Poll

Should airport security procedures include ethnic/religious profiling?

Yes54%54% - 107
No33%33% - 66
Stop the polls11%11% - 23
Total: 196
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

and you are qualified to judge who is competent and who is how??

the fact is the intel community has stopped several attacks THAT WE KNOW about, and probably countless attacks that we do not know about.

The REAL problem is the democrats that refuse to acknowledge we have a REAL problem, and instead of getting on board to help secure our country, they would rather play bi-partisan politics and put the anti-BUSH agenda ahead of national security for no other reason than to win back the white house........ALL at our peril.
It's not the Democrats...  geez...  Do you see me blaming the Republicans for everything?

Let's get real here.  There is no need to profile people at airports.  We now have the technology to see through people's clothing with metal detector-esque machines.  They have them in the U.K.  We need them here.

See?  No party bashing of either side is necessary for this discussion.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

and you are qualified to judge who is competent and who is how??

the fact is the intel community has stopped several attacks THAT WE KNOW about, and probably countless attacks that we do not know about.

The REAL problem is the democrats that refuse to acknowledge we have a REAL problem, and instead of getting on board to help secure our country, they would rather play bi-partisan politics and put the anti-BUSH agenda ahead of national security for no other reason than to win back the white house........ALL at our peril.
It's not the Democrats...  geez...  Do you see me blaming the Republicans for everything?

Let's get real here.  There is no need to profile people at airports.  We now have the technology to see through people's clothing with metal detector-esque machines.  They have them in the U.K.  We need them here.

See?  No party bashing of either side is necessary for this discussion.
It isn't the democrats??.......then who exactly is it, for the most part, that battles EVERY national security initiative that comes down the pike, screaming " my rights, my rights"??
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

and you are qualified to judge who is competent and who is how??

the fact is the intel community has stopped several attacks THAT WE KNOW about, and probably countless attacks that we do not know about.

The REAL problem is the democrats that refuse to acknowledge we have a REAL problem, and instead of getting on board to help secure our country, they would rather play bi-partisan politics and put the anti-BUSH agenda ahead of national security for no other reason than to win back the white house........ALL at our peril.
It's not the Democrats...  geez...  Do you see me blaming the Republicans for everything?

Let's get real here.  There is no need to profile people at airports.  We now have the technology to see through people's clothing with metal detector-esque machines.  They have them in the U.K.  We need them here.

See?  No party bashing of either side is necessary for this discussion.
It isn't the democrats??.......then who exactly is it, for the most part, that battles EVERY national security initiative that comes down the pike, screaming " my rights, my rights"??
As a conservative, you should be very concerned with the expansion of governmental power.  I thought Republicans were about small government?

I guess that's just a Libertarian thing now, eh?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not the Democrats...  geez...  Do you see me blaming the Republicans for everything?

Let's get real here.  There is no need to profile people at airports.  We now have the technology to see through people's clothing with metal detector-esque machines.  They have them in the U.K.  We need them here.

See?  No party bashing of either side is necessary for this discussion.
It isn't the democrats??.......then who exactly is it, for the most part, that battles EVERY national security initiative that comes down the pike, screaming " my rights, my rights"??
As a conservative, you should be very concerned with the expansion of governmental power.  I thought Republicans were about small government?

I guess that's just a Libertarian thing now, eh?
Govt. is charged with first and foremost the opportunity and security for its citizens to achieve life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It isn't there to spoon feed us.

National security would defiantly fall into the category of the later.

oh, and ya forgot to answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-02 16:31:45)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Govt. is charged with first and foremost the opportunity and security for its citizens to achieve life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It isn't there to spoon feed us.

National security would defiantly fall into the category of the later.

oh, and ya forgot to answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical
I disagree with the Democrats on a number of things, but I'm glad they put up resistance to things like wiretapping.  It is our right to privacy that must be protected.  Of course, many have said that what corporations can find out about you is more personal than what the government does (from things like data mining).  Regardless, if the public ever reaches a point where most of us accept wiretapping as necessary in the War on Terror, you can be sure we will see a significant decrease in our personal freedoms.

At this point, the damage may have already been done with the aforementioned data mining, but I'm hoping we can at least show that the right to privacy is still worth protecting.

Each of us has to decide where on the balance of security vs. freedom we want our society to be at.  You apparently favor security more, but I favor freedom more.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Govt. is charged with first and foremost the opportunity and security for its citizens to achieve life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It isn't there to spoon feed us.

National security would defiantly fall into the category of the later.

oh, and ya forgot to answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical
I disagree with the Democrats on a number of things, but I'm glad they put up resistance to things like wiretapping.  It is our right to privacy that must be protected.  Of course, many have said that what corporations can find out about you is more personal than what the government does (from things like data mining).  Regardless, if the public ever reaches a point where most of us accept wiretapping as necessary in the War on Terror, you can be sure we will see a significant decrease in our personal freedoms.

At this point, the damage may have already been done with the aforementioned data mining, but I'm hoping we can at least show that the right to privacy is still worth protecting.

Each of us has to decide where on the balance of security vs. freedom we want our society to be at.  You apparently favor security more, but I favor freedom more.
Is that what you are willing to tell your dying kid when you get to the mall that was blown up by terrorists that she was shopping in?? Sound far fetched?? Of the terror attacks in the world all of the dead were someone's kid.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA
What we are talking about here is, weighing the pros and cons of profiling..........Hurting someones feelings while they get search extra hard does not compare with the potenial life saving benifits of doing so.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Govt. is charged with first and foremost the opportunity and security for its citizens to achieve life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It isn't there to spoon feed us.

National security would defiantly fall into the category of the later.

oh, and ya forgot to answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical
I disagree with the Democrats on a number of things, but I'm glad they put up resistance to things like wiretapping.  It is our right to privacy that must be protected.  Of course, many have said that what corporations can find out about you is more personal than what the government does (from things like data mining).  Regardless, if the public ever reaches a point where most of us accept wiretapping as necessary in the War on Terror, you can be sure we will see a significant decrease in our personal freedoms.

At this point, the damage may have already been done with the aforementioned data mining, but I'm hoping we can at least show that the right to privacy is still worth protecting.

Each of us has to decide where on the balance of security vs. freedom we want our society to be at.  You apparently favor security more, but I favor freedom more.
Is that what you are willing to tell your dying kid when you get to the mall that was blown up by terrorists that she was shopping in?? Sound far fetched?? Of the terror attacks in the world all of the dead were someone's kid.
You're using an extreme example, so here's my turn.

Police states like Singapore are some of the safest in the world.  They have low crime rates and still have a high standard of living.  The people are oppressed, but they are safe.  Is that what you want America to become?

Living in a free nation, we have to be willing to risk certain things.  There comes a point where you realize that, every day, you make choices that could get you killed.  One of the highest causes of death in America is from car accidents.  Do you think I refuse to drive because of this?

Assessing risk should be based on likelihoods.  What are the odds that you will die in a terrorist attack?  If you live in a mid-sized town (or smaller) in America, the odds are pretty low.  In Iraq, your odds are pretty high.  That's why moving toward a police state over there is a good idea.  Over here, it doesn't make sense.

Even if you live in a big city like NYC, your risk is higher but there is still a logical limit to the power you should give the government.  If we say that the government can wiretap anyone at their own discretion, then do you honestly believe they will ONLY use it against terrorists?  I think Nixon proved that espionage can be used on a lot of people, like political opponents.  We have to be careful what powers we give to our "security forces."
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree with the Democrats on a number of things, but I'm glad they put up resistance to things like wiretapping.  It is our right to privacy that must be protected.  Of course, many have said that what corporations can find out about you is more personal than what the government does (from things like data mining).  Regardless, if the public ever reaches a point where most of us accept wiretapping as necessary in the War on Terror, you can be sure we will see a significant decrease in our personal freedoms.

At this point, the damage may have already been done with the aforementioned data mining, but I'm hoping we can at least show that the right to privacy is still worth protecting.

Each of us has to decide where on the balance of security vs. freedom we want our society to be at.  You apparently favor security more, but I favor freedom more.
Is that what you are willing to tell your dying kid when you get to the mall that was blown up by terrorists that she was shopping in?? Sound far fetched?? Of the terror attacks in the world all of the dead were someone's kid.
You're using an extreme example, so here's my turn.

Police states like Singapore are some of the safest in the world.  They have low crime rates and still have a high standard of living.  The people are oppressed, but they are safe.  Is that what you want America to become?

Living in a free nation, we have to be willing to risk certain things.  There comes a point where you realize that, every day, you make choices that could get you killed.  One of the highest causes of death in America is from car accidents.  Do you think I refuse to drive because of this?

Assessing risk should be based on likelihoods.  What are the odds that you will die in a terrorist attack?  If you live in a mid-sized town (or smaller) in America, the odds are pretty low.  In Iraq, your odds are pretty high.  That's why moving toward a police state over there is a good idea.  Over here, it doesn't make sense.

Even if you live in a big city like NYC, your risk is higher but there is still a logical limit to the power you should give the government.  If we say that the government can wiretap anyone at their own discretion, then do you honestly believe they will ONLY use it against terrorists?  I think Nixon proved that espionage can be used on a lot of people, like political opponents.  We have to be careful what powers we give to our "security forces."
I see, so you are banking on the odds that SOME OTHER INNOCENT person will die in a terror attack and that it won't be you........good thinking.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/ … index.html

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-02 17:32:47)

Archer
rapes face
+161|6700|Canuckistan
hey guys i say yes cuz obviously ALL muslims are terrorits i mean look at them and sht they say allah they must be dem terrorits and u can just KNOW that they have sum c4 up their ass even though i clearly know that ANY1 can lol!!!! and plus the media says so and many guys stereotype them as terrorits so y not join in the bandwagon????? fuck ya and since obviously all muslims are terrorits i h8 them!!! i mean it goes along with all the awesome logic thought up by dem stereotyperz so y not??

Last edited by Archer (2006-12-02 17:44:57)

san4
The Mas
+311|6964|NYC, a place to live

lowing wrote:

What we are talking about here is, weighing the pros and cons of profiling..........Hurting someones feelings while they get search extra hard does not compare with the potenial life saving benifits of doing so.
I agree 100% that the cost of hurting someone's feelings is a price we can pay for effective security measures. The problem is that racial profiling helps terrorists get past security.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're using an extreme example, so here's my turn.

Police states like Singapore are some of the safest in the world.  They have low crime rates and still have a high standard of living.  The people are oppressed, but they are safe.  Is that what you want America to become?

Living in a free nation, we have to be willing to risk certain things.  There comes a point where you realize that, every day, you make choices that could get you killed.  One of the highest causes of death in America is from car accidents.  Do you think I refuse to drive because of this?

Assessing risk should be based on likelihoods.  What are the odds that you will die in a terrorist attack?  If you live in a mid-sized town (or smaller) in America, the odds are pretty low.  In Iraq, your odds are pretty high.  That's why moving toward a police state over there is a good idea.  Over here, it doesn't make sense.

Even if you live in a big city like NYC, your risk is higher but there is still a logical limit to the power you should give the government.  If we say that the government can wiretap anyone at their own discretion, then do you honestly believe they will ONLY use it against terrorists?  I think Nixon proved that espionage can be used on a lot of people, like political opponents.  We have to be careful what powers we give to our "security forces."
I see, so you are banking on the odds that SOME OTHER INNOCENT person will die in a terror attack and that it won't be you........good thinking.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/ … index.html
No, I'm banking that the government will abuse most of the security measures that are being proposed.

I'm also assuming that some people will die in this country from more terrorist attacks no matter what we do.  I would agree that we need to up our security when it comes to our borders and airports, but profiling isn't the way to go.

Those machines I keep mentioning solve most airport issues.  People can't make profiling claims if the machines effectively "search" everyone who passes through them.

As far as the other stuff we've hit on, the government will probably wiretap people covertly anyway.  I just don't approve of giving the government the green light to do it through legislation.
lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|7106|Denver colorado
Yes.

Why?

Because some people look closer to suspects.

its the same thing as searching a buisness looking person with a suit and tie over searching the person with the black leather trench coat and shifty eyes.

Its not like they are sending them to jail or anything.
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|6930|USA
Religion restricts mankinds advancement into the future.
san4
The Mas
+311|6964|NYC, a place to live

Turquoise wrote:

Those machines I keep mentioning solve most airport issues.
I don't think so. They don't stop lazy or corrupt airport employees, bombs in air cargo, shoulder-fired missiles, liquid explosives or bombs blowing up the security line.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

san4 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Those machines I keep mentioning solve most airport issues.
I don't think so. They don't stop lazy or corrupt airport employees, bombs in air cargo, shoulder-fired missiles, liquid explosives or bombs blowing up the security line.
Uh...  you're referring to issues that have more to do with increasing security forces in airports, not having to do with searching techniques.  We already screen cargo with X-ray machines, and there are armed police at airports.

If we really think somebody is going to enter a specific airport with a shoulder-fired rocket, we usually call in SWAT teams or military personnel.  I really don't see how that relates to search techniques.
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6921

TeamZephyr wrote:

No.
agree
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6769|Connecticut

Archer wrote:

hey guys i say yes cuz obviously ALL muslims are terrorits i mean look at them and sht they say allah they must be dem terrorits and u can just KNOW that they have sum c4 up their ass even though i clearly know that ANY1 can lol!!!! and plus the media says so and many guys stereotype them as terrorits so y not join in the bandwagon????? fuck ya and since obviously all muslims are terrorits i h8 them!!! i mean it goes along with all the awesome logic thought up by dem stereotyperz so y not??
?????????????
Malloy must go
{XpLiCiTxX}
Ohh skeet skeet
+143|6746|New York
Profiling works. Stop trying to disprove it.


Although *everyone* should be subject to profiling... this is rarely the case. Unfortunately some do pass by without questioning... Terrible.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're using an extreme example, so here's my turn.

Police states like Singapore are some of the safest in the world.  They have low crime rates and still have a high standard of living.  The people are oppressed, but they are safe.  Is that what you want America to become?

Living in a free nation, we have to be willing to risk certain things.  There comes a point where you realize that, every day, you make choices that could get you killed.  One of the highest causes of death in America is from car accidents.  Do you think I refuse to drive because of this?

Assessing risk should be based on likelihoods.  What are the odds that you will die in a terrorist attack?  If you live in a mid-sized town (or smaller) in America, the odds are pretty low.  In Iraq, your odds are pretty high.  That's why moving toward a police state over there is a good idea.  Over here, it doesn't make sense.

Even if you live in a big city like NYC, your risk is higher but there is still a logical limit to the power you should give the government.  If we say that the government can wiretap anyone at their own discretion, then do you honestly believe they will ONLY use it against terrorists?  I think Nixon proved that espionage can be used on a lot of people, like political opponents.  We have to be careful what powers we give to our "security forces."
I see, so you are banking on the odds that SOME OTHER INNOCENT person will die in a terror attack and that it won't be you........good thinking.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/ … index.html
No, I'm banking that the government will abuse most of the security measures that are being proposed.

I'm also assuming that some people will die in this country from more terrorist attacks no matter what we do.  I would agree that we need to up our security when it comes to our borders and airports, but profiling isn't the way to go.

Those machines I keep mentioning solve most airport issues.  People can't make profiling claims if the machines effectively "search" everyone who passes through them.

As far as the other stuff we've hit on, the government will probably wiretap people covertly anyway.  I just don't approve of giving the government the green light to do it through legislation.
I am not talking about profiling ONLY at the damn airport. I am talking about profiling at every border entering and exiting this country. As soon as we get attacked by blue haired little old ladies with walkers by the droves then we should start profiling their asses as well. Until then, we should stick with taking a HARDER look at those people that fit the profile of the memebers of Islamic terror groups bent on our destruction
lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|7106|Denver colorado

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


I see, so you are banking on the odds that SOME OTHER INNOCENT person will die in a terror attack and that it won't be you........good thinking.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/ … index.html
No, I'm banking that the government will abuse most of the security measures that are being proposed.

I'm also assuming that some people will die in this country from more terrorist attacks no matter what we do.  I would agree that we need to up our security when it comes to our borders and airports, but profiling isn't the way to go.

Those machines I keep mentioning solve most airport issues.  People can't make profiling claims if the machines effectively "search" everyone who passes through them.

As far as the other stuff we've hit on, the government will probably wiretap people covertly anyway.  I just don't approve of giving the government the green light to do it through legislation.
I am not talking about profiling ONLY at the damn airport. I am talking about profiling at every border entering and exiting this country. As soon as we get attacked by blue haired little old ladies with walkers by the droves then we should start profiling their asses as well. Until then, we should stick with taking a HARDER look at those people that fit the profile of the memebers of Islamic terror groups bent on our destruction
Best analogy ever.
Fen321
Member
+54|6774|Singularity
profiling only works if the terror suspect fits that profile god forbid they don't...what about the intelligent saps that can carry out multiple strikes and then carry their passports with them for postmortem identification...those are the ones that we need to profile...or at least create after the fact
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

san4 wrote:

lowing wrote:

What we are talking about here is, weighing the pros and cons of profiling..........Hurting someones feelings while they get search extra hard does not compare with the potenial life saving benifits of doing so.
I agree 100% that the cost of hurting someone's feelings is a price we can pay for effective security measures. The problem is that racial profiling helps terrorists get past security.
We are not talking absolutes here, we are under attack or threat of attack by Islamic radicals from the ME, why the hell is it so hard to understand that we need to look closer at people that might fit that description.

Why is the thought of that so damned repulsive to you all.

Don't think for a second that a white guy driving around a shitty nieghborhood in a $50,000 SUV with a bumper sticker that says, " My child is an honor student" at  10 at night, WILL NOT be profiled by a cop as someone looking to buy some drugs. and guess what? chances are the cop is right.

Profiling is an essential tool, it is used everyday to profile EVERYONE...........Therefore it isn't descrimination now is it??

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-04 14:09:31)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

I am not talking about profiling ONLY at the damn airport. I am talking about profiling at every border entering and exiting this country. As soon as we get attacked by blue haired little old ladies with walkers by the droves then we should start profiling their asses as well. Until then, we should stick with taking a HARDER look at those people that fit the profile of the memebers of Islamic terror groups bent on our destruction
If you'll notice, this thread is about airport security procedures specifically.  That's all I was talking about.  We have technology available that renders profiling unnecessary.

I won't comment on how I feel about it in other aspects of society....
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6927|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not talking about profiling ONLY at the damn airport. I am talking about profiling at every border entering and exiting this country. As soon as we get attacked by blue haired little old ladies with walkers by the droves then we should start profiling their asses as well. Until then, we should stick with taking a HARDER look at those people that fit the profile of the memebers of Islamic terror groups bent on our destruction
If you'll notice, this thread is about airport security procedures specifically.  That's all I was talking about.  We have technology available that renders profiling unnecessary.

I won't comment on how I feel about it in other aspects of society....
Well, for the time being, we don't have the RONCO MIRACLE TERROR SUSPECT DETECTOR. SO, until it is installed, can we profile with your blessing or not?

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-05 04:14:40)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard