Guest | Login | Register

Reading Current Events

Canada and US have been the best of friends and neighbours, but sometimes the distance between them seems to be a long journey. Recently, I heard in the news that an Indian-born Canadian writer Rohinton Mistry cancelled his US tour because of racial profiling that he and his wife had to go through at the US airports. The incident came on top of Canadian ire at US attempts to fingerprint and photograph Canadian citizens born in some selected countries, or people of some religions.

Now, I do believe that the random checks at the airports are definitely not random, we have talked about these earlier in some threads too, I have seen and know many people who were singled out for their religion or their country of birth for these checks at the airports. But, my question is this - is such kind of racial profiling justified? I know that the country has suffered a lot, many lives were lost on 9/11, but will performing these extra checks on select group of people achieve any more safety? Why are these checks not applied to every single person? Okay, their are timing constraints too, if they start applying the checks to everyone, one probably needs to arrive at the airport at least 10-12 hours prior to the flight. But, by not applying these extra checks to people of different origins then the middle east region, aren't we neglecting security? What if the terrorist is a US citizen, who is not a muslim? How will one try to catch such a person at the airports? That person, will most likely, simply pass through the normal security easily.

I am just concerned. I want to travel safely whenever I am catching a flight, so I don't mind being checked over and over again. But, what hurts is that its just me or a handful of people who are being checked over and over again, and why is the rest of the group simply walking past the extra security check-post, just because of their skin color or national origin. Am I wrong in voicing my opinion against this kind of racial profiling, or I am supposed to keep my mouth shut because this boils down to the security of a lot of people? I just can't seem to find the correct answer to this. Who is right, and who is wrong?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

A concern of mine too......Although in my own experience...just lately having flown.....I was singled out to be checked....and I was going from state to state...not from country to country..I do not fit any racial profile except mutt from Texas.

But yes, the racial profiling is very much in effect....perhaps a scent detector of explosive ingredients, radiation, fluoroscopy??

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

A big Amen to that one......but....sigh....ain't gonna happen.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I didn't write this, in fact I received it just today via e-mail. I don't know what the originators intent was, to inform or to incite, but it just might add a little perspective to your stated personal experience.

_________________________________
Have you received this one before? Well, it's worth reading a 2nd time.
__________________________________
You gotta like this one. Don't you just love the ACLU? Well, I hope not.
Subject: In regards to profiling:

You can bet the ACLU started protecting these types.........

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following Multiple Choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened! Do you remember?)

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindbergh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40. Nope,

.........I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches
of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.

As the writer of the award winning story Forest Gump so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does!"

I am sure it was not to add a little perspective, but to incite!

I see a similar list floating around about the atrocities of Americans on foreign soils. Do you know that America is the only nation to have actually used weapons of mass destruction like the Atomic Bomb against civilians of another nation?

Well, I am sure Muslim extremists see a similar pattern of injustice against their people and nations by the Americans.

I am just trying to put a point here, not that I agree 1 bit to the way they try to prove their point. I hate to see innocent people die just like you do. But, I don't want to blindly start believing that every Muslim between the age of 17 and 40 is a potential extremist. Sorry, that is simply atrocious. If this is true, then I am sure according to every Muslim, every American is responsible for all the crimes on their lands! So, what is wrong in what they are doing, if what the Americans are doing is right according to their own perspective?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was edited by ReallyCoolDude on Jan 05, 2003.

In a previous post RCD wrote in part,

"Do you know that America is the only nation to have actually used weapons of mass destruction like the Atomic Bomb against civilians of another nation?"

Read in the best light, this statement is merely inaccurate, at worst it is an inciteful misrepresentation of the truth. Judging by the good spirit in which many of his post are written I'm leaning toward the former.

In many cases the civilian population is affected by the horror and cruelties of warfare even though they are supposedly non-combatants.

The use of weapons of "mass destruction" goes back at least as far as that 1st barrage of arrows unleashed by the archers of the Roman Legions against their enemies.

Through the passage of time there is change in many aspects of the human condition, modes of transportation, style of dress etc. And what is classified as a weapon of mass destruction changes as well.

I learned a long time ago that in any meaningful discussion the 1st step is to define your terms. For our purpose, the current definition of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the weapons inspectors in Iraq currently group the following under one umbrella: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, and Ballistic Missiles as "weapons of mass destruction". These are the weapons programs undergoing scrutiny by the weapons inspectors in Iraq today.

Nuclear Weapons Program:
Yes, regrettable true, the U.S. is the 1st and only country to have used nuclear weapons in time of war. Supposedly done as an alternative to a protracted and bloody conventional invasion by foot soldiers into Japan. Their use is estimated to have actually saved thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. That is open for debate and could be a thread all by itself.

Chemical Warfare Programs:
It is commonly known that the use of various nauseous, incapacitating, and deadly chemical gases were used by the French, German and English forces during the trench warfare of World War I. The 1st reported use was by the Germans in 1915 on the Eastern Front.

I am fairly sure RCD is also aware that during WWII a gas known as Zyclon B was used to kill millions of people, many of whom were both from the civilian population and from non German countries.

"To achieve their goal of domination during WWII, Japan experimented, produced, and used chemical and biological weapons against Chinese civilians. They had established a military unit called Unit 731 to carry out many of the worst, cruel and notorious acts in the human history."

The Japanese used poisonous gases numerous times to suppress resistance from the civilian population in China even before WWII broke out.

Biological Warfare Program:
"Biological warfare was first used in the medieval age. Kings of old fought successfully by catapulting diseased cattle or soldiers with contagious illnesses into their enemy's castle. They weakened the enemy with disease."

The infamous Unit 731 "laced food with typhus bacteria for the civilians to consume, spread bacteria-infected fleas to civilians, and contaminated water and food with germs of severe intestinal diseases, such as typhus, paratyphoid, cholera, dysentery, and bacillus."

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, affecting both civilian and military targets.

Ballistic Missile Program:
While not nearly as sophisticated or devastating as todays ballistic missiles, the 1st military use of a ballistic missile was during World War II on September 7, 1944 with Germany's successful launch of the V-2, targeting the civilian population of London.

"During the 1980s, Iraq purchased 819 Scud B missiles from the USSR. Hundreds of these 300km range missiles were used to attack Iranian cities during the Iran-Iraq War. Beginning in 1987, Iraq converted many of these Soviet Scuds into extended-range variants, some of which were fired at Tehran; some were launched during the Gulf war, and others remained in Iraq's inventory at war's end. Iraq admitted filling at least 75 of its Scud warheads with chemical or biological agents and deployed these weapons for use against Coalition forces and regional opponents, including Israel in 1991".

So, as you can see the U.S. is far from being the "only nation" to employ such tactical advantages that ordinance of mass destruction provide against military and civilian targets. Nor in "most" cases has the United States even been the 1st nations to employ such weapons.

RCD continues by stating;

"But, I don't want to blindly start believing that every Muslim between the age of 17 and 40 is a potential extremist."

Nor do I want to start believing this, but as stated, and logic being what it is, every Muslim between the age of 17 and 40 is a "potential" extremist. Just as every American-born citizen has the "potential" to become president of the United States or for that matter, the "potential" to be the next "home grown" mass murderer. The key word here is "potential". This comes down to possibility versus probability, and I believe you are confusing the two. Possibility is whether an event "can" happen. Probability is whether it "will" happen.

RCD continues with;

"Sorry, that is simply atrocious."

Maybe so, but as shown, it is also a fact.

RCD states;

"If this is true, then I am sure according to every Muslim, every American is responsible for all the crimes on their lands!"

This is a false premise.

A co-worker of mine is a Muslim. For the sake of this discussion I posed your statement to him in the form of a question. He, as a Muslim, does not belive "every" American is responsible for "all" crimes in his homeland. The exclusion of even 1 Muslim from your premise, by definition makes your premise and this analogy false .

RCD asks;

"So, what is wrong in what they are doing, if what the Americans are doing is right according to their own perspective?"

Third world countries are often characterized as poor, polluted, exploited, resource-depleted, population-pressured, and deforested countries. And none of their problems are of their own making. None of their problems proceed from inanely silly oligarchies, wild corruption, or whimsical economic rights, from notions of personal freedom borrowed from termite mounds, or from political systems that wouldn't pass muster in a tribe of Barbary apes. None of their problems are the result of fondness for violence or sloth or of social traditions such as treating women like dogs and treating dogs like lunch. None of their problems are caused by religious zealotry, fanatical nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or peculiar ideas about the nature of the world such as those held by Al Gore.

So I guess it must be the fault of the "good ol" U.S. of A., it always is.

lNl, I fail to understand why you would like to defend the wrong policies of your country. I will try to restate my points in a simpler form:-

A) US has used an atomic bomb in the past. I don't care what definitions one uses for WMD now and what kinds of WMDs were used in the past by the Romans or the Germans. This is a fact that a nuclear weapon changes the whole geology and the demography of not only one region, but the whole world. The damage that an atomic or a nuclear bomb can cause is much worse than the arrows or the gases that you have talked about. Even after more than 50 years after the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki attacks, children in that region are still born with disabilities of eyes, ear, or die at young age due to different cancers caused by the radiation of that attack.

How can anyone justify this act by giving any kind of reason? Is it just me, or does anyone else in NAO feel this way? I am not surprised though, because this is not the first time I am hearing the so-called justification to this act of US. Not once has the US government apologized to the Japanese public for this, and the picture that the US media gives to their own people is that it was to save a lot more people from "potential" Japanese attacks on civilians! Well, with this logic, every country which has nukes, should go and nuke their "potential" enemies, to save a lot more bloodshed later on. Oh c'mon, don't tell me that any kind of pre-emptive attack is justifiable by any means.

Just a few posts ago, HawkEye had mentioned that any sane person knows the consequences of using a nuclear weapon and won't use it. Was it sane enough to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese? What is highly atrocious to me is to try and give reasons to people on why what they did was right, and the American people buying that theory!

B) It is extremely sad to see that you are even trying to defend the fact that all Muslim males between the age of 17 and 40 are "potential" extremists. Let me try to explain a scenario to you. Tomorrow if the US is attacked again, and this time with Christians between the age of 17 and 40, will the US impose the similar profiling on the airports for them too? According to your logic, they should. And then, the extremists will probably try different set of people, they will start using females and children as suicide bombers (as they already use in countries like Sri Lanka). So, US will start profiling them too. What is stopping the terrorists to stop at using Muslim male minds between 17 and 40? Will US keep on increasing their net of "potential" extremists till they cover every person that lives in US?

If that becomes the case, then, every person that you see or meet will be a "potential" extremist. Whom are you going to trust? Will you stop living because of that? Or, will you still keep on profiling Muslim males between 17 and 40 and just ignore every other threat?

Today, it is just the profiling at the airports. Tomorrow, there will be interrogation camps built across the nation and every Muslim male will be thrust in it - just like US did for the Japanese people during WW II. And, if the threat still continues, they will ask every "potential" terrorist (all Muslims between the age 17 and 40) to leave the country. Well, if the terrorists increase their ways of attacking the nation by bringing diversity in their faith or the they way they look, US might ask every such race or community to leave the country. Can you even think of the consequences of such a thing? Are you going to throw every foreign national out of the country?

Well, the point that I am trying to make here is that, any kind of profiling based on religion, nationality, race, age, or sex, is descrimination to me. This is in direct violation to all the rights of humankind that America boasts about. This basic descrimination is something that is going to eat up this brilliant society that the US has right now. The thought of not trusting your neighbour is not going to take you anywhere.

I am not against profiling. I support profiling based on "intelligence". What I am against is profiling based on the race or the religion of a person. If your intelligence is good enough, then you don't need this kind of profiling at all. It looks like to me that since the US intelligence failed prior to 9/11, they are afraid that it might fail again. Well, with this kind of profiling it makes the job of the extremists easier, the US intelligence might fail again. The terrorists are not stupid to follow the same pattern. Well, by profiling not based on intelligence you are just angering a handful of people in the society and just helping the extremists in their purpose of alienating the people against each other!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was edited by ReallyCoolDude on Jan 13, 2003.

RCD, this is one of the most impressive posts I've ever had the honor to read here on NAO, thanks for that! Just a pity people seem to have not time enough to read it otherwise it would get lots of positive ratings! Brilliant!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de