Racial Profiling II
- Thread starter Venison_Jerkey32
- Start date
What specific right(s) is being violated by "racial profiling."
In reference to these Imams, they were denied boarding by a private company, not for simply being Muslim, but for acting in a way deemed suspsicious by other passengers and the flight crew (and whoever else was involved in that decision making process). They were removed because of their actions, not their religion, by a private company, not a state or any other government entity.
don't know, that's why I was asking. and I was referring to discrimination, not racial profiling.
Again, we're lumping a lot of things into "racial profiling". Witness describes suspect as black man in stolen BMW then of course the cops are not going to pull over a white man in a Lexus. On the other hand cops pulling over a black man with a do rag blasting Ludacris from an S-Class Benz in a rich neighborhood for no other reason than cop doesn't think a black man should be in such a nice neighborhood driving a nice car...that's pretty despicable.
Also, what Imams? Maybe I missed a post somewhere but I thought we were talking about general circumstances, not a specific case.
Though in the case of airline screening it's not a private company making decisions. TSA is a part of HomeSec and screening only brown people or Muslims is most certainly discrimination and as despicable as a cop pulling over a guy for DWB.
I don't know if behaviour would work...but does a nervous white guy get the same treatment as a nervous brown guy in a turban? I asked before but does anyone know if the 9/11 hijackers looked nervous? Perhaps they were the most calm and peaceful folks in line that day.
Is there a single rule these days - aside from no box cutters - that would have prevented 9/11?
Again, we're lumping a lot of things into "racial profiling". Witness describes suspect as black man in stolen BMW then of course the cops are not going to pull over a white man in a Lexus. On the other hand cops pulling over a black man with a do rag blasting Ludacris from an S-Class Benz in a rich neighborhood for no other reason than cop doesn't think a black man should be in such a nice neighborhood driving a nice car...that's pretty despicable.
Also, what Imams? Maybe I missed a post somewhere but I thought we were talking about general circumstances, not a specific case.
Though in the case of airline screening it's not a private company making decisions. TSA is a part of HomeSec and screening only brown people or Muslims is most certainly discrimination and as despicable as a cop pulling over a guy for DWB.I don't know if behaviour would work...but does a nervous white guy get the same treatment as a nervous brown guy in a turban? I asked before but does anyone know if the 9/11 hijackers looked nervous? Perhaps they were the most calm and peaceful folks in line that day.
Is there a single rule these days - aside from no box cutters - that would have prevented 9/11?
harrys ghost
New member
The rule was already in place.
FAA regs required cockpit doors to remain closed and locked for the duration of flights.
FAA regs required cockpit doors to remain closed and locked for the duration of flights.
Some persons have expressed the view that Arabs and Muslims may be properly singled out as dangerous and suspected of terrorism. Once upon a time we were at war with the Japanese and suspected Americans of Japanese descent of sabotage. The result: Korematsu v. US (1944) – one of many black marks upon our nation's history. In Korematsu, the Supreme Court decided that, given the circumstances, it was not only permissible to scrutinize Americans of Japanese descent, but to subject them to curfew, detention in relocation centers, and exclusion from the West Coast.
Justice Black wrote: "[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect." However, the exclusions were nonetheless upheld: "Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary [by the military authorities] because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country." Nearly 75,000 American citizens were forced into internment camps.
So what is your view of civil rights and of "Equal Protections of the laws"? Do you think they are not violated by being treated differently based upon the color of your skin?
Do you think it either permissible, or even proper, that there be an extra check on all dark-skinned men waiting to board an airline?
My view is that Equal Protection of the laws sets a higher bar. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All men are created equal". Unfortunately, the law often is not quick enough to adapt to new forms of discrimination and to right age-old wrongs, however, that delay should not be used as an excuse to engage in the very discrimination we all consider invidious.
Justice Black wrote: "[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect." However, the exclusions were nonetheless upheld: "Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary [by the military authorities] because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country." Nearly 75,000 American citizens were forced into internment camps.
So what is your view of civil rights and of "Equal Protections of the laws"? Do you think they are not violated by being treated differently based upon the color of your skin?
Do you think it either permissible, or even proper, that there be an extra check on all dark-skinned men waiting to board an airline?
My view is that Equal Protection of the laws sets a higher bar. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All men are created equal". Unfortunately, the law often is not quick enough to adapt to new forms of discrimination and to right age-old wrongs, however, that delay should not be used as an excuse to engage in the very discrimination we all consider invidious.
I absolutely agree with the principle that someone should not be discriminated against simply due to skin color. However, that blanket statement does not totally eliminate the concept of discrimination. At it's core, to discriminate is to choose. One can discriminate on anything, favorite color, wine, food, sports team, etc. The constitution guarantees that discrimination is not allowed with regards to voting.
That being said, I agree that a person should not have services disallowed simply due to race, skin color, religion in and of themselves.
That being said, I agree that a person should not have services disallowed simply due to race, skin color, religion in and of themselves.
Just to clarify, I am a racist...
In that I do differentiate between people on the basis of race because different peoples will react differently to any given situation.
I also believe that Western Civilization is vastly superior to any other socio-economic construct that humanity has yet devised and is worth preserving.
It is a modern liberal reaction to insist that all races are the same (not the same as equal!).
They clearly are not.
Nor do they wish to be! Listen to Louis Farrakhan, or La Raza sometime and you will realize that the very concept of "racism" as being a bad thing is a uniquely white-majority conceit.
Further, I subscribe to this theory (not my own):
"...Islam is not a religion as ordinarily understood. Islam is a tyrannical religio-political system aimed at the destruction of every non-Islamic government including our own."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006866.html
So, since all the successful airline attacks on the US have been committed by Muslim arab males between 18 and 40, then that demographic should, by sheer force of logic, be subject to closer scrutiny than the rest the passengers on a given flight.
Not that other demographics should be forgotten (non-arab Muslims for example), but logic must start from first principles; not start with a guilty white liberal's panicked reaction to a perceived accusation of "racism".
G
In that I do differentiate between people on the basis of race because different peoples will react differently to any given situation.
I also believe that Western Civilization is vastly superior to any other socio-economic construct that humanity has yet devised and is worth preserving.
It is a modern liberal reaction to insist that all races are the same (not the same as equal!).
They clearly are not.
Nor do they wish to be! Listen to Louis Farrakhan, or La Raza sometime and you will realize that the very concept of "racism" as being a bad thing is a uniquely white-majority conceit.
Further, I subscribe to this theory (not my own):
"...Islam is not a religion as ordinarily understood. Islam is a tyrannical religio-political system aimed at the destruction of every non-Islamic government including our own."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006866.html
So, since all the successful airline attacks on the US have been committed by Muslim arab males between 18 and 40, then that demographic should, by sheer force of logic, be subject to closer scrutiny than the rest the passengers on a given flight.
Not that other demographics should be forgotten (non-arab Muslims for example), but logic must start from first principles; not start with a guilty white liberal's panicked reaction to a perceived accusation of "racism".
G
Actually, profiling is what is done by a profiler when investigating a crime that has already happened. statistically certain groups of people commit crimes in different ways. somebody who stabs a person 163 times and leaves the murder weapon behind is more likely to fit into age/sex/education/race/wealth group A. While a person who slits somebodies throat and leaves a neat crime scene is more likely to fit into age/sex/education/race/wealth group B. that in my understanding is profiling. it regards different types of people as different and is based on thorough research.
not searching "old grandmotherly ladies" at the airport thoroughly is a hole in security and if it were systematic enough for terrorists to interpret there would be old ladies used as mules to sneak prohibited items past screeners.
I also have heard from a reliable source airport screeners prefer to "hassle" people who bathe regularly like a white male businessman. Than have to deal with a "stinky foreigner" where they have a language barrier and may be accused of racial profiling. so how do you like that. reverse profiling.
not searching "old grandmotherly ladies" at the airport thoroughly is a hole in security and if it were systematic enough for terrorists to interpret there would be old ladies used as mules to sneak prohibited items past screeners.
I also have heard from a reliable source airport screeners prefer to "hassle" people who bathe regularly like a white male businessman. Than have to deal with a "stinky foreigner" where they have a language barrier and may be accused of racial profiling. so how do you like that. reverse profiling.
Venison_Jerkey32
New member
You have the right to subscribe to whatever theory you want, but I did ask not to post these things in this thread. Sorry, but I think that because some people either don't read the posts or just ignore them, we are pretty much done.
Do they "look" Muslim? How do we check which passengers are Muslim and which ones are dark skinned christians or jews or atheists? Make them declare a religion when buying a ticket?
What if the next hijacker wears a Star of David to avoid being screened? Can you tell the difference between an Arab and a Venezuelan by looks alone? Do you believe that it should be done by Muslim sounding names?
Ignoring the morality of profiling Muslims at airports....how is it even possible?