A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I think police can consider more than one factor when deciding who to search -- e.g., they should be able to decide to search a 25-year-old Muslim man of Pakistani citizenship walking off a flight from Yemen instead of a 89-year-old Muslim woman of U.S. citizenship arriving in a wheelchair on a flight from Salt Lake City. I'm surprised that you think the police that dumb, but -- if so -- maybe the solution is to hire smarter policemen.

This straw argument might fly if an 89 year-old Muslim woman in a wheelchair was complaining about being detained.

BTW - if she was, that's a more an indictment of the current "search everyone, including the old ladies" bullshit PC protocol - rather than actual profiling of "folks that fit the bill"

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The evidence is irrefutable that religion (specifically Islam) and national origin (specifically, Islamic countries) are the leading indicators of potential terrorism.

Even questioning the legality of searches based of these obvious risk factors is idiotic and - above all - a testament to weakness.

By definition anything related to religion is illogical and insane. The issue to civil libertarians isn't that the factors aren't objectively useful to a police state, but that they are unwilling to sacrifice the liberty and the freedom from discriminatory treatment by the government for the marginal benefit. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is on their side. Further, profiling wouldn't have even stopped the 9/11 bombers.

The amount of people profiling might save, when compared to the slippery slope it creates - blacks and hispanics have higher crime rates, let's pull them over - may be de minimis. Maybe not - if it would stop a dirty bomb, but at what cost is the question?

And, to date, the death toll per year from terrorism remains way, way, way below that caused by our other freedoms - to drink, to drive, to own guns, to allow Vogue and ABC to cause anorexia and bulimia, to smoke, etc. Isn't the marginal rate of return higher for the government to start paring back those freedoms before we start on the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments?

I propose we start with a requirement that one solve a quadratic equation before being allowed to own a gun. Or vote.

Less (efficacy does not necessarily equal desirability) inSF

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
By definition anything related to religion is illogical and insane. The issue to civil libertarians isn't that the factors aren't objectively useful to a police state, but that they are unwilling to sacrifice the liberty and the freedom from discriminatory treatment by the government for the marginal benefit. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is on their side. Further, profiling wouldn't have even stopped the 9/11 bombers.

A bunch of Arab foreign nationals in their twenties with pilot licenses? Sure it would.

The amount of people profiling might save, when compared to the slippery slope it creates - blacks and hispanics have higher crime rates, let's pull them over - may be de minimis. Maybe not - if it would stop a dirty bomb, but at what cost is the question?

Until Muslims all over the world stop blowing people up in the name of Allah, beheading folks while chanting "Allahu Akbar", stop bragging publicly about the conversion of all us infidels in Dar al Islam, I see no cost whatsoever.

And, to date, the death toll per year from terrorism remains way, way, way below that caused by our other freedoms - to drink, to drive, to own guns, to allow Vogue and ABC to cause anorexia and bulimia, to smoke, etc. Isn't the marginal rate of return higher for the government to start paring back those freedoms before we start on the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments?

Compared to the rates of death from heart attacks and cancer, AIDS deaths in this country are barely noticeable. Shouldn't we take all funding for AIDS cure research and put it somewhere more useful?

You can make plenty of these comparisons and try to find a "more productive" end. Is cost-benefit the answer to everything?

If so, then remove all security from airplanes, no? It inconveniences the crap out of everyone but, according to you, saves very few lives.

I propose we start with a requirement that one solve a quadratic equation before being allowed to own a gun. Or vote.

Au contraire, I propose we arm everyone in the country and see what happens then.

To run for office,you should have to solve the quadratic equation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This straw argument might fly if an 89 year-old Muslim woman in a wheelchair was complaining about being detained.

Exactly. Because no one really thinks that being Muslim is sufficient by itself to justify a search.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you believe that the fear of being accused of profiling has deterred police from stopping and searching blacks, then you might believe this, too.

the argument is TV news gives the impression that 90% of crime is black criminals, so the cops act accordingly, or cops act like 90% of the crime is black caused. I don't think 90%of crime is black caused, so I don't think this is proper- as an aside if 90% of crime was black caused I might change my vote.

But 90% of the crimes that cause us to have to check people at airports were caused by Moslems, weren't they? you don't think we should check them? when my daughter was 11 they pulled her from us and did a special search of her stuff. do you think that was because the Jews did terrorism on the west bank, or because of stupid PC?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But 90% of the crimes that cause us to have to check people at airports were caused by Moslems, weren't they?

No. Here's a hint: Airport x-rays were in widespread use before the movie Airplane was made.

you don't think we should check them?

Per se? No. That's a waste of resources.

when my daughter was 11 they pulled her from us and did a special search of her stuff. do you think that was because the Jews did terrorism on the west bank, or because of stupid PC?

Neither. I don't know how long ago that was, but it's of a piece with the mindless TSA practices I've criticized before, which have nothing to do with Jewish terrorism or PC.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Here's a hint: Airport x-rays were in widespread use before the movie Airplane was made.

when did the 1st Palistinian hijack his 1st Plane? before Airplane honey.

here's the thing, you believe the crap you post here. I don't think you realize how dumb it is, and to be fair to you, you aren't stupid- just misguided. like the scientists who based theories on the earth being flat- if their delusions were true their opinions would be quite solid. they just were acting from some flawed basic facts.

it's not your fault. you probably can function in society, maybe even represent legal clients.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when did the 1st Palistinian hijack his 1st Plane? before Airplane honey.

If 90% of airplane hijackings have been committed by Muslims, I'm willing to believe that JFK captained the only PT boat lost in the Pacific Theater.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If 90% of airplane hijackings have been committed by Muslims, I'm willing to believe that JFK captained the only PT boat lost in the Pacific Theater.

umm the PT boat thing was SEF, not me.

can you name 1 hijack since 1980 that wasn't for Allah? yeah you probably can, but 1 in 10 that wasn't?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If 90% of airplane hijackings have been committed by Muslims, I'm willing to believe that JFK captained the only PT boat lost in the Pacific Theater.

Cite please.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In airports, police should be able to search whomever they want with PC. PC should be a low standard in this situation given the risks trying to be protected.

They are.

Moreover, everyone entering the secured area in an airport is searched, for that very reason.

Believe me, if the police/TSA see any person in an airport or in a secuirty lounge whom they have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion requires further screening, they can do so. That is a lower standard than probable cause.

This is a non-issue -- except that it is a favorite hobby horse for Slave. The bottom line seems to be that he and others either think: (a) being a Muslim should be a factor that, by itself creates RAS for in-depth screening; or (b) that it should be officially on the list of factors to be considered.

Other people say that's not right.

The bottom line is that we get to where we need to go using things like national origin, age, gender, travel patterns, etc., etc., etc. That's one of the nice things about having super-computers. They can analyze data and create nifty matrices. So, this is really a needless debate.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Here's her quote:

"Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal."

The evidence is irrefutable that religion (specifically Islam) and national origin (specifically, Islamic countries) are the leading indicators of potential terrorism.

Even questioning the legality of searches based of these obvious risk factors is idiotic and - above all - a testament to weakness.

I had forgotten her exact phrasing. I still think this is probably meant to refer to stopping folks solely for those reasons. But, maybe not.

(a) National origin has to remain a factor, and it will.

(b) I think you're wrong about the weakness part. In fact, I'd say the opposite -- that security overreaction and abdication or weakening of basic principles we have lived by is a sign of weakness and fear.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when did the 1st Palistinian hijack his 1st Plane? before Airplane honey.

About 1973, I think.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
They are.

Moreover, everyone entering the secured area in an airport is searched, for that very reason.

Believe me, if the police/TSA see any person in an airport or in a secuirty lounge whom they have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion requires further screening, they can do so. That is a lower standard than probable cause.

This is a non-issue -- except that it is a favorite hobby horse for Slave. The bottom line seems to be that he and others either think: (a) being a Muslim should be a factor that, by itself creates
RAS for in-depth screening; or (b) that it should be officially on the list of factors to be considered.

Other people say that's not right.

The bottom line is that we get to where we need to go using things like national origin, age, gender, travel patterns, etc., etc., etc. That's one of the nice things about having super-computers. They can analyze data and create nifty matrices. So, this is really a needless debate.

S_A_M

Yawn.

How can it be a friggin' non-issue when the Speaker-elect of the House suggests idiotic things like making profiling illegal - when even the biggest lefty among you will admit that being Islamic is the most likely indicator of someone being a terrorist?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
(b) I think you're wrong about the weakness part. In fact, I'd say the opposite -- that security overreaction and abdication or weakening of basic principles we have lived by is a sign of weakness and fear.

Actually, that we fear upsetting the sensibilities of some more than actually keeping ourselves safe using extremely reasonable means is a sign of weakness and failure - and one that isn't lost on them.

This is why terrorist front groups like CAIR whine and complain all day and all night - they know that we'll give in.