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

spincity ^ | 9/21/2001 | Bryan Keefer

[ConsistentLibertarian]

It's an "expansion of power allowing them to selectively target people" versus a "more aggressive use of existing discretionary powers to selectively target people" distinction? OK, now tell me what premise you want to argue from -- efficiency or justice and I'll know what to think of the distinction.

[boris]

Strangely, I sent the following letter to the L.A. Times today:

"Editor
Los Angeles Times

Sir:

"We are now in a state of (formally undeclared) war. Those calling for "tolerance" need to come back to reality.

"The reality is that liberal immigration policies and gutting of our intelligence and military have resulted in a situation in which we have been infiltrated and subverted for years. Non-U.S.-citizen aliens who are citizens of terrorist-supporting states are ENEMY ALIENS and constitute a clear and present danger to our national security. There are probably 100 terrorist cells presently active, in place, and on the ready. Those people--perhaps 1,000--rely on a larger group--perhaps 10,000--who actively support them, and an even larger one--hundreds of thousands--who know about them and say nothing.

"All 'student visas', green cards, etc., should be revoked--NOW--and those holding these documents should be deported at once. They are here on our sufferance--and that sufferance needs to be revoked, NOW.

"Additionally, every arab/islamic 'citizen' remaining needs to have his background scrutinized--as if he were applying for a security clearance. We know there are moles and sleepers among the 'citizens'" -- one of the terrorists was a 'naturalized citizen'.

"We can have tolerance and nice warm feelings--and watch our cities turn to dust. Or we can begin to awaken from the dream of "tolerance" and defend ourselves. The hijackers who murdered thousands of men, women, and children were not 'tolerant'--nor should we tolerate them."

--Boris

[Right Wing Professor]

Efficiency will do.

I'm not sure where justice comes into this, but then, I'm as little impressed with justice as an ideal as I am with equality. If there is justice to be found, it's posthumous.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

OK, Let's look at it from a pure efficiency stand point, with no appeal to any principle of justice. If you look at it in cost-benefit terms, not factoring in justice, then a war on terrorism is a losing proposition. At least there's little evidence that would make it look attractive -- Add up what will be spent and make your best calculation on what effect the campaign will have on mortality rates in the US and compare to what you could do with the same amount of money spent in other ways ... It's a tough case to make that the benefits outweight the opportunity costs -- again, assuming justice doesn't enter into this anywhere. Can you say anything to make even a prima facie case? Or do you want to reconsider whether maybe some principle of justice should by driving policy here? I'm cool either way.

[Right Wing Professor]

I thought we were discussing the profiling of Arab/Moslem citizens and aliens. You want to change the subject?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Same subject. You want to base policly on considerations of efficiency, not justice. I'm just exploring with you the committments of that position. You can't pick and chose. If you accept the premise, you commit yourself to all of its consequences, not just some of them.

[Right Wing Professor]

That's ludicrous. Because the arguments for one policy are based on efficiency, all policies must be based on the same?

I'm taking this as a concession from you that you can't seriously argue against racial profiling in airline passenger screening, since if you could argue the point, you would. But thanks for playing.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Because the arguments for one policy are based on efficiency, all policies must be based on the same?" No, but if you're going to invoke different premises in support of different policies, you're still committed to their joint consequences. You can't pick and choose. In particular, if you think the war on terrorism can't be justified on the basis of efficiency consideration but can and should be motivated by an appeal to justice, then you have to make clear what sort of principle of justice you want to appeal to and you're in no position to object if anyone asks how racial profiling fares as a policy in light of that principle.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

It's not a game, but if you want to say "I won" and take your bat and ball and go home, I won't comment. I won't need to.

[Tymesup]

":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. "

Jayna Davis - "We have (22) sworn witness affidavits that tie seven to eight Arab men to various stages of the bombing plot . . "

"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 ... "

My original conjecture that McVeigh may not have been an isolated individual is either true or false. It does not depend on Mr. Rivero.

[_Jim]

OK.

Let's see your argument countering the mountain of physical evidence linking McVeigh and Nichols alone to the Murrah building bombing ...

Do you need a link to the court/trial transcripts where that evidence may be reviewed?

PS. McVeigh's lawyer and crack staff of investigators ATTEPMTED to pursue this angle - and got nowhere ... are you contending that these people were incompetant or somehow defficient in their investigations or investigative abilities?

PPS. Do you ALSO contend that McVeigh was under the influence of GOVERNERNMENT HYPNOTISTS when he admitted to committing this act ALONE in his book?

Your rivero-class 'conspiracy' theory MUST be all encompassing and explain ALL aspects of behavior, action, and the motives of all of those involved PLUS explain away satisfactorily the mountain of physical evidence and testimony of HUNDRERDS of third-party non-law enforcement witnesses linking him intimately to the bombing. To date, the over-whelming mountain of evidence IS NOT in favor of such whacked-out, hair-ball theories dependent on a few isolated witnesses or the highly speculative 'conjecture' of a few 'theorists' far removed from the case both by time and distance ...