U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2009, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,376,872 times
Reputation: 8606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Yeah geez.... I didn't think I pissed you off that much...

For the most part I agree with your assessment, but wonder with the amount of money spent on unnecessary screening just to be PC if maybe there'd be a better way to do this I guess.....

I mean why strip-search an 85 year old Grandma just to prove a point that you AREN'T profiling?
Now that part I agree with, and no you didn't **** me off

Personal story.

I was in the Newark Jersey airport. Going through screening. A little about me, I'm 6'4, white, southern by the grace of God, and anyone who sees me would instantly know I'm not a terrorist. Anyway, I'm standing there in line, and I notice the gentleman behind me had a turbin on.

I didn't think much of it, until I got to the security person at the front of the line. He looked behind me, then looked in front of me. He put a little red smudge on my ticket, and the gentleman behind me.

I then realized this was for "secondary screeing". Had to put my shoes through the bomb sniffer, get a pat down, etc. They let me go after that, they pulled the gentleman behind me back to a room after his secondary screening.

I know the guy just pulled me out, so it didn't look like he was profiling.

However, changing the constitution because of this would be a mistake. This is a PC issue, and a problem with law enforcement. Changing the Constitution is the big stick answer, this one just needs a gentle nudge in the right direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2009, 11:24 AM
 
39,092 posts, read 23,248,048 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Of course not..... I'm just wondering if that freedom might be redefined (not taken away) if they had it to do over I guess....

I mean if Imams declare that a certain sect of Islam is at war with the United States, it seems weird that, according to our Constitution, we would need to afford members of that sect all the rights afforded members of any other religion....

IOW I dont think it was ever conceived that a religion COULD declare war on a nation..... I understand that hasn't occured en masse or anything as of yet, but I hear more reactionary folks that DO actually claim this type of thing (that a religion IS at war with us) and it got me thinking along these lines.....
I can't see how the Constitution would be changed to address this issue. Or why such a change would even be considered. If members of a certain religious sect decides to wage war with the United States, then we legally address the individuals that act against our interests. You have to maintain the distinction between ideas and people. Because the way you wage war with ideas is not the same way you wage war with people. And our Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this since the two battlefields were both present in the Revolutionary War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:25 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,151,815 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post

Sadly these are the very rights granted to us that our enemies seem to exploit.
I'm not going to fallen into the same mental stupor as other posters, by saying, this isn't a very interesting question.

15 hijackers entered the country with student visas, they stayed under the radar of law enforcement as any clandestine cabal would. What aspect of the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment came into play? I would suggest that none of those guarantees did. So, I am at a complete loss as to what this thread is pretending to be about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:33 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,314,206 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
To those TRYING to have an actual NON-partisan discussion....

It isn't that treason and terrorism didn't exist back then. That isn't what I'm getting at.

What I'm pointing out is that our Constitution and the rights it affords has, at times, served as more of a hinderance than a help when it comes to fighting these more modern wars against particular groups, rather than countries...

There are things we could do, such as profiling, that are Unconstitutional but if we were allowed to would make fighting such a war against a particular group easier...

I'm not standing here as a proponent of profiling, but simply asking if you all think that with the clandestine threats that are posed to our nation now in clearer focus, whether our founding fathers would have been a bit more specific or offered more flexibility with regard to what our government is allowed to do with respect to keeping us safe...
If you would have aked our founding fathers what was the biggest security risk to this nation, I guarantee their answer would be "The government itself".

The founders recognized that the power afforded to the government MUST be limited in the interest of the populace, or the populace would be subjected to continue power grabs which would eventually end up being the demise of the nation.

You know why the founding fathers didn't want standing armies? Because they felt that a standing army was too available to be used on the populace of the country.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:36 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,083,263 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
??? No, sorry.... Can't stand the wench and am certainly not a right-leaning individual who would give a rat's behind what her thoughts are... Please stop looking into some political motive on my part in this thread... Thanks....
I was wondering the same thing because you mentioned profiling. Palin spoke about profiling, but she wasn't very clear about it. AFAIK, profiling isn't unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:46 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,151,815 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
If you would have aked our founding fathers what was the biggest security risk to this nation, I guarantee their answer would be "The government itself".
That might have been true of the Founders but it wasn't for the Framers. For them, Shay's rebellion was the big thorn in their britches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,698 posts, read 34,927,183 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
I was wondering the same thing because you mentioned profiling. Palin spoke about profiling, but she wasn't very clear about it. AFAIK, profiling isn't unconstitutional.
hey Rhett ... you're lying about not seeing the interview,either that or you are a palin:

Sarah Palin says accused Fort Hood shooter Hasan Hidal should have been profiled
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:46 PM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,634,290 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
If you would have aked our founding fathers what was the biggest security risk to this nation, I guarantee their answer would be "The government itself".

The founders recognized that the power afforded to the government MUST be limited in the interest of the populace, or the populace would be subjected to continue power grabs which would eventually end up being the demise of the nation.

You know why the founding fathers didn't want standing armies? Because they felt that a standing army was too available to be used on the populace of the country.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
That's fair... I just wonder whether the risk is exponentially greater today than a matter of "a little temporary safety" when the discussion includes weapons that can level a city and render it and the surrounding land uninhabitable for decades....

It's the kind of thing that Franklin, et al. could have never imagined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:49 PM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,634,290 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I'm not going to fallen into the same mental stupor as other posters, by saying, this isn't a very interesting question.

15 hijackers entered the country with student visas, they stayed under the radar of law enforcement as any clandestine cabal would. What aspect of the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment came into play? I would suggest that none of those guarantees did. So, I am at a complete loss as to what this thread is pretending to be about.
It isn't all about 9/11... If you find the thread topic uninteresting you don't have to participate and it isn't "pretending" to be about anything but a civil discussion on a topic I threw out there.

I know in the politics forum that's unheard of that someone actually wants to discuss a topic rather than rant from the perspective of the left or the right, but again, quit looking for some damned ulterior motive in the thread and if you don't like the topic?, feel free to not respond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 12:51 PM
 
6,550 posts, read 12,634,290 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
hey Rhett ... you're lying about not seeing the interview,either that or you are a palin:

Sarah Palin says accused Fort Hood shooter Hasan Hidal should have been profiled
Well, I wasn't intending for this to be about profiling alone. I haven't read your link yet, but if she mentions the founding fathers and how they might re-write the Constitution if they had the foresight to envision the security issues of today then maybe I'll shake my head and concede that for one strange minute in temporal space and time I shared a brain with Sarah Palin... (Left myself WIDE open for snarky comments, I know.. )

Edit: After reading the link, I don't even believe that what she is referring to is the type of profiling I'm referring to.... Knowing he had radical Muslim beliefs, I wouldn't even CONSIDER it to be "profiling" to investigate further into his dealings. Especially since the military operates under a different set of rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top