to look at swarthy Arabs, (what is "swarthy", anyway?), then you probably have cause to stop those you run into. Given that there are millions, though, I think you have a real constitutional problem treating them any differently from everyone else, even when you know that the next twenty terrorists are going to be swarthy Arabs. You are no longer dealing with a point of ID - statistically, you're not even close - you're treating the swarthiness as a predictor, and that's not allowed.

That's the conflict between safety and freedom. That's why we need to get 'em in their home countries before they come here - to preserve the freedom that they would rather trash.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
But you're not talking about the FBI. You're talking about airport security and traffic stops and border patrols, none of which are the purview of the FBI.

No actually I was talking about the FBI. Over and over and over and over again. About the FBI. About investigating people. Not about interning them in camps. About investigating people.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Other than a random search, when was the last time you saw a WM with SH and a NRAS pulled over in those situations?

In case you forgot, Timothy McVeigh was caught by a traffic stop.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by dtb
Hard to say. I don't know what the basis for the round-up was (well, I know Pearl Harbor and all that, but was there anything else?) in those days

Alleged spying and fears of sabotage. And some actual spying and attempts at sabotage, but no more than that conducted by German Americans. And there was probably less spying by Japanese Ameicans for Japan than there was by WASPs for the Soviet Union, but I digress.

I think historians think that the relatively high concentration of Japanese-Americans in places like Hawaii and California exacerbated the fears of the governments and people in those areas. Pearl Harbor was a severe shock to most folks, and the relatively exposed Pacific coast (after all, there wasn't really a Navy left to protect LA and SF, etc.) made everyone very nervous. The fact that Mr. Oshima listened to short-wave radio programs from his father's home suddenly seemed like a very dangerous thing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nope. Instead, find a post where I mention Japanese internment campls.

That wasn't directed at you. It was directed at those who were talking about internment camps.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If they had done this kind of profiling pre-9/11, I would have been squawking, too.

There's a big difference between "valid identifier" and "predictor of behavior". If there were forty Arabs of swarthiness in the country, and your information said to look at swarthy Arabs, (what is "swarthy", anyway?), then you probably have cause to stop those you run into. Given that there are millions, though, I think you have a real constitutional problem treating them any differently from everyone else, even when you know that the next twenty terrorists are going to be swarthy Arabs. You are no longer dealing with a point of ID - statistically, you're not even close - you're treating the swarthiness as a predictor, and that's not allowed.

That's the conflict between safety and freedom. That's why we need to get 'em in their home countries before they come here - to preserve the freedom that they would rather trash.

Well said.


Really, really well said.


Someone give that penguin a herring.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Alternately, how do you know he's an Arab? Or a Muslim? It's not like that's printed on your driver's license.

How long 'til Al Qaeda figures out that, if the FBI is picking up every non-resident with an Arab name, they should change their operatives' names to Mr. Brown, Mr. Pink, Mr. Orange....?

Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Alleged spying and fears of sabotage. And some actual spying and attempts at sabotage, but no more than that conducted by German Americans. And there was probably less spying by Japanese Ameicans for Japan than there was by WASPs for the Soviet Union, but I digress.

I think historians think that the relatively high concentration of Japanese-Americans in places like Hawaii and California exacerbated the fears of the governments and people in those areas. Pearl Harbor was a severe shock to most folks, and the relatively exposed Pacific coast (after all, there wasn't really a Navy left to protect LA and SF, etc.) made everyone very nervous. The fact that Mr. Oshima listened to short-wave radio programs from his father's home suddenly seemed like a very dangerous thing.

The greatest quote from that era justifying the internment, of course, was the American general saying "the very fact that there has been no sabotage is very suspicious."

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
No actually I was talking about the FBI. Over and over and over and over again. About the FBI. About investigating people. Not about interning them in camps. About investigating people.

Sorry - I just can't tear my eyes off your icon.

In case you forgot, Timothy McVeigh was caught by a traffic stop.

Based on a vehicle description more than his hair length, race or feelings about the 2nd Amt, but okay. Whatever.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Based on a vehicle description more than his hair length, race or feelings about the 2nd Amt, but okay. Whatever.

Huh? I thought he got pulled over for a missing plate, and they never had a clue about him for several hours after they got him to the station.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a big difference between "valid identifier" and "predictor of behavior". If there were forty Arabs of swarthiness in the country, and your information said to look at swarthy Arabs, (what is "swarthy", anyway?), then you probably have cause to stop those you run into. Given that there are millions, though, I think you have a real constitutional problem treating them any differently from everyone else, even when you know that the next twenty terrorists are going to be swarthy Arabs. You are no longer dealing with a point of ID - statistically, you're not even close - you're treating the swarthiness as a predictor, and that's not allowed.

Could we not get into a discussion about swarthy? I'm afraid of the return of Large Sweaty Hairy Man, and then Chris will come back too, and paigow will start posting again, and it will be....bad. Just bad.