Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Blips:

Its hard to determine who is suspicious and who is innocent. Those who are guilty take great pains to not look guilty. I feel for the student, but I’d ask you how to properly deal with such stuff. Its safe to say that if a guy takes pictures and turns out to be involved in terrorism, and we find the govt did NOTHING, people will hold the govt responsible. So what suggestions do you have for bridging that difficult gap.

In the second instance, though, you agree that the survey info was legally obtained. Are we now holding the government to a standard where even legal measures should not be allowed? Your examples of internment camps and registrations would be a concern IFFFF they were happening. At best, you can only say that you THINK this could possibly be the first step to that kind of circumstance.

The other point is that the government DID keep tabs on people after the McVeigh bombing. They had information on all kinds of militias and people involved on the fringes of militias. Seems to me thats how you find information. Back when the Klan was operating, the govt had to check them out too…and that involved checking some people out who were innocent of any illicit activity.

Again, the question is how to find the information necessary to prevent attack without infringing to some degree on people’s rights. I dont see how you can do one without the other, but i look forward to your suggestions.

Joe, you made precisely my intended point although I don’t know that you realized it. There is a fundamental difference between watching, harrassing, detaining, etc. somebody because of how they look or their religion, and because of actions they have taken and groups they have chosen to associate with.

Like you said, the government watched militia members, etc. following the OK City bombing. They DID NOT watch white, Christian males.

And that’s exactly how they should deal with fighting terrorism. Investigate known terror groups and those know to associate with them, follow money coming and going to these groups. Don’t treat Americans as criminals just because they happen to be from the same country as terrorists.

Simply taking a photo is not something to draw suspicion. People take pictures all the time. It’s a normal activity. It’s not like he was on a military base, inside a nuclear power plant, etc. He was a college student, taking pictures of his college campus! So what if he happened to be wearing a turban and a beard.

And as to your point regarding the census data, just because it’s technically legal doesn’t make it right. And compiling the data is just the first step. The Nazis didn’t just start rounding up the Jews the next day. But they knew where to find them when they chose to later on. And I’m sure our government didn’t throw the Japanese into the camps right away either. But if the data is already together, and another large scale terror attack were to occur, a similar move seems like a pretty scary scenario. I remember people making a similar call following 9/11, only then the records necessary didn’t exist…

Joe, I think we shouldn’t be so quick to go after people for appearance’s sake alone. You look at the hijackers, and these people were not dressed up in ways that screamed “Arab”.

Problem with Racial profiling is how many misses you have to get in order to get a hit. in essence, instead of establishing a pool of suspects according to a limited set of criteria, you’re throwing your investigation wide open to virtually everybody of that ethnicity. It’s plots, cells and known terrorists we have to track down, not Middle-Eastern looking people with cameras.

If you find the trail of evidence, it will lead you to the possibilities, rather than have you screw around with the vast array of data out there. If you won’t generalized information, then just ask people, make contacts, make friends in the community. It’ll certainly go over better than police harrassment.

blipsman, it is understandable why folks would support such measures. They are frightened. And there is good reason for apprehension. Provided that such persons investigated and interrogated and briefly detained have acccess to the same legal protections as any other citizen, I have no problem with the authorities giving due diligence to their orders to seek and detain potential threats.

What I have a problem with is the Patriot act sections that do not afford such suspects the same protections as any other citizen. The potential for police state tactics is huge, which is precisely why the laws were developed to provide such protections from police power.

I am all for the Patriot Act up to the point that it begins to negate the Bill of Rights and Constitutional protections which millions of Americans have died to protect and defend.

it is understandable why folks would support such measures. They are frightened. And there is good reason for apprehension. Provided that such persons investigated and interrogated and briefly detained have acccess to the same legal protections as any other citizen, I have no problem with the authorities giving due diligence to their orders to seek and detain potential threats.

David, How do you define “potential threat?” In my mind, a college student taking photos of his campus is no threat. He’s just going about his life doing what the vast majority of people do with no negative consequences. If the secret service wouldn’t stop a white female for the same thing, then they shouldn’t stop him.

Sure, people may support such measures but that doesn’t mean that it’s right or legal. I’m sure you could get a majority to say they’d favor a Christian government, too. But it’s a clear violation of the constitution. And so is violating somebody’s 4th Amendment rights. It may be a little easier to fight terrorism with such tactics, but the Bill of Rights was created to prevent such abuses of power by the goverment.

” …a college student taking photos of his campus is no threat. He’s just going about his life doing what the vast majority of people do with no negative consequences. If the secret service wouldn’t stop a white female for the same thing, then they shouldn’t stop him.”

Disagree with the first part, agree with the second. It’s pretty common for thieves or terrorists to ‘case’ their targets so they can plan their attacks. Reminds me of hearing about people taking pictures inside New York’s subway system. This is a threat, but it’s nothing to get worked up over. Even if a real terrorist were to be caught doing this, what can they pin on him, unless taking pictures in the area in question is banned.

As to the second part; yes, the government officials went about intercepting this man in the wrong way. This man should’ve been intercepted, in my opinion, but not directly interogated. He should have been approached incognito, by a single plain-clothes investigator, and asked some simple questions, or at least drawn into small talk. It would also help if the official had some psychological knowledge for this investigative conversation. This way, no intrusion is made onto our rights, and the “war” on terror can be pursued to our expectations. And instead of having a whole squad pounce on one suspicious character, we only need one, well trained field agent.

As far as racial and/or ethnic profiling goes, well, we pretty much know who wants to kill us. Timothy Mcvay was an anomoly, not a factor in the equation. That’s why we don’t suspect a white female for terrorist or criminal activities when we see her taking pictures of her campus. Personally, I suspect to some degree, every arab-looking person I see. Is that wrong? I mean, without any conversation or contact with this person, who can really be sure about them? When you get a new baby sitter, don’t you feel at least uneasy unless you know something about them?

So far, we know that an arabic speaking group of people from the middle-east have openly declared war on us, and want to kill each and every one of us. They wish to do this in unconventional ways - when and how we’d least expect it. It seems fair to me to look at anyone remotely matching this description. But, without alienating any of our cherished rights, and without punishing all for the crimes of a few. We can strike a balance between our agenda concerning this “war” and the rights and freedoms it’s meant to protect. The problem is control. We currently do not control our government, and therefore it acts as its’ own entity.

This will never change as long as we’re locked in this duopoly government. Things are bad because Bush is in office. Things would be the same if Gore were in his place. Things will not change when Kerry steps in. Our biggest problem is that OBL and his followers want to kill US, not necessarily our politicians, yet we continue to believe that swapping one politician for another is going to make a difference in the level of hate some muslims have for some christians.

Sigh, can’t we all just drop this “God” crap and try to learn how not to piss each other off? Hey, a very large catastrophic-sized meteor might crash into us any day now. When that time comes, I hope we can all behave ourselves as we wait in line to board the ship to Mars(this planet brought to you by Microsoft/Enron/Haliburton/Shell/Pepsi).

:)

As far as racial and/or ethnic profiling goes, well, we pretty much know who wants to kill us. Timothy Mcvay was an anomoly, not a factor in the equation. That’s why we don’t suspect a white female for terrorist or criminal activities when we see her taking pictures of her campus.

There is a large criminal/marginalized population in this and many other countries that is susceptible to cash or coercion. There are plenty of young blond girls in this population. Terrorists have demonstrated adaptive tactics in both organization and cash and equipment acquisition. They’ve probably already started. Washington assistants make about $25,000 a year. Do you think they might be susceptible to a bribe?

Personally, I suspect to some degree, every arab-looking person I see. Is that wrong?

Well, yes. No offense, but I find it sad, too.

It’s pretty common for thieves or terrorists to ‘case’ their targets so they can plan their attacks.

It’s far more common for students to take a picture of their campus to show their friends and family where they go to school.

“Things are bad because Bush is in office [Damned straight!]. Things would be the same if Gore were in his place. [Not a chance.] Things will not change when Kerry steps in. [Oh, yes they will. Quite a lot.]

…yet we continue to believe that swapping one politician for another is going to make a difference in the level of hate some muslims have for some christians.

Some Muslims are always going to violently hate us. Those, we must destroy. But the right politicians and actions can convince the other billion or so to look to the United States as a beacon of hope.

Will, you seem to be the living embodyment of what FDR meant when he said that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” It wasn’t just a catchy phrase - think about the meaning of it. The point is that fear causes us to do things which make us weaker, not stronger. Fear makes us irrational and fear undermines our most sacred values.

There are places where we should be suspicious of people taking pictures. College campuses are not one of them. Arguing that photo-taking itself is a potential act of crime or terror — and that it warrants an inquiry by a police officer — is nothing less than irrational paranoia.

Similarly, racial profiling is patently wrong. You must not look at “arab-looking” people with any suspicion at all. If you do, you are allowing your fears to overwhelm your American values.

If America is going to successfully identify terrorists in our midst, we’re going to have to do it without the racial profiling tool because it is immoral to use that tool. We must not let fear dictate our strategy choices, but rather we should let our courage dictate our strategy. Courage tells us to no be prejudiced even when our hearts are fearful. Courage allows us to fight the War on Terror on the high road, without resorting to those weapons (racial profiling, false propaganda, targeting civilians, torturing suspects, suspending civil rights) that our enemies use, tactics that might seem to strengthen our hand in the short term but which really only serve to weaken us on the inside. We are, after all, America.

-Cf

Joseph - “They’ve probably already started. Washington assistants make about $25,000 a year. Do you think they might be susceptible to a bribe?” … This is possible, yet impractical and far-fetched. I believe we captured John Walker in Afghanistan. My point is that we shouldn’t waste valuable time probing such bleak scenarios. I can, however, see both sides of this point. True, if OBL’s thugs manage to coerce a young, (blond, as you put it) female Washington Assistant into performing an act of terrorism, or even leaking information, then the fear of ourselves will balloon. The government will tighten its grip on its’ own people and their rights and freedom, as it’s already begun to do. On the other hand, we can continue to openly profile people by race, religion, ect, and pounce recklessly on college kids, as blipsman reported. Osama would gladly have it either way, as long as some of the suspicion remains with us, within us.

Like I said, I think the agents were on the right track, but in shadowing the acts of the bush administration by premtively striking without doing their intel homework, they caused more damage they they could have possibly prevented.

“‘Personally, I suspect to some degree, every arab-looking person I see. Is that wrong?’”

“Well, yes. No offense, but I find it sad, too.”

No offense taken. Here’s how I look at this: As a bachelor, I have two frying pans. Both are fairly old and equally charred. One is a griddle with a plastic handle, the other, an old iron skillet with a bare iron handle. I used to use them both at the same time, but I would always grab the iron skillet’s handle after letting go of the insulated one, and burn myself, looney-tune quality. Obviously, I don’t trust one of my pans. You can call me a genius anytime, I’ll hold, but I don’t burn myself anymore since I keep the iron skillet under the sink. Destroy all iron skillets? No. Find the best way to deal with them. Whatever, I’m bloviating.

American Pundit - “It’s far more common for students to take a picture of their campus to show their friends and family where they go to school.”

Yes, of course. I never said it should be banned. I strongly oppose any interruption in our day to day free will. But, we have to work with what we can, behind the scenes. People taking pictures of likely, or otherwise, terrorist bomb/disease targets is a threat, this is an inescapable fact. The only thing we can do about it while maintaining our balance between liberty and surveillance is to be intelligent, not fearful. Unfortunately, we seem more afraid to die than confident in our abilities.

As an aside; Bush says we’re fighting these terrorists over “there” so we don’t have to fight them at home. He’s flat wrong, both in theory and in practice. Why else would we be talking about this? As much as I’d like to believe that as long as “they” are over “there”, then we’re safe over here, I still feel unprotected by the government. Be vigilant, he says. If he doesn’t know where to look, then I’ll just have to trust my own instincts.

“Things are bad because Bush is in office [Damned straight!]. Things would be the same if Gore were in his place. [Not a chance.] Things will not change when Kerry steps in. [Oh, yes they will. Quite a lot.]

I was in a hurry when I wrote that. It’s over simplistic, my apologies. Cancel out the first line because we agree, replace “things” in the remaining two lines with ‘the fatally flawed war on terror’, and I think that’ll do.

“But the right politicians and actions can convince the other billion or so to look to the United States as a beacon of hope.”

Politicians, no - actions, yes .. and I think you’re being quite generous with the number of people in the world who would root for our fall from grace, or worse. The mistrust that Bush has brewed for the past three years will take decades to calm down around the world, if it can be restored at all. In eight years, the republicans will have us thinking that it’s the democrats’ fault for not fixing it, and ‘round we go.

I hate to break it to you democrats, but being Blue because the other party is Red is a ‘pot vs kettle’ battle, ad nauseum. But, because I live in Ohio, Kerry is lucky this year. I’ll vote for him in the hopes that our global affairs and domestic downfalls don’t get any worse, but I think he should return the favor by reforming the FEC.

Christopher - I know what FDR meant, I don’t understand the connection you’re making me and fear. I truley believe I am anything but consumed by fear. I could be wrong, I’m open to that, but the quote from FDR is something I keep on my tongue.

“Arguing that photo-taking itself is a potential act of crime or terror — and that it warrants an inquiry by a police officer — is nothing less than irrational paranoia.”

You can call it irrational paranoia, that’s fair, but I think it’s wise in this day and age. There is a strong connection between paranoia and survival. What’s wrong with a plain-clothed, trained proffessional approaching people in a non-threatening manner with the good intentions of trying to protect us from potential threats? If you have no ill intentions, then you have nothing to fear, and no breach on your rights and freedoms is ever made.

“If America is going to successfully identify terrorists in our midst, we’re going to have to do it without the racial profiling tool because it is immoral to use that tool.”

Feel free to offer a better solution. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see any helpful or useful suggestions in your post.

> What’s wrong with a plain-clothed, trained
> proffessional approaching people in a non-
> threatening manner with the good intentions
> of trying to protect us from potential
> threats?

Okay, first let’s assume that a non-threatening law enforcement professional approached Mohammed Atta taking photographs at the Newark airport in eary 2001. What would he have uncovered from his short, good-natured on the spot investigation? Nothing. They’d have to haul him in, do a background check, etc, to uncover anything useful at all (which is, of course, what happened to the innocent Sikh student). Your seemingly benign suggestion means well, but not only would it utterly fail to help anything, it would inevitably lead to incidents that cross the line.

But let’s take it a step further. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is remotely possible that a trained law enforcement professional could tell if someone was a terrorist or not after only a moment of chit-chat on a college campus. I’ll go there.

If you’re arguing that the aforementioned trained law enforcement professionals should approach everyone who takes any photos in any public places, then your proposal would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Either that, or we’re going to have to forbid photography in the USA. See anything wrong with those scenarios?

Or maybe you’re proposing that they only do it to Arab-looking people. The result of that, naturally, is that Arab-looking people will become fearful about how they behave in public and will stop taking photographs. And, of course, it would still cost billions of dollars.

And, of course, under all of these scenarios the terrorists in our midst would figure out how to not be Arab-looking and how to take photographs discreetly.

> I didn’t see any helpful or useful
> suggestions in your post.

Better organized American intelligence agencies, more cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, better trained law enforcement officials, more advanced technology to detect terror devices, better immigration documentation/recordkeeping/coordination, better security in our seaports and airports, the list goes on and on. In addition to being immoral, racial profiling is about the dumbest tool we’ve got.

-Cf

“Okay, first let’s assume that a non-threatening law enforcement professional approached Mohammed Atta taking photographs at the Newark airport in eary 2001. What would he have uncovered from his short, good-natured on the spot investigation? Nothing.”

Ah, touche. You assume three things which break your example: 1) Muhammad Atta was a known islamic radical militant at the time, if I recall correctly. A field agent with the proper training could have recognized his clean-shaven face, had he been approached. 2) You assume that an approach would be short, therefore insignificant. 3) You assume that Nothing would’ve come from it, when you know that you don’t know what could’ve happened in a situation which never occurred.

“… it would inevitably lead to incidents that cross the line.”

Worse incidents than the ones we see now? (Sikh and others)

“If you’re arguing that the aforementioned trained law enforcement professionals should approach everyone who takes any photos in any public places, then your proposal would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.”

I’m not. And I’m not saying that we should use racial profiling to ‘target’ anyone as if they are guilty, that’s not what it’s supposed to be about. As you rightly point out, this tool is used immorally on a regular basis. But take it for what it’s worth. If used properly, no one would even know it was happening. That’s it’s strong point. If the suspects don’t know they’re being watched, then they’ll slip up eventually, but when they do, we need to capture them without all the publicity. That is when it burns us. Then we need to make sure they are afforded their right to representation, the speedy trial, ect - ALL behind the scenes. Sure, we’ll get alot of new conspiracy theories, but what’s going to change that?

We both want the same thing. This is what intelligence agencies do with our tax dollars, love it or hate it. They’re humans like you and me, but hopefully more like me for safety’s sake. :P

“And, of course, under all of these scenarios the terrorists in our midst would figure out how to not be Arab-looking and how to take photographs discreetly.”

We aren’t blind, and we shouldn’t pretend to be just so we can save some face during PR sessions. But, at least you’ve conceded the threat of Arab-looking people taking pictures of crowded and largely unprotected public places.

You know what? Police officers (regular blues crews) pull people over all the time who have plastic, dents, rust, and/or duct tape on their cars because there’s a greater chance of finding a poor person, which ultimately boils down to pot-head, thief, drunk, wife-beater, prostitute-seeking john, prior arrests, warrants, the list goes on. It’s not just the look of the car either. The often look inside and see a backwards ballcap, the famed wife-beater white muscle shirt, the gold jewelry, the surprised look of spotting a cop, the odd shaped cigar, ect. Profiling is not one-dimesional, and it’s not going anywhere.

“Better organized American intelligence agencies[ How, and under what authority?], more cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies[ When, and with what trust they have left for us?], better trained law enforcement officials[ With you on this one, obviously], more advanced technology to detect terror devices[ Total waste of time and money when we could, in theory, detect the terrorists themselves. Unless of course you’re talking about human tracking and database access technologies.], better immigration documentation/recordkeeping/coordination[ Yes, much, much, much better. Especially coupled with a profiling staticical tactics bureau], better security in our seaports and airports[ Yeah, they’re trying], the list goes on and on.”

I’m glad to have this discussion with you, Christopher. It has been thus far, constructive.

I’ll hold, but I don’t burn myself anymore since I keep the iron skillet under the sink.

This metaphor doesn’t work because the iron skillets won’t complain when you put them under the sink.

Joseph - “They’ve probably already started. Washington assistants make about $25,000 a year. Do you think they might be susceptible to a bribe?” … This is possible, yet impractical and far-fetched.

I don’t see what’s so far-fetched or impractical about it. Most terrorist activities are relatively cheap. Supporting double agents would be much more expensive but since intelligence is the most important component in their planning and they don’t have much else to buy, they might find it a worthy investment.

The sentence “They’ve probably already started,” was connected to the previous sentences about terrorists allying with the criminal/marginalized populations of the world, which include blonds, too. The point I was trying to make is that since racial profiling does happen, this produces an incentive for the terrorists to negate this deterrent. I was trying to disabuse you of your focus on an arab appearance as a sign of suspicion.

Terrorists collaborating with marginalized domestic groups is not far-fetched. From the link (it’s NY Times so it will eventually become archived):

Law enforcement officials have become increasingly concerned that militant domestic groups could seek to collaborate with foreign-based terrorist groups like Al Qaeda because of a shared hatred of the American government. This has become a particular concern in prisons.

I think he should return the favor by reforming the FEC.

Heh, heh. I wrote to Bush and asked him to do that:

Dear American Pundit:

Thank you for your message. We appreciate your views and welcome your suggestions.

President Bush is dedicated to pursuing policies and programs that make America safer and more prosperous for all citizens. We hope you will visit the White House website at www.whitehouse.gov for more information on these issues. [Shouldn’t you be watching TV?] Thank you for writing. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

M Heidi Marquez
Special Assistant to the President
and Director of Presidential Correspondence

I hope to do better with Kerry. Maybe a letter that actually references the issue I’m writing about. :)

Wow :)

Did you add the phrase in the brackets or did she actually say “Shouldn’t you be watching TV”?

Hahah! I’d like a crack at paraphrasing that:

“Dear American #5,457,777,358:

Welcome to the automated message filtering system. We’d appreciate your views and suggestions if we bothered to actually read them.

President Bush(tm) has all his bases covered, both here at home and abroad. Therefore, no citizens’ interjections are needed, ever. We hope you will visit the Might House website at www.whitehouse.gov and stare at the black and white animated spinning spiral thingy, found in the ‘More Information’ section.[It’s not subliminabal.] Thanks for proving to my boss that I know how to set up automated email responses, and better luck next time.

Sincerely,

M Heidi Marquez
Special Assistant to the President
and Director of Presidential Irresponsibility.”

Mwuhahahahhaaaa!

This poor guy was only harassed for 30 minutes but it too demonstrates the kind of “quality” homeland security that comes out of racial profiling.

That about covers it Will. And yes, I added the brackets.