Why racial profiling HAS to be used.

[builder]

ImWithStupid wrote:

 

Oh, by the way, guess who just bombed

London...twice???

 

And by the way, guess who just murdered an innocent Brazilian on his way to work?

 

a) Paranoid coppers who can't tell a Brazilian from an Arab.

 

b) Benny Hill

 

c) Moslems between the age of 17 and 40.

 

d) Racist extremists with a badge and a gun.

 

Oh, and you are not WITH stupid.

[ImWithStupid]

Hmm lets see...

 

I wonder who's mainly responsible for 30,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths ??

 

Here you are comparing apples and oranges. This "30,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths" reply seems to be your standard answer anymore and doesn't apply here. The thread is about racial profiling. You can't racial profile an army involved in a military campaign. I'm not saying that these civilian deaths are acceptable but that is a different topic.

 

I can ask the same kind of questions for other races and religions...

 

Ask away. What races and what religions have caused as much turmoil and wantan slaughter in the modern times as the Muslim extremists have?

 

Here, listen to the Jordanian King's Take on the war on terror and what he has to say about the difference between Islam, and Terrorists. The king is a very smart man, and he is a perfect example of the way Islam is supposed to be and my POV of it. The real way. I suggest you REALLY watch this video becuase he basically has my whole argument said in the interview.

 

 

Please Watch This.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2005/11/12/sadler.jordan.king.abdullah.cnn

 

I fully understand the difference between the average peaceful Muslim and the extremist that commit terrorist acts. I don't mean putting Muslims in internment camps, totally ignoring their rights or anything. I just think that it is rediculous that if the predominant demographic of people commiting terrorist activities are "Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40" then I don't see anything wrong with swaying the pendulum of alert observation by security, that way.

 

I think it's sad that in order not to offend them and have a liberal organization like the ACLU on their asses, security damn near has to pretend that people in the demographic of the most likely threat (ie. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40), aren't there. This totally defeats the purpose of heightened security.

 

I mean that his demographic should probably be watched a little closer. I see nothing wrong with doing stop and search or extra security checks (as allowed by Terry v. Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio and Michigan v. Long that extends this search to vehicles) to this demographic if security/law enforcement/military personel can articulate reasonable suspicion that a person(s) could commit a crime. I am not for stopping and searching every Muslim male. Just if there is something that corroborates the search.

 

I see it kind of like this. Lets say a city has a predominately asian, black or hispanic neighborhood had an abnormaly high crime rate and extra police patrols were assigned to that neighborhood. You wouldn't deem this to be racial profiling because the neighborhood is predominately of a particular race would you. Hopefully you would see this as strategic use of a limited resource (ie. law enforcement personel) for maximum benefit. It would be asenine to mass extra patrols in a comparatively low crime, suburb wouldn't it.

 

It's just focusing attention in the area most likely to be a problem. Is this gonna be a complete success? No, but it's gonna be more of a benefit than the "kids gloves" approach of constantly worrying about offending someone that might be the next "Mohamed Atta" coming through the airport.

 

I also feel that if you are truly against terrorists and terrorism, you need to weigh, in the big scheme of things, a short detainment consisting of a few minutes of your time and a few questions by security against the possible ramifications of the wrong person getting through. I just think that if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't mind giving up a little of my time and answer any questions regarding my behavior.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think it's wrong with focusing a little more of the attention of our limited security resources on people that fit the demographic of a likely offender if it's conducted within the limitations set up by case law such as Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long, so as to be as non-invasive as possible.

[ImWithStupid]

And in 1953, Time magazine's Man of the Year, democratically elected Iranian President Dr. Mahommed Mossedegh was ousted by the CIA, and kept under house arrest until his death. The tyrannical sadistic, murderous puppet, the Shah of Iran, was imposed on the Iranian people by the US government.

 

Paybacks are a beeotch.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

 

I agree. This is definitely an example of the CIA playing God and getting bit in the ass for it. I'm not sure it makes taking people hostage right. Also, what does this have to do with RACIAL PROFILING? Are you trying to say we should profile people who work at the CIA? OK.

[ImWithStupid]

Not to be forgetting that the Taliban was funded by the CIA through Pakistani officials, and trained by the CIA in geurilla warfare to assist the Cold War effort against the Russians. Oh, did I mention that the Koran was translated into new languages, and distributed into new lands, along with propaganda films depicting the Russians committing atrocities?

 

The only mistake the US made was leaving these people in the lurch after their mission was successful.

 

Sorry, the big mistake was teaching them how to cripple a superpower with little more than a handful of extremists, some shoulder-held rocket launchers, and hate-fueled conviction.

 

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.

 

Maybe that's why we are trying to help with the restructuring and development of the new democratic government in Iraq. Maybe the US actually learned from that mistake in Afghanistan in the '80s and what they are doing their this time.

 

Also, what does this have to do with RACIAL PROFILING again?

[builder]

I agree. This is definitely an example of the CIA playing God and getting bit in the ass for it. I'm not sure it makes taking people hostage right. Also, what does this have to do with RACIAL PROFILING? Are you trying to say we should profile people who work at the CIA? OK.

 

Your email post was decidedly biased in terms of racial profiling.

 

You may be a little late in profiling CIA operatives. They are dropping like flies, and the sign-up rate is slowing.

 

Oh, and you can't be blaming the CIA for the drama. It was a joint operation between the Brit gov, who stood to lose more than the US, and your then president.

[ImWithStupid]

You forgot the obvious choice.

 

 

 

http://www.truebloodlawfirm.com/consumer_protection/garrison.html

 

Wrong dead Kennedy. Jim Garrison and the Zapruder film are associated with John F. Kennedy not Robert F. Kennedy.

RACIAL PROFILING?

[builder]

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were

used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers

and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US

Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the

passengers.

Thousands of people were killed by:

 

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer

Fudd

b. The Supreme Court of Florida

c. Mr. Bean

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

 

And this has what to do with racial profiling?

 

How much "intelligence" gathering pointed to this event happening? And fuck-all was done about it.

 

The "evidence" that those buildings dropped because they were hit is dismal, and incomplete. The pentagon fiasco will go down as the lamest cover-up in US history.

 

Get over it. Your govt is a sack of lying deceptive creeps. Everyone would be laughing at them, except now they want to nuke another nation. Evil fucks.

 

When are you people gonna start recognising what a fuck-up you live in, and stop pointing fingers at those who your gov has shat on in the past, for their reprisal attacks?

 

It's not too late to make amends. Continue to live in denial, and we are all fucked.

[ImWithStupid]

ImWithStupid wrote:

 

 

 

And by the way, guess who just murdered an innocent Brazilian on his way to work?

 

a) Paranoid coppers who can't tell a Brazilian from an Arab.

 

b) Benny Hill

 

c) Moslems between the age of 17 and 40.

 

d) Racist extremists with a badge and a gun.

 

Oh, and you are not WITH stupid.

 

There is a big difference between stopping and questioning a person from a group of people, for whatever reason, are likely to be involved in illegal activity if the stop can be justified by articulable reasonable suspicion and murder of an innocent person. This is where educating security/law enforcement/military personel is important to reduce knee jerk, negative reactions based on fear, paranoia or racial bias when in contact with the group.

No policy or plan is perfect. There are laws against rape and murder and both are committed by people every day. Since these laws didn't prevent the problem, do you feel they should be repealed? The people responsible should be held accountable if they were beyond their legal limitations during a stop.

This is no different than anything else. There are going to be a few individuals that cross the line, whether they violate the persons rights or in this extreme case someone loses their life, and there should be serious consequences for crossing that line.

[Hamza123]

I fully understand the difference between the average peaceful Muslim and the extremist that commit terrorist acts. I don't mean putting Muslims in internment camps, totally ignoring their rights or anything. I just think that it is rediculous that if the predominant demographic of people commiting terrorist activities are "Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40" then I don't see anything wrong with swaying the pendulum of alert observation by security, that way.

 

True. The Jordanian King, specifically states the difference, and the fact of extermination of these extremists.

 

The fact is, I am soon to be between 17-40 and Muslim. How would you know I am an extremist from first glance??

[Hamza123]

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...

[builder]

Wrong dead Kennedy. Jim Garrison and the Zapruder film are associated with John F. Kennedy not Robert F. Kennedy.

RACIAL PROFILING?

 

Oh, so sorry. My fuckup. More to the point was that snip I posted regarding your gov hiding the truth from its own people. The rot set in way back. Ignoring it is only gonna make it harder to climb back out of the hole.

[builder]

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...

 

Shortly after the Sept. 11 fuckup, a retired Police officer boarded a plane at Darwin Airport with a bowie knife tucked in behind his belt buckle. He did it to prove how unsafe Airport security checks are.

 

Rather than being thanked for showing up the fault in security, he was charged and jailed. Sad shit.

[builder]

There is a big difference between stopping and questioning a person from a group of people, for whatever reason, are likely to be involved in illegal activity if the stop can be justified by articulable reasonable suspicion and murder of an innocent person. This is where educating security/law enforcement/military personel is important to reduce knee jerk, negative reactions based on fear, paranoia or racial bias when in contact with the group.

No policy or plan is perfect. There are laws against rape and murder and both are committed by people every day. Since these laws didn't prevent the problem, do you feel they should be repealed? The people responsible should be held accountable if they were beyond their legal limitations during a stop.

This is no different than anything else. There are going to be a few individuals that cross the line, whether they violate the persons rights or in this extreme case someone loses their life, and there should be serious consequences for crossing that line.

 

 

Making excuses for the few incompetents is a fair call. Supporting the obvious malcontents and lying bastards who enable shoot-to-kill laws is not.

[ImWithStupid]

Quote:ImWithStupid

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were

used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers

and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US

Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the

passengers.

Thousands of people were killed by:

 

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer

Fudd

b. The Supreme Court of Florida

c. Mr. Bean

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

And this has what to do with racial profiling?

 

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.

 

How much "intelligence" gathering pointed to this event happening? And fuck-all was done about it.

 

The "evidence" that those buildings dropped because they were hit is dismal, and incomplete. The pentagon fiasco will go down as the lamest cover-up in US history.

 

Get over it. Your govt is a sack of lying deceptive creeps. Everyone would be laughing at them, except now they want to nuke another nation. Evil fucks.

 

When are you people gonna start recognising what a fuck-up you live in, and stop pointing fingers at those who your gov has shat on in the past, for their reprisal attacks?

 

It's not too late to make amends. Continue to live in denial, and we are all fucked.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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

[ImWithStupid]

Making excuses for the few incompetents is a fair call. Supporting the obvious malcontents and lying bastards who enable shoot-to-kill laws is not.

 

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.

[Hamza123]

I'm all for tighter security. As long as someone doesn't get wrongfully charged in conncections with etc... etc.. It really does fuck 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? Fucking 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 fuck 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 fucking 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 shit.

 

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 fuck 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? Fucking 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.