Profiling? -Test Inside-

[jarmo]

Are you done with the insults?




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I just had to point out that this is a major distortion of the literal vs. living constitution debate. The constitution was written with built in provisions to account for changes of the times. So you are wrong to imply that literal interpretation supporters (many of whom are liberal) do not wish to take into account the changes of the past 200+ years.

A so called living constitution leaves the meaning of the constitution up to the whims of unelected judges. Essentially, it throws the constitution in the garbage.

I'm not supporting either point of view (I've done that in other threads).? I'm just pointing out the differences in perception.

And it's NOT a distortion of the literal vs living constitution debate.  The crux of the debate is exactly how I laid it out.  The literalitst want to interpret 200+ year old words EXACTLY as they are written, and the supporters of the "living constitution" want to take into account the changes in society over the past 200+ when interpreting those same words.  That's the debate. How is what I said a distortion of that?  We're not talking about provision for amendment..we're talking about interpretation of the words AS THEY STAND NOW.

I'm not saying, or even implying, that literalists are mired in the society of 200 years ago....just that they want to literally interpret the words as they were written 200 years ago.  Thats it.  No hidden meaning, no agenda.

[Tied-Up]

Good point.? The idea that al quaeda will start using white people to commit terror is retarded.? Instead of admitting that profiling makes good sense, liberals use stupid comebacks like "they will just start using white people".? A question for all you liberals.? What the hell is wrong with action?? Why do you always subscribe to the "do-nothing" approach?? I have yet to hear a single reason for not profiling.? And having some innocent middle eastern men inconvenienced is not a reason.

I love to hear all the bullshit about how profiling sacrifices "the ideals this country was built on".? In case people haven't noticed, things have changed considerable since the birth of the US.? We have to chnage with it.? We have already lost many of our civil liberity....many because of these terrorist attacks.? How come you liberals are more outraged by the idea of profiling than you are about the actual terrorist attacks that take place?? ?Are you actually so demented as to feel sorry for the terorist?? Can you see and sympathize with their perspective?? Are you that pathetic?

I've put my response on this issue on hold so that I could better formulate my argument.? ? First, as one of these "Liberals" I'd like to say that I have absolutely NO sympathy or compassion for terrorists.? I would like to see them all put before a firing squad.? ?There is no punishment too terrible for them.?

That being said,? when we choose to revoke the freedoms of ANYONE not guilty of a crime (and that includes people who fit within the physical profile of a terrorist, with no proof whatsoever that they are terrorists, operating only upon a physical description) we revoke the freedoms of every non-terrorist (and that includes you).? ?That is what is meant by my previous statement regarding the "ideals upon which this country was founded."? I am not taking a literal interpretation of any document, only a broad interpretation of the fact that persecuted individuals came to this country and created a new government in an effort to flee the control of their homeland.? They built this country so that people could live in freedom from persecution.? (Most notably:? freedom from RELIGIOUS persecution!)

This is where the idea of profiling goes wrong.? When we start profiling for crimes that have not and may not be committed, we are persecuting potentially innocent people, and we are creating a fascist nation, which goes against the basic ideals on which this land of the free was developed.? You sacrifice your own freedom and indeed the entire nation's freedom when you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of one innocent individual.?

It is not about an inconvenience. It is about preserving our own freedom.? The minute we start assuming someone's guilt before proven innocent, we are opening the floodgate to this happening to not just muslims, or even muslim - looking individuals, but every American.?

[SLCPUNK]

Good point.  The idea that al quaeda will start using white people to commit terror is retarded.  Instead of admitting that profiling makes good sense, liberals use stupid comebacks like "they will just start using white people".  A question for all you liberals.  What the hell is wrong with action?  Why do you always subscribe to the "do-nothing" approach?  I have yet to hear a single reason for not profiling.  And having some innocent middle eastern men inconvenienced is not a reason.

I love to hear all the bullshit about how profiling sacrifices "the ideals this country was built on".  In case people haven't noticed, things have changed considerable since the birth of the US.  We have to chnage with it.  We have already lost many of our civil liberity....many because of these terrorist attacks.  How come you liberals are more outraged by the idea of profiling than you are about the actual terrorist attacks that take place?   Are you actually so demented as to feel sorry for the terorist?  Can you see and sympathize with their perspective?  Are you that pathetic?

I've put my response on this issue on hold so that I could better formulate my argument.    First, as one of these "Liberals" I'd like to say that I have absolutely NO sympathy or compassion for terrorists.  I would like to see them all put before a firing squad.   There is no punishment too terrible for them. 

That being said,  when we choose to revoke the freedoms of ANYONE not guilty of a crime (and that includes people who fit within the physical profile of a terrorist, with no proof whatsoever that they are terrorists, operating only upon a physical description) we revoke the freedoms of every non-terrorist (and that includes you).   That is what is meant by my previous statement regarding the "ideals upon which this country was founded."  I am not taking a literal interpretation of any document, only a broad interpretation of the fact that persecuted individuals came to this country and created a new government in an effort to flee the control of their homeland.  They built this country so that people could live in freedom from persecution.  (Most notably:  freedom from RELIGIOUS persecution!)

This is where the idea of profiling goes wrong.  When we start profiling for crimes that have not and may not be committed, we are persecuting potentially innocent people, and we are creating a fascist nation, which goes against the basic ideals on which this land of the free was developed.  You sacrifice your own freedom and indeed the entire nation's freedom when you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of one innocent individual. 

It is not about an inconvenience. It is about preserving our own freedom.  The minute we start assuming someone's guilt before proven innocent, we are opening the floodgate to this happening to not just muslims, or even muslim - looking individuals, but every American. 

Brilliant!!!!

Thank you.

[POPmetal]

Interesting that you'd espouse changing with the times when, for the most part, the right espouses a literal interpretation of the Constitusion (ie: the words written 200+ years ago) rather than a living Constitution (taking into account the changes of the past 200+ years).? ? Just a point.

I just had to point out that this is a major distortion of the literal vs. living constitution debate. The constitution was written with built in provisions to account for changes of the times. So you are wrong to imply that literal interpretation supporters (many of whom are liberal) do not wish to take into account the changes of the past 200+ years.

A so called living constitution leaves the meaning of the constitution up to the whims of unelected judges. Essentially, it throws the constitution in the garbage.

I'm not supporting either point of view (I've done that in other threads).? I'm just pointing out the differences in perception.

And it's NOT a distortion of the literal vs living constitution debate.? The crux of the debate is exactly how I laid it out.? The literalitst want to interpret 200+ year old words EXACTLY as they are written, and the supporters of the "living constitution" want to take into account the changes in society over the past 200+ when interpreting those same words.? That's the debate. How is what I said a distortion of that?? We're not talking about provision for amendment..we're talking about interpretation of the words AS THEY STAND NOW.

I'm not saying, or even implying, that literalists are mired in the society of 200 years ago....just that they want to literally interpret the words as they were written 200 years ago.? Thats it.? No hidden meaning, no agenda.

You're right. Sometimes I think too much into things (or maybe it's that I don't think enough ) and I see things that aren't there. You did define the argument correctly. Sorry about that?

[Tied-Up]

Revolutionary Organization 17 November:? Most recent attack in June 2000? (based in Greece)

There are guerrilla groups in south america that are still operating.?


These are two examples.? The very fact that there are exceptions makes your? statement that "all" terrorists
are 17 - 40 year old middle eastern men incorrect.

actually that is the description of a terrorist. No not all 17-40 year old Middle Eastern men are terrorists, but all terrorists are 17-40 year old middle eastern men.

Incorrect.? It doesn't follow that just because most of the recent terrorist acts were committed by middle eastern terrorist groups made up of 17 - 40 year old middle eastern males that all terrorists are 17 - 40 year old middle eastern men.

True, there are terrorists out there that are not middle eastern men, but they are not anywhere near the threat to us or in numbers that these islamic based terrorist are.? I hope that your arguement against profiling isn't that profiling won't work because there are guerilla groups operating in South America or there is a terrorist or two in Greece?? There is no way that you can reasonably argue that profiling 17-40 year old middle eastern men won't work because it is n't targeting the right demographic.

No, I am not basing my argument against profiling based faulty demographics. ?I was merely pointing out your faulty non sequitur appeal. ? You stated that ALL terrorists are 17 - 40 ?year old middle eastern men, and I put that comment to task.

I am not even stating that profiling will not work. I'm simply against profiling because it's a violation of every non-terrorist's freedom, and one might even be so bold to argue that by violating and sacrificing that freedom, you're letting the terrorists win. ? ? ? ? ?

[Jamie]

Who invaded and slaughtered an innocent race of people to set up their own country? Who created a group solely commited to the murder and eventual end to anyone with a different skin colour to theirs? Who exploits the poorest countries in the world and makes money from their citizens by using their lack of knowledge of modern technology and economics? Who put millions of Jewish, Homosexual, Disabled and Gypsie people into concentration camps to be gased because they thought they were the source of all their problems? Who went in to a Middle Eastern country claiming to know of the where-abouts of WMD's (which they think the have the perfect right to own) that was already suffering from a violent dictator and made their problems worse? Who colonized Africa all those years ago and made the people their slaves?

I'll tell you who, White Christians. We are behind just as many (if not more) crimes against humanity as our Muslim brothers. Extreme action against these people, who have been brainwashed by corrupt leaders, just like George W's troops, will only harden their beliefs and make the problems worse, not improve them.

Your a god damn idiot how dare you say im BrainWashed?? your a fucking peace of shit, your the mother fucker thats awfully ungreatful whether ur an american of foreigner there is something u can thank and american military man for, ya stupid fuck

I'm an idiot? At least I put forward a decent argument, if all you can do is insult me, then fine, think whatever the hell you want

[Kitano]

Instead of getting caught up in pointless political doubletalk and recrimination we should just ask, "does profiling work?".  In Isreal it seems to work pretty well.  Are there any other places where it has been a failure?

[BigCombo]

Instead of getting caught up in pointless political doubletalk and recrimination we should just ask, "does profiling work?".  In Isreal it seems to work pretty well.  Are there any other places where it has been a failure?

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

[D]

All people have potential for evil

Every race of people have been terrorist killers or evil at some point in history.

[Guns N RockMusic]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.  Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.  Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.  Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.  Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?  That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

[SLCPUNK]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

 (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture)

Of course you don't, because if somebody did you release you don't have one leg to stand on.

[Kitano]

Instead of getting caught up in pointless political doubletalk and recrimination we should just ask, "does profiling work?".? In Isreal it seems to work pretty well.? Are there any other places where it has been a failure?

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

That's really not an example of profiling. 

[Prometheus]

Instead of getting caught up in pointless political doubletalk and recrimination we should just ask, "does profiling work?".  In Isreal it seems to work pretty well.  Are there any other places where it has been a failure?

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

That's really not an example of profiling. 

HOW SO? racial pulled possible jap nationals and put them in campsfor our and their protection??

[BigCombo]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.? Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.? Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.? Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.? Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?? That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

Yeah, it was successful as there were no Japanese sabotague on the West Coast.? But at what price?? You say there is a difference between facism and democracy; but internment is reminiscent of facism, not democracy.? Internment camps are not associated with freedom and human rights.?

You say the camps were never ruled unconstitutional...yet slavery and "seperate but equal" facilities were also ruled constitutional.? The US goverment apologized for the internment so clearly it was wrong; yet you condone it.?

Have you ever been to an interment camp; its no Club Med.? There's no way more than 1% of Japanese interned there wanted to stay after the war.? The conditions were poor and camps overcrowded.? The Japanese even rioted at one of the camps due to poor work and social conditions.?

Finally, the Jews were put into concentration camps to be killed.? The mere fact that you're comparing these two camps shows that you know these internment camps were dead wrong and a monumental failure of democracy.

[POPmetal]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.? Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.? Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.? Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.? Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?? That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

Yeah, it was successful as there were no Japanese sabotague on the West Coast.? But at what price?? You say there is a difference between facism and democracy; but internment is reminiscent of facism, not democracy.? Internment camps are not associated with freedom and human rights.?

You say the camps were never ruled unconstitutional...yet slavery and "seperate but equal" facilities were also ruled constitutional.? The US goverment apologized for the internment so clearly it was wrong; yet you condone it.?

Have you ever been to an interment camp; its no Club Med.? There's no way more than 1% of Japanese interned there wanted to stay after the war.? The conditions were poor and camps overcrowded.? The Japanese even rioted at one of the camps due to poor work and social conditions.?

Finally, the Jews were put into concentration camps to be killed.? The mere fact that you're comparing these two camps shows that you know these internment camps were dead wrong.

The point is that you were wrong in claiming the Japanese internment camps did not work. Don't try to shift the subject. Guns N RockMusic explicitly said he does not support the idea of internment camps, he was pointing out that they did work in preventing Japanese attacks on US soil in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

[BigCombo]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.? Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.? Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.? Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.? Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?? That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

Yeah, it was successful as there were no Japanese sabotague on the West Coast.? But at what price?? You say there is a difference between facism and democracy; but internment is reminiscent of facism, not democracy.? Internment camps are not associated with freedom and human rights.?

You say the camps were never ruled unconstitutional...yet slavery and "seperate but equal" facilities were also ruled constitutional.? The US goverment apologized for the internment so clearly it was wrong; yet you condone it.?

Have you ever been to an interment camp; its no Club Med.? There's no way more than 1% of Japanese interned there wanted to stay after the war.? The conditions were poor and camps overcrowded.? The Japanese even rioted at one of the camps due to poor work and social conditions.?

Finally, the Jews were put into concentration camps to be killed.? The mere fact that you're comparing these two camps shows that you know these internment camps were dead wrong.

The point is that you were wrong in claiming the Japanese internment camps did not work. Don't try to shift the subject. Guns N RockMusic explicitly said he does not support the idea of internment camps, he was pointing out that they did work in preventing Japanese attacks on US soil in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

I admitted they were successful in their purpose of preventing any possible sabotague.  But GNRockMusic also spent the majority of his post essentially giving supporting reasons.  Am I not allowed to address these points?

[Prometheus]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.  Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.  Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.  Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.  Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?  That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

Yeah, it was successful as there were no Japanese sabotague on the West Coast.  But at what price?  You say there is a difference between facism and democracy; but internment is reminiscent of facism, not democracy.  Internment camps are not associated with freedom and human rights. 

You say the camps were never ruled unconstitutional...yet slavery and "seperate but equal" facilities were also ruled constitutional.  The US goverment apologized for the internment so clearly it was wrong; yet you condone it. 

Have you ever been to an interment camp; its no Club Med.  There's no way more than 1% of Japanese interned there wanted to stay after the war.  The conditions were poor and camps overcrowded.  The Japanese even rioted at one of the camps due to poor work and social conditions. 

Finally, the Jews were put into concentration camps to be killed.  The mere fact that you're comparing these two camps shows that you know these internment camps were dead wrong.

The point is that you were wrong in claiming the Japanese internment camps did not work. Don't try to shift the subject. Guns N RockMusic explicitly said he does not support the idea of internment camps, he was pointing out that they did work in preventing Japanese attacks on US soil in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

I admitted they were successful in their purpose of preventing any possible sabotague.  But GNRockMusic also spent the majority of his post essentially giving supporting reasons.  Am I not allowed to address these points?

come on BC you know that if you post any type of supporting words any other idea that is with them mean nothing and are ignored bec they only have read what they wanted to read..... hence why no one has bothereed playing teh geneva card here ....and hwy it has not been commented on in the other thread.


funny how the left will conceede when beaten.... the right runs to pretend it never read the facts...... and the facts are that the US and Canada have both publicly denounced and offered rather long and wordy appoligies to the jap that were held in these camps and explained how even though it helped with the end victory it should not have and could not have been justified to treat another human in this manner........ Guess tough it will be said that it was only because the left was in why it was made......

[POPmetal]

WWII Japanese Internment Camps

Although I am against such an action occuring again, the Japanese deternment camps were successful.? Thousands of Japanese renounced their citizenship and fled to Japan or made an attempt to after war had been declared.? Because the Japanese had not yet assimilated fully into American culture (please, I don't want to debate what defines American culture) they were an easier target to focus on than the German immigrants who essentially shared the same customs as America.? Interestingly enough, many Japanese Americans sued (and won) to have the deternment camps stay open after the war because of the higher quality of living and mortality rate that existed in the camps.? Again, I am against the concept of such a deternment camp again (although it was never ruled unconstitutional), but how many Jews asked to stay in a concentration camp following WWII?? That is the difference between a Democracy and Fascist state; democracies are still concerned towards freedom and human rights at the most trying times.

Yeah, it was successful as there were no Japanese sabotague on the West Coast.? But at what price?? You say there is a difference between facism and democracy; but internment is reminiscent of facism, not democracy.? Internment camps are not associated with freedom and human rights.?

You say the camps were never ruled unconstitutional...yet slavery and "seperate but equal" facilities were also ruled constitutional.? The US goverment apologized for the internment so clearly it was wrong; yet you condone it.?

Have you ever been to an interment camp; its no Club Med.? There's no way more than 1% of Japanese interned there wanted to stay after the war.? The conditions were poor and camps overcrowded.? The Japanese even rioted at one of the camps due to poor work and social conditions.?

Finally, the Jews were put into concentration camps to be killed.? The mere fact that you're comparing these two camps shows that you know these internment camps were dead wrong.

The point is that you were wrong in claiming the Japanese internment camps did not work. Don't try to shift the subject. Guns N RockMusic explicitly said he does not support the idea of internment camps, he was pointing out that they did work in preventing Japanese attacks on US soil in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

I admitted they were successful in their purpose of preventing any possible sabotague.? But GNRockMusic also spent the majority of his post essentially giving supporting reasons.? Am I not allowed to address these points?

I can't speak for Guns N RockMusic, but I didn't see his post as supporting internment camps. He did highlight some major differences between US Japanese internment camps and Nazi concentration camps, which was important, because many America haters point to the internment camps and say things to the effect that America was no better than Hitler, we're a fascist state, etc.

[Prometheus]

its not so much that you are a facsist stae its jsut that you dont try to show that you are not.......