Posted on 08/01/2005 6:45:46 AM PDT by conservativecorner
In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile—young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)—the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What’s the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals’ rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists’ rights.
From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and “root causes,” warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. “We can’t bomb our way to justice,” said Ralph Nader.
The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that the terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in foolish leftism, delivered a three-part tv series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone. This ho-hum approach isn’t rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for the New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well fed and are well to do.
The “our fault” argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in the Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were “spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper . . . there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do.” That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic. After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about “the politics of ideological apology” for terrorism.
In the June 2005 issue of the American Prospect, he returned to the theme. “Is anybody still excusing terrorism?” he asked. “The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as ‘militants,’ is a disease, and recovery is slow.” Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is “how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won’t win an election until we address this.”
Walzer’s analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantánamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program? Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: “The burden is on us—nobody else—to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today’s Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens.” Good argument. How will the left respond?
BTTT
A crazy caller or a crazy host?
Sane, like when he tried to have Keith Richards arrested in the middle of a Stones' concert at Madison Sq. Garden for daring to smoke a (tobacco) cigarette onstage?
It there is no law, is it an administrative decision?
Thanks in advance.
I imagine when they see that charred, smoking hole in the ground, they will have that same retarded, immature smugness about how America deserves it. Even if they loose family or friends, they don't get it. I'm sure with family they call a lawyer before they call a mortuary.
The Constitution...Bill of Rights...due process and equal protection under the law (for starters).
This is liberalism run amok. Ther eis a clear profile of who the terrorists are and we need to follow it -- if the intent is to catch potentil terrorists. If, instead, the intent is to establish more control over the populace, then they're following the exactly correct method. Note how each of these attacks becomes an excuse for government to extend more control not over the enemies of this country, but over you and me.
But then, the people are not a recognized interest group.
A crazy caller or a crazy host?
Or a prospective bomber.
If the constitution was being observed no one would be searched without a warrent, so how do you figure the constitution prevents profiling? Or to put it another way, why are they bothering to follow one part of the constitution and not all of it?
There are no laws in any state that I know of that prevent profiling. Cops do it all the time. I do know for a fact that NYC does not have an anti profiling law, I ask a friend who lives there, so Bloomerman lied about that right off the bat.
My point is this: If we are going to observe the constitution, let's observe all of it, let's have no searches without warrents, OR let's disregard a little more of it and profile perps.
If the constitution was being observed no one would be searched without a warrent, so how do you figure the constitution prevents profiling? Or to put it another way, why are they bothering to follow one part of the constitution and not all of it?
There are no laws in any state that I know of that prevent profiling. Cops do it all the time. I do know for a fact that NYC does not have an anti profiling law, I ask a friend who lives there, so Bloomerman lied about that right off the bat.
My point is this: If we are going to observe the constitution, let's observe all of it, let's have no searches without warrents, OR let's disregard a little more of it and profile perps.
sorry about the double post!!
As a result, the city operates in a bizarre, schizophrenic climate in which the same people who complain about heavy-handed police tactics one day will not hesitate to complain that the police "aren't doing enough" when the sh!t hits the fan.
Oddly enough, the best approach to dealing with terrorism in New York City would probably be the complete elimination of all forms of security on the subway. It's amazing how quickly people in NY will grow up once they're on their own.
I rode the NYC subway all day Saturday. Not only did I not have my backpack searched......I didn't see ANYONE'S bags being searched.
This whole "ethnic profiling" is a total red herring.
No one is suggesting profiling on the base of ethnicity, profiling should be done on the basis of "TERRORIST PROFILE" - The profile of a terrorist in this day and age is overwhelmingly the following -
Muslim, AGE 20-35, Male, Middle Eastern or North African origin, Hides in plain sight
- The statistics clearly show that, therefore there can be no reason NOT to single out this group for scrutiny, it's as simple as that.
If there were NO MUSLIM terroism, there would be almost no terrorism at all and we could all live in peace.
Is racial profiling really wrong?
The recent bombings in London reminded me of how far removed we have become from the realities of 9/11.
But should we be surprised?
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following simple multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. Do you remember?
1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US 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
4. 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
5. In 1983, the US 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
6. 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
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. 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 9. 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
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, 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
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed 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
12. 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
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. The subways and a bus in London where blown up on July 7, 2005 which killed over 50 people by:
a. Ankle braclet wearing, ATV riding Martha Stewart
b. Someone's little old grandmother
c. Jimmy Hoffa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. Nick Berg's head was chopped off with a rusty dull knife by: <
a. Wennie wacker Lorana Bobbit
b. Home wrecker Amy Fisher
c. Knee knocker Tonya Harding
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? Yeah, right!
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 agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former South Dakota Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.
As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Come on people wake up! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book even if you did this last year. Our Country and our troops need our support!
They had to get the "intelligence-led" disclaimer in though, PC rules.
Just thought this happy phrase could bear repeating :0)
Do any of you ****** even KNOW a Muslim or Middle Eastern person?
Yes I do, I know Syrian, Armenian, Afghani and Lebanese Christians, Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE muslims, black American Muslims, lots of Israelis, why do you ask?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.