Well, there’s your fucking problem then! This is what happens when you encourage self-deluded people.
What was good about it?
Fortunately, we’ve become a bit more civilized since then, which is why we started paying Japanese-American internees and their survivors reparations in 1988.
Oh, and in any case, the Supreme Court’s rulings were largely based on misrepresentation by the Federal government, which withheld evidence and then covered up the whole thing for fifty years. You can read about it on Wikipedia or high school history textbooks. That is, if you can read.
Well Kyla, the constitution seems to provide speedy trails too and yet now it is fine to hold people as long as government wants without trial. All the rights and stuff also go out the window in military trials yet that is not provided for in the constitution, and finally the whole constitution can just be suspended at will, it is called martial law. Where is that provided for?
I have searched internet for the rules under martial law and who can declare it (and what the new laws are when in effect, and if it can be appealed and all that) and I find nothing. So bottom line I don’t think searching moslems after they declare jihad would be illegal at all.
You say it is illegal to do all these things like privacy violations yet we locked up Asian US citizens who had done nothing, and that was fine per the Supreme Court, wasn’t that at least a much worst privacy violation that is legal and a precedent?
By the way you never answered the bad public policy question above when I said the jihad was the bad public policy, and we are just reacting to it, do you support jihad?
I notice in all these posts in fact no one seems to ever say a bad word about any of these people doing the bombings or that maybe that it is the bad public policy. (and not us searching to stop it)
Anyway the searches themselves are legal, and don’t we go do a search in other matters just where we think the bad guys are? In other words a 6 foot man with a gun shoots someone, do we search children for the gun or women with no reason? Or just look for the right kind of person to check? Well that is all I was doing.
You seem to agree looking for suicide bombers among Christians is a waste of time. When you search everyone that will be the biggest group, and why do it if it is agreed they are not the problem?
Why is a guy with who is clearly subnormal on a website that promotes the fighting of ignorance?
Silverstreak, leave, you are embarrassingly under-equipped for this forum. You simply aren’t smart or informed enough to hack it here. You look like a flailing honey-covered retard fighting off army ants. It’s hard to watch.
Yes, I support jihad. Obviously. Is that supposed to be some kind of rhetorical question? I wasn’t aware that I needed to actually say that I’m against suicide bombing.
Okay, you guys, get ready. This is gonna blow your minds but…I’M AGAINST SUICIDE BOMBING. It fails as a viable policy, if one’s objective is to convert the world to Islam. If, on the other hand, one’s objective is to cause chaos and make people scared, it is a real winner.
Uhh…what else was I gonna say? Oh, right. How are you going to tell who’s Muslim and who isn’t, anyway? Shall we all have national ID cards that state our religion? Pretty sure that isn’t a conservative value.
P.S. The Constitution is an interpretable document. Something that was ruled unconstitutional in one time will get a different interpretation in another. That’s why the Supreme Court reverses rulings periodically. At one point, the Supreme Court ruled that it was okay to educate children of different races in different schools. Later, they changed their minds. I feel that I can confidently predict that the Supreme Court of 2010 would NOT think it’s okay to put people of a certain ethnicity in internment camps, so I wouldn’t use that particular situation as a useful precedent.
Obviously, anyone who objects to illegally singling out a religious group for intrusive searches must support jihad. :rolleyes: Did it not occur to you that maybe nobody bothers to describe “jihads” as poor policy because it’s really fucking obvious?
Public policy refers to actions (or lack of action) taken by governments. Al Quaeda is not a government entity, and is therefore not engaged in public policy
Again, this is obvious to anyone with a fully functioning brain, but: searching for your hypothetical 6-foot male shooter is an investigation of a crime which has already occurred. In order to detain, search and/or arrest 6-foot-tall men who may have committed the shooting, law enforcement personnel need probable cause that a crime has taken place and that the suspect committed said crime.
Searching all Muslims for bombs at airports would be investigating crimes that have not actually occurred yet. Probable cause, by definition, does not exist.
Cite? 
sings Speedy traaaaaaails, to you
Until we meet again… sings
Kyla, But you could use it as a precedent to do something so much milder. like an airport search, based on the fact they really are doing bombings, and I feel the court of 2010 would indeed go that far, and that is the debate. I am not trying to open any camps.
Really seems to be saying all airport searches would be illegal then because no crime has yet occurred. I can’t see it any other way. We can check for bombs only after they go off, is that your stand then? Yet I am the one being called not smart…hmmmmm
I’m thinking as well as Silverstreak’s “Koranmat” device, we should be lining the passages to the boarding area with decadent western posters, so that by the time they reach the plane, any extremist muslims are so enraged with the infidels that they stand out like a sore thumb!
Hey Sliversteak, what do you think we should do to keep illegal immigrants out of the country? I mean, beside the obvious step of putting a doormat of Our Lady of Guadeloupe on the border, and anyone who refuses to step on it is subject to heightened scrutiny for being a Mexican.
I really want to know what else we can do.
You’re wrong.
Well, this was amusing for awhile, but I’m pretty bored with this. Ciao, y’all.
No, I’m afraid there really are people that ignorant. I’m related to some of them. The stupid truly is scary.
Actually, I find the stupid involved in strapping an explosive device to ones body, to please some mythical creator, far more scary.
Fair point, but we’re averaging a terrorist attack (in the west, at least) once every…what, 18-24 months? I have to deal with the relatives all. the. time.
The “foot thing” is in fact prevalent throughout the whole of Asia*. Not just south Asia (predominantly Hindus and Muslims, and some Buddhists) but also east and south-east Asia (secular, Taoist, Confucianist, Buddhist, and some Muslims).
The “foot thing” is one of those taboos that is incomprehensible to people who have no knowledge of, nor empathy for, cultural foibles that are alien to themselves, but actually mean a shitload to the people whose cultures embrace such taboos.
I saw a beggar the last time I was in China who had tied a shoe to his head. The implication was: “I am now as low as it is possible to go. Please give me your pity.”
In Thailand (mostly Buddhist), for another example, you shouldn’t touch anything with your foot, or even step over anything important - including property - and never ever point your foot at anything to indicate it, unless you mean to be dreadfully insulting.
Conversely, there are many things that are taboo to us in the west that are completely benign to people in the east, but we would never know what they are if we’re ignorant. Like, you can flip the bird to many people in the world and they will have no idea that you mean offense. Or fly a swastika flag, or have swastikas tattooed on you for religious reasons.
Silverstreak Wonder, of course, appears quite knowledgeable, so there’s no worry about any misunderstandings there.
*Which currently is the majority of humanity, but don’t let that stop your opinions.
I am saying no such thing. I am saying that selectively searching members of a particular racial, religious or ethnic group is illegal because no crime has yet occurred. However, since this has already been pointed out to you by a dozen other people, I don’t know why I bothered to qualify.
I live in Dearborn Hgts, Mich. The guy who lives across the street from me was a poet in Iraq and was jailed by Saddam. I have 3 more families of Arabs living down the street. Arabs are a large part of the athletic club where I work out.
They are just people like anybody else. The goofy Muslims that hate America can be countered with Natzi nuts and White power idiots in America. We all have our strange and weird segments of society to deal with. But people are just people.
Something I just thought of: if some people who believe this way can give (probably) fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt, defending them against opinions like those held by Der Trihs - that their religion defines them as evil and stupid - why can’t they do the same for Muslims for exactly the same reasons?
When McVeigh bombed the Murrah building did you advocate the rounding up of white people?
Have you ever noticed that all serial killers are white?