Well let’s just say as a Black person I’ve been on the wrong end of it too many times to be fond of the practice, though I do think there are limited uses for it (read when it’s it’s used n conjuction with other valid investigory techniques). That being said I thank you for at least addressing the question. I’ll be the fiirst to admit that I don’t have the answers either. What I do know is that it is a practice that spawns resentment. Further alienating military personell who may already be under strain due to postings or who may have experienced hostility from some our less than enlightned citizens/soldiers* seems to be akin to throwing a match into a gas filled room.
I think it’ll surely feed that perception, but that’s where we differ.
[sub]* While in Basic Training in Ft. Jackson back in '86 there was a guy from Indiana who despite training with roughly 40% of a platoon of black guys seemed to think the terms Darkie, Skillet and similar were perfectly acceptable. :dubious: I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re still fishing recruits form the same ponds.[/sub]
Stuffy and Monty, I don’t know when either of you served in the military. But when I was in, 1972 - 1992, there definately was “profiling” being done. If you were born in, and still had relatives behind the “Iron Curtain”, or if you visited one of those countries during the past X number of months then you were subject to "special investigations.
The rational behind those investigations was that those individuals were a higher risk to have contact with, either knowingly or unknowingly, soviet agents. Was this a bit paranoid of the military? They didn’t think so at the time. Risk outweighed your convenience.
So I see nothing wrong with taking a closer look at some people.
I’m surprised no one is at lest suggesting that what these Muslim guys at Gitmo are doing – the American Muslims at Gitmo, the ones who fall under the US constitution, as opposed to the ones in seemingly permanent legal limbo – is actually closer to and indeed upholding the kinds of ideas the US used to stand for before Bush; individual rights, equality, Habeas Corpus, the Rule of Law . . .
We don’t know what they were doing or planning to do (there is alleged evidence against these two US servicemen but it has not been tested in court), but wouldn’t it be a reasonable moral / ethical judgement for people in a position to so do, to undermine what’s happening at Gitmo on the basis that it offends all pre-Bush American values?
Indeed, one might argue the moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian case for doing something to undermine the ongoing detention of men and children at Gitmo after more than 12 months is stronger than not. Isn’t it ?
Fwiw, I honestly could not support my Government in this and if I was in a position to do something I’d feel it a moral duty to so do – and I doubt a jury in England would convict me.
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I don’t see that as ‘treachery’, rather it’s standing up for the true, historic and inalienable values of ones society that have been fought for and defended for hundreds of years and, in so doing, rejecting the current perversion of same for self-serving, short-term party political ends.
Incorrect. The checks were focusing on, not national origin, but rather current ties, such as family, in that nation. If your incorrect assertion actually were correct then those many commissioned officers who hail from certain countries would not be commissioned officers nor would those many enlisted personnel with security clearances who originally hailed from certain countries actually have said clearances.
Correct. FYI: I retired as a PN1 on February 29, 2003.
I was going to just say “incorrect.” The thing is, this is pure bullshit. It’s been refuted so many times, I fear that to type the number of times it’s been refuted on this board will make my numeric keyboard rise up in righteous wrath and throttle me. Kindly avail yourself of the information contained within both the Constitution of the United States of America and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When you have completed that task, then hie ye to the personnel security program instructions and learn, pray ye, learn.
Conflict Yes I did serve, see my last post. Exited as a Sgt 91C last duty station MAMC - Ft. Lewis. I would have had to change my MOS to continue promotions past E-7 or spend roughly 5 years in grade at each rank. Monty has dealt with the rest, I just didn’t want to seem I was ignoring you.
"Christians have been hijacking planes in the past."
“Cite, please, for Christians hijacking planes.” asked milroyj
Hey milroyj, thought you had us stumped, didn’t you? Well have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
You have? Yeah, well, back then if anyone happened to have any airplanes flying around them crazy Christians would have certainly hijacked 'em.
Yeah, those Cubans who hijacked flights to Florida must’ve been Muslims and those Germans who hijacked that French airbus must’ve been Muslims, along with that guy who jumped out of the plane, yeah, he must’ve been Muslim too.
:dubious: :rolleyes: :smack:
Who give a rat’s rear in whose name they committed the act? The point is that there have been Christians–whose faith supposedly is one of peace–performing violent acts.
Acquiring unauthorized sensitive documents, gathering personal and family details of camp guards, attempting to transmit said documents and details abroad.
Here we are supposed to be discussing muslim terrorists-spies-traitors at gitmo and in the military, and other people are coming in and laying huge smoke screens, pointing out some dude who jumped out of an airplane in 1971.:smack:
Isn’t it funny, how everytime there is a discussion of some islamic terrorists, there seems to be a certain percentage of posters who feel the need to litter the thread with various unrelated “history” lessons.
Typical Thread on the net:
(1) Poster 1 “Al Qaeda is dangerous, and we need to stop those mass murdering maniacs”
(2) Poster 2 “I agree”
(3) Poster 3 (smokescreen on, probably posting from Syria ) “You disgusting racist and bigot. Need I mention Oklahoma city ?, and what about all those"christians jumping from airplanes ?”
Imagine if this was 1944, and we were discussing the threat of nazism.
(1) Poster 1 “Nazis are vile scumbags, who need to be defeated.”
(2) Poster 2 “I agree”
(3) Poster 3 (probably wearing leiderhosen) “Nazis are not the only dudes who engage in genocide. What about those mean Spainiards and the Incas ?”
(1) Poster 1 “Nazis are vile scumbags who need to be defeated.”
(2) Poster 2 “I agree.”
(3) Poster 3 (probably a racist who claims to love the flag but hates what it stands for): “I agree, too. We should specially screen Germans before allowing them in the military.”
(4) Poster 1 “What? There’s Germans all over, on our side and theirs. It makes more sense to screen people according to whether they’ve done something suspicious like hanging around with Nazis.”
(5) Poster 3 (repeats self ad nauseum without evidence and while cheerfully admitting the slightest knowledge of current screening methods or about the history of espionage)
Sound familiar? The “poster 3” scenario actually won out in World War II, not as regards the Germans but as regards the Japanese. It’s not going to win out again, your demonstrated bigotry and idiocy in this thread notwithstanding.
I am fairly certain that had the Twin Towers been a giant abortion clinic, Eric Robert Rudolph would have been flying at least one of the planes.
The OP calls into question the loyalty of our soldiers, specifically Muslim soldiers, due to the suspicious actions of a few at Camp Delta. I for one, have not judged Muslims any differently throughout the attacks on our country, the war on terror, the Afghan debacle, The Empire Strikes Back or the actions of a few military personnel who were alleged to possess GTMO documents. To judge people – even soldiers – based on religious beliefs is pure bigotry.
I submit there are excellent testing methods (look into the Minnesota Multiphasic, among others) that could help a body such as the US Military identify unstable personnel or extreme views.
The US Military has built its success as an organization on a firm foundation of unity; a soldier is always first mindful of his responsibility to the man or woman fighting beside him. If we have a man like Captain Yee who is willing to (even in his minimal way) work against this fundamental training, it is evident to me that our military system in and of itself is flawed. And that flaw has nothing to do with religion.
How do you know that the Cubans and Germans were Christians? They probably were, but, as Brutus pointed out, they didn’t hijack airplanes because of their religious beliefs (however warped), unlike al-queda.
So, you made a claim in GD that “Christians have been hijacking planes in the past” which you are either unable or unwilling to back up. Got it.
Again, it doesn’t matter a whit if they hijacked the planes in the name of their religious beliefs or not. The supposition is that Christianity is a bit against crimes of violence.
