In reply to:

---

The INS guy said they all broke the law

---

Regardless of whether the laws the INS says they broke actually exist or not.

The "law" that these folks really broke, was being Arab looking or from an "arab country".

In any case, the INS "spokesman" is not the judge and jury - thats the job of the law and a judge to decide the facts of each case.

In reply to:

---

I'd choose the arabs for the simple reason that there weren't any mexicans hijacking planes on 9/11

---

That is true - no Mexicans we known to be involved with 9/11.
But we should be clear, there we no "arabs" hijacking planes on 9/11 - (the facts appear to indicate), that the hijackers were all known Islamic Extremists, who mostly came from one country, which is run by a dictatorship and is friendly to the US (Saudi Arabia).

The problem is that its hard to round up people because they are Muslims - thats religious persecution, and this is outlawed by the constitution for US citizens.

Much easier to round up people based on their country of birth, expecially when they are not US citizens and who are therefore not subject to the US constitution and Us laws.

"The "law" that these folks really broke, was being Arab looking or from an "arab country". "

I disagree. There are many American citizens and legal vistors who are from arabic descent.



"Much easier to round up people based on their country of birth, expecially when they are not US citizens and who are therefore not subject to the US constitution and Us laws."

True.

I guess overstaying your visa would be more like violating policy rather than law.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

number6:
"The "law" that these folks really broke, was being Arab looking or from an "arab country". "

---

I disagree. There are many American citizens and legal vistors who are from arabic descent.

---

True, but is it not US Government policy enacted since 9/11, and recently enforced that all visitors to the US who were born in particular "Arab" countries (such as Yemen), regardless of where they live now must be routinely fingerprinted and photographed on entry to the US.

If this "racial profiling" policy (mandatory fingerprinting people born in particular countries) is not part of the same policy of "rounding up the usual suspects" i.e. 'Arabs') for anything and everything then I'd be surprised.

Regardless of the official policy and official reasons - thats the impression the rest of the world is getting from these actions of the INS.

This all reminds me of a "Not The Nine-Oclock News" (or was it "Three of a Kind") comedy sketch from the 80's about a policeman who is arresting people based on "racial stereotypes" - for such made up offenses such as "being in possession of short, black curly hair and moustache", or for having the name "Mr Odogo" etc.

Were it not happening now for real, it would still be funny...

In reply to:

---

Basically, because they can't account for the real terrorists, they're grabbing anyone they can. When we all know that the REAL terrorists aren't the ones that are going to get caught in something like this.

---

I guess, the INS works on the principle that even expert terrorists have to have support teams backing them up and gettng them money for their operations via "underground cells" such as visiting foreign students, visitors etc..

So, their logic goes, if we lock up anyone who's not a known terrorist, but who might be sympathetic to their cause, then we are "destroying" all these underground terrorist support cells, and thus staving off more attacks...

I'd bet they don't have enough internment camps in the entire US to lock up the entire "suspect sympethiser" population in the US, but it seems they are going to have a jolly good go at doing exactly this.

It sounds like the Vietnam war rheoteric - "I have to burn this village to save it"
[from who? - itself?]

I disagree. There are many American citizens and legal vistors who are from arabic descent.

Yep. And those people are also getting their rights shafted thanks to 9/11. One of my good friends at work came from the middle east long ago, and has lived here for years. He is a legal alien, but yet got harassed by the FBI thanks to his neighbor calling him in. The reason? "He looks to be of Middle-Eastern decent".

True, but is it not US Government policy enacted since 9/11, and recently enforced that all visitors to the US who were born in particular "Arab" countries (such as Yemen), regardless of where they live now must be routinely fingerprinted and photographed on entry to the US.

There was even one case I heard about fairly recently, where a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent (he and his family had left Syria when he was 4), went to the states on business, completely legally, and was picked up and deported to Syria! Where, of course, he is now in jail as a suspected US spy. The Canadian government has apparently issued a warning to its citizens of middle-eastern origin not to travel to or via the US.

pca

this "racial profiling" policy

Don't make it sound so bad, like there is a higher agenda to rid us of all arabs. We know that there are terrorists from those countries trying to get in to the US to commit terrorist acts. It would only make sense to keep a closer eye on and focus more of the available resources on someone from one of those countries rather than say a mexican born and raised in Tijuana who just wants to cross the border to steal empegs or find a job, as opposed to possibly wanting to kill thousands of people. It may not be politically correct to treat foreign arabs any different than we'd treat an australian or a dutch, but we know what descent our enemy is, just like in the cold war we'd be more suspect of a russian alien than a british alien.

[analogy]
If the cops put an APB out on a suspect in a black sedan, it may be 'vehiclist' to only pull over black sedans, but it would be ridiculous, and in most cases impossible, to pull over every single vehicle when it would be more effective to only look for black sedans. It doesn't mean the cops have anything agaist people who drive black sedans, nor does it mean it's certain he's not in a different color car; they just know there is a pretty damn good chance their guy is in one. The United States' enemies are arabic, but not all arabs are enemies of the United States. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square.
[/analogy]

EDIT: wtf, is BB code turned off?

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

(number6:)
this "racial profiling" policy

---

Don't make it sound so bad, like there is a higher agenda to rid us of all arabs.

---

Believe me, it IS that bad, thats the perception that the US is creating - even amoungst your staunchest allies.

In reply to:

---

We know that there are terrorists from those countries trying to get in to the US to commit terrorist acts. It would only make sense to keep a closer eye on and focus more of the available resources on someone from one of those countries rather than say a mexican born and raised in Tijuana who just wants to cross the border to steal empegs or find a job, as opposed to possibly wanting to kill thousands of people. It may not be politically correct to treat foreign arabs any different than we'd treat an australian or a dutch, but we know what descent our enemy is, just like in the cold war we'd be more suspect of a russian alien than a british alien.

---

You may think you and the US Government is in the right and that the US authorities are being "clever" with what is being done, but thats where you'd be wrong.

The world sees the Arab round ups and mandatory fingerprinting as exactly that "Racial Profiling" - no more, no less.

Before too long, the next step will be for all Arabs to have wear "Red Crescent" badges, and then ...

...well you know the rest (or should).


Yes, your government can put all the gloss on it, that it (and you) like.

The fact remains that the current policies ARE racially based.

The fact that this policy is flawed in the extreme seems to occur to everyone outside the US, and to few officials inside the US, and to even fewer US citizens.

The likely source for the next terrorist attacks on US soil or US interests is not going to be "Arabs" in long beards wearing white robes on horses, carrying a copy of The Koran in one hand.

It more likely to be more people like Richard Reid (aka The Shoe Bomber), or that nutter in from Western Australia who wanted to blow up all Israeli embassies in Australia. Or those involved with the bombings in Bali or Kenya recently.

These people are converts to radical Islamic causes - they are not "Arabs" by descent, birth or belief.

They would be considered "Western" or "Western allies" by most racial profiles.

They would not be picked up by any current racially based profiling policies of the US government - such as we have today with regards to fingerprinting or visa violations.

In reply to:

---

[analogy]

If the cops put an APB out on a suspect in a black sedan, it may be 'vehiclist' to only pull over black sedans, but it would be ridiculous, and in most cases impossible, to pull over every single vehicle when it would be more effective to only look for black sedans. It doesn't mean the cops have anything agaist people who drive black sedans, nor does it mean it's certain he's not in a different color car; they just know there is a pretty damn good chance their guy is in one.

[/analogy]

---

Yes, but a car is not a person.

The more accurate analagy is for the cops to say "Black guy in a Black Sedan" - thats racial profiling.

If, as you say, the cops simply say "Black Sedan" - thats ok.

In an exact way:

If the US governments policies of fingerprinting and visa violations applied to ALL visitors to the US - whether from "Arab" countries or not, no-one would be accusing the US of racial profiling - just making it hard to visit, come to the US or live there.

But thats not the way this policy is implemented (or is being implemented) - now, or for the forseeable future.

In reply to:

---

The United States' enemies are arabic, but not all arabs are enemies of the United States. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square.

---

See my comments above - the US and its citizens (i.e. you) assume - at their peril - that their enemies are simply "Arabs".

As George W Bush said after 9/11 - terrorists have and respect no borders, they have no "single set of characteristics" (such as being "Arab"), they do not even have a single cause - more likely they have a plethora of grievences - (real or imagined), which makes it much harder to simply round up the usual suspects.

And, In doing so (rounding up the usual suspects), the US government is losing much support amoungst its allies, gaining many enemies amoungst the "Arabs" and other countries and is generally not behaving as a world citizen should.

And yes, maybe the terrorists don't fight by those rules, but if the US lowers its standards to the level of the terrorists, with arbitrary justice based on anything but the rule of law (US constitution and UN law amoungst others), in order to beat the terrorists, then the US is, and will be judged by others to be, no better than the "enemy" they are fighting.

In that case, the US will have lost the war - even if the US government and people think they have "won".

History teaches us this lesson, time and time again and those who do not take heed have already lost the "war" they are fighting, before its even started - even if they win a major battle or two along the way.

Remember that "The Truth" is a three edged sword...

(and those edges are not "Truth", "Justice" and "the American way")

(and those edges are not "Truth", "Justice" and "the American way")

A question one finds oneself asking more and more is whether nowadays the 'American Way' has much if anything to do with either truth or justice...

pca

I certainly don't mean to diminish America's slow spiral into facism, but England is right behind us. Your rights have gotten chipped away recently as well, if what I read is true.

Oooo I'm not sure you should accuse Patrick of being English! He's also a card carrying Canadian, so you can't expect him to be nice about America!

Rob

The more accurate analagy is for the cops to say "Black guy in a Black Sedan" - thats racial profiling.

If, as you say, the cops simply say "Black Sedan" - thats ok.


Well the cops do say "black male suspect", and at that point the cops only look for black males to find their suspect. It's not racial profiling; it's just common sense. Racial profiling would be saying that since a higher percentage of blacks in the US commit more crimes than whites, that blacks shouldn't be allowed to own guns at all. Statistically, it may bring down crime, but it's not fair. If using the color of someone's skin to describe them physically is racist, what's next? Heightism? Hairism? Eye-colorism? Finger-printism?


the next step will be for all Arabs to have wear "Red Crescent" badges, and then ...

That will never (or shouldn't) happen to US citizens. Keep in mind that people visiting here are only visitors, who have to abide by special rules, and who can turn around and leave anytime they want or they can also choose not to come at all. The host sets the rules and the guest decides whether or not he wants to visit and abide by those rules. So if the US ever did require any visitors to wear anything, they would be wearing it by their own choice. I don't think having anyone wear a red crescent badge would do anything other than possibly publicly humiliate or aggravate the person wearing it, and I think it would be an extreme measure that isn't necessary.

Racial profiling against a country's own citizens is wrong, since it violates their own basic rights, but "racial profiling" (as long as it is to be expected) against visitors to maintain safety is okay. Since these people have no legal right to come here at all, and since they are here by their own choice and at our will, it does not violate their basic rights. If they don't want to abide our rules, they don't have to come play.

If you want a superpower to pick on about human rights policy, take a look at China.

Well the cops do say "black male suspect", and at that point the cops only look for black males to find their suspect. It's not racial profiling; it's just common sense.

The difference between this and racial profiling is more in how it's determined and in how it's used.

When a cops sees a ``black male'' running out of a building with a smashed window, he has reasonable suspicions that that man had something to do with a crime. In the case of harassing Arabs living in the US, it would be more along the lines of rounding up all the rednecks in the US because Tim McVeigh blew up a building. They almost definitively didn't have anything to do with a crime, and there's absolutely no evidence that they did.

Secondly, a report of a ``black male suspect'' causes a cop to be on the lookout for someone looking suspicious that is black. This narrows the field of inquiry, as if he sees a white or asian guy, he can be pretty sure it's not the person he's looking for. In the case of Arab racial profiling, suddenly anyone who is Arabic becomes a suspect, instead of anyone who's not being dismissed (which, as number6 pointed out, wouldn't even be correct in this case).

Okay, I've been staying out of this discussion so far, but I wanted to bring up a small point that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. I'm not trying to defend any particular point of view, and I'm not saying that rounding up people of middle-eastern descent is a good thing, BUT...

If I'm not mistaken, didn't our immigration department get reamed rather hard just after 9/11 because some of the terrorists in fact WERE here on expired visas and such?

I mean, we can't go giving them flak for not doing their job, then giving them flak when they try to make up for it. Can we?

If they want to deport people, fine. (With the hopefully rare exception of people who have lived nearly their entire lives here and/or whose paperwork has been screwed up by the INS.)

But jailing people is asinine. Especially when you've got that sort of bait-and-switch ``come in voluntarily to register yourself as an arabic person'' bullshit preceding it.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

(number6)
the next step will be for all Arabs to have wear "Red Crescent" badges, and then ...

---

That will never (or shouldn't) happen to US citizens.

---

Really? Are you sure?
Reports indicate that some of the "Arabs" rounded up are in fact legimately in the US and are in some cases, "legal aliens" who may have been Green Card holders.

Also, when was the last time you studied your own countries history about events such as the McCarthy "trials" in the 50's and other similar "round ups"? [e.g. post-Pearl Harbour].

Its happened before then as well - recall before and even after slavery was abolished in the US, how in some parts any "Black" person was still rounded up and treated as cattle? - even if, as some slaves had - they managed to legally obtain their equivalent of a "Green Card" and were therefore citizens of the US with all the entitlementsand rights that carried?
Even afte rslavery was abolished, racial segration was still practised openly even after it was outlawed by Federal laws?

Sure, these folks didn't have to wear or do anything special - their skin colour was their badge.

In reply to:

---

I don't think having anyone wear a red crescent badge would do anything other than possibly publicly humiliate or aggravate the person wearing it, and I think it would be an extreme measure that isn't necessary.

---

Ask the Japanese who were rounded up post Pearl Harbour - do you think they felt grateful about how their **own** country (the US) treated them then and later - once the war was over? Even before the detentions happened they were openly villified by many of their fellow countrymen - those same US citizens who were willing to fight and die post Pearl-Harbour to defend the "freedoms" that their fellow "Japanese" US citizens were actively being denied.

You are right it is/was an extreme measure, but extreme measures have a habbit of becoming the "norm" in times of "war".

And, are you not currently, in your own presidents words, "engaged in a war on terror"?

In reply to:

---

Racial profiling against a country's own citizens is wrong, since it violates their own basic rights, but "racial profiling" (as long as it is to be expected) against visitors to maintain safety is okay.

---

Racial profiling of any countries citizens is plain wrong - it violates all manner of basic human rights laws.

Human Rights laws upon which the US is supposedly founded on and which in the name of upholding such laws, the US undertakes all manner of miltary actions around the globe to "stop" such rights abuses in "other" countries.

Basic rules like all "men" are created equal which are part of the US constitution.

To distinguish between the citizens of the US and the citizens of other countries in the US when justifying these sorts of actions is a mighty fine line to draw.

I don't dispute the US governments (and peoples) rights to draw this line, but the US government runs the risk of some very serious consequences because of it.

When you find that as a US citizen abroad (if and when you ever travel abroad), you are required to register, be fingerprinted and photographed on entry to a foreign country and be treated as a potential terrorist whereever you go, even amoungst your countries former "allies" - you will have no-one else to thank but your government for that sad state of affairs.

In reply to:

---

Since these people have no legal right to come here at all, and since they are here by their own choice and at our will, it does not violate their basic rights. If they don't want to abide our rules, they don't have to come play.

---

Yes, you are correct, the visitors to the US will have come under the prevailing rules of the time, which did not require such measures. These rules allowed them into the country and they had every legal right to do so - your government (the INS in particular) after all, did let them in past the "borders" of the US - they didn't for the most part, sneak in via a shipping container or in the trunk of some car going across the Mexican border.

And, yes, now the rules have changed, those people may who are there now may chose to leave the US because the polcies and rules have changed.

I point out that if a country wants to prolong an existing economic downturn, discouraging (legal) visitors to come who will therefore not spend their money in your country *is* a good way to ensure this.

The short term consequences may be safer-feeling streets for some, it will have afar longer economic effect far beyond the short term benefit of "locking up some Arabs".

In reply to:

---

If you want a superpower to pick on about human rights policy, take a look at China.

---

Well, amoungst many of the differences between the US and China - China does not hold itself out as "the defender of the free world" and "defender of universal human rights" - the US does -so the US is even more culpable than China when it choses to act differenty at home from the way it acts abroad.

This is more of a case with the US right now saying "do as I say", not "do as I do".

Hardly the ideal role model for "democratic and human rights for all" is it?

Yes, China has a lot to answer for, but THATS another thread.

The topic at hand is the US governments internment of "Arabs". - if you want to discuss China, start another thread.

In reply to:

---

If I'm not mistaken, didn't our immigration department get reamed rather hard just after 9/11 because some of the terrorists in fact WERE here on expired visas and such?

---

You are right on this point Tony, the INS did get (and was due for) a good reaming by the Authorities for having screwed up for so long.

But please explain, then how does "rounding up Arabs", help resolve this problem?

If the US has a problem with tracking down people with expired visas, I (and so do a lot of people) fail to see how fingerprinting & photographing people from *selected* countries at the border helps.

I also fail to see how encouraging those whose Visas may be about to, or that have actually expired - (who are almost certainly not known terrorists or their sympethisors [yet]), to "register" and then as soon as they turn up, interning them in camps while you figure out what to do with them is going to capture any terrorists and achieve anything but assists the terrorists causes.

If the US was cracking down (hard) on all expired Visas - whether the visitor was from Sudan, Syria or Australia, that would be reasonable behaviour.

But right now the selected "profiling" by "race" (e.g. Arabs) is the way its being implemented.

And as I pointed out, if the US excludes certain kinds of visitors (e.g. Arabs), then the terrorists will then most likely come in from "friendly" countries - like the UK, or Australia etc.

As far as the US Immigration systems effectiveness is concerned, I think the terms "holding capacity" and "wet paper bag" spring to mind.

I'd go as far to state that I would be very surprised if the next time I visit the US I am not dragged aside and accused of having overstayed my last VISA by years due to the inefficiency of the systems in place in accurately knowing when people have actually left the country.

> some of the terrorists in fact WERE here on expired visas and such?

Yes, according to what I have heard, 4 of the 19 were on expired visas. I see no justification for this kind of roundup based on that reason, as most were legal. Besides, a good portion of people with expired visas in this country are there because the INS can't get it's act together and sent them renewals in a timely matter.

But please explain, then how does "rounding up Arabs", help resolve this problem?

I didn't say it did solve the problem, or even suggest that it was the right thing to do. I just wanted to point out that they took some flak for NOT having rounded up some of the 9/11 terrorists. Just to make sure that facet of the issue was part of the discussion.

In reply to:

---

I didn't say it did solve the problem, or even suggest that it was the right thing to do. I just wanted to point out that they took some flak for NOT having rounded up some of the 9/11 terrorists. Just to make sure that facet of the issue was part of the discussion.

---

point noted.

and you also said:

In reply to:

---

I mean, we can't go giving them flak for not doing their job, then giving them flak
when they try to make up for it. Can we?

---

Which would seem to indicate that as far as the INS is concerned two wrongs eventually make "one" right?

I don't think anyone would argue that the INS (should have previously, and now) needs to get its act together to more accurately police the rules...

... But rounding up everyone (but *only* from particular countries) who **might** be breaking the **visa** rules, seems to me and others to be way too much, way too late.

And as Ninti pointed, only 4 hijackers had expired Visas, out of 19 known hijackers, so because 4 people broke the visa laws, thousands will have to suffer?

Sounds like collective punishment to me.

If the US has a problem with tracking down people with expired visas, I (and so do a lot of people) fail to see how fingerprinting & photographing people from *selected* countries at the border helps.

Another point to note is being fingerprinted and photographed is not out of the norm in this country. In the state of Georgia at least, everyone gets fingerprinted (actually your index finger on both hands is scanned into a computer) and photographed when they get or renew their drivers license. So, although other people *may* be getting photographed and and fingerprinted at the border, US citizens of all races are required to do the same thing. As a matter of fact, whenevever my drivers license expires I am required (or you coud say *rounded up*) to get a new picture and fingerprints taken or risk being arrested.

If only certain races are being finger printed (hopefully scanned) and photographed at the boarder I think that is wrong unless they have a valid US drivers license; enveryone's fingerprint and photograph should be on file just as mine is with the state of Georgia.

What if the 9/11 terrorists and Al Qaeda weren't fighting for everyone to be muslim, but were instead fighting for everyone to be 5' 6''. That's right, if you aren't exactly five feet and six inches tall, you are an infedel in their eyes. Their mission is to have a world of 5' 6'' people. In fact, they're trying to sneak into the US to kill anyone who isn't 5' 6'' tall. Imagine that.

Now would it make sense and would it be morally right for the US government to take a closer look at all immigrants who are exactly 5' 6'' tall? It isn't a touchy subject like race or religion. It hasn't been beat into your head that it's wrong and discriminatory to use someone's height as a distinguishing feature of themselves. The INS would certainly be more efficient if they focused more of their available resources to check out immigrants who are 5' 6'' in order to stop the terrorists. Height profiling. Sure a few innocent 5' 6'' people may be slightly inconvenieced on their guest visit to our country, but it's by their own choice.

Now let's take it a step further. The Feds got Osama Bin Laden's fingerprint. They know he underwent surgical facial reconstruction and is currently trying to enter the US to carry out terrorist acts. Every immigrant who enters is fingerprinted and matched against the fingerprint the Feds have. Now there is a possibility that two people have an identical fingerprint - not likely, but possible. Would it be wrong and discriminatory to check out everyone who matched this fingerprint? Fingerprint profiling. "But everyone is fingerprinted!" Yes, and every immigrant's nationality is also assesed as they enter. If nationality profiling of immigrants helps stop the terrorists from getting in, then I'm all for it. However, I do want it to be an efficient system, allowing the good guys in to do their business and keeping the bad guys out, taking into account all possiblities.

... would it be morally right for the US government to take a closer look at all immigrants who are exactly 5' 6'' tall?

No.

It might be okay to discount all people who weren't 5'6" tall, but that doesn't even make sense. (For example, Hitler wanted to get rid of all Jews and all people who weren't blond-haired and blue-eyed, despite the fact that he was quite swarthy and ethnically Jewish.)

It is never okay to assume something about someone based on factors that person cannot control.

I'd rather be in a...

«» US Japanese internment camp instead of a German concentration camp.

«» Country where you can buy beer and its not crime.

«» Place where women can go to school and not be covered in a black bed sheet from head to toe.

«» Country where suicide bombers are not blowing up every other convenient store.

«» Land where you can practice you own religion and not have to worry about being stoned.

«» Country that DOES inconvenience a few aliens that may be bringing a piece of there B.S. country’s traditions over here, like terrorism.

«» Country where you CAN own a gun.

If these aliens they don’t like how they are being treated GO HOME. We have enough people here anyway. But I’m sure they won’t because it’s worse where they came from.

And another thing, you can ignore it, but “Profiling Does Work!” How many times have you seem a 80 year old woman suicide bomber, never? How many times have you see a young male Arabic suicide bomber?

I guess we should just open up the country’s doors to all these nuts and watch our buildings being bomber and knocked down by airplanes one by one.

Hopefully the US will get a bad reputation and these foreigners will stay THERE.

I’m sure I’ve pissed off most of you liberals and the flames will roll but just like you, I have a right to my opinions because I DO LIVE in a great country.

Not if you continue to be complacent and let your government run roughshod over your constitutional rights.

Being a good American doesn't mean blindly following your leaders. It means continually challenging them.

Sigh. I shouldn't do this, but...

No one's arguing that Japanese Internment camps were worse than concentration camps. In fact, no one ever mentioned those camps. That doesn't mean that abduction and detainment without cause are correct, no matter the atrocities or lack thereof once there.

You mean the same country where buying beer on Sunday morning is a crime in many areas based on absurd religious convictions?

It is preferable that women not be persecuted. That's why many of them are here -- to escape their government's oppression.

I will have to admit that it's nice that we live in a reasonably safe area of the world. But what does that have to do with Arabs? Many non-Arabic communites experience similar problems (Northern Ireland springs to mind.)

You mean like all the Arabic people who aren't even promoting a religion who are being persecuted simply because they look vaguely like someone that committed a terrorist act?

BS country's traditions? Seriously? Is that really the argument you want to use?

Guns are wildly prolific in most of those ``BS countries.''

You certainly have a right to your opinions, but you might want to figure out how to express them more eloquently (and gramatically correctly). You harangue is not going to convince anyone of your opinion, and if that's not its objective, then what is it? To prove to us the size of your penis? We don't care. Get a life.

While I may not be as extreme as this guy (I want more gun control, and there are tougher issues surrounding his other points like profiling), I do think that this is a great country. Yes, we have some people who are over-threatened, but FACE IT, we have people threatening us. How often to you react to a situation in the exactly perfect manner? This is a larger scale of that, and it's hard. Sometimes parts of our country do too much, do too little, do the wrong thing, but how easy is this?

Face it, we're scared, and hopefully these types of things get sorted out if the wrong thing has been done. I'm not saying this was right, I'm saying that because some law enforcement in a state thousands of miles away from me did something wrong, that doesn't mean it's an indication of how terrible our whole nation is. That's utter BS. I also have plenty of wrong-doing in my area (I live near D.C., after all), but I still have faith in my country.

I can buy hundreds of types of breakfast cereal. And I can eat it with milk. I like that.

You harangue is not going to convince anyone of your opinion, and if that's not its objective, then what is it? To prove to us the size of your penis? We don't care. Get a life.

I admit he wasn't as elequent as you are sometimes (ps-Your harangue). I also want to reitterate that I don't agree with him entirely. However, I don't see much point in the posts of people in this thread who are saying things like "this is terrible! how could we let history repeat it's self? how can this happen?" Stop asking questions and start posing answers.

Not if you continue to be complacent and let your government run roughshod over your constitutional rights.

Being a good American doesn't mean blindly following your leaders. It means continually challenging them.

Great! That's what I'm talking about. How do we do that?

Just pointing out not everyone has the same opinion (your flag was sure flying). I'm not out to change the world or even anyone's mind.

My penis is just fine, thanks for bring the conversation to that level, Mr. "Eloquent"

Hey -- I'm not attacking you. We all have rights to our opinions and you seem to be doing a good job of expressing them. It's not his beliefs that I'm discouraged by (well, okay, I am, but that's beside the point), it's his methods and attitudes.

How do we do that?

I don't know. Good question.

In this situation, try to support the people being harrassed. Join the ACLU. Write your congressmen. Just be friendly to the Arabic guy at work (no more or less so than the black, white, oriental, or purple guy, though). Just treating people like people is the best first step. Trying to convince others to do the same is the logical second step.

Of course, I'm quick to anger and I hold a grudge a long time, so those people would be well advised to not stab me in the back. Of course, misplacing that anger is something I try very hard to avoid, and in situations where my anger would affect someone who might not deservie it, it doesn't get expressed. Why my government can't work the same (IMO, reasonable) way is beyond me.

But, back to the question, you have to wonder why Strom Thurmond got elected for the last, what, 40 years, for example? He never enacted any useful (whether positive or negative) legislation. Never sponsored bills. Never did much of anything. Why was he still there? IMO, because people are scared of change. People need to elect representatives in order to express their ideals, not in order to be led. A simple attitude change could help.

I guess what I'm saying is that you should be engaged in your community, not simply a member of it. Speaking out (in an intelligent manner) helps.

I agree. Many people wonder why Thurmond was there. There are too many wasted seats in congress.

Anyway, I agree, those are good suggestions. As for:
Just be friendly to the Arabic guy at work (no more or less so than the black, white, oriental, or purple guy, though)

I've already got a head start on most people here. My girlfriend is Iranian (not a country we're supposed to like very much). She has a cool family that is quite liberal (in the same way I am) but not extreme. She did feel some negative attitudes after 9/11, but it isn't as prevalent now, at least in our areas.