Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 79

Thread: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

  1. #51
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    In the quoted article, the writer mentions "religious and racial profiling" in one breath. I would offer that the two are very distinct, since people do not choose their race, but they do choose their religion -- even, as in the case of Islam, such a choice is coerced, and/or such an integral aspect of the indoctrinated culture that it doesn't seem like a choice. Since religion is a choice and race isn't, then profiling according to religion is based upon ideology rather than something fixed and innate. As such, profiling according to religion is little different than profiling according to any other ideology, religious or not.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah you're right. Government has never expanded once in history. Never has it acted out against it's own people. It's never acted improperly, never siezed power it wasn't supposed to have. No, government has always been a benevolent force, right? Like a nice, warm puppy. There's no evidence of any government doing anything wrong ever, particularly ours. What warrantless searches? You're being silly. What aggressive search techniques by TSA? They're keeping us safe, right? Patriot Act, Real ID Act....what, no now you're just being silly. Yup. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Tell you what Catz, when you want to have an actual conversation then come back. Till that point, idiotic dismiss statements are not going to advance anything.
    When your arguments here consist of nothing but paranoid frothing about gummint power grabs and slippery slope fallacies, it's difficult to take your points seriously.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    When your arguments here consist of nothing but paranoid frothing about gummint power grabs and slippery slope fallacies, it's difficult to take your points seriously.
    Not really, there's no frothing or paranoia; only measured reality. My points are backed up by history and even recent legislation. It shows the power grabs quite clearly for anyone who wishes to see them. All government tends towards tyranny, it is the base nature of government. The reason why, while government being a necessity, it must be controlled and restricted. A concept well understood by the founders. The dismissive attitude based in fear, however, is an irrational one which poses great danger in general to the rights and liberties of the individual.

    Instead of looking at the situation rationally, examining the probabilities and understanding what the statistics say, some choose emotionalized response and irrational argument. In such, it clears way for massive usurpation of power. Fear is a powerful tool and we should be wary of the way in which government wields it. How much "safety" do we get out of TSA? Do you even know? What have they caught? Besides countless cans of shaving cream. Really and truly, what functionally and significantly have we derived from all the money we've poured into the TSA? Could we have done so with less money? Less intrusive and aggressive actions against the People?

    In the end, there are those who want to deflect away from such criticism. Others who will try to label critique of the TSA or government at large as some form of "conspiracy theory". As if warning against government power is a conspiracy. The deflections are intellectually dishonest at best, devoid in general. The terrorists aren't going to get you, the TSA isn't helping you. The only thing it is doing is being a hindrance, being aggressive against our rights, and expanding government force against the People. And that my friend is a measured fact. Accept it or hide from it, it's up to you.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #54
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah, you would think they were tasked to make us "safer". But how much "safer" are we? TSA didn't catch the underwear nor shoe bomber. They couldn't light themselves on fire in the end. And the new methods, these aggressive groping and naked images that we're doing now wouldn't have caught it. Nor will it make us "safer". Terrorism was already low probability, and there is no real way to significantly make us "safer" as the added risk posed by terrorists to the over all probability that we will die on any 1 given flight is minuscule. So what have they really done for us? Not much, nor will they be able to have that significant of an impact. While there can be arguments made for not outright dismissing the TSA, there is significant argument to be made that it should be run more effectively, intelligently, and less aggressively against its own people particularly when we consider the overall probabilities that we're talking about.
    Exactly. Terrorism is, was, and always will be, a very unlikely event. It doesn't happen very often, but it's very high-profile when it does. I'm pretty sure that the average person has a greater chance of being randomly struck by lightning than to be killed in a terrorist attack. The great lengths we go to, where we sacrifice time, money, privacy, dignity, our pretext of religious and racial equality, and our constitutional freedoms... have all served to perhaps make an incredibly rare event slightly rarer. The cost we have paid is HUGE compared to the negligible return.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #55
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Have you worked with law enforcement and people who do interview/interrogation and profiling? It requires a high level of experience, for one thing, before people get good at it. You're talking about recruiting experienced investigators, for the most part, and you're going to have to pay those people considerably more than the average TSA employee earns.
    I'm okay with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    So, are you prepared to hire several hundred or thousand people and pay them 80-90k a year? because, frankly, that's what you're looking at. Most skilled investigators earn upwards of $50k a year, and in large cities, they earn significantly more than that.
    Absolutely.

    1,000 workers at 80k per year and that's 8 million. What do we have now?
    Magnetic Imaging machines (19 deployed)
    200,000 each

    X-Ray (backscatter) machines (soon to be deployed, let's use 10 for a calculation)
    190,000 each

    Baggage Check x-ray machines (thousands deployed)
    45,000 each

    Puffer Machines (18 currently deployed)
    160,000 each

    Manetometers (metal detector machines)
    15,000 each

    Swabbing hand held detectors - too many to count

    Enchanced Pat-downs (added TSA agents and training needed)

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...ty-technology/

    All that is around 65-68 million. We have a lot of machines that do a lot of scanning but what we lack in our arsenal are a few trained, experienced people who can be called in to ask a few questions to see if more questions are required. Profile? Absolutely. Everyone goes through the scanners, has their bags x-rayed, gets the puff of air and a few set off the machines and need a pat down. But the machines don't detect nervousness, and they're not programmed to identify answers to questions that don't make sense. How about we try it with 100 people first, a few at some of the big airports and see if it's worth keeping?
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #56
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    You mean something like this:

    Behavior Detection Officers

    Only asking questions not simply just observing?

    Cause we have those. Now granted, they can't Profile because the Supreme Court has found that broadscale profiling is unconstitutional and we all know you were so worried earlier on about trampling upon rights.

  7. #57
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You mean something like this:

    Behavior Detection Officers

    Only asking questions not simply just observing?

    Cause we have those. Now granted, they can't Profile because the Supreme Court has found that broadscale profiling is unconstitutional and we all know you were so worried earlier on about trampling upon rights.
    I'd be in favor of challenging the profiling and the "unconstitutionality", and no not really like BDO's. I'm saying the TSA should hire Isaac Yeffet, model the interviews directly from El Al, train about 100 people in Israel (OJT) then pilot a program in 10 major airline hubs for 18 months with a report on the findings. Yes I'm concerned on the over reach and invasion of privacy, that still holds, or are you claiming some mutual exclusivity that interviews must automatically trample rights? And let's be clear - I'm concerned about Constitutional rights you know, as they are outlined in the actual Constitution.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    And let's be clear - I'm concerned about Constitutional rights you know, as they are outlined in the actual Constitution.
    You're including the bill of rights in the "actual constitution," right?

  9. #59
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'd be in favor of challenging the profiling and the "unconstitutionality", and no not really like BDO's.
    So essentially, something that's been clearly defined as unconstitutional you're fine with implimenting anyways HOPING that the Supreme Court will find it different. However, things that have NOT been found as unconstitutional you act as if they're unquestionably unconstitutional and trampling upon our rights?

    That makes a ton of sense.

    Yes I'm concerned on the over reach and invasion of privacy, that still holds, or are you claiming some mutual exclusivity that interviews must automatically trample rights?
    No, I'm saying that profilining "Muslims" (which I've still yet to have anyone explain how you accurately do that) or "Arabic" people is unconstitutional, so trying to argue that we must forgo our current methods because YOU feel its unconstitutional to institute something that utilizes a tactic that has been ruled unconstitutional isn't a strong argument to me.

    And let's be clear - I'm concerned about Constitutional rights you know, as they are outlined in the actual Constitution.
    And per the court that is vested with the power to judge the constitutionality of things, profiling...which is what you want to impliment...is unconstitutional on a broadscale level.

    "I care about the constitution, except where its inconvienent to me"

  10. #60
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So essentially, something that's been clearly defined as unconstitutional you're fine with implimenting anyways HOPING that the Supreme Court will find it different. However, things that have NOT been found as unconstitutional you act as if they're unquestionably unconstitutional and trampling upon our rights?
    No that's not what I said. I said I'd be in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of profiling as was defined in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, in which O'Connor identified,

    "Accordingly, we hold today that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. In other words, such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests."

    Three criteria must be met:
    1. Ethnicity must play a major role in finding the guilty - in this case, profiling ethnicity of the ME or religion thereof.
    2. There must be reasonable suspicion to believe that a meaningful portion of the profiled ethnic class is guilty.
    3. the benefit of including ethnicity must exceed its cost, e.g., evidence must outweigh conjecture.

    On those grounds, a challenge to the unconstitutionality of profiling may clarify the issue. I'm not fine with implementing anything with HOPE, so stop injecting your analysis and conjecture - simply read it as a legal challenge meant to clarify what is and is not covered under the 5th and 14th amendments as it applies to air travel and who is and is not questioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That makes a ton of sense.
    Yes it does doesn't it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I'm saying that profilining "Muslims" (which I've still yet to have anyone explain how you accurately do that) or "Arabic" people is unconstitutional, so trying to argue that we must forgo our current methods because YOU feel its unconstitutional to institute something that utilizes a tactic that has been ruled unconstitutional isn't a strong argument to me.
    First your sentence doesn't even make sense "...because you feel its unconstitution to institute something that utilizes a tactic that has been ruled unconstitutional..." Cut down on the prepositions and make your point, what that point may be. I think I've already identified a pilot program utilizing El Al's methods may be beneficial. You're complaint earlier about logistics and cost you've obviously abandoned, so now your relying on "settled law" with regards to Constitutionality and lay claim that El Al profiles so their interviewing will not work in the U.S. Fine - then interview WITHOUT profiling if that makes you happy. It still doesn't change the fact that my OPINION is the profiling cases and constitutionality of profiling given the 3 criteria above could use clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And per the court that is vested with the power to judge the constitutionality of things, profiling...which is what you want to impliment...is unconstitutional on a broadscale level.
    Nice appeal to authority, however, the court that has the power to judge constitutionality has been overturned or else we'd still have slavery (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), or we'd still have racial segregation, (Brown vs. The Board of Ed. Topeka). So sorry you're offended that I'm daring to question the authority or decision of the SCOTUS, as you know the makeup of the SCOTUS politically has ramifications on their decision making process as well as their interpretation of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    "I care about the constitution, except where its inconvienent to me"
    I care about the Constitution, not so much about case law and I dare to question the decision of the Supreme Court. I know... what audacity huh? You'd rather everyone bend over because the SCOTUS says so and we abandoned the right to disagree. My my... how authoritarian of you.
    Last edited by Ockham; 12-01-10 at 11:23 AM.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •