John Ashcroft is... THE ETHNIC PROFILER!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,896
553
126


<< It wont matter that the man traveling to pakistan via New York who is an American Citizen and well respected business man got kicked off a plane because Betty and Doris felt uncomfortable with a guy on the plane with had a funny hat and strange clothes and brown skin, it wont even matter that the captain feels it is justifiable to get brownie off the plane, no problem! he'd rather be safe then sorry. >>

You're conflating two different issues. At no time has the Ashcroft Justice Department said it was 'okee-dokey' for airlines to deny any 'brownie' service. Nor has the Ashcroft Justice Department advocated that Betty and Doris give brown people mean looks. If you're pissed-off because Betty and Doris aren't being nice to you, you're problem is with Betty and Doris, not the Ashcroft Justice Department.
 

BuckleDownBen

Banned
Jun 11, 2001
519
0
0
Why is law enforcement in this country excused from doing their jobs in a lawful manner? Right or wrong, profiling is illegal(correct me if I'm wrong here). With the resources the FBI has, they should not have to assume that all Arabs are terrorists. I read today that the FBI had to use overnght mail to send out pictures of all the terrorists involved on 9-11. The CIA is supposed to be some kind of techncally sophistacated intelligence gathering force, but I get the feeling they are a bunch of bumpkins.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0


<< If a Jewish terrorist group were actively seeking to kill millions of Americans, the governement in my opinion would have the right to interview me to find out if I know anything. It's just common sense and prudent law enforcement.

Does a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb have to be detonated in lower Manhattan before some you people will realize that maybe we need to do things a little bit differently? :confused:

Liberals scare the heck out of me. :(
>>



What you just described would be a grossly "liberal" abuse of government power, a "liberal" government intrusion into your privacy.

Are you a communist or a conservative? Make up your mind.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
BuckleDownBen,

I dont think profilling is illegal. Nor do I think the FBI assumes all arabs are terrorist, they just happen to belong to group that is involved in terrorism. To ignore that group and be PC would foolish. And this is where they have to do investigation and determine which people need to be investigated further or picked up.
 

Gandalf511

Member
Oct 13, 2000
195
0
0
wasn't the government withholding the names of those "Being questioned" to protect their anonymity. that could be why no one can tell you who the "innocents" are that are being detained. we don't know. Rouding up ethnic groups for questioning and not releasing their names or the charges on which they are held, who does that remind one of - GESTAPO.

Hitler came to power claiming that the liberal predecessor government had made Germany weak by allowing the Aryan race to become polluted with the blood of inferior races, and that the country needed to unite and prove their strength. He began isolating Jews, pushed the Nuremberg laws requiring that they have no interactions with "pure-Germans" and carry identification at all times. any of this sound familiar. Bush hasn't completely isolated Arabic and muslim groups, but push for increased identification measures, quiet arrests and similar fascist moves have been made.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
"wasn't the government withholding the names of those "Being questioned" to protect their anonymity. that could be why no one can tell you who the "innocents" are that are being detained. we don't know. Rouding up ethnic groups for questioning and not releasing their names or the charges on which they are held, who does that remind one of - GESTAPO.

Hitler came to power claiming that the liberal predecessor government had made Germany weak by allowing the Aryan race to become polluted with the blood of inferior races, and that the country needed to unite and prove their strength. He began isolating Jews, pushed the Nuremberg laws requiring that they have no interactions with "pure-Germans" and carry identification at all times. any of this sound familiar. Bush hasn't completely isolated Arabic and muslim groups, but push for increased identification measures, quiet arrests and similar fascist moves have been made."

The government withheld the names of those being questioned but gave those that were detained the option of speaking to the press and giving out their names and any other information they deemed necessary. If I remember correctly, only a couple of them did so.

You know, we are at war right now. During every war in American history there has been heightened security measures.

Pop quiz:
1) Those responsible for the hijacking of planes and ramming them into the WTC and the Pentagon resulting in the deaths of thousands were:
A) Boy Scouts
B) Playboy bunnies
C) Whitey
D) Arab men between the ages of 17 and 40

2) Those responsible for the bombing of our embassies in Africa were:
A) 80 year-old grandmothers
B) Pop Warner football players
C) Feminists
D) Arab men between the ages of 17 and 40

3) Those responsible for bombing the USS Cole were:
A) Senators
B) Asian girl bands
C) The UCLA mens basketball team
D) Arab men between the ages of 17 and 40

If you answered anything but "D" to those three questions, please visit your nearest psychiatry ward.

Seriously, profiling in this instance makes sense. You are wasting valuable time and resources frisking 80 year old grandmothers, 5 year old boys, and ignoring those that are likely candidates. That is the purpose of profiling, to narrow your search down to a statistically viable number where you are more likely to catch a criminal and less likely to hold up production for everybody else.

Granted, the questioning of the 3000 extra people sounds odd but not when you take into consideration that they are questioning people who recently have come into this country or may have come into contact with someone who fits the profile they are looking for. It is called good police work. Unless they start detaining American citizens, be they Arab, Black, Asian or White, without just cause or due process then I am not going to stress out over this.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Gandalf511,

There were about 548 people detained after 9/11, all have had charges(mostly immigartion issues) placed on them. They all have access to a lawyer and the ability to contact their family. Was the gestapo so kind?
 

Gandalf511

Member
Oct 13, 2000
195
0
0
the problem is, to what extent to you take the profiling. any time an arabic guy or two or three buys an air-plane ticket we should search them? any time an arab guy or two buys some fertilizer or other potential bomb type stuff at wal-mart? anytime they rent a moving van? what about if they have a briefcase and a suit walking somewhere near the whitehouse? who makes the decision. when you start restricting the rights of people on the streets there needs to be some sort of written rules.

this is indeed one of the common debates between liberals and conservatives. nothing to get too excited over and flame people, but conservatives tend to want less personal freedoms and more "safety" while liberals want more personal freedoms and more restriction on business. today's debates just hold a bit more immediacy and personal impact
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
"the problem is, to what extent to you take the profiling. any time an arabic guy or two or three buys an air-plane ticket we should search them? any time an arab guy or two buys some fertilizer or other potential bomb type stuff at wal-mart? anytime they rent a moving van? what about if they have a briefcase and a suit walking somewhere near the whitehouse? who makes the decision. when you start restricting the rights of people on the streets there needs to be some sort of written rules.

this is indeed one of the common debates between liberals and conservatives. nothing to get too excited over and flame people, but conservatives tend to want less personal freedoms and more "safety" while liberals want more personal freedoms and more restriction on business. today's debates just hold a bit more immediacy and personal impact."

As long as an Arab male between the age of 17 and 40 shows up at a ticket counter with a one-way ticket and no luggage I want him searched. Oh, and there are written rules called "laws" that spell out due process, access to a lawyer, etc etc for individuals who are detained. Look, law enforcement is not throwing a net over every Arab male that lives in the United States. I work with several Arab men and they continue living happily and working in this country. Law enforcement officials are looking at a very specific subset of Arab males. Namely, those who come from terror-sponsoring countries, those with expired visas (breaking the law with that anyways), and those that fit any number of criteria that mark them as outside of the norm.

I do not agree with your assessment on conservatives and liberals. Any true conservative wants less government inteference and more freedom in their personal lives. Liberalism sides with thinking that government can be used to solve every social ill.
 

Gandalf511

Member
Oct 13, 2000
195
0
0
couple questions:

are you only worried about planes? it's not that hard to make a bomb, park it, and walk away as proved by McVeigh. what about a nuke in a brief case walked into the middle of new york, la, chicago, or washington. how do you stop one man with a bomb.

are you only concerned about Arabs? The palestenians were once the leading terrorists. the pakistani's appear ready to make a move (embassy attack). what about the IRA, Chechyans, Chinese spies, etc. each of these groups has held the attention of the world in the not too distant past. why should we forget about these guys and watch only arabs with one way tickets and no luggage.

are you confident in our current president who didn't want to be a nation maker but overturned the Afghan nation and vowed to put a stop to these evil doers but hasn't cought anyone significant from the taliban or al qaeda?

what nation do we hit next and how much of an alliance will we use. what happens if we go into Iraq, conquer the nation and fail to capture Sadam? do we claim victory because he's hiding now.

would you be in favor of putting government workers at terminals manning the security checkpoints rather than continuing to use the minimum wage labor that scans for weapons and bombs?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,896
553
126


<< are you only concerned about Arabs? The palestenians were once the leading terrorists. >>

Palestinians are Arab.

<< the pakistani's appear ready to make a move (embassy attack). >>

The extremist element in Pakistan is predominantly Arab

<< what about the IRA, Chechyans, Chinese spies, etc. >>

The IRA is only concerned with the Great Britain thing. The Chechyan/Arab connection is well known. Espionage is an entirely different matter.

<< why should we forget about these guys and watch only arabs with one way tickets and no luggage. >>

Arabs are pretty much the only international terrorists. There are some exceptions, but not many.

Any more really stupid questions?

Oh, and talk about similarities between the Bush administration and the Third Reich. I hear that Hitler often wore shoes. Whaddya know, so does Bush! That fascist!
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
"are you only worried about planes? it's not that hard to make a bomb, park it, and walk away as proved by McVeigh. what about a nuke in a brief case walked into the middle of new york, la, chicago, or washington. how do you stop one man with a bomb."

No, I'm not only worried about planes but there are other divisions of the FBI/CIA/DOD etc that handle the briefcase nukes, the truck bombs, and the like. I'm sure they all have their specific set of criteria to get the highest statistical probability that they are going after a bad guy and not some ordinary everyday person.


"are you only concerned about Arabs? The palestenians were once the leading terrorists. the pakistani's appear ready to make a move (embassy attack). what about the IRA, Chechyans, Chinese spies, etc. each of these groups has held the attention of the world in the not too distant past. why should we forget about these guys and watch only arabs with one way tickets and no luggage."

For right now, as far as inside the borders of the United States, they are the major but not the only concern. The government law enforcement and defense is not ONLY concerned with Arabs. They are just concentrating on those of Arab/Middle-Eastern descent because those were the ones that attacked us. The Pakistanis, Palestinans, and the IRA have never made a move against us on our own soil. I can't ever imagine the IRA attacking us on our soil. All the groups you mentioned are being watched however for foreign and domestic reasons.

"are you confident in our current president who didn't want to be a nation maker but overturned the Afghan nation and vowed to put a stop to these evil doers but hasn't cought anyone significant from the taliban or al qaeda?"

If I remember correctly, the USA was attacked by a group that was supported by a government (The Taliban) that was only recognized by one other nation (Pakistan). How can you say we haven't caught anyone of significance from the Taliban or Al Qaeda? The money men, the supporters, the lieutenants, the right-hand men, have all been caught. Only Osama Yo Mama and Mullah Omar whatever have not been caught and Osama is believed to be injured and constantly on the move between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as nation building goes...I believe the United Nations is in charge of watching over Afghanistan build a government. Something it truly has not had in over 20 years since the Soviet Union invaded.

"what nation do we hit next and how much of an alliance will we use. what happens if we go into Iraq, conquer the nation and fail to capture Sadam? do we claim victory because he's hiding now."

I don't recall Bush or anybody else officially claiming victory. The Iraqi government supports terror, has been and is currently attempting to construct weapons of mass destruction, has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people in an attempt at genocide, and openly seeks the destruction of our country. Sounds like a good target to me.

"would you be in favor of putting government workers at terminals manning the security checkpoints rather than continuing to use the minimum wage labor that scans for weapons and bombs?"

I'm in favor of neither. The government is actually using the very same minimum wage labor that was at the terminals before. They are just getting a slight raise and union cards now. Do you know that the legislation that was passed does not even require a high school diploma? Just "comparable experience". I would rather see a security model similar to that which the Israeli airports use. They are not government controlled, they are efficient, they are secure, they use common sense, and they are only as intrusive as they have to be.
 

Ameesh

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
23,686
1
0


<<

<< It wont matter that the man traveling to pakistan via New York who is an American Citizen and well respected business man got kicked off a plane because Betty and Doris felt uncomfortable with a guy on the plane with had a funny hat and strange clothes and brown skin, it wont even matter that the captain feels it is justifiable to get brownie off the plane, no problem! he'd rather be safe then sorry. >>

You're conflating two different issues. At no time has the Ashcroft Justice Department said it was 'okee-dokey' for airlines to deny any 'brownie' service. Nor has the Ashcroft Justice Department advocated that Betty and Doris give brown people mean looks. If you're pissed-off because Betty and Doris aren't being nice to you, you're problem is with Betty and Doris, not the Ashcroft Justice Department.
>>



thats a bald face lie, Aschcroft came out with public support for the captian who made the man disembark the flight. And when Ashcroft supports it sends a message to Betty and Doris that it is A-OK to do this kind of BS. The kind of police state you desire is exactly what Osama wanted to happen, he made you scared, he controls you. I for one would ratherdie then see this country turn into some nazi-esqe police state who is on a constant which hunt for Arab Americans.
 

Ameesh

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
23,686
1
0


<< BaliBabyDoc,

You are making the assumption that all mideastern men that are being detained have been detained without cause and have not been charged. I do not suspect that is the case. IF all mideastern people were being picked up off the street, I would be worried, but that is simply not happening.
>>



your a niave person, the FBI came to Microsoft and interviewed everyone who was of arab descent, they interviewed their managers and collegues, they insunated that these people are possible terroists and just by doing that they irevocablle damaged these peoples reputaion.
 

Ameesh

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
23,686
1
0


<< BuckleDownBen,

I dont think profilling is illegal. Nor do I think the FBI assumes all arabs are terrorist, they just happen to belong to group that is involved in terrorism. To ignore that group and be PC would foolish. And this is where they have to do investigation and determine which people need to be investigated further or picked up.
>>



are you kidding me i bet you the fbi has a file on every arab american in the country by now.
 

travler

Senior member
Feb 28, 2002
220
0
0


<<

<< If a Jewish terrorist group were actively seeking to kill millions of Americans, the governement in my opinion would have the right to interview me to find out if I know anything. It's just common sense and prudent law enforcement.

Does a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb have to be detonated in lower Manhattan before some you people will realize that maybe we need to do things a little bit differently? :confused:

Liberals scare the heck out of me. :(
>>



fascists scare me
>>



I agree with both of you. facists are driving me right out of the republican party. facists like john ashcroft apointed by george bush. however I am an american and i beleive i beleive in america, so i would never ever vote for a liberal. nor would i ever act like a liberal, think like a liberal, or be friends with a liberal (maybe friendly, or amiable aquaintence, but i cant respect them)

looks like im going to have to become a revolutionairy and throw in with the libertarians. maybe the movement will get somewhere if enough of us on both sides the fence throw in with them.

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,896
553
126


<< thats a bald face lie, Aschcroft came out with public support for the captian who made the man disembark the flight. And when Ashcroft supports it sends a message to Betty and Doris that it is A-OK to do this kind of BS. >>

You, sir, are the "bald face liar". Put up or shut up:

"Since Tuesday the Justice Department has received reports of violence and threats of violence against Arab-Americans and other Americans of Middle Eastern and South Asian descents. We must not descend to the level of those who perpetrated Tuesday's violence by targeting individuals based on their race, their religion, or their national origin. Such reports of violence and threats are in direct opposition to the very principles and laws of the United States and will not be tolerated." -- Excerpt from remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft, September 13, 2001

"The Attorney General has made clear that any act of violence or discrimination against a person based on the perceived race, religion or national origin of that person is contrary to our fundamental principles and the laws of the United States. His statement is a reminder to all Americans that Americans of Arab or South Asian decent and people of the Muslim faith were also injured and killed in Tuesday's attacks. In addition, they also are -- along with other Americans -- involved in relief operations, and other efforts to alleviate suffering. Any threats of violence or discrimination against Arab or Muslim Americans or Americans of South Asian descents are not just wrong and un-American, but also are unlawful and will be treated as such.

As the Attorney General reminded us today, we must not descend to the level of those who perpetrated Tuesday's violence by targeting individuals for threats or violence based on their race, religion, and national origin. To do so would be to grant terrorists a victory they cannot - and would not - otherwise achieve. We are a great nation; we must treat one another, and others in a manner consistent with that greatness. Everything we do must reaffirm and respect the dignity, heroism and sacrifice of those who have died, lest their sacrifice be in vain." -- Statement of Assistant Attorney General Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., September 13, 2001

<< He and his conservitive lackeys would rather the white people feel safe when brown people are around all the while trampling on the brown people's civil liberties then live in America where no ones civil liberties are trampled on by the very government they elected. >>

Yep, its always those evil white people...eh?

"Recent polls suggest the public accepts racial and ethnic profiling of Arabs and Arab Americans. Nearly six in 10 Americans interviewed in a September 14-15 Gallup Poll favored requiring people of Arab descent to undergo more-intensive security checks when flying on U.S. airplanes. The irony, columnist Clarence Page recently noted in the Chicago Tribune, is how African Americans are more likely than other racial groups to favor such profiling. In a column last Wednesday titled "My, oh, my, look who's profiling now," Page, who is black, cited poll data from Gallup and Zogby International. In a Gallup poll, about 71 percent of black respondents said they would favor special, more intensive security checks for Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, before boarding airplanes, Page wrote." [October 10, 2001; "Judging others by their covers" by Florangela Davila, Seattle Times]

"The issue of profiling is often misunderstood. There is legitimate profiling that can be an effective tool in law enforcement and then there is just out and out discrimination. Legitimate profiling is when law enforcement constructs out of many characteristics a "profile" of individuals who require scrutiny. This may or may not include an ethnic characteristic as one of many characteristics that comprise the overall profile." -- James Zogby, Founder and President of the Arab American Institute

<< your a niave person, the FBI came to Microsoft and interviewed everyone who was of arab descent, they interviewed their managers and collegues, they insunated that these people are possible terroists and just by doing that they irevocablle damaged these peoples reputaion. >>

The Justice Department is conducting 100% voluntary interviews with an estimated 5,000 Arab-Americans and those who may, whether wittingly or not, frequent Muslim communities or mosques which might harbor those involved, either directly or indirectly, with Islamic terrorist organizations. This is NO different than when the Justice Department conducted 1,000 or more interviews with persons involved in or had some association with pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-government, or militia groups after the Oklahoma Bombing. I know, because I was one of them. Were you also crying for all the poor white discriminated against men at that time? I bet you were just frazzled over it.

The fact is, anyone who opposed what McVeigh had done and did not want to see it happen again was GLAD to cooperate in any way they could with the FBI, even if it meant putting up with a little harassment and increased scrutiny for several months. Those who empathized with or agreed with what McVeigh had done on some level were resentful that the FBI was 'harassing them' and accused the FBI of all sorts of anti-freedom and fascist activities...oddly reminiscent of your sentiments (and undoubtedly your underlying motivations).

You are the weakest link......good bye.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
If you answered anything but "D" to those three questions, please visit your nearest psychiatry ward.

Have you ever been to a psych ward? At least my delusional patients are willing to conceed that their paranoia MIGHT have a different explanation other than the one they are currently espousing; but they do stick with what they know . . . even if everyone else knows it is not quite right. Don't bother me with your ignorance unless you want to learn something. At least my delusional patients understand something is wrong and want some help. You are a lost cause unless you are unwilling to face the possibility that you might be VERY wrong and your path to security may have a very different outcome.

The government withheld the names of those being questioned but gave those that were detained the option of speaking to the press and giving out their names and any other information they deemed necessary. If I remember correctly, only a couple of them did so.

Oh really, tell me how you know that? Lemme guess, the government told you. In this conflict, our press (in general) has toed the line . . . don't forget GWB's press sec Fleischer was kind enough to let them know to watch what they say. I like to believe what my government says but I'm a firm proponent of the aphorism "trust, but verify".

tcsenter,

"The Attorney General has made clear that any act of violence or discrimination against a person based on the perceived race, religion or national origin of that person is contrary to our fundamental principles and the laws of the United States.

There is legitimate profiling that can be an effective tool in law enforcement and then there is just out and out discrimination. Legitimate profiling is when law enforcement constructs out of many characteristics a "profile" of individuals who require scrutiny. This may or may not include an ethnic characteristic as one of many characteristics that comprise the overall profile."

Only the fanatical fringe would disagree with the first excerpt. The Zogby quote is internally consistent and consistent with the statement from the AG office but it is NOT consistent with much of this thread or many of the actions executed by the government since 9/11. . . . ethnic characteristic as one of MANY . . . check out Queasy's multiple poop questions again; if your profile has three characteristics how big is your net . . . huge . . . how big are the holes in your net . . . huge . . .

If everyone entering an airliner is a potential security threat you screen everyone tightly. Someone is traveling without baggage on a one-way ticket ask them questions b/c that's suspicious. Someone traveling to Malaysia or Indonesia; that's not suspicious those are tourist destinations. Young, male with brown skin traveling alone; that's not suspicious it's a demographic (mine to be exact). Now if I have no luggage and a one-way ticket I EXPECT to be stopped. Day-tripping or weekender I expect to be stopped. Repeat trips over a short interval to the same destination I expect to be stopped. But if you stop me just b/c of perceived race, sex, and age you've got issues with the Constitution (unreasonable search, detention, equal protection) and the AG's words (not necessarily his deeds).