Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Racial Profiling Not Allowed in NY searches

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Racial Profiling Not Allowed in NY searches

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 02:15:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')No racial profiling will be allowed," Mr. Kelly said. "It's against our policies. But it will be a systematized approach."
So they want to be sure no Arabs or MiddleEastern terrorists try to blow up a bunch of New York commuters on the subway. Why are they so fussy about this? Check the people who are the ones likely to have a bomb. Instead they will search elderly ladies 'just to be fair'. Assinine. (I'd provide the link to the article in the New York Times but the URL is too long and scrolls off the window. It's linked at DrudgeReport.com)
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Unread postby I_Like_Plants » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 06:02:25

In a way that makes sense, since *anyone* could have become a Muslim and decide to be a bomber, frankly if you're a little old lady with creaky joints and aches and pains, it could be a way to go out with a bang, or it could be some icy blue eyed icelander, but the reality is that there's a definate profile. No Tim McVeighs, no little old ladies from pasadena, even the "american" bombers have shown to be of middle eastern heritage.

We need to get Richard Dawkins in on this ..... maybe he can explain the pattern......
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 06:35:52

Unless they have that warrant or court issued 'probable cause', what business do they have searching anyone?

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby PlanComplete » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 10:33:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'U')nless they have that warrant or court issued 'probable cause', what business do they have searching anyone?

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




The DHS says we affirm that terrorists want to bomb the subways we have probable cause as London and the Gitmo detainee's say it can be done we request the right to search bags on those wanting to enter the subway.
They do have the right not too use the subway! Link to quotes on MSNBC
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyone who refuses a search will be turned away


The parts I do not agree with

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')and those caught carrying drugs or other contraband could be arrested.



But then again look at DUI checkpoints, its not just about the drinking 8O
User avatar
PlanComplete
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Eli » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 10:39:15

Cops working this kind of job may or may not run you in for drugs. If you had a small amount of pot you would probably just be given a warning. Crank or heroin would be a different story.

They are going to have to be at every stop. This is a massive under taking.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Unread postby PlanComplete » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 10:43:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'C')ops working this kind of job may or may not run you in for drugs. If you had a small amount of pot you would probably just be given a warning. Crank or heroin would be a different story.

They are going to have to be at every stop. This is a massive under taking.


Personally I think sporadic searches here and there would be more effective. If they do not know when or where they can get on safely with there bomb it would make it more likely they will get caught. If they know all points will be monitors constantly they will just sneak into the tunnels with some bolt cutters and bomb the actual tunnel when the subway train goes over top it. Then again they may do that anyway no matter how they search. We can only plug the leak we cannot stop it.
User avatar
PlanComplete
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Specop_007 » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 11:24:04

Welcome to the politically correct climate we live in, thanks to the Democrats and every more liberal organizations such as the ACLU.

"Muslims want to bomb us, and we'll search to stop that. But we wont search Muslims"

Whiskey.....
Tango........
Foxtrot.......
Over.
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Aaron » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 11:53:10

I gotta agree...

It's a pretty sad, & pathetic circumstance we have here.

Our Gynocracy has "thrown out the baby with the bathwater", and become unbalanced.

This is all about fear of liability, not some moral concern for the sanctity of life.

TPTB are afraid of the consequences of being accused of not acting.

Sometimes I gotta tell ya, I look around me & think, "Where the hell did all these wenises come from!?!"

When I think of the sacrifices and hardships my grandfather made so I could be here... what I feel is shame.

We are the boiling frog people.

The change is so gradual, almost nobody notices. Until one day you look around you, and see as if for the first time, the terrible contradiction of this modern world.

We are going to search AMERICAN CITIZENS at random because our politicians are scared of liability, while we sit passively as hundreds of thousands die miserable and horrible deaths around the world?

We fiddle... Rome burns.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 12:31:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'W')elcome to the politically correct climate we live in, thanks to the Democrats and every more liberal organizations such as the ACLU.

"Muslims want to bomb us, and we'll search to stop that. But we wont search Muslims"

Whiskey.....
Tango........
Foxtrot.......
Over.


I've got to add this post in from someone's blog.
It's quite thought provoking.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow, this is what she said:


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, I can see why they do profiling. I know that it pisses people off and everything, but when something rings to be true over and over again, and you start to see a pattern, that's the type of people that you look for.

Although I know that there are shitty cops out there, they really are just out there to do their jobs and make people safer. And if someone isn't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't mind perhaps being pulled over every once in a while. It means that the cops are trying to do their job.


I'm sorry, but I disagree. If you belong to a group that's being profiled, then you're a second class citizen. Period. People will look at you differently. You're instant suspects in any crime in your area. You're instant suspects even when there hasn't been a crime committed. And whether you've committed any crimes or not, people will still assume that either you've done something and not yet been caught, or you just haven't started your life of crime yet.

Being put in a group like that? Total loss of dignity.

You know? For the sake of argument, I'll say, OK. I'm with you. Let's profile. We want to feel safe, right? Let's do it.

But. Let's try to be more accurate. Let's examine this...

So. For example... who would be most likely to, say... steal cars? Blacks? Mexicans? I can tell you. Think outside the box... the people most likely to steal cars? High school dropouts. Yes, let's do our profiling by education level. It makes more sense.

Think about it. Who's more likely to deal drugs out on the streetcorner, a dropout or a college grad with his 9 to 5 middle management job? The dropout, of course. Who's more likely to rob a liquor store, someone who graduated high school but didn't go to college, or a college grad working on his doctorate? Yeah, it's the non-college guy. Does that make sense to you? OK, I'm not saying that all crime is perpetrated by the less educated, but I think it'd be a safe generalization to say that most is. It makes sense, doesn't it? Education is tied to earning power. The less education, the less earning power. The less earning power, the more likely someone is to commit crimes to get by. This totally makes sense to me. We profile this way, and we'll be able to correctly profile the uneducated as being a more serious threat for crime than anybody of any particular race.

So, given that, the government should issue badges. Maybe something like the Homeland Security Advisory System, where the threat level is assigned by color. If you graduate from college, you get a green badge. If you complete some college, then you get a yellow badge (yeah, I know I skipped blue, but hey, there's only four levels in this one). If you only graduate from high school, with no college, then you get an orange badge. If you don't finish high school, you get a red badge.

Now, you have to wear these badges everywhere you go. They have to be plainly visible. Why? So that, when you enter a room, everybody can instantly assign a threat level to you. How does that sound? Quick, hands on your wallets and purses, here comes an orange! Watch out for that yellow guy over there, too. Man, I don't feel safe unless the whole room is green, yanno?

Serra, I know you're not a college grad. How would you like it if, every time you walked into a room, people assumed you were a criminal? Every time you went to a bar, people would whisper "Look at her. She's an orange. Don't let her sit near us; she'll try to rob us." But you're not a criminal, right? You're a nice girl. You haven't hurt anybody. The fact that you didn't graduate from college has nothing to do with your likelihood of committing a crime, does it? Of course not. Nothing.

Too bad. You're not a college grad, so you're a bigger threat. Period. I know that it pisses you off and everything, but when something rings to be true over and over again, and you start to see a pattern, that's the type of people that you look for - the uneducated. So, if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind perhaps being pulled over every once in a while. It means that the cops are trying to do their job. (do those words sound familiar?)

Damn, doesn't that seem unfair to you? Of course it is. But judging someone just by skin color is just as unfair, wouldn't you agree?

But hey... think about it. We'll still be profiling by color. Not by skin color, but by badge color. Now, how many people who support racial profiling do you think will be supporting this kind of profiling? I'm thinking, a whole lotta not many.

Like I always say, it's so easy to OK discrimination when it's not you who's being discriminated against.




Link to Blog
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Unread postby sklump » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 12:55:09

... but who's more likely to deal drugs from the privacy of their home?

Definitely not the dropout. The 9-to-5er on the QT. Hell, if they wanted to profile a gold-mine for illicit drug activity, they would nab executives and advertisers for cocaine, software engineers for cannabis, and doctors for painkillers.
As Canadian as ... possible, under the circumstances
User avatar
sklump
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue 17 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 13:14:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sklump', '.').. but who's more likely to deal drugs from the privacy of their home?

Definitely not the dropout. The 9-to-5er on the QT. Hell, if they wanted to profile a gold-mine for illicit drug activity, they would nab executives and advertisers for cocaine, software engineers for cannabis, and doctors for painkillers.


Correct. That's the whole point of the blog. When we use stereotyp...hmmm..., statistics, of one group in order to predict any one member of that group's individual behavior, we often run into inconsistencies.

"I'd like an order of security and I'd like to trade <i>that guy's</i> civil liberties for it...
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 13:51:59

They aren't looking for coke dealers, they're looking for people who would set off bombs to kill as many as possible. People who are most likely of Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian origins. Now they are wasting valuable resources for the very reason that Aaron mentioned, to avoid litigation. It's not smart. If the idea is to prevent suicide bombers from succeeding, then the group producing such creatures needs to be searched. Common sense. Its unfortunate to the law abiding members of the said group, but they would be allowed to go on their way after it is clear they have no bombs. A small price to pay for being members of an ethnic group that has produced the threat. I think we allowed ourselves to get into to such an impractical situation like this because we are so rich and wealthy as a society that we can afford to be concerned with niceties. That won't last much longer than the onset of PO or the next few big terrorist attacks.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 14:23:46

Another point I would like to make. Individual Civil Liberties is a cornerstone of our society which is now being used against us by members of a certain ethnic group. They use Western values against the West to allow them to conduct their activities. It seems to me to be easier for them to do that now here in the West than in places like Algeria or Egypt where they are rounded up. The Islamicist Movement failed everywhere but in The Sudan, Afghanistan, and for the Shi'ites in Iran. Now they bring it to the West. Its the latest round of a historical fight. They know our weak point which is our open society which protects individual rights. Our response is stupidity. To protect everyone's Civil Rights we search everyone. Ironic, huh? Better to search the ethnic group making the bombs and leave everyone else alone. The enemy knows us all too well.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 15:54:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'A')nother point I would like to make. Individual Civil Liberties is a cornerstone of our society which is now being used against us by members of a certain ethnic group. They use Western values against the West to allow them to conduct their activities. It seems to me to be easier for them to do that now here in the West than in places like Algeria or Egypt where they are rounded up. The Islamicist Movement failed everywhere but in The Sudan, Afghanistan, and for the Shi'ites in Iran. Now they bring it to the West. Its the latest round of a historical fight. They know our weak point which is our open society which protects individual rights. Our response is stupidity. To protect everyone's Civil Rights we search everyone. Ironic, huh? Better to search the ethnic group making the bombs and leave everyone else alone. The enemy knows us all too well.


Random searches, my friend. Only way to do it without profiling.
Common sense dictates that you search ANY person carrying large bags onto the subway, not just those of Middle-eastern decent.
When's the next McVeigh going to shake things up with your definition of a "terrorist"? What do we do then? Search all white men with army crew cuts? We'll be here all night.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 17:11:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '
')
Random searches, my friend. Only way to do it without profiling.
Common sense dictates that you search ANY person carrying large bags onto the subway, not just those of Middle-eastern decent.
When's the next McVeigh going to shake things up with your definition of a "terrorist"? What do we do then? Search all white men with army crew cuts? We'll be here all night.
Not McVeigh again! :? These Jihadists are on a roll, and we know who they are. Random searches are a waste of personnel hours. If they see a suspicious looking white guy with a large bag, etc. then check him out too. But checking the bags of little old grandmas from Sweden is absurd. You don't want to advocate absurd policies, do you? You say 'only way to do it without profiling' I say profile, that's common sense.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 17:21:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '
')
Random searches, my friend. Only way to do it without profiling.
Common sense dictates that you search ANY person carrying large bags onto the subway, not just those of Middle-eastern decent.
When's the next McVeigh going to shake things up with your definition of a "terrorist"? What do we do then? Search all white men with army crew cuts? We'll be here all night.
Not McVeigh again! :? These Jihadists are on a roll, and we know who they are. Random searches are a waste of personnel hours. If they see a suspicious looking white guy with a large bag, etc. then check him out too. But checking the bags of little old grandmas from Sweden is absurd. You don't want to advocate absurd policies, do you? You say 'only way to do it without profiling' I say profile, that's common sense.


I agree, checking out little blue-haired ladies makes no sense, BUT you have to be more creative than "middle-eastern men with bags" because, as I said, terrorists aren't static. We could easily see an upsurge in women with baby stroller-bombs as well. Sympathetic southern militiamen survivalists with Ryder trucks. You name it. What will it be next time?
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 17:36:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '
')
I agree, checking out little blue-haired ladies makes no sense, BUT you have to be more creative than "middle-eastern men with bags" because, as I said, terrorists aren't static. We could easily see an upsurge in women with baby stroller-bombs as well. You name it. What will it be next time?
OK then, we're coming to agreement on the old lady thing. The point is that that's what they do because of politically correct exquisite sensitivity. Look for the threats as they currently exist. If we get intelligence of some adaptation the terrorists are making then look for that new profile as well. The sympathetic southern militiamen survivalists with Ryder trucks aren't currently going around and doing this stuff. It is, inconveniently, swarthy young hirsute Middle Easterners. So their bags and persons should be looked at carefully.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Unread postby J-Rod » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 18:17:56

I found this in the comments section of the blog, Gives you a good idea of what it feels like to be on the wrong end of the stick, and why civil liberties are important. Man are we in a fucking mess.

http://69.93.170.43/index.php
User avatar
J-Rod
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 17 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Northeast Ohio

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 20:39:03

These assholes have as much right to search anyone as for themselves to have a bullet put in their head.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The DHS says we affirm that terrorists want to bomb the subways we have probable cause as London and the Gitmo detainee's say it can be done we request the right to search bags on those wanting to enter the subway.


Of course, the DHS itself and the act that created it is also unconstitutional. This statement is coming from a department that is in defiance of the supreme law of the land, hence their word is about worthless.

Section 304 and 307 of the Homeland Security Act allow the government to forcibly vaccinate people even if the vaccine isn’t tested and is entirely experimental, and grants the company that manufactures the vaccine immunity from lawsuit if anything goes wrong. This is a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Homeland Security Act in Section 710 gives the Homeland Security Secretary unrestricted access to anything a witness states or reveals and has full access to the names of confidentially protected witnesses. This clearly violates the 5th Amendment.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey do have the right not too use the subway!


And if they are reliant on it for their transportation? No where in the constitution does it say riding a subway or any form of transportation is a government granted privelidge. By telling the people they must be subjected to the state's will to travel by this means is asserting that it is, when the Constitution never granted the government that privelidge.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut then again look at DUI checkpoints, its not just about the drinking


Indeed. Those are also unconstitutional. Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness."
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron