We are in a different world now. Indeed, we are in a different country. I don't think that anyone is being forced to "sacrifice" his "rights" to preserve safety. And I think that saying the Constitution is being shredded is a little dramatic. EVERYONE is giving up some rights and liberties because of what happened. And I'll take the sacrifice of political correctness for a while over the sacrifice of more lives.

As a gay man, I have been "profiled" by the American Red Cross as a danger to the blood supply, despite 15 years of negative HIV tests. Does it bother me? Yes. Is it personal? No. Do I still support the Red Cross? You bet.
It, like the ultimate profiling that will be done on many Americans, is the long-term price to be paid for safety. And I hate to apologize for my very human feelings that my safety does come before someone's feelings. It's VERY painful to admit that sometimes, but it's true.

Shinbal - it is a good example - having just given blood and been asked lots of questions. They ask the questions respectively - not antagnoistically, and ultimately depend on the honesty of the person responding. - so with all the screening, we all are at risk when we receive blood. It is not "profiling" that I object to - except if the added scrutiny involves antagonism, and "harrassment" - that is unnecessary. Do we ALL need extra scrutiny. Absolutely. And thanks again for pointing out what this thread was about. Previously common behaviors in ANYONE may now be considered suspicious. My nephew is returning today to Ft. Lauderdale and his original direct flight has been changed to one through Atlanta. Will they view going through Atlanta as suspicious behavior as they did coming in. I hope not.

------------------
DtG

Agreed. However, it's times like this when we have to be most vigilant about that happening. It's all too easy for legislators and their constituents to get swept up in the moment, passing "new" laws and regulations because no one would dare disagree with them today, this week, or this month. But in a year or two...

As just one example, did anyone hear Ashcroft (or was it Cheney?) yesterday? He called for new wiretapping laws designed to make it easier to surveil suspected terrorists. If a bill so doing was sent to Capitol Hill today, do you think any member of congress would disagree with him? New FAA security measures. or other laws that can be (note: I said "can be," not "are") interpreted as restrictions on civil liberties are no different, at least in the process of their proposal and/or adoption during times like this.

Now, implementation of those laws and regulations is debatable, but that's the point--we must debate them, not simply pass them in light of recent events. There's a reason the laws and regulations some are now seeking to overturn were implemented in the first place, and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

[This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 09-17-2001).]

Another poster has suggested that we join the ACLU. I have paid the membership from time and time, and I don't always agree with everything they espouse. But, I feel that the conservative policy makers are the beneficiary of the "mood" right now and we do have to be diligent in preventing further erosion of our liberties and rights, which are what set the U.S.A. apart from other countries in the world. So I am going to dig up my ACLU contribution form and join again.

dgordan- Maybe you can get a trip report from your blond blue-eyed nephew on the latest.

I fear the US public will willing sacrifice the Constitutional rights of others and even of themselves for a glimmer of hope of security. Profiling leads no where because everyone fits a profile. White, ex-military, like guns-domestic terrorist; dark skin, hair, with a Semetic name-Mideast terrorist; Celtic name-IRA terrorist. Single male traveling alone-suspect. Like to travel to foreign countries? It never ends.

I guess with dark skin, hair, and facial hair and been mistaken for Mexican by Mexicans, Asian by Customs; Native American, Inuit, and all sorts of other ethnicities, I guess I will expect to be looked at suspiciously. I go to DC all the time and interact with DOJ, DOD, DOT. I fit a profile since I am always at airports, don't check luggage, have to change plans at the last second, sit in FC, etc.

BTW, I am an American.

The attack occured only a few days ago.

Because the ennemies are difficult to identify, not wearing an uniform, the security people have a difficult job at this time.

It's currently better to deplane an innocent, as to let fly another terrorist.

Nobody would accept to take the risk of a new attack, nobody would excuse a security guy if he detects a suspicious passenger and let him board the plane.

Who are "we" and who do you suggest are "you"? I am disgusted by what you are implying.

In the US we have a document dealing with who gave rights to whom:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

There are presumptions in this assertion that do not really hold up under logical examination. They are really questions in terms of numbers.

Certainly, there have been examples of other ethnic groups, including Caucasian, who have participated in suicidal rituals as a part of some (what most of us would call misguided) religious or political conviction. In the U.S., one could point to occurrences such as Heaven's Gate, Waco and Ruby Ridge, among others in recent history. In Europe, too, predominantly Caucasian extremist groups have also engaged in suicidal strategies to advance political (and religious, though I would argue VERY loosely religious) agendas.

Tango says "very few Americans," though. So these groups do not represent a majority of Americans, Europeans or Caucasians. Fair enough.

But the implication is that Middle Eastern extremism that engages in such behaviors DOES represent a majority of Middle Easterners. This is the main logical fallacy in the argument. I have not seen the numbers to demonstrate that the majority of peoples of Middle Eastern descent or nationality buy into this philosophy at all.

One thing that always strikes me is that, particularly in periods of crisis, we regular janes and joes seem to forget what makes news. It's not the ordinary and typical; it is the unsual! The exception! If the majority of terrorist suicide bombers that have been shown in the American news media have been of Middle Eastern descent, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of people with that ethnicity are terrorist bombers. The news is not going to show people going about their daily lives -- having meals with their families; going to work; even sitting on the computer posting messages to bulletin boards (though this is still something of an exception in the world population as a whole).

There are no easy answers to this situation, including the marginalization of any particular ethnicity in this country. We should, perhaps, have learned that in WWII. I know that Tango is NOT intending that the U.S. repeat its mistakes during that time of presuming guilt or even suspicion based on ethnicity alone. So please do not take this as an attack on Tango, but rather a challenge to his argument.

robinhood....

Good Morning....

By "we" I was referring to the US government and the constitution. I am a Canadian BTW so I am talking out of context here.

By "you" I am referring to all those of every race/color/political belief who object to what will be required to establish security and order in "our" free world.

I hope this clears it up for you.

I find it disturbing that rights and liberties are assumed to be suspended automatically if the cause is urgent and just enough. The US people gave rights and obligations to the federal and state governments, not the other way around. We can change those rights through the Constitution but I guess Amendment XXVIII should be rights for all except Arab-Americans (or any other hypenated Americans, just add categories as Congress dictates).

(dup)

[This message has been edited by biggs (edited 09-17-2001).]

Nobody "gives" rights. They are endowed to us by our creator (or so the Declaration of Independence says).

..."to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

That said, in a time of war, the government defense of rights goes out the window. We will have to walk a fine line between genuine profiling and simple racism.

The Turkish armed forces require all men to be clean-shaven, because the beard is a symbol of loyalty to Allah (and shaving it is a disgrace), and any member of the armed forces must be loyal to their people. This is an interesting idea, and I hate to suggest profiling moslems with long beards, but it is an idea that works well for them.