Racial profiling or stupidity, take your pick.
Today's UPI article by Michael Kirkland (linked to on the Washington Times' website) essentially supports profiling over 'going fishing for terrorists in the general population':
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040806-120502-4513r.htm
Very unusual to see someone at UPI finally realizing the obvious and suggesting that the FBI and Homeland Security don't really have much choice. Good of Michael to suggest that we stop the terrorists before they kill us. Kirkland also writes that the ACLU is up to their usual anti-establishment, anti-American tricks. They admit that current law allows for racial profiling in the interest of national security, but in the next breath they say it "violates our most fundamental freedoms" and is "unproductive". The first is a stretch, the second is a lie. So the ACLU would prefer that we don't use critical and necessary tools in our national security defense.
There is no fundamental freedom from racial profiling enshrined in our constitution. The objections about racial profiling come from ethnic groups as a general rule. Should white males be profiled (such as in the DC Sniper case), no objections are raised, including from me. Whatever it takes to catch killers. I can handle a little inconvenience with equanimity, unfortunately unlike many of my ethnic brethren. As for 'unproductive', that is absolute bull. Profiling has led to arrests in thousands of criminal cases, and in fact profilers are highly trained and paid specialists in law enforcement.
Obviously, racial profiling can be abused, just like any other law enforcement technique, and in fact just like 'protecting civil liberties' is often a club to force minority opinions on the majority. Existing discrimination laws make abuse of profiling a crime, unfortunately there is no legal recourse for unfair civil liberties litigation. To me, that is a law worth writing.
The bottom line is that profiling solves crimes, sometimes very quickly, sometimes preventing them altogether. In these days of terrorism, if an attack can be prevented by profiling every middle-eastern-appearing male in the country, Homeland Security MUST do so.
In addition, in the article Mr. Kirkland refers to CAIR who have defended the two men who were recently caught trying to broker a shoulder-fired rocket to an undercover FBI agent, posing as a terrorist. No profiling was used in this case. CAIR has long been associated with Islamic terrorist groups, and always calls for an end to profiling, and for Americans not to associate Islam with violent, murderous, torturing Islamo-facists. CAIR is the terrorist apologizer, a number of their members have been arrested for terrorist activities, support for terrorists, and encitement to terrorism. CAIR is the Sein Finn (political face of the IRA) of Islamic theocratic tyranny and terrorism.
When CAIR holds a conference to officially repudiate in front of the world and remove from the Quran all references to violence, oppression, discrimination, hate, and barbarism, then maybe I'll change my opinion about them. When moderate Muslims are silent on these issues the world assumes that ALL Muslims are fanatics, violent, and barbarous. Until the day that Muslims stand up and moderate their religion, banning for all time the ideology of the fundamentalists, there is NO excuse for stopping racial profiling of Arab men and women. Better a temporary inconvenience to Arab-looking folks then to let one death occur out of political correctness.
Damn the ACLU, they are mostly all failed socialist/communists anyway. It's been a long time since the ACLU gave a crap about the civil liberties of the majority of Americans, they only care about making sure Christianity and white males are repressed. Isn't it one of the most fundamental 'civil liberties' to be able to belong to the religion of your choice without fear of reprisals, discrimination, etc?
The most extreme forms of Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. are all protected, but the 'turn the other cheek' Christian religions are obviously too dangerous to permit to survive. I'm not religious, but I'm very sick of the vicious attacks on Christians and conservative ideals by so called 'progressives'. What these people really are, as I said earlier, are socialists and communists. They used to call Stalin's and Hitler's minions progressives too (mostly because they wanted to avoid the negatives associated with Stalin - communists, and Hitler - socialists), and the methods are eerily similar.
Adios MF,
Doug
posted by Doug @ 12:15 PM
1 Comments:
Why do you immediately attribute my opinion to me being 'a white boy'? Sounds racist to me, as if non-whites couldn't possibly have the same opinion as me.
Your comments seem to be a bit uninformed, or at least only partially informed. In your logic profiling is only good to use after one already knows who the criminal is. Mass profiling DOES prevent crimes, your disagreement notwithstanding. It's not the little old white grandma's fault that middle-eastern males make up the majority of Islamic terrorists. Or that in predominantly black areas most criminals (and victims) are black. If you prefer not to be protected from terror by all the tools available, fine - move to a country that doesn't give a crap, like Spain.
The prisoners at Guantanamo are not citizens, they are enemy combatants who were killing our citizens, and those of Afghanistan and Iraq, and before that running a brutal theocratic/drug-financed tyranny and a WMD-using, raping, murdering, torturing secular despotism, respectively. In my mind they deserve to be shot, not jailed, but only after we get the info we need and weed out the innocent. And they certainly do not deserve the rights of an American citizen.
If most terrorists were white males I obviously would be impacted more by mass profiling. In that case I'd make a serious effort at condemning and/or reforming my ethnic brethren. And in the meantime, YES, I would accept whatever profiling or extra screening was necessary to protect the MAJORITY of citizens from fanatics in my ethnic group. This is what Americans do, as opposed to hyphenated Americans who refuse to accept that country is more important than ethnicity. It's easy to highlight the occasionaly mistake made by our government, but how about considering the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 incident since the Patriot Act was approved?
And finally, no one ever forced your child to say the pledge of allegiance with references to "God". But the ACLU is out to force my child to not say it. Tell you what, you teach your child to substitute 'under law' for 'under God', or skip it all together, and I'll teach mine to say whatever they want. And then perhaps you'll join me in telling the ACLU to butt out?
Post a Comment
<< Home