Why racial profiling HAS to be used.

[Hamza123]

I'm all for tighter security. As long as someone doesn't get wrongfully charged in conncections with etc... etc.. It really does **** up lives a lot.

Btw have you heard of this??? WANRING GRAPHIC.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

 

[builder]

This exerpt of the entire e-mail by itself, and taken out of context as you have done here, doesn't directly relate to Racial Profiling. Now when left in it's original form it shows a pattern of behavior, specifically terrorist activity, by a certain demographic (ie. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40) of the worlds population.

Wrong. The inferences raised by the email, in it's entirety, where racist and often wrong, as I've already pointed out to you.

The whole premise of my version of "racial profiling" that I think of more as "focusing resources toward the most likely threat" directly conflicts with living in denial. It's a reactive plan in the sense that it reacts to the information of what or who is most likely to be a threat and is also proactive by directing the attention to that threat based on factual and historical data.

The "likely threat" scenario is justification for pre-emptive nuclear strikes? You've got to be joking.

I'm not denying that the US government hasn't wrongfully imposed it's own agenda on the people and governments of other countries. I'm not in denial of the fact that almost every administration in this and the last century if not longer has lied to the public to sway opinions to further it's own agenda. I'm not saying any of this is right.

Damn straight it is not right. Yet you still support the hypocritical bastards?
Using sympathy votes from the bible belt to rule the world? What is so right about that? ****ing hypocrites. Research Jacobin fear, and see the parrallels.

The topic is "Why racial profiling HAS to be used" and I am just suggesting that what some people consider racial profiling, can be an effective use of security resources if conducted in the least possible invasive, lawful and regulated manner that benefits the majority.

I don't doubt that it is a useful counter-terrorism measure. Unfortunately, in the hands of incompetent racist end-users, it has the potential to incite further hatred and mistrust. Agreed?

It seems that your country and government are right along with me when it comes to their views on taking a proactive approach to terrorism.

Wrong again. The anti-terror laws are open-ended. Our senate is stalling the gov here, awaiting assurances that our media and populace will not be stultified in attacking idiotic government actions. Take notes. You might need them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/wl_nm/security_australia_dc_1&printer=1;_ylt=Akp_6FRxzbA2kY7DSw.t7oJn.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE

Your government is implimenting all of these new laws that give police more power.

From the article in the above link.

Australia, which has gradually increased its anti-terror laws since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, is currently considering new plans to give police extra powers to detain and question suspects.

The latest actioning of those laws has seen seven or eight supposed terror planners incarcerated in solitary confinement, without charges being laid, without a clear agenda for their future, and without confidential legal representation.

You call that progress?

The new laws, proposed after the July 7 London bombings, will allow police to detain suspects for up to seven days without charge, and make support for insurgents in countries such as Iraq an offence punishable by seven years in jail.

Try twelve months in jail without reason or recourse.

Now tell the truth. This isn't much different than what I'm suggesting is it?[/co

lor]

Yes it is. We, as a people, are much more vocal about government scams in Australia. We trust politicians like we trust used car salesmen. Which is just about as far as we can drop-punt them. Wise up.

 

[builder]

I'm all for tighter security. As long as someone doesn't get wrongfully charged in conncections with etc... etc.. It really does **** up lives a lot.

Btw have you heard of this??? WANRING GRAPHIC.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

If it's a link to another beheading, I hope they sharpened their knives first. The last one I saw was so ****ing gruesome that I stopped going there.

 

[builder]

I don't know whose posts you're reading but I never said anything that even resembled a "shoot-to-kill" law. If you interpret "stop and question" based on articulated reasonable suspicion as "shoot-to-kill", I guess there is either more of a language barrier between our countries than I thought or you need to work on your "reading and comprehension" skills. Which leaves us with just not being on the same page or you need to take a class or something so you can follow along with the rest of us.

What a patronising back-pedal pile of ****.

Your "language barrier" is your own upbringing. If you can't see the fallacy that is your government, and continue blindly supporting a Jacobin regime intent on world domination, then I can't really help you at all. I can send you a few comics that might interest you. Like the Phantom. The Ghost Who Walks.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Next year I will be 17 so put this scenerio in your head but with me as 17.

I walk into an airport, board a flight. But before I do so they check my passport. See that I have a Muslim name, and that I am 17. Okay, but how would they know if I am an Extremist? EVEN if I have beard or not...

I'm not saying that just being a Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 40, makes you guilty of anything. I'm saying that if this is the profile of the most likely "terrorist/extremist" suspect, that it only makes sense to pay closer attention to someone matching the description to observe that person and their actions for anything suspicious. This is where education and training of the officers of what to look for is paramount.


Any actions by the authorities, such as stopping and questioning of that person, a more indepth search of their person or property or detaining the person for investigative purposes, needs to be supported by observations or information that would suggest a reasonable suspicion they could possibly be involved in an illegal action. As set forth in Terry v. Ohio.


Just fitting the profile, your physical appearance or a hunch by the officer isn't enough by themselves.

Comparable situation. Instead of Profile= Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 40 and Location= an airport which are known to be common targets of terrorists, you have this set of circumstances.

A police officer observes three black males age 17 to 23, wearing clothing known to be associated with members of a particular gang that is commonly associated with illegal activity.

These three subjects are standing outside a liquor store, looking around and acting nervous/anxious.
Similar idea. The profile= Three black males age 17 to 23.
The location= liquor store. Known to be at risk for and often the target of robberies.

Now when you add the observation of the subjects looking around and acting suspicious to the profile and location would it be wrong for the officer to focus his attention on these three individuals and watch them for more signs that they may be intending to commit a crime? Is it unreasonable for the officer to be concerned about or infer that these subjects may be intending to rob the store? Wouldn't it be in the interest of the safety and security of the public, especially the store clerk, if this officer approached the subjects, checked their identification, made inquiries of what they are doing and checked them for possible weapons so as to possibly prevent a crime from happening? Does doing so in any way violate these subjects rights? I don't think so.

Same idea, different setting.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Wrong. The inferences raised by the email, in it's entirety, where racist and often wrong, as I've already pointed out to you.

There wasn't a single racist thing about that e-mail. It is just stating historical facts about terrorist activities for the last four decades and that all were of the same demographic and possibly a trend about the probable profile of who is likely to engage in terrorist activity.

The "likely threat" scenario is justification for pre-emptive nuclear strikes? You've got to be joking.

You really need to stop smoking or drinking whatever you are that is killing your brain cells. The "likely threat" refered to the demographic of a "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40" being a likely participant in terrorist activity based on 40 years of such activity by this group. An even longer list of terrorist activity by this group is found in this article from the post that started this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1260988/posts

What the **** does "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" have to do with anything I said? I have not once said anything about any kind of foreign policy in any of my posts unless I was addressing some tangent that you went off on. I am only suggesting a possible action to counter terrorist in the US. Unless you are stupid enough to be suggesting that the US government wants to target it's own airports or other sites that are possible targets of terrorist attack, for nuclear strikes. If so you really need to do something about this unhealthy paranoia that you are suffering from. It's really not healthy.

Damn straight it is not right. Yet you still support the hypocritical bastards?
Using sympathy votes from the bible belt to rule the world? What is so right about that? ****ing hypocrites. Research Jacobin fear, and see the parrallels.

Hello, is there anyone home?
I said several times that I didn't agree with the allegations you made about past abuses of power by my government.

For example....

THIS POST:
I'm not denying that the US government hasn't wrongfully imposed it's own agenda on the people and governments of other countries. I'm not in denial of the fact that almost every administration in this and the last century if not longer has lied to the public to sway opinions to further it's own agenda. I'm not saying any of this is right.

THIS POST:
I agree. This is definitely an example of the CIA playing God and getting bit in the ass for it.

AND THIS POST:
It was pretty dangerous and irresponsible for the US to just cut all ties with the people of Afghanistan and leave the restructuring to the different factions to fight for control and rule of the country and government when the Soviets left.

and has nothing to do with the topic of concentrating resources on a particular group, deemed to be high risk based on historical fact, as a means to counter domestic terrorist activity.

I don't doubt that it is a useful counter-terrorism measure. Unfortunately, in the hands of incompetent racist end-users, it has the potential to incite further hatred and mistrust. Agreed?

The potential for abuse is present in any governmental action. That is why I said it needs to be implimented in a way that doesn't violate currant acceptable laws, like Terry and Long, is closely regulated and carries severe punishments for any abuse by officials. If managed in such a way, this strategy can be effective and not be overly invasive. Agreed?

Wrong again. The anti-terror laws are open-ended. Our senate is stalling the gov here, awaiting assurances that our media and populace will not be stultified in attacking idiotic government actions. Take notes. You might need them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/wl_nm/security_australia_dc_1&printer=1;_ylt=Akp_6FRxzbA2kY7DSw.t7oJn.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE



The latest actioning of those laws has seen seven or eight supposed terror planners incarcerated in solitary confinement, without charges being laid, without a clear agenda for their future, and without confidential legal representation.

You call that progress?

It just seems to me that more thought needs to be addressed on how to implement the plan and guidelines set for how to deal with suspected terrorist once they are identified.

Poor foresite and planning doesn't necessarily mean that the basic idea is wrong and not viable. It just needs to get the bugs worked out before widespread implementation.

Try twelve months in jail without reason or recourse.

If that is in violation of the law as it is intended then the people responsible need to be held accountable for their actions and should be punished for this violation according to law.

Yes it is. We, as a people, are much more vocal about government scams in Australia. We trust politicians like we trust used car salesmen. Which is just about as far as we can drop-punt them. Wise up.

The laws that are being proposed in Australia are similar to what I am suggesting as far as allowing authorities more latitude in detaining and questioning suspected extremist.

As for your how much I trust politicians, the way I see it, I can always tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. We don't trust them any more than you guys do. Here is an actual poll by Gallup and as you can see we don't put much faith in politicians in the US either.

Honesty and Ethics of Professions​

Percentage "very high" or "high"

http://www.massnurses.org/News/2003/images/gallup_poll.jpg

​

​

 

[builder]

There was not a single non-racist thing about that email. If there was, send me the link. I'm unimpressed.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I don't doubt that it is a useful counter-terrorism measure. Unfortunately, in the hands of incompetent racist end-users, it has the potential to incite further hatred and mistrust. Agreed?

Wrong again. The anti-terror laws are open-ended. Our senate is stalling the gov here, awaiting assurances that our media and populace will not be stultified in attacking idiotic government actions. Take notes. You might need them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/wl_nm/security_australia_dc_1&printer=1;_ylt=Akp_6FRxzbA2kY7DSw.t7oJn.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE

The latest actioning of those laws has seen seven or eight supposed terror planners incarcerated in solitary confinement, without charges being laid, without a clear agenda for their future, and without confidential legal representation.

You call that progress?

Hey builder. Hows this for progress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051114/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_terror_arrests&printer=1;_ylt=AuiYhhYnoqxIJEiAIwgVyGlNYhAF

It seems fortunate that not everyone thinks like you do and is afraid to implement these new laws for fear of unlikely possible abuse by "incompetent racist end-users" and that the senate didn't stall the government too long or these guys might not have been caught in time.

Without these laws that you have been so feverishly arguing against, Australia might have had a bit of a "radioactive glow" to it. We could have called it "Chernobyl Down Under".

Think of how many people, possibly your friends or family members, could have been killed, got radiation sickness or developed physical defects, if they had listened to all the liberal rantings like yours and never implemented these, what are now proven to be effective, counter terrorism laws.

It hits a little closer to home when you realize how close your country might have been to suffering it's first major peacetime attack on it's home soil, doesn't it?

 

[builder]

Yeah, I've read the reports. With the evidence already in the hands of Police, the new laws were not even required to arrest those arseholes.

As the lawyer for the defence said, the prosecution case is mostly patchwork and rhetorical.

Oh, and it is also clear now that ASIO had sufficient justification to arrest those people prior to the week of Howard releasing the new laws for discussion in Parliament.

It's called grandstanding. Oldest trick in the book. I believe even your dumbarse prez knows how to use that one.

Lastly, in Australia, the Liberals are like your Republicans; rightard corporate liars and such.

I'm a Labour right supporter.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I think it's probably safe to say that alot of the reason that police did "stop and question" these three subjects is because they appeared to be Islamic males and they were observed in an area believed to be a likely terrorist target.


I don't think the police would have been so interested in them if it were some blonde haired, blue eyed, Swedish tourists (and do not match the physical description of a likely terrorist) that were in the same area.


Some people would argue against what the police did as "racial profiling". In my opinion it's just good effective police work.

If the physical description of someone most likely to be involved in terrorist activity was that of a blonde haired, blue eyed, scandinavian, then I would hope that the police would "stop and question" them too.

 

[cybacaT]

Builder

I'll have to call you out on this one.
The amendments to the anti-terror laws passed through the Parliament a week or so ago were needed to arrest the alleged terrorist planners.
The crux of the change was in the wording - there had to be evidence of "a" terrorist attack instead of "the" terrorist attack. ie. previously ASIO etc would need evidence of the target, time, etc - an exact planned attack - before they could charge the suspects.

NOW, with these people arrested, they can be charged with planning an attack without need for the specifics. The facts these turkeys had hate videos, hate propoganda, had discussed possible targets, had stockpiled bomb-making chemicals and materials etc, means they 100% deserved to be arrested...without the changes to the law, this wouldn't have happened.

The relevant police commissioners spoke in unison - they all said they needed the amendment to make the arrests. Why else would Howard rush through an unpopular amendment so hurriedly?


Like you, I remain concerned about the new sedition laws - the wording will need to be very careful, or the enforcement responsible, to avoid stifling free speech. I see the problem that Islam poses - unfortunately we've had a couple of people heavily find already for publicly saying that perhaps Islam might be contributing to the terrorist situation (and I thought a defence of slander was if it was a proven fact). Equally though, I don't want people in my community who preach hate and violence to have free air either - teachers of hate who are infecting the minds of future terrorists need to be locked up...(yeah I know - where they can preach to their muslim brothers in prison).

The defence lawyer greatly underwhelms me - isn't he the same guy that said there wasn't a shred of evidence of any terrorist planning activity? What credibility does he have now??



For the non-Aussies, here's the series of events:
- A few months ago the homes of some muslims were raided.
- Labor, the Greens and Democrats labelled these actions "over the top", "unnecessary", and a "police state".
- A week and a bit ago the PM proposed urgent change to the anti-terror laws.
- The Parliament is urgently recalled to pass this change.
- Labor ministers, Greens and Democrats senators label the act as "grandstanding", "unnecessary", "playing politics" etc.
- 18 suspects (Islamic youths would you believe? ) are then arrested for terrorist plotting.
- It is found that the change in the law allowed the arrests, and that the earlier raids provided evidence that later led to the arrests.

There was a great deal of Egg on face in the opposition ranks as these conspiracy theorists were shamed into accepting that the PM had been right all along. He had been doing his job and looking after the national interest - while ironically all along it had been they who were doing the political grandstanding. Interesting isn't it...and probably not too different from the divide of views on this topic in the US I imagine.

 

[builder]

I think it's probably safe to say that alot of the reason that police did "stop and question" these three subjects is because they appeared to be Islamic males and they were observed in an area believed to be a likely terrorist target.

I don't think the police would have been so interested in them if it were some blonde haired, blue eyed, Swedish tourists that were in the same area.

Some people would argue against what the police did as "racial profiling". In my opinion it's just good effective police work.

In my opinion, if racial profiling does not include blonde-haired, blue-eyed people as possible suspects, then it is simply racism with a new PC name.

The timing of the arrests was not only staged, but wasteful of police and ASIO resources, in that they were clearly told to wait and watch these suspects, until instructed to make the arrests.

Intelligence victories add credibility to the arguments that defend such a pervasive surveillance system. The discovery of missile sites in Cuba in 1962, the capture of the Achille Lauro terrorists in 1995, the discovery of Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed one American (resulting in the 1996 bombing of Tripoli) and countless other incidents that have been averted (which are now covered by the silence of indoctrination vows and top-secret classifications) all point to the need for comprehensive signals intelligence gathering for the national security of the United States.

But despite the real threats and dangers to the peace and protection of American citizens at home and abroad, our Constitution is quite explicit in limiting the scope and powers of government. A fundamental foundation of free societies is that when controversies arise over the assumption of power by the state, power never defaults to the government, nor are powers granted without an extraordinary, explicit and compelling public interest. As the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pointed out:

The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security

 

[cybacaT]

builder

What evidence do you have for the whacky conspiracy theory that the Govt timed the arrests???? That's sheer lunacy!

The Police told the govt they needed the laws amended. The govt did the bidding of the police. The police then did their job and arrested the suspects.

Even Labor admitted the Govt did the entirely appropriate and reponsible thing in amending the law to allow these people to be arrested. The law authorities have all said they needed the amendment to make the arrests.

I've only heard 1 person even suggest the govt was involved with the timing of the arrests, and that was a Greens senator (who was rapidly back-pedalling at the time) who smirked in jest as she said words to the effect - "well, I suppose it's not entirely impossible that the govt could have phoned up the police authorities and told them to make the arrests that weekend". Even she wasn't taking this idea seriously...


Get off the canetoad juice builder - the hallucinations are getting out of hand!!

 

[builder]

Get off your liberal high horse, Cyba. You recall the ASIO action destroying the computer hard drives of Carmen Lawrence, Andrew Wilke et al, in the cover-up of the findings of Wilke in his book "The Axis of Deceipt"??????

Try and find any reference to this destructive action. It's all been wiped.

You might choose to live in a dream-world and trust the tidbits fed to you by a gov that is laughing at your acceptance of bullshit.

I choose to think for myself, and make up my own mind.

 

[cybacaT]

builder

You recall the ASIO action destroying the computer hard drives of Carmen Lawrence, Andrew Wilke et al, in the cover-up of the findings of Wilke in his book "The Axis of Deceipt"??????

Anyone that takes action against Carmen Lawrence is ok by me.

You might choose to live in a dream-world and trust the tidbits fed to you by a gov that is laughing at your acceptance of bullshit.

Hey I remain sceptical and cynical, but the key is "healthy" scepticism. Go too far with conspiracy theories and you may require professional help!! This isn't the builder I remember who used to have fairly sensible opinions on most things! What happened? I think you've been hanging too close to JG for too long...

 

[builder]

Carmen Lawrence is ABC, which makes her a government employee.

Andrew Wilke held a gov position that enabled him to accurately write that book.

Your point was?

As for JG, I haven't heard from him for weeks now.

 

[Lethalfind]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the only act that was commited by a blonde, non Islamic person, that I have heard called a terrorist attack was when Timothy McViegh blew up the FBI building in Oklahoma City
...
He's dead thanks for the American Federal Government's death penalty

ALL the others have been commited by people having the same racial characteristics...

Even the idiot American teenager who was found in Iraq playing at being Islamic, who was not of middle eastern descent had dark hair and dark eyes...

 

[builder]

Holy Sweeping Statement, Batman.

Columbine ring any bells?

Or the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents? Or the ousting of Doctor Mahommed Mossadegh by the CIA? Or the murder of Marylin Monroe, or President Rooseveldt, or the dead Kennedy's? Or the ascension of Saddam Hussein by the US gov?

Or how about.........

 

[Lethalfind]

Here in the states they don't define what happened at Columbine as a terrorist attack, maybe because it was done by such young people but I do understand what your saying. But then that would make everything a terrorist attack.
I never heard a political reason for what they did at Columbine.

 

[cybacaT]

Carmen Lawrence is ABC, which makes her a government employee.

Ahhh...not THE Carmen Lawrence - some ABC lackey...

Andrew Wilke held a gov position that enabled him to accurately write that book.

As you would know the intelligence community holds a wide range of opinions. By all accounts Wilke's POV was a minority one, esp regarding Iraq where the opinion of the majority of intelligence agencies was that Iraq had WMD. That said, he's entitled to his opinion.

Being an EX-member of the intelligence community doesn't exempt you from ASIO action though. He was suspected of stealing confidential information on his resignation.

Keep in mind that people wet their panties over the raids on muslims homes many months back. The raids were described as fruitless and futile - an invasion of privacy. Now we see months down the track these raids provided evidence needed for the arrest of suspected terrorists planning to blow Aussies like you and I up.

As for JG, I haven't heard from him for weeks now.

He's been busy manning his speed camera and stealing cash from innocent motorists...