Bring It On!

If you’re the wrong color, religion or ethnicity-You might be a terrorist.

July 4th, 2008 | by Dusty |

Add to don’t even have to be suspected of a terrorist crime. Profiling is fearmongering at its best. To do profiling without even suspecting the individual of a crime first goes against the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Yet the FBI is considering this method of ‘ferreting out’ terrorists.From Jurist:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Thursday blasted a proposed plan that would allow Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents to consider a person’s race, religion, or ethnicity in deciding whether to open a terrorism investigation. CAIR decried the plan as “unconstitutional and un-American,” saying that it could allow security agents to target Muslims and Arab-Americans for harassment. A US Department of Justice spokesman responding to press reports on the plan - which has neither been finalized nor formally announced - denied that the new guidelines would allow profiling, noting that ethnicity is only one of many factors to be considered and that it is only when all those factors as a whole are deemed suspicious that an investigation can be opened. Under the proposed guidelines as explained to AP by unnamed sources, agents would be able to initiate investigations even in instances where there is no evidence of a crime, something required under current guidelines. AP has more. Fox News has additional coverage.

Rights complaints by Muslims in the US rose 25 percent in 2006, according to an annual report on civil rights released by CAIR last year. The group attributed the jump to a rise in anti-Muslim bias. The majority of reported complaints came against government agencies, including the DOJ.

Its wrong on every level m’dear reader.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Ben Franklin 1755

On this day in which we ‘celebrate’ uber-nationalism and militarism..think about the Bill of Rights and the signing of our Constitution. Think about what is more important..our freedoms or our perceived safety from those faceless, nameless terrorists that BushCo keeps banging into our heads 365 days a year.

If the top story doesn’t piss you off, then try the next one on for size…also from Jurist:

Federal judge orders Google to turn over YouTube user data in Viacom lawsuit

A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York Tuesday ordered Google to turn over databases containing logs of every time any IP address has accessed any YouTube video. Viacom had requested access to the databases in a lawsuit brought for copyright infringement, arguing that Google and YouTube knowingly made copyrighted material available on their websites without permission. District Judge Louis Stanton rejected Google’s claim that turning over user information would invade users’ privacy in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, finding that an IP address or YouTube username alone was not enough to identify users. The court did, however, reject Viacom’s bid to compel Google to turn over larger databases which include user-provided text summaries of hosted videos. Technology and privacy advocates sharply criticized the order, saying that it would set a dangerous precedent for internet privacy. Computerworld has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

Google has recently started to push for stronger online privacy protection after strong criticism by privacy groups. In September 2007, Google called for stronger privacy legislation at a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) conference. In June 2007, Google announced that it would reduce retention of user search data to 18 months in response to a European Commission investigation into whether the company complied with EU privacy rules.

What I took from this is..the EU’s privacy rules are stronger than ours evidently. Go figure..

Crossposted at Leftwing Nutjob

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 2 Responses to “If you’re the wrong color, religion or ethnicity-You might be a terrorist.”

  2. By Chris Radulich on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    If we have learned anything over the past 7 years it is conservitives are always will to restrict the constitution. Except, of course, for guns. Then they are willing to bendin it into a pretzel to get their toys.

    I guess it makes sense. They feel so frightened by the world that they need to restrict freedom and need guns to protect themselves.

    It is strange for a group that always says that the government is incompetent to constantly want more government interference.

  3. By Liberal Jarhead on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    What’s the matter, Dusty?

    As Ari Fleischer warned us all, you’d better watch what you say. Somebody might think you found it wrong to imprison pacifists during WWI, or round up Eastern European immigrants en masse in 1919-1920 because the government thought they might be anarchists, or to put Japanese-Americans in prison camps in WWII, or to target members of civil-rights/liberal/progressive/pacifist organizations for domestic spying and harassment in the 1950s and 1960s…

    I think we should take it further. Given the alarming case of Timothy McVey, we should be keeping a very close eye on tall skinny white dudes with fair complexions, especially if they’re veterans.

    Chris, I agree with most of what you said, but not the part about guns. I hold the entire Bill of Rights sacred, the Second Amendment no more or less than the rest, and it hasn’t been “twisted into a pretzel” - the over-200-year history of jurisprudence in this country has, with very few exceptions, been one in which the judiciary kept on expanding on the Bill of Rights whenever a previously unanswered question or situation came up, which is as it should be. The erosion of individual rights has mostly been via decrees and administrative actions by the executive at all levels that bypassed the judicial process. The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the right of individuals to own guns is just consistent with general judicial tradition.

    I’m a typical gun owner. I have never been arrested. I pay my taxes, obey the speed limits, and follow the rest of the laws to which I’m subject. I have a concealed carry permit, but in the over 30 years I’ve owned guns I have never pulled a gun on anyone and won’t unless I have no choice, and I don’t carry one where the law says not to. I have always kept my guns and ammunition safely locked up when I’m not using them. Right now, if someone broke into my house when I was away, he or she would have to be a pretty good safe-cracker to get at a gun.

    I respect the rights of other people not to own guns if they don’t want to, and I respect the right of the community to disarm criminals and keep them disarmed, and to prevent the sale of guns to anyone who isn’t trustworthy with one. I’m glad that when I buy a gun, the seller goes through a background check process to make sure I am who I say I am and that I have no history of either criminal behavior or mental instability that would make it unsafe for me to have it, and if I run across a situation where someone is selling guns illegally I will be the first to call the police and report it. I support the idea of setting up a system of background checks at gun shows to make sure no illegal sales take place there either. I also support heavy added penalties for the use of a gun in a crime.

    But I know that the police can’t always protect me and my family, and I think it’s reasonable - not being “frightened by the world” - to take some steps to provide for our safety myself. I think owning guns is just as reasonable as having locks on our doors.

    Most of all, it’s the tradition in our country and our culture that we shouldn’t have to prove a need to exercise a right, that it shouldn’t be taken away unless it’s abused and that becomes necessary for the safety of the community, and that abridgment should be on an individual basis and via a process with checks and balances.

    One problem with some liberals is that they are just as ready to try to run the lives of other people as a lot of conservatives, just in different ways; as Nat Hentoff eloquently pointed out in his great book Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee, too many on both sides of a lot of issues are way too ready to abridge the rights of people who disagree with them. And that’s not really progressive or liberal, it’s just narrow-minded in a different way. The right of stable, responsible adults to own guns is just as necessary a protection against tyranny as the rights of freedom of speech, assembly, habeas corpus, and the press and the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    If someone abuses a right and commits a crime, punish him/her, and if he/she can’t be trusted with that right take it away from him or her… not from the rest of us. The vast majority of gun owners are not criminals, any more than the vast majority of people who exercise their freedom of speech use it to commit libel or slander or fraud.

    Okay, that’s my predictable outburst out of the way. I feel better now.

Post a Comment