Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation (BIG BARF ALERT)

spincity ^ | 9/21/2001 | Bryan Keefer

[TLBSHOW]

Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation

The last time we heard from Ann Coulter she was arguing that the US should invade countries in which people cheered the recent terrorist attacks and convert them to Christianity, leading to widespread criticism and a public semi-apology from National Review editor Rich Lowry. Now, her latest column advocates disparate treatment of people at airports based on their complexions.

Coulter begins with a legitimate criticism of new security restrictions on air travel, arguing that they will not prevent future hijackings. About two-thirds of the way through, though, she tells us sarcastically that "the rash of hijackings by Connecticut WASP girls surely explains the time-consuming -- but still somehow completely useless -- examination of my personal effects." This begins a racial theme she carries into the column's conclusion, where she makes this suggestion:

We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males. It will be a minor hassle, but it's better than national ID cards.

Of course, not all terrorists are "swarthy-looking males" - Timothy McVeigh is an obvious counter-example - nor are all swarthy-looking men terrorists. But this doesn't stop Coulter:

All 19 hijackers in last week's attack appear to have been aliens. As far as the Constitution is concerned, visitors to this country are here at the nation's pleasure. Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave. (More on that next week.) Congress could certainly pass a law requiring all aliens to get approval from the INS before boarding an airplane in the United States.

While she attempts to deflect responsibility by framing her policy prescriptions with the slippery construction "Congress could . . ." the implication is clear. Coulter is rhetorically implicating "all aliens from Arabic countries" in the recent tragedies, and suggesting that the same group is likely to strike again, even though the vast majority are peaceful and have no connection to terrorism. Moreover, Coulter's use of the term "aliens" implies an incredibly broad set of people, ranging from legal immigrants to resident aliens to tourists.

Coulter continues to fan the flames of racial animosity, making sweeping statements implicating all Arabs and Arab Americans for the actions of a lunatic few. This sort of attack is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable.

[RckyRaCoCo]

This is a time for Americans to unite behind the president, it isn't a time for Americans to fight one another because of religion or race.

Well actually I think most lefties feel this is a time to cower under a rock, or surrender. BTW, does Chelsea have her draftcard yet? Surely Hitlery and Linda Bloodless Thomason's(sp?)band of Zena Warrior Princesses, Dark Angels, Buffy slayers, etc. can do the job so all the weak cookie baking "men of the 90's" can stay home.

"Please Mr. Terrorist, don't hurt me, we'll do what you ask"!

To everything there is a season.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Test case: Suppose it turned out that you and Timoth McVeigh (sp?) "belonged to the same religion", in some suitably vague and general sense. Would you voluntarily give up your rights and let the State regulate you in a different way than other citizens? Or is that a different case because you _are_ a citizen? Or is it a different case because Timothy McVeigh was white? Or do you want to distinguish the case on some other ground?

[_Jim]

Understand, and thanks for the fill on background/current ongoings ...

[Selara]

Why the Barf Alert? Is it hard for you to digest something that makes so much sense?

[_Jim]

What ARE the groups again that have declared war on us (U.S.) and our way of life as evidenced by the state-sponsorship money/protection, their training camps, and their continued threat spreading over a period of years?

And then add to crtiteria those groups that also act to threaten our allies ...

Does McVeigh REALLY rise to meet ANY of that criteria? Perhaps, he does, to some degree - but his was a one-time event, he's now in custody WHEREAS these other groups 1) aren't 2) still receive protection from sanctuary on foreign shores AND 3) receive funding from a select group of benefactors that wish our country a swift extinction ...

[peegravel]

Coulter is a hell of a lot more right than wrong! It's time to realize that common sense must take precedence over PC bullhockey. No, we don't need to persecute Americans from the Middle East, but you don't hunt turkeys in a coastal marsh. God Bless America!

[Right Wing Professor]

"the vast majority of terrorists that have attacked the US in the last 10 years have been Moslem middle-easterners." Except for Oklahoma. And the Olympic games in Atlanta. And the bombings of the abortion clinics. How should we apply your "If people abhor terrorism, they should be willing to let the State target them if anyone like them has committed a terrorist act" principle to those cases?

We have two individuals convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing, and one strong suspect in the abortion clinic/ olympics bombings. I'll concede, if you like, there may be a few other abortion clinic bombers out there. Agaisnt those, we have at least 19 dead suicide bombers on 9/11, as well as a round dozen or so convicted for the embassies and the previous WTC attacks. And it is likely there are far more as yet unconvicted co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. What part of 'vast majority' don't you understand?

As I understnad it, an essential role of the state under libertarianism is to provide for the national defense. Using reasonably statistical inferences to determine the most likely profile of a terrorist, and using these inferences to properly direct the limited state resources available, would seem to be extirely consistent with libertarianism. On the other hand, treating little old ladies from Peoria the same as Abdul Masoor Rahman, lately of several addresses in the middle East, simply for some spurious ideal of equality, would seem like a terrible waste of state resources, and a betrayal of libertarianism, which after all is concerned with freedom and not with 'equality'.

For that matter, I have no problem with profiling selected categories of Caucasian men, should there be a reasonable argument that they're a threat.

[xclusiv1]

God bless Ann Coulter. She's right!

[Let's Roll]

"Coulter is a hell of a lot more right than wrong! It's time to realize that common sense must take precedence over PC bullhockey. No, we don't need to persecute Americans from the Middle East, but you don't hunt turkeys in a coastal marsh. God Bless America!"

Excellent! (and unfortunately, common sense isn't common)

bump!

[TLBSHOW]

It is a barf alert that this writer of the attack of Ann is full of BARF. Juat a liberal attack dog attacking commonsense. That is who bryan is. LOL

[Tymesup]

""the vast majority of terrorists that have attacked the US in the last 10 years have been Moslem middle-easterners." Except for Oklahoma. "

There may have been Moslem middle-easterners involved in Oklahoma.

[Tymesup]

"Oklahoma. And the Olympic games in Atlanta. And the bombings of the abortion clinics.

Cases of isolated, disgruntled (mostly) individuals. "

McVeigh may not have been an isolated individual.

[_Jim]

McVeigh may not have been an isolated individual.

YEAH I KNOW. AND HIS ADMISSION IN HIS BOOK THAT HE ALONE DID IT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HYPNOSIS BY GOVERNEMNT OPERATIVES.

Get a grip guy - this rivero-class crap is out and he's been banned for posting anti-American screeds ... his final *true* colors and ulterior motivation finally shown through ...

[The Irishman]

None of the acts you list were perpetrated by such a large organized group nor was the destruction on such a scale as that perpetrated on the the Towers. Isolated Wackos all. The attack on the Towers and Pentagon was different in so many ways that it exposes your argument as sheer sophistry. Regards.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

It wasn't clear to me how you wanted to connect the claim about the ratio ( Muslem middle eastern terrrorists / non-Muslem middle eastern terrorists ) with your principle that, if people abhor terrorism, they should be willing to let the State target them if anyone like them has committed a terrorist act. And it's still not clear. For example, it now looks like its morphed into an argument based on the efficient allocation of resources. Ie, Where can we expend resources to get the biggest savings in lives? And you're advocating we take a statistical approach. Let's see where that goes. Frankly, I can think of a lot of things we could do with even $1 Billion dollars that would save more than 5,000 lives. And I'm not even sure how you quantify the reduction in risk of death by terrorism. What would Lloyds of London ask someone from Nebraska to pay for an insurance policy that pays only if the holder of the policy does through a terrorist act? What would Lloyds of London demand in payment if the US spent $1 Billion on a war against terrorism?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Why don't you state what you took the argument in post #44 to be, so we know what counts as sophistry?

[TKEman]

Sadly, I must agree with the author. Ann's gone too far here. I think she's a little rattled, understandibly so, by the death of her friend Barbara Olsen.

[Procyon]

If we start by deporting all enemy aliens we will be defoliating the forest where the terrorists hide. An enemy alien is anyone who is a citizen of a country that the President has determined to aid, harbor or support terrorism.

End Phase I.