I dunno, Acey baby, it made perfect sense to me, but then again I’m not trying to justify my predjudices.
HA HA!! People who speak English as a second language use strange sentence structure! That’s very funny!
(Ace, if you are attempting to prove the generalization that Americans are ignorant bigots you are doing an admirable job.)
Wow, Ace must be from the Evil Dope Website, promoting ignorance and all that. And i agree with Efrem.
Weirddave: I dunno, either. What prejudices would I be trying to justify, exactly? That race should be used as a component of accurate criminal profiling? That’s not a “prejudice,” it’s my opinion, born out by the facts of life, and exactly the same “prejudice,” that they use on a daily basis in Israel, where their constrained resources mean focusing on the wrong individuals costs lives. Profiling works. And it doesn’t mean that you’re an “idiot” or a “racist”.
As I said above, the Med Students were victims of grossly inaccurate racial profiling, and that the cops went overboard. That doesn’t mean the answer is “get rid of race as a component of profiling,” any more than the answer is “get rid of local cops as a means of enforcing the law.”
You know, I never thought I’d use the phrase “the terrorists have already won” without irony or sarcasm until I read this thread.
It is not against the law to joke about 9/11. It is not against the law to tell a friend that you’re going to blow up a building, either. All of you twats who are willing to trample over our freedoms in defense of America are so ass-backwards I wonder how you can speak without shitting. Going by the evidence in this thread, I guess you can’t.
And who was the so-scared-s/he’s-ready-to-shit-all-over-the-fucking-constitution who said “If it were your town, you’d be want people to react this way”? Well, it was my town. It rained ashes on my apartment for two weeks after 9/11— and I still believe in our Bill of Rights. I still believe in “guilty until proven innocent”, I still believe in equal rights and protection under the law.
**BIGGIRL WROTE THIS. DO NOT JUMP ON BEERCHICK AS THIS IS NOT HER OPINION. **
BIGGIRL WROTE THIS. DO NOT JUMP ON BEERCHICK AS THIS IS NOT HER OPINION. **
Gotta watch it when co-workers join the boards.
Racial profiling is an excuse for poor police work, just as zero tolerance is an excuse not to think and judge situations on their merits.
Here’s a pop quiz:
Where in the world is there a large pool of militent Muslems, fully trained in the art of warfare and terrorism besides the Middle East?
The answer is Bosnia, and most of them are whiter than George W Bush. Racially profile them when they come over here, and see how safe that makes us, why doncha?
I agree with your point that Racial Profiling can be an excuse for lazy police work, as mentioned, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless or counterproductive. Certainly, exclusive profiling by race is usually worthless. That doesn’t make we should no longer use race as a component of any profile, that would be rather silly and shortsighted.
As to the large pool of militant muslims that we can’t distinguish, I heard the worry is Chechnya, where they have no distinguishing characteristics. So, if we were to consider them as well, the resulting profile would include less racial characteristics and more, behavioral and linguistic characteristics. It’d still be a profile, though.
Again, how do we think Israel handles it’s air security? I’m sure they could pick out a Chechnyan or a Bonsian, don’t you?
True. If you do not mind law enforcement in your underdrawers and love the cute police dogs, you can joke about just about anything.
But, in the real world, free speech when exercised in a reckless manner - though not usually illegal in an of itself - will cause very annoying, time-consuming, career harming, even physically dangerous consequences.
Try and apply the golden rule to police officers: option 1 - “Ha ha!, what a funny 9/11 joke,” or, option 2 - “holy shit, we better check this out or something bad may happen.” Given the congressional investigation(s) into the intelligence failures before 9/11, not to mention the carnage, what would any rational law-enforcement-type person choose? Remember WTC I, the two embassies, the Cole, the shoe bomber, the Pakistani consulate, the multiple barracks bombings, the so-called dirty bomber - Jose Padilla? There are more.
FYI: The magic words of the burden of proof in a criminal trial in the United States are: “One is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” This does not mean, in any way, that the police investigating someone is improper or illegal. That is a whole different issue.
There are civil claims which can be raised challenging police conduct: false imprisonment (arrest), civil rights violations, intrusion, excessive force. Sometimes even criminal charges are brought against the police - long after the fact.
‘Joking’ about 9/11 and blowing stuff up is NOT FUNNY! (NOT saying that happened - the cops only know what they were told also) It raises reasonable suspicion, though not probable cause. A police officer should investigate a reasonable suspicion. Therefore, no way will the three students have a claim against the police unless new facts are adduced.
Cops are screwed either way, not investigating a reasonable suspicion or investigating one that turns out to be false.
OTOH: the hospital overreacted, the media (as usual) rushed to fill air with incorrect ‘facts.’ Some of the police (as usual) tried to paint the three students as criminals in the media - thus reinforcing the media’s propensity to screw up anyway.
BUT, to not investigate - insane.
Also, it’s long been illegal to joke about bombing in an Airport. Now that bombs can be anywhere, it’s not hard to imagine the judicial system extending this speech infringement.
I agree that linguistic and behaviorial profiles are useful, my point is that race should not be a component of profiles- or at least not a characterist that causes an individual to be subjected to a level of scrutiny greater than anyone else in the absence of other indicators. If the person had heard 3 white guys say the same thing, chances are the police would not have been called, and if they were, the police reaction likely would not have been as…robust.
If you’re saying that race shouldn’t be an overly weighted aspect of a profile, I agree. The object is to catch the bad guys, not piss off the good guys who share their skin color, and who were potential informants. While I wouldn’t expect a Shoney’s patron to grok the distinction between, Sikh and Sunni, the authorities must all be educated. Sooner rather than later; Letting the guilty go free hurts the cause, and arresting the innocent hurts the cause, by losing hearts, minds, and informants.
I feel for the police – they need to get up to speed on threat analyzation, and quickly.
The plot thickens.
I wonder what else these guys didn’t do that they were reported as having done.
Funny you mention that. In the mid-1990s there was a federal case* in Macon, Georgia known (by some) as the “unabubba” case.
Two paid federal informants (60K of the taxpayers money each annually, with serious cocaine habits, I digress) instructed some beer-swilling redneck (all white) members of the Georgia Militia how to build pipe bombs. The informants provided the know-how and the materials. Eventually the informants persuaded some of the members of the militia to build and hide some pipe bombs. Until the informants came along, the activities of the bubbas was ENTIRELY SPEECH. NOT ONE OVERT ACT had been committed. Oh, but what speech, they talked about violence of all kinds.
The feds. arrested and convicted many of the militia. There were HUNDREDS of federal agents and sharpshooters all over Macon during the trial. The security was so tight, and the metal detectors were set to such a sensitivity that they were tripped by the nails in shoes. I was searched every time I entered the courtroom. Note, I was there to assist one of the defense attorneys.
So, basically, what are you talking about, Weirdave? Then it was white militia extremists, now it is Muslim extremists. If race really was outcome determinative, the med. students would be in jail, not on Larry King. Plenty of other white people have had the government land on them with both feet also.
*Best I could do without citing militia sources. Amazing, the dearth of articles, given the huge number written at the time. Oh well, my searching may need work.
And this is analogous to a comment “overheard” in a resturant how, exactly?
From the above link, now it looks like they didn’t even run the toll, like origionally stated.
It becomes more and more clear that these men were stopped and harrassed because they have swarthy skin, period.
So, can they arrest the Toolboth guy for making a false accusation to a federal officer?
I know, I know, I’m dreaming, but still. Shitty. Need shower.
Read the all caps part again.
I’ll try one more time: someone “overheard” these WHITE militia types in Macon (big talking drunks, basically) scheming their perhaps never-to-be-implemented schemes - based on their 100% lack of follow through previously. Then, the feds. infiltrated their organization, spent millions of dollars, provided the materials, and taught them to build pipe bombs in order to make a case against them. I don’t see how “restaurant” makes any difference. The point was, originally, whether or not speech could cause the police to investigate or bring harassment on the speaker - as per the discussion above. It can, and does, all the time. I give you the name, “Hatfill,” for your consideration.
Here we have the testimony of a witness (Eunice) with first-hand personal knowledge. Sometimes witnesses are truthful and helpful. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they get it wrong by accident.
What should the investigating officers in the field have done - exactly? I already conceded that the hospital, the media, and some blabbermouth cops were in the wrong.
Racial profiling is a size 12 shoe being rammed onto a size seven set of facts in this case. The police did not profile anyone.
Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people with the intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. Throw in a prepatory overt act, like having explosives,* voila - felony(ies).
*Itself punishible by a half dozen(ish) federal statutes.
Excuse me, Beagle, but they are not the same, and you damn well know it, so why not admit that you’re wrong?
Your Scenerio: A bunch of GOB ( Good old boys ) Talk about planting bombs and other acts of mayhem.( I’m assuming clearly- “You know what we should do? We should blow up whatever” ) In your own words these may be “never-to-be-implemented schemes”, but it seems that they were just that, concrete schemes. They are investigated, inflitrated and then arrested when they put their plans into action.
Aligator Alley: 3 men are overheard, by a civilian, to possibly wonder if they “had enough to bring it down” ( enough what? we don’t know. Bring what down, where and how? Who cares? ) along with a passing reference to 9/11 ( maybe ). Because of this, they are stopped, detained for 17 hours, searched, a road is closed, a bag is blown up, all without any probable cause except a vague statement that may or may not have been embellished, but in any event dosen’t directly refer to anything. How are these the same? They are manifestly different, and in a way that proves my point, not yours. The more concrete threat ( the GOBs ) was properly investigated, quietly, until enough evidence was gathered to make an arrest and get a conviction. The pie-in-the sky accusation ( “They said they were going to bring it down!” ) resulted in an Ashcroft special- Dozens of cops, dogs, helicopters, specialists ( bomb squad ) descending en mass on a car full of 3 men whos only crime was being of Mid Eastern descent that someone had accused of making vague statements. Thank you for proving my point. The whites who made specific threats were treated to correct investigation before arrest, the swarthy men who made a vague statement that could have refered to anything were not.
Well, if they were absolutely convinced that the witness was reliable, why not what they did in the other case you mentioned? Put them under surveilance, investigate if they are doing anythig wrong, get FACTS together before going off half cocked.
And this is good and right how? This is compatible with what the US supposedly stands for in which way? The Thought Police were established when?
**
In this case law enforcement chose option 3-- Let’s not check any of this shit out and ruin these guys lives with no evidence whasoever.
And you also think what is happening to Jose Padilla is righ and good? He has been denied all of his basic rights as a US citizen. What is happening to him scares the holy fuck out of me and if you had the sense God gave a pile of rocks, you’d be scared too. Using Jose Padilla to bolster your side of the arguement proves my point of this assed backwardness. Me, I don’t think I’d like the taste of shit.
**
What fucking investigatioin are you talking about? Ah-- It’s the Salem Investigative Method-- Someone cries out “He’s a witch! Burn him!” and everybody runs out with torches and pitchforks.
I’m sending the police a link to the Possible Onion Headlines so that SWAT teams can descend on their houses. I even actually saw and hear a few of those posters joking about bombing buildings in real life. At least I think I overheard them.
You know, option 1.
It’s very reminicent of 1950’s mc carthyism to me.