Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62
  1. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #41  
    Wow, it's been a long time since I've seen someone jump into the middle and explain why this is such a difficult topic so effectively, KRamsauer.

    I think you're definitely right. There is a line to be drawn here, and finding where that line should be drawn will be one of the hardest tasks we face over the next couple of years. Or, what am I saying? Forever, really.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    If the police have reason to suspect I raped somebody, why should they not check? How would the police EVER find a culprit without searching for proof? I really don't see what you are up to in this example. You seem to be suggesting a search should only be legal in case there is a verdict against that person - not very logical, is it?

    I would not find it acceptable if the police would push me around, I would expect them to behave, but apart from that - glad to be of assistance, happy to clear this.
    Obviously there is no difference in resource, there is a difference in efficiency, as mentioned in my post. Focusing on more likely targets vs. at random is not a 100% vs. 0% thing, but you can still be FAR better if follow reason instead of chance. I am not saying e.g. women should never ever be checked, btw. Are you suggesting that for every mosque where a known islamistic mullah preaches we have to put a synagogue, a church, a Buddhist and a Hindu temple under surveillance, just to be politically correct?

    There is a difference between assuming someone is guilty and trying to find out whether he/she is or not!
    Police officers must show cause for a search. Can a man be raped? Would the police ever take the call? Isn't that a form of descrimination?

    Is race enough of a show of cause to dictate a search? If it is then okay for the airline industry, then it should be okay for the FBI, the local police, and then people of that race can live in fear under the constant suspicion of law enforcement.

    In your example, you have a known islamistic mullah who preaches, if what they are preaching violates laws, then by all means, put it under surveillance. If you are putting that mosque under surveillance because it's muslim, then I find that in violation. Punish people, not races.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Sorry is offends your sensibilities but profiling works. I seriously doubt that if you family was ona plane tht is crashed by terrorists that werent searched due to the random program you might feel differently. Or maybe not. You might just be saying " well it's too bad my wife and child are dead but at least no ones rights were violated during boarding." What about the rights of those flying to expect a safe journey?

    I'll get heat for this but as far as I'm concerned if your visiting this country your rights are limited anyway.
    It doesn't offend me that you have this opinion. Its your right to voice it here and armwave, just as much as it is mine to respond and armwave as well.

    What about the rights of those flying to expect a safe journey? What rights must they give up in order to have that safe flight?

    If I take your example further, as people have taken mine, how about we just stop using planes? They're too dangerous anyway and should be classified as weapons of mass destruction. Busses and boats would be much safer.

    Profiling does work, but when you mention profiling, I think of FBI profilers using clues to an existing crime to try and catch the person doing it. When you mention "racial profiling," it is the assumption that someone of that race has a disposition towards crime and because they are that race it is just cause.

    C
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Security of a country can be achieved while the country is holding true to its moral obligations to its citizens.
    ...and also the moral obligations to non-citizens. The illeagal (according to US courts of justice) treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners is a very bad example in this respect. VERY bad for US reputation in the Middle East and in the rest of the world - surprised how much some people hate the US? Taking into consideration the huge negative side effects, it is certainly not positive for the security of US citizens. It is ok to capture them, but at least treat them according the most basic laws.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Wow, it's been a long time since I've seen someone jump into the middle and explain why this is such a difficult topic so effectively, KRamsauer.

    I think you're definitely right. There is a line to be drawn here, and finding where that line should be drawn will be one of the hardest tasks we face over the next couple of years. Or, what am I saying? Forever, really.
    And while this may not be the place for it (on a Treo enthusiast forum), I agree to the open debate of it. Quietly hoping it will go away will solve nothing.

    C
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Here is a story I found on the web that relates to racial profiling.

    http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/...&articleid=711

    The story is quite long but well worth the read. And scary!

    Kinda seems like we could be shooting ourselves in the foot in the interest of not hurting someone's feelings.

    What do you think??
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp
  6. #46  
    Thanks for the update. The status of the story has been changed to "False" on snopes.com - no terrorist threat around. I think the whole story is an excellent example for selective perception of what is happening around us: Annie Jacobsen looked at Middle Eastern men and saw potential terrorists, so everything they did looked extremely suspicious in her eyes, even the most normal things like using a lavatory and throwing away stuff there. Good to learn, though, that the Sky Marshalls had everything under controll and checked the lavatory anyway. They made sure, but did not overreact, so the whole thing could not have been better.

    Strange that www.womenswallstreet.com does not link to the Snopes page that debunks the story, or informs its readers that the whole thing was in fact "Tempest in a Teapot" instead of "Terror in the Skies, Again?".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    It brings me to this:
    1. Is Annie Jacobsen a real writer? And if she is, does she still have that job?
    (I am half kidding, BTW.)
    Yes, she is a freelance writer. Yes, she still has a job. She didn't fully invent that story, she just freaked out major about not much, but that is expected from women, it isn't considered a reason to sack them (I am more or less more than half kidding, BTW).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8.    #48  
    Just heard an update on the radio.

    13 of the 14 Syrian band members on this flight, had travel visas that expired on June 10.

    Why are we letting this happen?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #49  
    interesting.. this happened this week in Australia:
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Just heard an update on the radio.

    13 of the 14 Syrian band members on this flight, had travel visas that expired on June 10.

    Why are we letting this happen?
    I am sure you are capable of and willing to distinguish between terrorists and people with expired visas...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    interesting.. this happened this week in Australia:
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true
    They asked for login/password, didn't feel like registering. Can you post the information? Thanks!
    EDIT: Got it, thanks PeterBrown!
    Last edited by clulup; 07/28/2004 at 10:00 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #52  
    Look again clulup, you can read it without registering for a limited time.
    Animo et Fide
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Look again clulup, you can read it without registering for a limited time.
    Thanks!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #54  
    Yes
    God bless the USA! The country I love, and will support at all costs.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Just heard an update on the radio.

    13 of the 14 Syrian band members on this flight, had travel visas that expired on June 10.

    Why are we letting this happen?
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp

    Much has been made of the discovery that the Syrian musicians were supposedly traveling on "expired visas." This claim stems from a misunderstanding of what the expiry date on a U.S. visa signifies.

    The expiry date indicates the date after which that visa may no longer be used to travel to the U.S. A valid visa does not in itself grant the holder the right to enter the U.S., but merely authorizes the holder to seek permission to enter the country from a U.S. immigration officer. Only that officer can approve or deny entry, and it is that officer who will inscribe on that visitor's I-94 Arrival-Departure Record the date by which the traveler must leave the country. The same visa can be used by its rightful holder on multiple occasions (as in the case of someone who travels frequently), but each entry has to be approved by an immigration officer who will on each occasion make a determination as to when that visitor must leave.

    Once the foreign traveler is in the U.S., the expiry date of his visa becomes unimportant — all that matters is the exit date listed on that person's I-94, a card he carries with his passport while in the U.S. While it is true that an expired visa cannot be used to re-enter the U.S. (its holder must reapply or seek an extension), there is nothing wrong in and of itself with being in the U.S. past the expiry date listed on one's visa.
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Just heard an update on the radio.

    13 of the 14 Syrian band members on this flight, had travel visas that expired on June 10.

    Why are we letting this happen?
    So, Woof, with regard to the post above: anything else intimidating about the 14 Syrians, apart from the meaningless fact that their visas had expired?

    Why are [the US] letting these things happen? Because they don't mean a freaking thing...!!!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So, Woof, with regard to the post above: anything else intimidating about the 14 Syrians, apart from the meaningless fact that their visas had expired?
    I wouldn't say expired visas are meaningless. We shouldn't shoot people for being so forgetful, but it is a violation nonetheless.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I wouldn't say expired visas are meaningless. We shouldn't shoot people for being so forgetful, but it is a violation nonetheless.
    Actually, it's not. That's the point of what I posted above. The visa expiration date is only the date after which you're not allowed to come into the country. If you're already in the country, there's a different date set for when you have to leave.

    If they left, and tried to come back, they'd have to get a new visa. But once here, it's not a violation to stay past the visa expiration date.
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by metsfan
    Actually, it's not. That's the point of what I posted above. The visa expiration date is only the date after which you're not allowed to come into the country. If you're already in the country, there's a different date set for when you have to leave.

    If they left, and tried to come back, they'd have to get a new visa. But once here, it's not a violation to stay past the visa expiration date.
    I was actually thinking of adding a note saying I hadn't actually read the whole thread. If they had passed the date when they were supposed to leave, that would be a problem. Again, not a "let's kill em" problem, but a problem nonetheless.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    So yes, consider middle eastern men to be a higher risk, but use that as only 1 factor..
    /thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions