Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Mass-arrest of hundreds of Middle Eastern foreigners in southern California

By valeko in Op-Ed
Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:20:05 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Between 500 and 700 men (some reports put the number as high as 1000), mostly of Iranian nationality, were arrested by American immigration officials in southern California when they showed up to register themselves in compliance with new immigration rules.

Recently enacted changes in American immigration rules require that all male foreigners from many Arab or Middle Eastern countries who are aged 16 and over and are not naturalised U.S. citizens to register with authorities. This registration and fingerprinting process is part of the comprehensive National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, a police-state initiative announced by the Justice Department last June, directed at immigrants and visitors from nations which supposedly pose a high "terrorism" threat.


The Iranians, as well as some other Middle Easterners, registered with the system in compliance with a 16 December deadline to do so in southern California, which is home to a community of Iranian immigrants several hundred thousand strong. After doing so, several hundred were detained by immigration officials on a variety of vague pretexts pursuant to immigration law. This Reuters report quoted Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) spokesman Francisco Arcaute as saying that the detainees "had violated immigration laws, overstayed their visas, or were wanted for crimes." The INS has declined to further substantiate this information or release the actual number of persons arrested.

Much has already been said to cast doubt on the official concoction of so-called "violations" of which these detainees are supposedly guilty. For example, some Iranian protesters stated that those detained on visa violations were victims of delays in processing visa and green card (permanent residence) applications by the INS bureaucracy itself.

The treatment of the detainees has come into focus in some mainstream media reports, although in a typically acute way. According to Reuters, "one activist said local jails were so overcrowded that the immigrants could be sent to Arizona, where they could face weeks or months in prisons awaiting hearings before immigration judges or deportation." Another young man told reporters, according to Reuters, that his father had been detained and that "they've been treating him like an animal. They put him in a room with, like, 50 other people and no bed or anything." This kind of treatment is hardly unusual in the wake of 11 September, which the U.S. Government has used to justify an unprecedented repression of Arab and/or Middle Eastern people across the country.

The detainees had chosen to cooperate with the new rules, which, along with the other innovations that are part of the so-called "war on terrorism," have every essential feature of a creeping fascist lock-down. In return for their good faith, they were arrested and placed in detention arrangements that clearly do not meet humane standards. U.S. officials have gained nothing from this; they have shot whatever credibility their "anti-terrorism" registration program may have had among the "loyal" masses. Who is going to register with such a program if the options available to them are "lose-lose"? Whether people comply or don't comply with the new rules of the "war on terrorism," arrest waits them at either juncture.

Many of the detained have lived in the United States for a decade or more, have families, have jobs, and pay taxes -- all the things that make a person "worthy" of being here according to conventional American wisdom. Now, they may be facing deportation -- separation from their families and the lives they know. Sabiha Khan of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations put it quite correctly: "People who come from these countries -- this is what they expect from their government. Not from America." But they're wrong; this is exactly what they should expect in the climate of fascist repression that is creeping across the United States. And it will only become worse, as still larger demographic groups are targeted in this cynical new form of state thuggery -- the "domestic front" of the "war on terrorism."

This latest development loudly accentuates the need for the American people to become conscious of what is happening and to engage in resistance action -- to make their voices heard against the thundering tide. Many "native" Americans incorrectly assume that the police-state designs of the Bush Administration are limited to Muslims, Arabs, or just "those foreigners." We will soon begin to see that this is hardly true; it is part of a far-reaching goal of consolidating additional political control and cracking down on the elements of society most inclined to resist the new ambitions of American imperialism.

Additional reports available: Los Angeles Indymedia, BBC, Associated Press.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Reuters report
o Los Angeles Indymedia
o BBC
o Associated Press
o Also by valeko


Display: Sort:
Mass-arrest of hundreds of Middle Eastern foreigners in southern California | 531 comments (504 topical, 27 editorial, 2 hidden)
Yeah, shit happens (3.33 / 12) (#1)
by psychologist on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:04:11 PM EST

All you gotta do is say the wrong thing. I was detained for days in a military prison after sept. 11th for saying some shit I would say again, and then released with the excuse that it was 'just a mistake'. It was actually quite comfortable. Ok, I admit it, I was just told not to leave the camp...

Yeah, but I'm still worthy of pity.

It's amazing.. (5.00 / 11) (#8)
by vile on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:21:31 PM EST

what is allowed to happen to our public. I shouldn't again go into details right now of what happened to me, simply because it is not over. Simply put, two friends and I went out in the middle of nowhere to get away from the city. A couple of weeks later or so, our home was stormed and ripped apart for 13 hours. For 4 of those hours, we were detained and questioned - without authority to do so, nor were we ever told that we had the right to remain silent. In fact, it was more of the opposite. The thought was promoted that we didn't have that right. This wrecked my life for a while.

Suspicion gives probable cause. Innocent before proven guilty is no longer a required concept.. really.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Miranda (5.00 / 5) (#175)
by failrate on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:43:08 AM EST

They're also (They being the judicial branch) currently debating whether or not Miranda is even required. So, there goes that. I was arrested once for being white, with a white shirt, blue pants and a bike. It was also late, but there's no law against that. My apartment complex had been vandalized an hour before I left on a bike ride. No one was around. When I came back, I willingly waited for the cops when I saw them. It took them a while to finally get around to the fact that I was a suspect. The worst part was that it was a large group of my neighbors that had positively id'ed me as THE guy who had done the vandalism.

Okay, not nearly as scary as your incident, but I felt absolutely terrified at the time. Luckily, my roommates were home, so I had an alibi. The cops let me go after about 20 minutes... but the kicker was that not only did I have an alibi, but the alleged vandal had an accomplice (I was alone), and the eyewitnesses (Oh, I forgot to mention that they ID'ed me from about 100 ft away, at night, with a squad car flashing its lights in between us) also claimed that, no, their perp was much larger than me.

Bedtime for democracy... but then again, I've never trusted cops, the government, or really anything.

If you're innocent, I hope that you are found innocent.
Voodoo Girl is da bomb!
[ Parent ]
Amazingly (none / 0) (#372)
by vile on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:24:48 AM EST

I would like to think that you are a *very* lucky soul. Things like this happen every day in our society. We don't pay much attention to it.. or well, much of anything beyond what we value. I wouldn't hold grudge against your neigbors, though. They were simply doing their job.. just as the cops needlessly did theirs to myself. I don't hold grudges against them. Seriously. They were simply doing a job assigned to them. I am able to see this.

I don't blame the officers, too much at least, for what was done to me and my roommate and his girlfriend (now ex, as a direct result.. btw they were both drug out of bed.. naked). Often these situations don't turn out right. People are sent to jail. People are *murdered* by the state in some circumstances. But all of this is simply a result of the way our system works. If I am brought to 'justice', our judicial system may or may not work for us.. or me. I accept this. I am willing to give the best I can and support any action given to me, simply because I believe this to be a good system. It works.. most of the time.

I am aware of the Miranda rights in this country as becoming extinct. No matter how pissed I may be about my situation, I do believe that our legal system works. No matter what rights are taken from us.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
I should empasize... (none / 0) (#374)
by vile on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:45:09 AM EST

No matter what right were taken away from us.. hopefully we still etain some... but too tired to include my thoughts here at the moment.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
'Muslims go home' (1.69 / 26) (#5)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:11:30 PM EST

I hope they get the hint. Canada's a nice place, check it out.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


Muslims go home to Canada? (3.50 / 2) (#57)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:48:02 PM EST

I didn't know they were from Canada! I mean, not many. There's bound to be some. I'm not stupid, or anything.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Touche (1.18 / 11) (#60)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:10:35 PM EST

My title should have read "Muslims, get the fuck out of our country"

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.60 / 5) (#71)
by imrdkl on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:45:00 PM EST

Perhaps issue them all red-crescent patches for their clothes first, then ship them out by the trainload, eh?

[ Parent ]
Hey, if they want to live here (4.25 / 4) (#74)
by ZanThrax on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:49:20 PM EST

We'll take them. The sooner we fill up with people who aren't jingoistic racist Americans the sooner we'll be too full to let any in.

If Bush can attack Iraq because they might do something to Americans someday, can I attack Bush because he might invade Canada someday? I figure I'm as entit
[ Parent ]

Dammit (1.00 / 1) (#77)
by ZanThrax on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:58:00 PM EST

The sooner we fill up with people who aren't jingoistic racist Americans the sooner we'll be too full to let any in when the real Americans get around to telling the white christians to get the fuck out of their countries. Europe'll be full too; but maybe they can move to Siberia or the Sahara? I suppose there'll be plenty of room for them there.

If Bush can attack Iraq because they might do something to Americans someday, can I attack Bush because he might invade Canada someday? I figure I'm as entit
[ Parent ]

Sahara (none / 0) (#180)
by Chakotay on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:51:08 AM EST

Sorry, the Sahara is already claimed by the Touareg.

--
Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

[ Parent ]
Well sure (none / 0) (#357)
by ZanThrax on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:31:19 AM EST

but there's still plenty of room. I mean, Americans are the height of all that is good and right in the world, so as long as there's actual room for them, they should be welcome anywhere. Right?

This is a sig. Please assume that all statements made here are meant to be vaguely humorous and are intentionally simplifying, exaggerating, or simply misrep
[ Parent ]

Sure. (none / 0) (#407)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:43:51 PM EST

Why fill up with jingoistic, racist Americans when you can fill up with jingoistic, racist Asians and Africans, instead?

Sorry, jingoism and racism are pretty much basic traits of our species - not bonus characteristics you get when you sign US citizenship papers.

Or are you saying Canada is still run by the Native Americans who were living there when the french and english showed up?


--
Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.


[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#452)
by ZanThrax on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:23:24 AM EST

I'm just saying that there's not a lot of "go back where you came from" being spewn at fellow citizens and immigrants here. I don't really see a lot of jingoists from Asia, Africa, or America filling Canada up. It's a trait that tends to reduce the likelihood of migration.

This is a sig. Please assume that all statements made here are meant to be vaguely humorous and are intentionally simplifying, exaggerating, or simply misrep
[ Parent ]

Really! (none / 0) (#485)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 09:45:09 PM EST

That explains how well the Quebecois get along with the rest of the country.


--
Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.


[ Parent ]

no. please (1.20 / 5) (#150)
by anonymous pancake on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:32:45 AM EST

we don't want them here, it's too cold anyway.

I mean we are "ice niggers" and they are "sand niggers" so it doesn't work out.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.
[ Parent ]

Fascist Repression (3.13 / 29) (#6)
by Bad Harmony on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:18:09 PM EST

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! I don't have a visa and those storm troopers at the INS have taken the unprecedented step of actually enforcing the immigration laws!

5440' or Fight!

Yes, but ... (3.00 / 6) (#7)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:20:34 PM EST

They're "enforcing" them by inviting you to adhere to another immigration rule - one which has much more stringent consequences, including potentially being classified as a "terrorist."

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

So what you're saying is... (4.42 / 7) (#17)
by curien on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:49:25 PM EST

These people are breaking the law, but because they tried to comply with a different law, we should ignore the fact that they broke the law in the first place.

Have I got that right?

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

I'm saying two things. (3.66 / 3) (#24)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:09:47 PM EST

A) If you want compliance with a new law, make sure complying with it doesn't come into conflict with an old law, or you won't get the results you expected.

B) Anything and everything in our immigration law (and approach to immigration) is all wrong, especially if we look at the nationality of immigrants today.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Well... (4.00 / 1) (#182)
by curien on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:07:16 AM EST

Complying with laws conflicts with breaking old ones all the time. For example, if you're driving without a license (which is illegal), it's awfully hard to comply with laws requiring you to register and insure your vehicle.

Now, you may be saying that the government lost the faith of the immigrants, and in the future they won't comply with new regulations of this sort. I agree, but that doesn't make this law bad (in the "unjust" sense)... it just makes it a one-shot deal. They probably arrested enough people for this to be considered a "success", even. I agree that our immigration laws are fucked up. I don't really know how to fix them. But quite frankly, I'm not particularly unhappy with them (but then, I'm not an immigrant :-).

What I do object to, however, is the idea that immigrants don't enjoy certain Constitutional rights. This is complete and total bullocks. The Constitution didn't grant people any rights... it simply explains some of the things the Federal and State governments may or may not do. Just because you're dealing with a non-citizen doesn't mean you can ignore your Constitutional restrictions.

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

The immigrants are not breaking the law ... (5.00 / 6) (#183)
by Chakotay on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:35:22 AM EST

... the law is breaking the immigrants !!!

Most immigrants start out with a perfectly legal situation. They have a work permit or a visa, and all is well. They proceed as is requested, fill out all the forms, comply to all the rules, and request to renew their visa or work permit, or start the procedure to get a green card.

So far so good. Everything's legal. But then the INS is so slow in processing the renewal of the visa or work permit, or actually even slower in processing the green card, that the immigrant arrives at the end of their visa or work permit while the replacement is simply not there yet. And so they find themselves forced into illegality by the INS.

Lets say you're a travelling businessman, a cab driver, a trucker, a bus driver, bref, somebody who drives for a living. You've got a drivers licence that is about to expire, and, well within regular time limits, you proceed to have it renewed. But then the wheels of bureaucracy are co bogged down by internal red tape, that the renewed licence is not ready when your old one runs out. And there you are, with the choice to either stop working and fall into financial oblivion, or continue working and break the law.

I bet you that 99,9% of people anywhere will continue working, because, in all good reason, it is not their fault that they don't have a licence, and one cannot honestly demand of them to simply stop working because of the dire consequences.

Well, in the case of this immirants, the consequences are even more far-stretching. They are risk being incarcerated, or worse, seperrated from their families and sent back to a country that has already spit them out, and will probably welcome them back as traitors, and treat them as such. Nobody in their right frame of mind can possibly claim that that is a just procedure.

And even if you did think that it was all fine and dandy ... What about the sex discrimination? It is only the men who are being rounded up......

--
Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

[ Parent ]
Equal Rights Now! (none / 0) (#377)
by Bad Harmony on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:32:32 AM EST

And even if you did think that it was all fine and dandy ... What about the sex discrimination? It is only the men who are being rounded up......
We could pass a law that mandates an equal employment opportunity program in all terrorist organizations.

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Women cannot be extremist muslims? (none / 0) (#515)
by Chakotay on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 10:34:11 AM EST

If you think that, then you are wrong.

Look at Palestinia. Women are throwing stones too. Look at the opera hostage situation in Moscow: were those not Chechen muslim women all dandied up with explosives? Don't you think that Ousama ibn Ladin would quickly start (ab)using women to traffic explosives and such if it turns out that checks are only done on men?

--
Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

[ Parent ]
Who knows if you have it right? (4.57 / 7) (#32)
by pyramid termite on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:26:14 PM EST

After all, the government's not revealing the names or the number of people detained or what they're charged with. In fact, we really don't know if they're breaking the law, do we?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Strawman. (4.00 / 3) (#21)
by haflinger on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:58:17 PM EST

It suggests that the INS is arresting these people, regardless of whether they've broken any laws.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Have you tried to get a visa/green card? (4.53 / 13) (#41)
by rantweasel on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:54:34 PM EST

My s/o works with a bunch of Canadians, and every single one of them had to wait far too long for their papers from the INS.  They all arrived in the country legally, and were working in the country legally, but when they tried to renew their work visas, they got screwed.  They sent in all of their paperwork well before the deadline, and still ended up working in the country illegally for several months because the INS simply isn't keeping up with visas, etc.  It's one thing to delay new visas or green cards, but it's a whole seperate issue to delay renewals.  Are legal immigrants expected to put their lives on hold for half a year and leave the US because the INS isn't doing their job?  Would you?

mathias

[ Parent ]

Excellent (2.66 / 6) (#44)
by jmzero on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:17:00 PM EST

Between this and marijuana, the government has an excuse to arrest all the sorts of people it wants to. Apparently there IS some intelligence at the top.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
yes, they are (2.33 / 3) (#350)
by Godel on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:29:42 AM EST

Are legal immigrants expected to put their lives on hold for half a year and leave the US because the INS isn't doing their job? Would you?

Yes, they are. If you don't like it, don't come here we won't even miss you. I for one am just a little bit sick of people whose home country is so worthless they leave it to come here, then the first thing they do is start bitching because we don't run our country exactly the way they like it. Hey here's a radical idea, in a democracy a country is run by the people. We will run our country as we see fit and you run yours as you see fit. If you find filling out the legal paperwork to be too much a hassle then may I cordially invite you to GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

Thanks.

[ Parent ]

A simple parallel... (4.00 / 2) (#502)
by rantweasel on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 02:53:20 PM EST

If the IRS called up your employer and started garnishing your wages for non-payment of taxes just because they lost your 1040, that would be okay?  And when you complained, it would be okay for them to tell you to get the fuck out of their country?  Because that's exactly what's going on here.  Talk to someone who is trying to live & work in this country as a legal immigrant and you will realize how screwed up the INS is.  It's not that the INS is not doing the will of the people, it's that the INS is not doing anything.

mathias

[ Parent ]

climate of fascist repression (3.21 / 19) (#9)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:36:41 PM EST

The source of the problem is the failure of the US to take border security seriously. Don't let anyone across the border who hasn't been vetted, and then you won't have to worry about them once they're in the country.

That, of course, would generate even louder screams of 'fascism' and 'racism' from the people who object to the security measures already being taken. Especially since border security, if taken seriously, would entail using deadly force to prevent people from crossing the border illegally.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.

Hmm? (3.83 / 6) (#10)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:39:30 PM EST

What's any of this got to do with security in the first place? Surely you don't think this registration business is meant to actually catch terrorists, eh?

And why does the U.S. need the kind of border security you're advocating ("would entail using deadly force")?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

deadly force (3.00 / 4) (#11)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:41:46 PM EST

To stop people from infiltrating.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]
What!? (3.57 / 7) (#12)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:43:00 PM EST

To stop who from infiltrating? Infiltrating what? And what do you mean by "infiltrating," anyway?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Who (3.71 / 7) (#15)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:48:04 PM EST

To stop Al Qaeda personnel from infiltrating into the US via Mexico or Canada.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]
Huh. (3.33 / 3) (#23)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:01:04 PM EST

And you reckon asking Middle Easterners to register is a good way of doing that?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ, valeko (4.40 / 5) (#36)
by leviramsey on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:21:52 PM EST

Read what wiredog is saying again, sloooowly.

wiredog is saying that tougher border controls are an alternative to the registration (though there already is registration, in the form of visas).



[ Parent ]
I did read it. (2.16 / 6) (#64)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:39:47 PM EST

And I know exactly what he said. However, in the course of discussion, wiredog has shown himself unwilling to explain exactly what he means by "tougher border control," or for that matter who exactly is trying to infiltrate the Home of the Free/Brave/etc. and why. Therefore, we're back at registration now.

I think.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

But registration is bad (4.00 / 2) (#98)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:25:01 PM EST

Since, in order for it to work, we also have to track. As to who we are protecting the US from? Well, remember where the people who carried out the attacks on Sept 11 of 2001 came from? Who they worked for?

Tougher border control means border guards.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]

Yes it is. (4.00 / 7) (#101)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:29:52 PM EST

remember where the people who carried out the attacks on Sept 11 of 2001 came from? Who they worked for?

IIRC, they worked for someone who worked for the CIA.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

well....none were from Iran (4.66 / 3) (#149)
by libertine on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:28:30 AM EST

All of the people at the core of the operation and involved in planning and funding were from Saudi Arabia, and were both native born Saudis and extremist muslims (which is not the whole of all Arab Muslims, Arabs, or Muslims).

Having "special registration" for "Arabs" is akin to the EU having "special registration" for Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans in order to stop "Baptist new worlders" from infiltrating them, and would be about as effective.


"Live for lust. Lust for life."
[ Parent ]

Good question! (5.00 / 2) (#213)
by mbmccabe on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:23:48 AM EST

"...remember where the people who carried out the attacks on Sept 11 of 2001 came from?"

Well, as far as we know they were all (or nearly all) Saudi Arabian.

We're fairly sure they worked (at least indirectly) for Osama bin Laden - another Saudi.

We're positive Osama worked for and was trained by the CIA.

Beyond that, you'd have to dig into the extensive investigation that was done since 9-11-2001 to find out the details and what actually went wrong.

Too bad that investigation was never carried out.

Ask your favorite FBI or Police detective how likely it is to solve a 1 person murder case on evidence that's over a year old.  Now how about a 3000-person murder carried out by terrorists who are directly linked to U.S. intelligence agencies?

Then ask your Federal representatives why they and the current Executive branch let the investigation of the largest terrorist attack and the most egregious air-disaster EVER in the U.S. go uninvestigated for over a year.

Hint #1:  Are there really any good excuses they could give for this?

[ Parent ]

I thought (3.50 / 2) (#30)
by RoOoBo on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:19:04 PM EST

they came through air ...

Eh ... I actually mean they used airplaines ...

Seriusly, I'm sure they didn't even had to go through a frontier, they used a normal airplane in a normal US airline to come to US. As most people do.



[ Parent ]
Well yes, but... (3.14 / 7) (#31)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:21:22 PM EST

You see, they're magical terrorists. That's why the "war on terrorism" is a "new kind of war" that defies existing laws of physics. It means a "long-term global commitment" to the "enourmous task" of finding the buggers, which seem to have "infiltrated" the U.S. (in their little "sleeper cells") through every possible orifice.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Several of them (4.50 / 2) (#96)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:21:57 PM EST

had overstayed their visas. A roundup of all immigrants who had ilegaly overstayed their visas would have caught them.

If they had been vetted before they came into the country it might have stopped them as well.

The alternative to stopping them at the border is for the US to become a police state.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]

Um...no. (5.00 / 7) (#152)
by libertine on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:49:28 AM EST

Rounding them up would not have made a single bit of difference.  None.  Zippo.  Several had been stopped by law enforcement already, and nothing had been done about them being over on their visas (you know, traffic stop, checking ID, finding expired visa paperwork?).

As far as "vetting" goes, they were "vetted"- they were granted visas.  NONE of them fit the profile people were or are looking for.  These were people with engineering degrees, who had spent time in Europe, did not run around in turbans, etc.  For all intents and purposes they were "Westernized" Arab Muslims.  There is no way to "vette" against that profile, unless you know of some kind of magic super-trustworthy network connection that the US INS could use in trading information with interested Muslim nations (ok, lets ignore that their records are all in PAPER and that most nations still did not consider Al Qaeda to be a concern to them, ergo no watch lists that could even be verified...sigh).

As far as stopping anybody at the border, I think maybe you should spend a day at Niagra Falls or in San Diego.  At the border.  Count all of the commericial vehicles and tourists that go through each way every day.  Even with National Guardies patrolling the border since the early 90's, plus the Coast Guard, plus the Civil Air Patrol, plus the INS, plus DEA, plus ATF, plus Federal Marshals, plus Texas Rangers, plus every County Sherriff, plus active duty military post-9/11- dude, do you have any idea how freakin huge the border is?  Even heavily patrolled areas, like the 90 miles between Cuba and Florida, still miss numerous people swimming and boating into the US.  The border is too damned big.

The alternative, maybe for you, is to become a police state.  Personally, I don't think that is much of an alternative.  Neither are the lame attempts by the administration to go after Al Qaeda, operatives in the US or otherwise.  

The problem in living in a free country is that sooner or later there is someone who thinks it is a good idea to make things safer by locking people up.  Liberty and safety don't necessarily go hand in hand- personally, I like my liberty, and I would rather live with some risk than surrender it.  I am sorry for having to disagree with you on every point, but please reconsider where your suggestions are leading.  There are other options.


"Live for lust. Lust for life."
[ Parent ]

Security and liberty. (4.00 / 2) (#186)
by Chakotay on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:47:43 AM EST

The problem in living in a free country is that sooner or later there is someone who thinks it is a good idea to make things safer by locking people up. Liberty and safety don't necessarily go hand in hand- personally, I like my liberty, and I would rather live with some risk than surrender it. I am sorry for having to disagree with you on every point, but please reconsider where your suggestions are leading. There are other options.

A US president (forgot who) once said it very eloquently:

"One who trades in freedom for security, should have neither."

And so, US citizens have neither. Quite obviously...

--
Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

[ Parent ]
"President" Ben Franklin said it. (none / 0) (#228)
by one time poster on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:16:31 AM EST

I did find it attributed to Madison, but only once.  Mostly Franklin...

I had not heard that quote before, thank you for using it.
___________________

That does it, I wont post again...


[ Parent ]
hehe, I enjoy reading your posts, Wiredog (2.33 / 6) (#26)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:13:30 PM EST

Reading the posts of a war monger reminds me of how damned ethical I am ;) Anyways, must suck to be an American, what with all the ifiltrating terrorists plotting to kill you and your family, Wiredog. Personally. Kill your family. It must suck to be afraid of that. Shot to their heads. They're all bleeding to death, slowly. Fear, my friend. It's the American way.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
War monger? (none / 0) (#100)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:29:29 PM EST

What have you been smoking?

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]
What measure are you referring to? (4.50 / 4) (#16)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:49:11 PM EST

Arresting people from Middle Eastern countries when they cross the border?

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Depends on how they cross... (2.20 / 5) (#99)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:27:53 PM EST

If they come theough a regular crossing point, then no. If they try to sneak in over the border, then presumably we'd shoot them.

Of course, you can't tell the difference between a Mexican illegal, and a Saudi one, over open sights. A definite downside. Preferable to turning the US into a for-real police state in order to track all the immigrants.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]

No. (4.76 / 13) (#34)
by gibichung on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:16:07 PM EST

It's difficult to "catch someone at the border" who enters the country legally with the promise to leave after a certain amount of time, but never does.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
worse than that (5.00 / 7) (#51)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:38:45 PM EST

actually taking the time to vet everyone coming into the country would cause serious problems to both tourism and international business. especially since it would trigger retaliatory vetting of americans in other countries.

[ Parent ]
That won't keep terrorists out (4.00 / 2) (#65)
by FlipFlop on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:41:11 PM EST

The U.S. will have to place guards at its checkpoints first.

Even if we successfully stop all terrorists at established entry points, terrorists will enter the country in other ways. Stopping smugglers is an impossible task.

If terrorists find it easier to enter the country through checkpoints, it will be a whole lot simpler to keep track of them.

AdTI - The think tank that didn't
[ Parent ]

You said it (5.00 / 4) (#161)
by scruffyMark on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:09:07 AM EST

Even if we successfully stop all terrorists at established entry points, terrorists will enter the country in other ways.

What, like the birth canal? There's no way the INS was going to catch Timothy McVeigh, after all.

[ Parent ]

why is that dumb argument so common? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by ogre on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:50:26 AM EST

If you lock your door, burglars can still find another way in. Stopping burglars is an impossible task.
This is a really dumb argument against locking your door.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

That wasn't my argument (none / 0) (#221)
by FlipFlop on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:58:32 AM EST

I never said we shouldn't lock the door. Anyway, burglars are different than terrorists, in that they will go to the next house if the door is locked. Terrorists are determined to get in. If they can't go through the door, they'll break a window.

To continue your analogy, my argument was that we should lock the door, but let the burglar through if he signs in. Then find out where he's going, who he collaborates with, etc. Finally, when he tries to take something, we can catch him in the act, and have evidence with which to prosecute him and his accomplices.

If we had put up an impenetrable door, the burglar would have broken a window, and met his accomplices inside (who wouldn't sign in even if they could). The group would have taken the goods, and gotten away.

AdTI - The think tank that didn't
[ Parent ]

Determination Wins. (none / 0) (#294)
by Dr Caleb on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:13:17 PM EST

To further your analogy, if a burglar really wants what's inside, they will get inside.

If the door is well reinforced and the windows are lexan and there is a really angry dog inside, they'll just climb up on the roof get out the chainsaw cut a hole and shoot the dog.

You shouldn't assume terrorists are any different. If hijacking a plane or crossing a border is too difficult, they'll just buy a plane and fly it there, or steal a boat and show up on your shore (happens all the time here in Canada).

I saw a really good bumper sticker today that sums up this whole article really well: I love my country. It's the government I'm afraid of.


Baroque: [Bar-oak] (adj.) (s.) ; What you are when you have no Monet.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Well, OK, that's not dumb... (none / 0) (#320)
by ogre on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:41:03 PM EST

But it's still wrong. If terrorists have other ways in and they want to avoid being tagged, they can use the other ways. If they don't have other ways in, then they can be kept out at the borders and there is no need to tag them. Also, following people takes resources which we don't want to spend and it takes a competent FBI effort, which is not guaranteed.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

You forgot the most important one (4.00 / 1) (#162)
by scruffyMark on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:14:24 AM EST

Don't let anyone across the border who hasn't been vetted, and then you won't have to worry about them once they're in the country. You forgot the major means of entry into the USA: The birth canal. Do you propose placing border guards by every vagina in the nation?

[ Parent ]
details, details (4.00 / 2) (#164)
by martingale on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:29:44 AM EST

Do you propose placing border guards by every vagina in the nation?
There's a simple solution: Hand out a border patrol badge to every woman in America. Problem solved. Sheesh, the difficulties some people come up with!

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter (3.00 / 1) (#268)
by needless on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:34:19 PM EST

If you're born on U.S. soil, you gain citizenship under the doctrine of "jus soil" or "right of the land".

[ Parent ]
So? (none / 0) (#399)
by scruffyMark on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:23:25 PM EST

If you're born on U.S. soil, you gain citizenship under the doctrine of "jus soil" or "right of the land".

Are you suggesting that being a citizen automatically guarantees that you won't commit acts of terrorism? Cause I think Tim McVeigh and George W. Bush are both US citizens...

[ Parent ]

If there were none... (3.66 / 3) (#174)
by failrate on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:36:31 AM EST

If there were no national borders, there wouldn't be any countries to defend. Nationalism equates to paranoia of the kind that primitive, preconscious man had that when the lightning struck, the gods were coming to kill with the "Big Fire" or some such twaddle. I say, erase the borders off the maps. If people can't get along with each other and accept each other's different ideologies on respect alone and not because of some law, then they don't deserve to survive. If man is not an animal that can evolve to think beyond the idea of nations, then man deserves to be extinct.
Voodoo Girl is da bomb!
[ Parent ]
False dilemma (none / 0) (#318)
by phybre187 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:29:04 PM EST

Close the borders, and then you won't have to worry about them, period.

Please, give me an example of a time when isolationism has been considered fascism or racism. I'd be quite interested in learning about it.

[ Parent ]
Why register? (3.81 / 11) (#18)
by bobpence on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:50:37 PM EST

While I subscribe to the idea that an overly efficient government is a threat to freedom, inefficiency at INS contributed to September 11, which I hop I am allowed to call A Bad Thing. The stronger arguments here seem to be that many immigration offenses have more to do with the INS moving slowly, and that sleepers will not come in and register.

As to the first argument, the best available way to deal with it is to keep dealing with the INS. I doubt that many of those detained were simply waiting for paperwork that they had dutifully submitted.

The second argument does not hold: As a foreigner in another country, the government may keep tabs on me; I usually must fill out a card indicating where I will stay in-country. If I hide from the government, it is fair for them to assume I am doing something they wouldn't like. But if they can identify the people around me, they can pick me out as the one they want to talk to. Likewise, a foreign resident in the U.S. -- not a citizen -- helps the government and helps himself when investigators can say, "Yes, we know who Akbar is, we needn't bother him, but Khalid doesn't show up in the rest of the system, let's check into it."
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender

It's not so much the registration (4.71 / 14) (#42)
by rusty on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:57:29 PM EST

It's the fact that this mass registration was used as a pretext for mass arrests. As a means of actually keeping track of immigrants, it could have been effective. But how many people do you think are going to show up at the next one? By going for the cheap and easy one time score, INS has totally compromised any long-term utility this program could have had.

About doubting that they were waiting for paperwork from the INS, I don't doubt that claim at all. The INS is well known to be a complete mess right now, and has been for some time. It's been underfunded for decades, and pushed to do more and more expensive border patrolling in the War on Some Drugs Some of the Time (remember that?), and as a result has been totally snowed under mountains of uncompleted paperwork. Unless you have personal experience to the contrary, I'm much more inclined to take the word of the people who have actually had to deal with the INS.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

The INS (4.33 / 9) (#48)
by a humble lich on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:32:54 PM EST

I have an friend from Iran who recently registered (in San Diego).  He said that when he went to the INS they were amazed.  They asked him how he knew that he was supposed to register.  

There are so many minor things that people are supposed to do with the INS that never get done.  For example, every time you move you need to inform the INS (just like you need to inform the DMV...); however, the INS doesn't have nearly enough staff to even record this information, let alone try to track people who are trying to hide.  Do we really want to send people back to Iran (where they can be hung for blasphemy) because they (along with everyone else) haven't given information that we don't have the resources to process anyways?

The INS motto:
"Give us your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...so we can send them back"

[ Parent ]

How did he know? (none / 0) (#129)
by Wah on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:19:52 AM EST

The INS mentioned they would start being hardcore about immigration back in July. Not much of a post, but the theme is fairly similar to your INS motto.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -- Joseph Joubert. ...
[ Parent ]
Yes, INS is often late (3.00 / 2) (#52)
by bobpence on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:41:45 PM EST

What I said was that I doubted many of those in detention were detained because of slowness on the part of the INS, as opposed to their own failing to bother with visa extensions, etc.

I certainly hope that most, and preferrably all, detentions were because of negligence or willful non-compliance on the part of the detainees, and not slowness on the part of the INS bureaucracy. Can you imagine the lawsuits?
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

Lawsuits (4.00 / 2) (#62)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:33:39 PM EST

What lawsuits? You really think that illegal or semi-legal immigrants can file lawsuits? Or even legal ones of certain nationalities that are at the focus of government repression right now? No, they can't, or won't - that's the whole point.

It arises from the same set of reasons as why illegal immigrants from, say, Mexico, can be underpaid, employed in almost any working conditions, manipulated, exploited, etc. They have little or no recourse through legal institutions when they live every minute of their lives in chronic fear of being arrested and deported.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

YANAL (none / 0) (#82)
by BadDoggie on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 07:46:59 PM EST

You really think that illegal or semi-legal immigrants can file lawsuits?

In the U.S., anyone who wants to can file a lawsuit in the appropriate court (District, Circuit, Small Claims). There is no test for citizenship, residence (except for marriage/divorce), visa, status, nothing. Foreigners can and do file all the time. Federal prisoners serving multiple life sentences can and do suits -- barrages of suits, in fact. You just have to pay the filing fee. Unless you're indigent. Like prisoners. Or illegal farm workers.

woof.

"The line between genius and stupidity is very fine indeed, but you're so far away from the line that it doesn't matter." -- Parent ]

IANAL (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:14:15 PM EST

Well yes, I'm sure technically illegal immigrants can be litigants, and do any number of things.

But increasing your visibility like that isn't real smart, is it? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it - you'll show up on the radar of the bureaucracy/authorities/police/whatnot. How else do you explain the substandard conditions under which millions of illegal immigrants are forced to toil, blackmailed with the threat of being disclosed to the authorities?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Yup (none / 0) (#188)
by wiredog on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:58:14 AM EST

Illegal immigrants are screwed that way. The interesting thing is how much the US economy depends on them. Especially the agricultural economy in California. If the INS ever got serious about deporting them the California agricultural lobby would go ballistic. And so would all the people in the country whne vegetable prices shot up.

Then maybe something constructive would be done between the US and Mexico. Progress was being made, and some still is, but the attacks on Sept 11 screwed that up as well.

Sooner or later the US and Mexico are going to have to seriously work out our relationship.

The greatest contribution of the internet to society is that it makes it possible for anyone of any age to become a grumpy old fart.
Parent ]

Interesting info (5.00 / 2) (#275)
by rusty on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:00:35 PM EST

Some first hand info on what the INS registration process is like from Danny O'Brien, a Brit who's trying to get citizenship here. He's having a hell of a time with it, and he's a native English speaker with a colege education.

Between slow processing by the INS and the torturous documentation process, I have quite a bit of doubt that willful non-compliance was the reason for any of the problems. Why would people who are purposely avoiding the INS even show up to register? I obviously don't know the people involved any more than you do, but it seems like assuming they all (or even mostly) were actual criminals is the biggest stretch of all the possible explanations.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

So, when confronted with hundreds of illegals (3.00 / 5) (#53)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:43:05 PM EST

what do you think the INS should have done?


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Nothing. (3.00 / 1) (#69)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:44:58 PM EST

Really.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

They should've done something else (5.00 / 4) (#70)
by rantweasel on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:44:58 PM EST

Anything else.  Mass arrests because the INS is too lax about meeting their responsibilities?  That's not the right answer.  And it will encourage people to not cooperate and to be illegals.

mathias

[ Parent ]

LoL. Good of you to step up with a workable plan. (1.40 / 5) (#89)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 08:39:19 PM EST

"I don't know what the right answer is, I just know they did a bad thing!"

Excellent analysis. You should run for office. As a democrat, of course.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

What the hell? (5.00 / 6) (#93)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:10:02 PM EST

You mean that in order to see (say?) that something is wrong, you have to be first devise an alternative? What the hell is that? Some people can see bad things happening before their eyes without knowing what the best remedy is. That doesn't invalidate the problem, or their complaint.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

If you can't explain how, or why, something is... (2.50 / 2) (#106)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:14:40 PM EST

If believe something is wrong, but you can't explain how, or why, it is wrong you better examine your preconceptions.

And, yes, being able to offer an alternative is a sign you're thinking this issue through rather than just blowing mental farts.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

I disagree. (4.80 / 5) (#112)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:37:23 PM EST

Not being able to offer an effective, implementable solution to a problem is not the same as being unable to explain why it is wrong. I can think of a dozen large problems off the top of my head that, if I presented to you, you could identify as bad, perhaps wrong, but certainly couldn't come up with a workable solution for any better than the rest of the world. It doesn't mean that what you see isn't true.

Also, discussions usually have contextual limitations that make it undesirable, sometimes, to venture into an entirely different realm. I could tell you what they "should have done with a bunch of illegal immigrants," but it would be so far removed from the trajectory of this discussion that I don't really want to introduce it. If you want to keep something in an appropriate scope -- i.e. in a logical sequence of thoughts -- it's best sometimes to forego large tangents.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

What they should have done (5.00 / 3) (#277)
by rusty on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:04:22 PM EST

What they should have done is treat this like what it was supposed to be: an information gathering process. Gather the information, and make sure people know that by providing information they are not just signing away their residency. When you have the information, then follow up on the violators.

My point was simply that by doing this mass-arrest, they've wrecked their own future ability to even get the information int he first place, and made it even harder to catch and deport illegal residents. I'm not making any argument on the rightness or wrongness of that goal, merely saying that according to their own goals they've screwed up. This was like arresting people who show up to turn over illegal guns. If you do that once, you catch a few people, but no one will ever turn over their guns again, so it's a net loss.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0) (#457)
by valeko on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 01:40:30 PM EST

Gather the information, and make sure people know that by providing information they are not just signing away their residency. When you have the information, then follow up on the violators.

What is the difference between arresting them on the spot and arresting them later? I assume arrest is what you mean by "follow up on the violators," which they did at a point in time that is somewhere between right there on the spot and whatever "later" is.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

What the hell is that? (4.80 / 5) (#144)
by rantweasel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:47:30 AM EST

I can't cure cancer, but I can tell it's bad.  I can't bring you peace in the Middle East, but I know it's a good goal.  Since I can't explain those, clearly I'm a fucking moron, let's give everyone cancer and start a war!

Let me try again.  It's morally wrong to round up people who did everything right just because the government is doing something wrong.  That's placing the blame on the wrong person.  As I have pointed out and as the article pointed out, the INS is woefully behind in visa renewals and initial applications.  That is not the responsibility of the applicant.  Any immigrant with a pending visa renewal application shouldn't be getting in trouble for overstaying their visa.

Suggestions (5 minute brainstorm, I'm sure they're all flawed somehow, clearing indicating that I'm a democrat):

1 - parolee ankle bracelets for all immigrants awaiting delayed visa renewals
2 - better funding for the INS and harsher penalties for it failing to fulfill it's duties
3 - allow immigrants with pending renewals to pay for a private, trusted 3rd party to process their renewal
4 - alter the process for visa renewals in some way (allow earlier re-applications, lessen the requirements since they were let in to begin with,  etc) to speed it up

If those don't fix it, we can always sit down for another 5 minutes and try for a few more.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Amen (2.00 / 1) (#194)
by bobpence on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:32:16 AM EST

Any immigrant with a pending visa renewal application shouldn't be getting in trouble for overstaying their visa.

And can I repeat, perhaps in Urdu, that I expect that once the facts come out about our little Jenin-in-SoCal, I believe that few if any of the detainees will prove to be victims of late paperwork. Quite the contrary, I expect that most will have willfully failed to comply with the law because they did not expect to be allowed to stay permenantly. And some may even be dodging deportation orders.

Ankle monitors? I want to see CAIR's (and Valeko's) response to that one!
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

Uh... (4.66 / 3) (#206)
by mbmccabe on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:51:24 AM EST

I'm sure for all the folks "willfully" failing to comply, their next willful step would be to walk into an INS office and get registered.

This would be double-true for anyone "dodging deportation orders."

</sarcasm>

People, use your heads.

(Or at least use the Preview button to reread what you're about to post to make sure it makes at lease the slightest bit of sense.)

[ Parent ]

misc repsonse.... (4.00 / 1) (#237)
by rantweasel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:58:32 AM EST

Re the ankle monitors, it was late, I was cranky, it popped to mind, and you're right, it's not that good an idea.  With more time to think about it, I'd say that the INS should have done nothing at all.  Best analogy for why: If the IRS started to garnish your wages to collect back taxes because they hadn't gotten around to processing your 1040, you'd scream bloody murder.  I think this is the same - I'd say that once you have the renewal forms in and the INS has acknowledged that it received them, that should count as an implicit renewal until the forms are processed.

As for the facts that shall come out, I think you're wrong.  If Joe Persian has been living in the country since fleeing Iran in 1979, why would he expect to be kicked out?  Why would he expect deportation?  Chances are, if Joe Persian fled Iran to the US, he's more aligned with the GOP than any Middle Eastern government or politico.  Take, for example, the 18 year old mentioned at the end of this Washington Post article.  Read the photo caption - a US citizen's 16 year old is facing deportation?  I think this is going to turn out to be mostly technical errors, INS delays, etc, than anything malicious, deceitful, or sinister.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Preschool sleeper cells (4.66 / 3) (#279)
by rusty on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:07:43 PM EST

Obviously the boy was recruited by al Qaida before he came here at the age of two. What better sleeper agents than those who can't remember when you first recruited them!

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
if (do||don't) then INS = damned; (1.00 / 2) (#102)
by bobpence on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:41:08 PM EST

If they hadn't detained anyone at the time of registration but arrested them later because they now knew where they were (for the many who gave real addresses), then one of two things would have happened when they went to arrest them later:

1. Law enforcement officers would be shot or beheaded while trying to get the illegals at home, and the media would ask why the illegals weren't arrested when they came in.

2. CAIR etc. would complain that they hadn't been told when they registered that they would soon be arrested, so they assumed they were okay.
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

what the INS should have done (4.50 / 4) (#147)
by akp on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:15:27 AM EST

Let's see. First of all, if fighting terrorism is more important than catching a few illegal aliens, then the INS could have offered amnesty for anyone who followed the new registration procedure. (Those of you who have been paying attention should remember that Dubya was proposing extending amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants a while ago.) That would pretty much guarantee that anyone who should register would do so, and thus that anyone who didn't could be considered a danger. Thus, you've succeeded in making it easier to hunt down terrorists at the relatively minor expense of allowing some aliens an extra grace period.

Second, even if you do decide that you need to arrest these people, you release all necessary information about the people who have been arrested. If they're just being held for immigration violations rather than for terrorism investigations, then there shouldn't be any reason not to make public the number of people arrested and the charges that have been brought against them. As long as that information is unavailable, it's the duty of a free press (which includes us) to assume the worst.

-allen



[ Parent ]
Actually, that kind of mirrors my thinking. (none / 0) (#242)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:23:13 PM EST

I was thinking it would have been a lot better if they had done something like issued blanket 90 day extensions to people with paperwork problems.

The INS definitely has to cough up a list of who has been charged with what - I have no problem with them grabbing people who were wanted for felonies, but this certainly over the top.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Amnesty caused the problems (none / 0) (#361)
by opendna on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:30:59 AM EST

Reagan's amnesty caused incredible problems for the INS. Consider:

  1. It created an incentive for illegal immigration, as another amnesty could be expected.
  2. It created a tsunami of approved immigrant applications in the middle of the system without a staff to process them - it was like jamming a marble in the middle of a straw. Many given amnesty last time are still waiting.
  3. It geometrically increased the number of people who could petition as family-preference immigrants (again, without adding staff), thus creating an ever-rising tide of applications.

Sure, there were better ways to deal with this - most in the INS would agree. But the policy originated within an Administration concerned more with press releases than good policy.



[ Parent ]

The smart ones (3.20 / 5) (#54)
by imrdkl on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:43:08 PM EST

Had their lawyers with them.

[ Parent ]
Bah, these petty criminals (3.42 / 14) (#19)
by imrdkl on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:54:59 PM EST

How many believe that this will reduce the population of terrorists in the US?

Chirp... chirp... chirp.... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by rusty on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:52:21 PM EST



____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Sure, why not? (4.00 / 2) (#45)
by imrdkl on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:27:23 PM EST

Perhaps they should be trackable, even. cluck, cluck.

[ Parent ]
Oh, that's just too cute! (none / 0) (#217)
by lordpixel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:51:13 AM EST

I like the last line of the story (which is about someone getting their beagle back after it went missing 5 years ago, for the lazy):

"The reunion showed how important it was for owners to get a microchip inserted into pets, Miss Murphy said."

And indeed, why not your children?
JusttThink of the advantages if everyone could find them; after all they're more important than beagles.

Doltard. I wonder if she has the slightest inkling what she just said?

I am the cat who walks through walls, all places and all times are alike to me.
[ Parent ]

Question mark? (none / 0) (#281)
by rusty on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:11:46 PM EST

I don't think I understand your reply. I was just making cricket noises to indicate massive silence in response to your question. You probably knew that and I'm the one missing the connection here...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Er, bad call (none / 0) (#308)
by imrdkl on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:10:19 PM EST

I thought you were a bird, cautiously chirping in the smoke of my comment's impact.

[ Parent ]
Basic law of supply and demand (4.10 / 20) (#28)
by Rogerborg on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 03:15:51 PM EST

There are now so many agencies looking for resident aliens that hate the USA that the INS has deemed it necessary to create some.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

inflation (5.00 / 3) (#116)
by martingale on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:57:06 PM EST

You realize of course that this will lead to inflation. As the supply increases, the aliens' real value will decrease.

Not content to just employ an illegal alien to clean the house, the better off USian families will therefore scramble for illegal cooks and waiters, as a way of improving short term shareholder value. With new accounting rules in place, Terrorist-Americans carry higher risk, so the key is to diversify the portfolio.

After March 2003, Korean-Americans are projected to decrease in value, and some savvy consumers with disposable income are already investing in oriental put options now.

[ Parent ]

-1, Too many articles to vote on (n/t) (1.33 / 18) (#35)
by buck on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:21:31 PM EST


-----
“You, on the other hand, just spew forth your mental phlegmwads all over the place and don't have the goddamned courtesy to throw us a tissue afterwards.” -- kitten
What about the 5th Amendment? (2.69 / 13) (#39)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 04:52:04 PM EST

Sounds like these people are being forced to incriminate themselves.

The 5th ammendment (3.20 / 5) (#50)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:37:31 PM EST

applies to testimony in court, not showing up to fill out a form.

I don't see this as any different from any number of sting-type operations the government does each year.

Sorry, they were breaking the law. Even if it's the INS' fault that their paper work wasn't processed in time, they were still legally required to leave the country and then they didn't go.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

No (3.33 / 3) (#59)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:02:33 PM EST

Self-incrimination applies to more than just in court. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/07.html#1.

Sorry, they were breaking the law.

Sorry, but in the U.S. that's not enough. Even if you are guilty you can still have evidence excluded if it is obtained illegally. This is the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.



[ Parent ]
Obtained illegally? (3.50 / 2) (#61)
by sonovel on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:12:14 PM EST

So are you saying that the information that these people were illegal immigrants was obtained illegally?

Almost certainly, that information was available in INS databases.

The only information needed to arrest them was their current location. The information of the violation is completely independent of that.

This isn't self incrimination.

[ Parent ]

Haynes v. US (4.00 / 4) (#111)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:35:36 PM EST

So are you saying that the information that these people were illegal immigrants was obtained illegally?

Absolutely. It was obtained under a violation of their 5th Amendment rights.

Almost certainly, that information was available in INS databases.

Then almost certainly they could still be found guilty despite the government's illegal practices.

This isn't self incrimination.

It most certainly is. Let's look at Haynes v. US:

In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.


[ Parent ]
Seems exactly opposite. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by sonovel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:42:14 AM EST

Want to bet that this case doesn't apply?

These people are not being held for not registering themselves. They are being held for breaking other laws.

The gun case is a guy getting a registration conviction overturned.

So in the cited case, the crime was non-registration. The non-registration part was overturned.

For this to correspond to the current case, the INS would have to find an unregistered person, and charge them with not registering, instead or in addition to their other illegal acts.

I really don't have time to look up the case (but never fear, I of course read your link), but was Haynes' conviction solely on non-registration? If not, was the other parts of his conviction overturned?

This case seems 180 degrees from the current one. Maybe I'll have time to look up the case tomorrow. Thanks for the link.

[ Parent ]

case (3.00 / 2) (#145)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:03:00 AM EST

Want to bet that this case doesn't apply?

Of course not. I admitted that "almost certainly they could still be found guilty despite the government's illegal practices." I'm not saying they won't get deported. I'm saying that the registration law is unconstitutional.

These people are not being held for not registering themselves. They are being held for breaking other laws.

Right, and the other laws are not the ones that are unconstitutional. The registration one is.

I really don't have time to look up the case (but never fear, I of course read your link), but was Haynes' conviction solely on non-registration? If not, was the other parts of his conviction overturned?

Here's the decision. He was charged with three counts, but two were dismissed upon motion of the US Attorney. The third was the registration one, to which he pled guilty after losing a motion to dismiss.

I wonder if the two charges were dismissed as part of a plea bargain for him to plead guilty to the third. That would be especially devious.



[ Parent ]
Found it last night. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by sonovel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:45:35 AM EST

It seems that the biggest problem in the Haynes case was the law itself. Look at section 2 where it is mentioned that the law made "illegal possesion" and "non-registration" synonymous.

"2.   Petitioner's conviction under sec. 5851 for possession
of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable
from a conviction under sec. 5841 for failure to register
possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed
subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the
Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register. Pp. 90-95."

This is clearly not the same as the current issue. The only way this could be a parallel is if someone was legal before the registration rules went into effect.

Even if that were true, it depends on how the law was written. Apparently, the NFA of 1934 was written such that "non-registration" and "illegal possesion" were the same thing.

If someone was an illegal immigrent before the registration requirement then these two situations ("illegal due to other rules" v. "illegal immigrant due to non-registration") are very distinguishable. They are totally unrelated.

So I think the Haynes case is interesting, but much less applicable to this case than you do.

Thanks again for the link and good discussion.


[ Parent ]

Well (3.00 / 2) (#230)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:21:45 AM EST

The way I've heard the case described by my lawyer friends (this is one that everyone almost certainly learns in law school), the point of proving that the laws were synonymous is merely to tie them to the same constitutionality considerations. The government argued that the possession (without registration) could survive because the illegal act was the possession, not the failure to register. But the Supreme Court said "no," these two laws are actually one in the same.

So I guess unless one of us can find a really good explanation of the ruling (which would probably be in a dead tree book and not on the internet), I think we'll have to stay divided on the exact significance of this ruling. At this point I could see either interpretation being the correct one.



[ Parent ]
Which part of this was illegal, exactly? (4.00 / 2) (#88)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 08:35:07 PM EST

I'll concede the point that tainted evidence can be thrown out. But what evidence in these cases is "tainted"? That they were in the country illegally?


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Basically... (1.00 / 1) (#110)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:29:26 PM EST

Depends on the details of each individual case, but the fact that they are "male foreigners from many Arab or Middle Eastern countries who are aged 16 and over and are not naturalised U.S. citizens" would be tainted if not established from another source.

[ Parent ]
While (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by gibichung on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:25:53 PM EST

I am not eager to argue with someone raving about the "fruit of the poisoned (sic) tree," it should suffice to say that evidence collected in such a manner may be used, if an independent source may be acquired or it would have been eventually discovered anyway. Even if your first argument had merit (it doesn't), the exclusionary rule would not apply.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Don't put words in my mouth (1.00 / 1) (#124)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:45:37 PM EST

I am not eager to argue with someone raving about the "fruit of the poisoned (sic) tree," it should suffice to say that evidence collected in such a manner may be used, if an independent source may be acquired or it would have been eventually discovered anyway.

I agree. Where did I say that wasn't the case?

Even if your first argument had merit (it doesn't), the exclusionary rule would not apply.

I can't say that without knowing the details of each particular case, and neither can you.



[ Parent ]
Criminal Trial != deportation (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by gibichung on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:53:25 AM EST

Even if your first argument had merit (it doesn't), the exclusionary rule would not apply.
I can't say that without knowing the details of each particular case, and neither can you.
While entering the country illegally is a crime, most are not prosecuted, but are simply deported. These hearings have a different standard of evidence than a criminal trial. Thus, the details of the case are irrelevant.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
You're putting words in my mouth again (1.00 / 1) (#140)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:08:42 AM EST

While entering the country illegally is a crime, most are not prosecuted, but are simply deported. These hearings have a different standard of evidence than a criminal trial. Thus, the details of the case are irrelevant.

I never even mentioned deportation.



[ Parent ]
Only if (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by baseball on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:31:00 AM EST

they are being arrested for being "male foreigners from . . . Arab or Middle Eastern countries who are aged 16 and over and [who] are not naturalised U.S. citizens."

My understanding -- which could be wrong -- is that the Gov't requires these people to register.  The arrests, as I understand it, were not because the people registering were as described above (it would be unconstitutional to arrest them for that status), but because, at least according the Gov't, they were in the Country illegally, had failed to comply with other immigration requirements, or had committed crimes.  

I do agree with you, though, that there might be self-incrimination issues if, for example, the registration form asked if they were in the Country illegally and they were told that, if they failed to answer that question, they would be arrested.  I don't understand that to be the issue here, however.

*  *  *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

Well, the point is... (1.00 / 1) (#137)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:54:13 AM EST

if they were naturalized citizens, then they would be in the country legally.

By admitting that they are not naturalized citizens, they are incriminating themselves. Now it certainly is the case that they might be found guilty anyway, because it might be proven that they are not naturalized or born in the US without using that registration.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are being illegally forced to register.



[ Parent ]
But (4.00 / 1) (#138)
by baseball on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:03:13 AM EST

I don't think that admitting you're from another country and not a naturalized US citizen is incriminating.  

You can be from another country and in this country legally even if you're not a naturalized US citizen.  I don't know much about the immigration laws, but I believe you can lawfully be in this country if you have a proper visa, if you marry an American citizen, etc.

*  *  *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, but... (1.00 / 1) (#141)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:10:34 AM EST

You can be from another country and in this country legally even if you're not a naturalized US citizen.

Only if you have a visa. Therefore it's only incriminating if you don't have a visa.



[ Parent ]
Even though it was INS' fault? (4.00 / 1) (#75)
by rantweasel on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:50:12 PM EST

I think if it's the INS' fault, they need to not arrest people.  If Bob Immigrant has fulfilled his responsibilities for renewing his visa and the INS isn't getting back to him, they shouldn't arrest him.  Nor should they deport him.  Why should he be punished for the INS' failings?  Perhaps require Bob to wear one of those parolee ankle bracelets, or check in with the local INS office in person every so often, or allow him to pay a trusted 3rd party to do the INS' work for them.  There are any number of other, better plans.  Arresting him will just encourage everyone else in his position to not contact the INS, not fulfill their end of the bargain, not trust the government, etc.  Then you have more illegals who are less willing to cooperate, and it becomes easier for terrorists to sneak in or to pose as harmless.

mathias

[ Parent ]

What a stupid system! (4.33 / 3) (#85)
by iwnbap on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 07:57:07 PM EST

I'm amazed if this is the case. Is there not a body of administrative law in the USA?  Is there not some kind of common-law doctrine of fair dealing, rights to appeal, and so on over administrative/government decisions? These people have (according to the facts presented above) clearly been denied some kind of natural justice! (You do have natural justice in the US, don't you?)

[ Parent ]
I thought "natural justice" (4.00 / 1) (#91)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 08:43:43 PM EST

was when a cougar eats a lumberjack.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

No (3.00 / 1) (#153)
by ZanThrax on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:50:25 AM EST

It's when a tree falls on a lumberjack.

If Bush can attack Iraq because they might do something to Americans someday, can I attack Bush because he might invade Canada someday? I figure I'm as entit
[ Parent ]

offtopic (1.00 / 1) (#235)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:47:08 AM EST

If Bush can attack Iraq because they might do something to Americans someday, can I attack Bush because he might invade Canada someday?

Sure, but you'll lose. I'm sure the UN won't get involved, if that's what you're asking.

I figure I'm as entitled to proactive self-defense as he is...

You're oversimplifying things.



[ Parent ]
OK. I'm tired of explaining irony to the masses (5.00 / 2) (#305)
by ZanThrax on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:01:41 PM EST

So it's time for a new sig.

This is a sig. Please assume that all statements made here are meant to be vaguely humorous and are intentionally simplifying, exaggerating, or simply misrep
[ Parent ]

Sure (3.00 / 2) (#127)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:53:45 PM EST

Is there not some kind of common-law doctrine of fair dealing, rights to appeal, and so on over administrative/government decisions?

Yeah, that would be "due process." But according to the Constitution, it only applies to US citizens.

My Fifth Amendment argument is based on something completely different. I'm saying the law requiring them to register in the first place is unconstitutional. Probably won't get any of them out of trouble, since they went and registered anyway, but it could under certain circumstances.



[ Parent ]
So the Constitution only applies to US citizens? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
by iwnbap on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:00:44 AM EST


I'm not a US citizen, my knowledge is more of the Westminster system, but I recall the amendments of the constitution being more along the lines of "Any person ..." and "No person ..." rather than "Any citizen ..." or "No citizen ...".  Or is there some act which says that non-US-citizens are not human beings?


[ Parent ]
Well... (1.00 / 1) (#234)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:37:01 AM EST

The wording of the 14th Amendment "due process" directly only applies to US-citens. As for the 5th Amendment version, that is "persons," but the courts have decided all over the place there. I think illegal aliens officially count as 3/5 of a human, or something.

Anyway, I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that's the current way the courts are ruling.



[ Parent ]
New policy (3.50 / 2) (#130)
by gbd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:24:46 AM EST

I've decided that from this point on, I am going to give a rating of 2 to anybody who cannot spell the word "amendment."

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]
zaphos (1.66 / 3) (#58)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:56:29 PM EST

care to explain your 1?

[ Parent ]
Looks like he's gunning for ya. (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:42:20 PM EST

I'm modding up your statements that were zeroed in other threads. He's entitled to his opinion on your thoughts but this behavior has the feeling of mean-spiritedness.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Don't bother. (3.66 / 3) (#68)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:43:38 PM EST

He disagrees with you. End of story.

It's like asking mideast to explain his 1 (or even 3). Not much point.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

You need it explained? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by mideast on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:18:33 PM EST

If I notice that you and your three best friends like to give me 1s, even in stories long since dumped, I'm not exactly going to be motivated to give you any 5s.

Call PETA at 757-622-PETA (7382) and tell them how much you like to eat meat!
[ Parent ]
Somehow I suspect (3.33 / 3) (#109)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:26:34 PM EST

it has more to do with the legitimate 1s that I gave him.

[ Parent ]
Normally, I wouldn't bother (1.00 / 1) (#517)
by zaphos on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 12:53:40 AM EST

But why not? Basically, your comment was totally irrelevant. Let's look:
Sounds like these people are being forced to incriminate themselves.
Now, let's look at Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sorry for the long quotataion. Anyhow, what does a bunch of guys getting arrested have to do with the fifth amendment? This is not a capital crime, it's not a court martial, but even if it was, that doesn't present a fifth amendment issue, it's not double jeopardy, and no one was compelled in a criminal case to testify against himself. No one was deprived of due process (these people were charged with INS violations), and neither was their property taken from them.

So tell me, my friend. What would you have rated your fairly lousy comment? It seems a bunch of other thought your comment deserved a 1, so why do you specifically care what I rated you and why?

Answer: I rated your comment a 1 because I thought it was completely misinformed and deserved a 1.

--
So few people seem to realize that what seems fascinating and meaningful to them is utterly meaningless and dull for the listener. -rusty
[ Parent ]

Liar (1.00 / 1) (#518)
by dipierro on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 01:02:27 PM EST

Anyhow, what does a bunch of guys getting arrested have to do with the fifth amendment?

I never said it did. The law requiring them to register "[has] to do with the fifth amendment." But since you obviously read my other posts, since you rated them all 1s, you already know that, right?

No one was deprived of due process (these people were charged with INS violations)

If indeed the government lost or unnecessarily delayed the processing of their applications, then someone was deprived of due process.

So tell me, my friend. What would you have rated your fairly lousy comment?

I wouldn't have rated it at all until I understood it, and then I would have rated it a 5.

It seems a bunch of other thought your comment deserved a 1, so why do you specifically care what I rated you and why?

Because you have rated about 30 of my comments as a 1.

Answer: I rated your comment a 1 because I thought it was completely misinformed and deserved a 1.

So what about the other 30? By the way, I think you're lying. Too bad you won't admit the truth.



[ Parent ]
Argh. (1.00 / 1) (#519)
by zaphos on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 01:32:38 PM EST

If indeed the government lost or unnecessarily delayed the processing of their applications, then someone was deprived of due process.
Ok, buddy. If you can show me where in the comment in question you made this point about due process, I'll change my rating to a 3 for "mostly misinformed" instead of "totally misinformed". But all I see in that comment is that they were "forced to incriminate themselves", which clearly only applies in a criminal proceeding, which has not happened yet for these gentlemen.
By the way, I think you're lying. Too bad you won't admit the truth.
Oh, this is cute. See why I normally don't bother replying when someone asks why I gave this or that rating to a comment? You ask why, I tell you that it's because your comment was totally off-base and misinformed, and you accuse me of lying? About what?! I just went through and gave you a thorough explanation of exactly why I thought your comment merited a 1 rating! What on earth could I not be admitting the truth about? That I really think your comment was among the "best comments evar" and merited a 5?!

I can't think of a single good thing to say about your comment so I gave it a 1. This is well within the guidelines for moderating.

--
So few people seem to realize that what seems fascinating and meaningful to them is utterly meaningless and dull for the listener. -rusty
[ Parent ]

I like how you ignored half of my comment (1.00 / 1) (#520)
by dipierro on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 01:43:38 PM EST

Ok, buddy. If you can show me where in the comment in question you made this point about due process, I'll change my rating to a 3 for "mostly misinformed" instead of "totally misinformed".

The comment in question wasn't about due process. Yours was.

But all I see in that comment is that they were "forced to incriminate themselves", which clearly only applies in a criminal proceeding, which has not happened yet for these gentlemen.

You're totally wrong that you can only be forced to incriminate yourself in a criminal proceeding.

Oh, this is cute. See why I normally don't bother replying when someone asks why I gave this or that rating to a comment?

Yeah 'cause you're going to lie anyway.

You ask why, I tell you that it's because your comment was totally off-base and misinformed, and you accuse me of lying?

My question was mostly rhetorical.

What on earth could I not be admitting the truth about?

That you rated the comment the way you did because I wrote it, not because of its merits.

I can't think of a single good thing to say about your comment so I gave it a 1. This is well within the guidelines for moderating.

I'm sure at least half of your other 30 1s weren't.



[ Parent ]
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing now? (1.00 / 2) (#521)
by zaphos on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 03:27:28 PM EST

You're totally wrong that you can only be forced to incriminate yourself in a criminal proceeding.

D, you can not be forced to incriminate yourself in a criminal proceeding. Amendment V is crystal clear on this issue. I think you're arguing in circles at this point.

Yeah 'cause you're going to lie anyway.

D, I legitimately think your comment was lousy. All of them since then have been lousy, too. That is why I have probably given you "30 1s" at this point. It's because you are arguing for the sake of arguing, when you don't seem to have any point to argue.

you rated the comment the way you did because I wrote it, not because of its merits.

I think at this point I've been clear about why I feel your comment deserved a 1 and about why I've given all these other comments since then a rating of 1 as well. I'm not sure why you have been giving my explanation 1s, but while I mean this in the nicest possible way, I have to admit that I don't particularly care what someone like you thinks of my comments. There is no point in my further discussing this matter. Go have some egg nog and enjoy what's left of the day.

--
So few people seem to realize that what seems fascinating and meaningful to them is utterly meaningless and dull for the listener. -rusty
[ Parent ]

Whatever (1.00 / 1) (#522)
by dipierro on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 03:57:37 PM EST

D, you can not be forced to incriminate yourself in a criminal proceeding. Amendment V is crystal clear on this issue. I think you're arguing in circles at this point.

Now you're being intentionally obtuse.



[ Parent ]
Heheh (1.33 / 3) (#523)
by zaphos on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 05:55:18 PM EST

Someone looking at it from the other side might argue that you have long since been typing without thinking first. I'm starting to think my instincts were correct in not offering an explanation for my rating.

--
So few people seem to realize that what seems fascinating and meaningful to them is utterly meaningless and dull for the listener. -rusty
[ Parent ]

Bail jumper "compelled" to incriminate s (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by gibichung on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 08:40:46 PM EST

by being forced to show up at trial. Utter nonsense. Do you plan to support your argument in any way? Or will you next extend your it to forbid the court from issuing a summons?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
want some support? (3.00 / 2) (#114)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:46:05 PM EST

read Haynes v. US. Showing up for a trial isn't self-incrimination. Admitting that you are illegally in the country is.

[ Parent ]
No. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by gibichung on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:21:46 PM EST

You have a right against being forced to testify in a manner that will incriminate you, but you do have any right to be protected from statements which are made voluntarily.

Usually, a judge can order a person to answer any question relevant to the proceedings; if a person refuses to answer, they can be held in contempt of court unless the answer would incriminate them, in which case they can decline to answer. If they admit their guilt, they are not instantly granted immunity because of protection from self-incrimination. This is common sense.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Did you read the link? (3.00 / 2) (#122)
by dipierro on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:31:18 PM EST

Your post sure doesn't reflect it. Let me post the meat of it:

A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851. Pp. 95-100.

In other words, it's unconstitutional to require a felon to register a handgun, because that felon is not allowed to possess that handgun.

Do I need to point out the analogy?

It's unconstitutional to require someone illegally in the country to register their presence in the country, because that person is not allowed to be in the country.



[ Parent ]
Did you understand it? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by gibichung on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:27:44 AM EST

It's unconstitutional to require someone illegally in the country to register their presence in the country, because that person is not allowed to be in the country.
First, it is debatable if illegal aliens have any protection at all from the Fifth Amendment. Second, it would be irrelevant because, while being in the country is a crime, it is rarely prosecuted; instead, the aliens are deported without trial. No criminal trial means different standards of evidence that means no exclusionary rule and no "fruit of the 'poisoned' tree". If the alien is acquitted, they could still be deported.

Third, if the Haynes precedent was somehow applied to this case, it would be for those who did not show up, rather than those who did; if Haynes had brought in his gun and turned himself in, he would not have been charged with violating the law in the first place.

In other words, it's unconstitutional to require a felon to register a handgun, because that felon is not allowed to possess that handgun.
Finally, it is not "unconstitutional" to require the felon to register the handgun, only to prosecute him under specific circumstances. It was intended to make it impossible to convict a person of a felony and turn around and convict them on the registration charge for not turning themselves in during the time between the commission of the felony and the conviction. Thus, unless you plan to argue that you are a felon, you could not beat a registration charge unless you'd already been convicted of the felony.

Clear enough?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

And of course, (none / 0) (#133)
by gibichung on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:34:31 AM EST

Thus, unless you plan to argue that you are a felon, you could not beat a registration charge unless you'd already been convicted of the felony.
Such statements could be used to convict you of the felony if you hadn't been already.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Yes (1.00 / 1) (#143)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:46:28 AM EST

First, it is debatable if illegal aliens have any protection at all from the Fifth Amendment.

Agreed. My argument presumes that they do.

Second, it would be irrelevant because, while being in the country is a crime, it is rarely prosecuted; instead, the aliens are deported without trial.

Where is the exception to the 5th Amendment for crimes that are rarely prosecuted?

No criminal trial means different standards of evidence that means no exclusionary rule and no "fruit of the 'poisoned' tree".

You're a dick, first of all, for continuing to point out my typo.

Further, we're not talking here about a deportation trial. Let's look at my statement: "Sounds like these people are being forced to incriminate themselves." The registration requirement is a violation of the 5th Amendment. That is my point.

Third, if the Haynes precedent was somehow applied to this case, it would be for those who did not show up, rather than those who did

Agreed.

Finally, it is not "unconstitutional" to require the felon to register the handgun, only to prosecute him under specific circumstances.

Wrong. It's unconstitutional to require someone convicted of a felony to register a handgun.

It was intended to make it impossible to convict a person of a felony and turn around and convict them on the registration charge for not turning themselves in during the time between the commission of the felony and the conviction.

Huh? Where do you get that from? It's not illegal to own a handgun during the time between the commission of a felony and the conviction.

Thus, unless you plan to argue that you are a felon, you could not beat a registration charge unless you'd already been convicted of the felony.

Even if that's true, I don't see how it's relevant.



[ Parent ]
Two apologies (4.00 / 1) (#212)
by gibichung on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:23:44 AM EST

You're a dick, first of all, for continuing to point out my typo.
Indeed. But you aren't the first (or second) peson on K5 to make the same mistake, and it is annoying. I'm sorry.
Huh? Where do you get that from?
Right. I apparently juxtaposed a short comment on the precedent with an illustration of an entirely seperate point and the result isn't pretty. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

But, regardless, your analogy is flawed. You claim that the alien registration requirement is illegal because some aliens cannot attend without incriminating themselves.

But the Supreme Court did not rule gun registration illegal; it only forbids prosecution for failure to register for felons who would be incriminated if they did so. The prosecution for possession of the weapon itself was never brought into question; Haynes did not get off on that charge.

The exclusionary rule never enters the picture in this case or in that case -- and even if it somehow did, it only applies to criminal trials anyway, not deportation hearings. So just what are you trying to argue?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

NP (1.00 / 1) (#233)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:33:43 AM EST

But the Supreme Court did not rule gun registration illegal; it only forbids prosecution for failure to register for felons who would be incriminated if they did so.

I was under the impression that since the statute could not be narrowly constructed to only apply to non-felons the entire law what deemed unconstitutional. Thus a few months after the ruling congress rewrote the law entirely. Remember, we don't let judges rewrite the laws, we only let them interpret them or strike them down.

The prosecution for possession of the weapon itself was never brought into question; Haynes did not get off on that charge.

I thought that charge was dropped at the very beginning of the case. Where did you read that he didn't get off on it?

The exclusionary rule never enters the picture in this case or in that case -- and even if it somehow did, it only applies to criminal trials anyway, not deportation hearings. So just what are you trying to argue?

Two things. First of all that the registration law is unconstitutional.

Secondly, in a different thread, I take issue with someone who said "sorry, they were breaking the law." The article simply doesn't provide enough legally obtained evidence to prove that. It very well might be true, but in the US it's not enough that you are breaking the law, you have to be found guilty of breaking it in a court of law.

Of course, as you have correctly pointed out, different rules apply to non-citizens, and different rules apply to deportation hearings. But all of this was in a different thread anyway. The point of my original statement was simply that I believe the registration law to be unconstitutional. You'd have to be an illegal alien in order to have standing to have it struck down, but once reviewed I believe the law would have to be completely struck down, I don't see how it can be interpreted to not apply in certain cases.



[ Parent ]
Not stuck down (5.00 / 1) (#247)
by gibichung on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:54:54 PM EST

The Supreme Court did not strike down the law, only:
we are required to resolve only the narrow issue of whether enforcement of sec. 5851 against petitioner, despite his assertion of the privilege against self- incrimination, is constitutionally permissible.
Also,
I thought that charge was dropped at the very beginning of the case. Where did you read that he didn't get off on it?
Failure to register is a separate charge from possession of a firearm by a felon. The SC was only concerned with the former.
The article simply doesn't provide enough legally obtained evidence to prove that. It very well might be true, but in the US it's not enough that you are breaking the law, you have to be found guilty of breaking it in a court of law.
While that may be strictly true, there is a difference between legal and casual definitions of "criminal"; and of course illegally-seized evidence may be used outside of a criminal trial, or to impeach perjurous testimony, etc.

But to stay focused, there is a completely different standard of proof when considering if a law has been broken as opposed to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" of getting a criminal conviction. And there are "statutory" laws which require a lower burden of proof, etc. Suffice to say that there are many cases where it can be safely stated that someone has broken a law even if they are never convicted of any crime.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

OK (1.00 / 1) (#254)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:36:05 PM EST

Failure to register is a separate charge from possession of a firearm by a felon. The SC was only concerned with the former.

Yes but I was under the impression that the US already had dropped the possession of a firearm by a felon charge.

Suffice to say that there are many cases where it can be safely stated that someone has broken a law even if they are never convicted of any crime.

Sure, OJ Simpson killed Nicole Simpson would be one example, but I figured the person was making more a statement about whether it's legitimate for us to punish this person rather than whether it's likely that they did it. And well, I think it's illegitmate, but possibly legal. Besides the 5th Amendment argument there's a due process one if indeed the applications were not processed in the required amount of time. But I don't actually know how far the 5th Amendment extends to non-citizens in the first place.



[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to say that.... (4.60 / 15) (#46)
by artsygeek on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:29:03 PM EST

More of this is to come.  Each day, I feel that yet another shoe is about to drop...and it scares the Hell out of me...and depresses me.  Friends and family are worried sick about the next terrorist attack...and all I can do is quote Mencken to them "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." and Benjamin Franklin "Those who trade liberty for a little safety deserve NEITHER"

sensationalized (2.82 / 28) (#47)
by mideast on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:31:46 PM EST

Valeko, you or your friends are perfectly free to call me a right-wing troll for saying this, but not even you would loose sleep if a murderer got arrested at the DMV while trying to renew her license. I don't see why it should be any different for these people. Making an effort to comply with one law does not give you a get out of jail free card for all the others you may be violating.

As for your implication that these volitions are either trumped up or fabricated, you'd deny the sky is blue if it contradicted something the US government said, and you'd be willing to belive everything you come across that would help you make such a claim. I'm waiting for evidence better than statements from anonymous Iranian activists and unnamed young men.

Call PETA at 757-622-PETA (7382) and tell them how much you like to eat meat!

trumped up or fabricated (4.75 / 8) (#49)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:34:28 PM EST

I want to see the INS release a specific list of what everyone was charged for. Given that it was a mass arrest, I am inclined to believe they were fabricated charges.

But that isn't really the point. Arresting people when they follow the regulations and register with the authorities, as we are requiring them to do, simply causes other people to not register out of fear of being arrested. If the point to the registration requirement is to make it easier to keep track of peple, arresting people at the point of registration is just fucked-up stupid, because it undermines the goal of the program.

[ Parent ]

No surprise here. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by KilljoyAZ on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:45:29 PM EST

If the point to the registration requirement is to make it easier to keep track of peple, arresting people at the point of registration is just fucked-up stupid, because it undermines the goal of the program.

John Ashcroft has been accused of a lot of things, but being a genius isn't one of them. Is it 2004 yet?

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]

Dumbass. (1.76 / 13) (#56)
by felixrayman on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 05:44:51 PM EST

You are a right wing troll, and, judging from your sig, you are also a pathetic asshole.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Flawed analogy. (4.00 / 6) (#63)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:37:21 PM EST

not even you would loose sleep if a murderer got arrested at the DMV while trying to renew her license. I don't see why it should be any different for these people

I don't think I'd lose sleep if a terrorist1 got caught registering for the National Security Entry-Exit System either. But these people are not terrorists.

As for your implication that these volitions are either trumped up or fabricated, you'd deny the sky is blue if it contradicted something the US government said

No, I wouldn't. I don't know where you're getting that particular straw man.

I'm waiting for evidence better than statements from anonymous Iranian activists and unnamed young men.

I wouldn't hold your breath. If I was Iranian, I'd be afraid to identify myself and go any more prominent with my story than the ones quoted.

1 I mean a real terrorist. Like, in actually-existing reality.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Have you tried renewing a visa with the INS? (4.85 / 7) (#76)
by rantweasel on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 06:55:23 PM EST

The INS is falling down on the job.  That's not just hype, or myth, it's fact.  Take, for example, a tale of harmless Canadians.  Had they been in a similar situation (forced to register) before the INS eventually renewed their visas, they would have been arrested too.  Because the INS wasn't doing it's job.  And I'm talking about people who were calling every week, asking when they'd get their visa renewals back, really pushing to be legal.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Unnamed young men (4.40 / 5) (#125)
by YelM3 on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:51:39 PM EST

Seems to me there is hardly a quote in the "news" these days that doesn't come from either an unnamed citizen or an anonymous government official. How do these news companies remain credible? Are there checks and balances to claims made in the newspaper, when a whole article is based on an anonymous source?

Since Sept. 11 I don't believe anything I read in the news anyway, but I always wondered how they justify this practice to themselves.

[ Parent ]

Why the registering? (4.07 / 13) (#78)
by Eater on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 07:02:45 PM EST

I can't understand why the US government instituted the whole registering thing in the first place - for one thing, any terrorist will obviously not register. Also, how exactly will being registered prevent someone from blowing something up? And, last but not least, why do Saudi Arabians not have to register, while North Koreans do? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the whole effort?
This obviously shows that this is NOT an attempt to prevent terrorism, but then what the hell is this? It sure as hell is not a PR stunt, as not that many people even know about it, so why are they doing this?

Eater.

What makes you think (1.00 / 4) (#115)
by cyberbuffalo on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:49:20 PM EST

What makes you think that no terrorist will register? People are dumb, criminals in particular. I'd bet a great deal of terrorists would register.

[ Parent ]
What makes you think... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
by valeko on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:30:15 PM EST

That it matters whether any terrorist will register or not? What makes you think that being registered somewhere (they already are, anyway) stops terrorists from .. er, terrorising?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Suspicious people (4.80 / 5) (#158)
by rankor on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:22:44 AM EST

My father used to tell me how the Cincinnati police would randomly set up police roadblocks on holidays to thwart drunk driving and such.  Apparantly, a tactic often utilised was that a sign would be put up that read something like "Police sobriety checkpoint, 1/2 mile ahead" or other such warning.  Hidden a short distance away from the sign would be a police cruiser.  When a (presumably)drunk person would see the sign, their first reaction was to generally turn around shortly after reading it.  At that point the logic followed for the police, that the person who just turned around had a reason to avoid the checkpoint.  On went the siren and lights, the person was pulled over and run through the stupid human tricks.  Now I'm not too sure of the validity of his story, my father liked to tell some tales at times as anecdotes for some point he was trying to get across but that doesn't really matter.  The point is, the people coming in to be questioned, fingerprinted, interrogated, or beaten with a rubber hose really aren't the ones the feds are looking for.  They are watching the ones who _dont_ show up; the ones who turn around at the roadblock sign.  

Now you may think, "Well then all the terrorists have to do is just show up and they wont be under suspicion", which is all fine and dandy except for two things:

1) Articles like this one above get out into the media, word gets around, anyone would get spooked about 'mass arrests'.  It deters 'fringe' elements away (which probably still comprise of 90% law-abiding people) and just turns the heat up just a little bit.  People make mistakes, they always do.  Something is going to give which leads into #2.

2) The 'terrorist' threat, really for the most part is confined to a particular minority ethnic group.  Generally, minority groups are tighter nit, their social networks tend to be a bit more complex and extensive - after all they are 'sticking together' in a strange land.  It can be hard to penetrate such a group initially, but once you do information should flow pretty freely and quickly.  That penetration comes from the guy who gets spooked by #1 and makes himself noticed.  So this guy makes himself a target by your 3-letter agency of choice, his intimate life details get ripped apart, and one by one the pieces fall into place for one lucky investigator who just landed his next promotion.

A classic book on all of this, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer goes into some pretty good detail about the advantages and disadvantages of mass movements within ethnic groups.  I'm not really sure if The Terrorist Threat(tm) is really big enough to be considered a mass movement but when your parking airliners in skyscrapers it doesn't take long for your voice to be heard.

[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#338)
by greenrd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:12:45 PM EST

It deters 'fringe' elements away (which probably still comprise of 90% law-abiding people) and just turns the heat up just a little bit...

... It can be hard to penetrate such a group initially, but once you do information should flow pretty freely and quickly. That penetration comes from the guy who gets spooked by #1 and makes himself noticed. So this guy makes himself a target by your 3-letter agency of choice, his intimate life details get ripped apart,

I am the only one who sees the problem with this? Your constitutional amendment on search and seizure is not just fancy window-dressing.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

oh dont get me wrong (none / 0) (#351)
by rankor on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:43:04 AM EST

I don't like it.  Technically its not illegal since this only applies to immigrants who are not naturalized citizens.  Immigrants don't enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens.  That doesn't make me feel any better though.

[ Parent ]
when you have the largest prison system... (3.93 / 16) (#79)
by Shren on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 07:23:01 PM EST

When you have more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world, you don't need concentration camps and gas chambers. You just dump 'em in the federal jail system and hope the existing prison population kills them fast enough for you to fit the next batch in.

I wonder what the death rate for muslim males is in the prison population right now?

If Oz is any indication (4.50 / 4) (#209)
by William Surgeon Perth on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:57:07 AM EST

Muslims do pretty well in prison. They are an organized faction and defend each other.

[ Parent ]
It's a conspiracy! (3.70 / 17) (#87)
by AtADeadRun on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 08:17:53 PM EST

In order for this to be implemented in the way you seem to suggest, that is, that the evil masters of the INS intentionally withheld these men's visas/greencards or trumped up charges simply to detain and then deport them, I'm going to make the somewhat educated guess that it would require several hundred people to pull off, at least fifty or so of whom would have to know most or all of the details of their compartment's piece and at least ten who know the whole story.

Happen to know what the rule of thumb is for the ratio of people who have knowledge of a secret operation -- which a conspiracy is, by definition -- to the likelihood that that knowledge will leak? I do, largely because, as a jackbooted implement of state thuggery (read: active duty military member), I hold a security clearance and we receive training on such things. The likelihood of a leak is approximately the square of the people who know about the operation.

Even if my somewhat educated guesses are wildly inaccurate, there are far more than enough people to ensure at least part, and almost certainly all, of any such repressive and expulsive operation would become known. Wait a couple weeks.

In my estimation, having known a number of graduates and trainees, all earnest, dedicated, men and women looking to serve their country faithfully, in the U.S. Border Patrol Academy -- the source of the INS's jackbooted implements of state thuggery -- the likelihood of the aforementioned conspiracy actually being real is somewhere south of likelihood of the existence of Bigfoot.

If it is real, the perpetrators will (and should) enjoy a nice, long stay in Marion, Illinois, home of the best prison in the federal penitentiary system. I'd be just as happy to guard any border guards abusing their authority myself in our little brig.

I'm voting this up simply because I think it should be discussed rationally, despite disagreeing utterly with the entire tone. Incidentally, though it shouldn't need to be said, my views are my own and do not reflect those of DoD.



-------
Pain heals. Glory is forever. Keep running.

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Well wait... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
by jabber on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:09:22 PM EST

This is just an administrative screw up, I certainly hope so at least. But...

In the late 1930's and early 1940's, few people did anything inhuman or inhumane. They just did their jobs, with the cold and brutal inefficiency we're all quite accustomed to. Very few people actually pulled the trigger, turned on the gas, or whatever, and those who did were just following orders. Those who gave the orders didn't actually commit the act, they only told others to do so, often not in explicit terms. Others still only removed bodies into large pits, since, well, you can't just leave a body laying around like that. Most of the people did nothing at all. They in no way helped, not at all. Most just went about their lives as if nothing was happening, and that's the true tragedy of the Holocaust.

Now, this is certainly nowhere near genocide, but how far is it from the internment of the Japanese and the Germans during WWII. Sure, it's not like people who look Middle Eastern are being rounded up on the street, and shipped away. Yet.

Maybe the only thing that would prevent that, is vocal outrage now. After all, if rounding up the people who fit the profile and are in violation of regulations doesn't help, if there is another attack, then the logical thing to do would be to impose even stricter controls.

Maybe in a few months, we'll see all immigrants of Middle Eastern origin put on some sort of "anti-terrorist probation". So they would have to check in with a local law enforcement facility to account for their whereabouts. Maybe the more suspect among them can be placed under temporary, but indefinite "restricted observation" aka "house arrest".

Where's your line drawn? What if it were you?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Japanese were Interred but not Germans during WWII (5.00 / 2) (#105)
by HidingMyName on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:00:58 PM EST

People from Germany and of German descent were not interred during World War II, however many American born Japanese were interred. Many of the Germans (and many in the U.S. were not Nazi affiliated) had a very difficult time during the war, however, due to popular sentiment.

[ Parent ]
The only reason (5.00 / 2) (#151)
by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:35:01 AM EST

Americans of german origin were not locked up is because they pretty much look like most any other caucasian American. It's a hell of a lot easier to hate someone who is 'obviously different', such as someone of Japanese parentage. In fact many other people of various asian extractions were badly treated during WWII and after simply because most Americans can't tell the difference between them.

 

Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
[ Parent ]
The real only reason (4.00 / 1) (#191)
by Merk00 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:09:06 AM EST

The fact that those of German desent look like everybody else has very little to do with the fact that the German-Americans weren't interned. The real reason is there were too many of them. Those of German descent made up almost a third of the US population at that time. There's no possible way to lock up that many people.

As to the Japanese, there were no internments from those on Hawaii. Why? Because there were too many Japanese on Hawaii. After awhile it came down to simple numbers and feasibility.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Many of German Descent Were Original Settlers (none / 0) (#263)
by HidingMyName on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:10:47 PM EST

You are right about large numbers, but it is also heritage and assimilation into communities. To round up the people of German heritage, one would have to arrest a large (perhaps the majority) of people in many Pennsylvania towns. The Pennsylvania Dutch are really of German descent (Dutch is a corruption of Deutsch). Some of these folks own HUGE tracts of land from the original land grants. In contrast many of the Japanese settlers were more recent. So when you have such a long separation between original colonization and a war, the idea of putting people whose families had been in the U.S. for over 150 years in camps would have been a really bad idea.

[ Parent ]
The numbers are very different... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by flarg on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:17:12 AM EST

Now, this is certainly nowhere near genocide, but how far is it from the internment of the Japanese and the Germans during WWII.

The numbers are very different.

During WWII, nearly all of the Japanese were rounded up. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese in California, few of whom violated any laws.

With this story, we're talking very different numbers. There are close to a million Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Libyan and Sudanese immigrants in California. Several hundred were arrested for violating known laws. I'm willing to bet that a majority were arrested for violating immigration rules.

I'm not saying that these recent arrests are justified, but you can't compare it to the Japanese Internment program. Doing so dishonors the memory of the Japanese prisoners.

[ Parent ]

About that rule of thumb... (none / 0) (#103)
by Martin Bishop on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 09:43:38 PM EST

First, the square of the number of people who know about the operation would always be greater than 1 (unless no one knows about it, which wouldn't be very interesting), so I'm guessing that the likelihood is in percent rather than a probability. Right?

Second, do you have a reference on that quote, something in the open (as opposed to classified) literature. I'm not questioning the validity of your claim, I'd just be very interested to see the whole context.



[ Parent ]
Not what I thought. (none / 0) (#123)
by gauntlet on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:33:48 PM EST

I read it and thought, "He must mean that the likelihood is proportional to the square of the number of people that know about it."

So if the likelihood of a leak with 1 person is 5%, the likelihood of a leak with 2 would be 20%, and the likelihood of a leak with 3 would be 45%, 4 would give 80%, and with 5 or more people you're virtually guaranteed a leak.

Of course, in order for that to be useful, you'd have to find some value for the likelihood of a leak with a single person, and that assumes that the rule of thumb is anywhere near accurate.

If the percentage for 1 person is 1%, you need 10 people to guarantee a leak. If the percentage for one person is .5%, you need 15 people to guarantee a leak. If the percentage for one person is 0.25%, you need 20 people to guarantee a leak.

Seeing as how there were 19 hijackers and at least Osama knew about it, I'm betting that either the likelihood of a leak with 1 person is below 0.1%, or the rule isn't particularly useful.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

If I had to hazard a guess, (none / 0) (#128)
by Martin Bishop on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:13:22 AM EST

I'd say it must be a factorial function. With n persons aware of the terrible, EEEEEVIL secret, the likelihood would be proportional to n! to a constant. Something to do with the possible number of co-conspirators in a group... but then again it's just a hunch!

Anyhow, I'd place limited trust in a function that results in a guaranteed leak after a certain threshold number of persons. It just doesn't work like that : there should (and if fact, must) always be a non-zero probability that the secret will never get out. E.g. the secret to the Greek fire, for instance.

Incidently, 5% to the power 2 would be (5 / 100)2 = 25 / 10000 < 1%. Not trying to be pedantic or anything, and I understood exactly what you meant, but technically, it would then be a squared root function, i.e. (5 / 100)1/2 = 22%.



[ Parent ]
For clarity's sake.... (none / 0) (#181)
by AtADeadRun on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:59:27 AM EST

Sorry about the lack of understanding; the rough rule of thumb is that the percentage chance of a leak is approximately the square of the number of people who are aware of the secret, i.e., if two people know, the chance is four percent, and if five people know, the chance is twenty-five percent. After you have more than ten people in your compartment, some leak, although not necessarily a complete disclosure, is almost certain.

Unfortunately, the only reference to this particular rule of thumb in the open literature that I can think of at the moment is the fact that Tom Clancy states it in several of his books, and I'm certainly not going to try and tell you that Clancy is sufficiently reliable to take as gospel without having some more factual references to back it up. Sorry.



-------
Pain heals. Glory is forever. Keep running.

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
[ Parent ]
Greek fire? Let's refine the analogy. (none / 0) (#317)
by phybre187 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:22:26 PM EST

Greek fire has not so much been kept a secret as it has simply beeen forgotten over multiple thousand of years. There's a big difference.

If everything known in today's world is completely lost by some catastrophe (similiar to, say, the burning of the library of Alexandria), is that to say that it's the biggest secret kept in history? I think not.

You also forget to mention that most Greek soldiers would have been illiterate, that the Greeks didn't have investigative journalism (utopia, right there), that their enemies characteristically didn't speak the same language, and that the average Greek merchant or philosopher or farmer wouldn't have given a green shit what the recipe for Greek fire was, whereas today everyone itches to find out about things that are probably none of their business. They could have shouted the recipe for Greek fire from the mountaintops and still not have successfully perpetrated a leak. Such a thing today, while not expressly impossible, is about as likely to work as the sun is to spontaneously stop burning right now. Not to mention that something like leak probability is only useful if you make prudent assumptions, so in that sense there is definately a guaranteed leak after x people are brought in.

AtADeadRun never claimed that the stated 'rule of thumb' has been constant throughout history, either. Of course it wouldn't be.

[ Parent ]
The INS didn't need a conspiracy (4.50 / 6) (#146)
by rantweasel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:03:59 AM EST

Remember, never attribute to evil what can be attributed to [incompetence|stupidity].  The INS is behind on visa renewals on the order or 6 months or so.  There's no conspiracy, they're just arresting people because they can't keep up with their own paperwork requirements.  The jackbooted thug-ness comes more from that that anything else.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Is it even legal to arrest them (4.20 / 10) (#108)
by jester69 on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 10:19:20 PM EST

Well, not that it matters to the government anymore wether anything or not they do is legal..

I seem to recall a well accepted precedent that if the government requires you to do something which is impossible, they cannot arrest you for failing to do so.

Basically, this situation is, as I see it.

many of these people were faced with expiring visas/green cards.

They submitted all their paperwork to the INS by the deadline and have never heard back.

Now, they are being arrested for not having these papers, however in the case I am describing the lack of the papers is the governments fault.

That is wrong, and I am embarrased to live in a country that does that to people.

However, if someone is truly here illegaly and has made no effort to comply with immigration laws, they probably should be deported, but doing it like this is just plain wrong.

take care,

Jester
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.

How do you know (5.00 / 5) (#126)
by baseball on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:53:12 PM EST

that "many of these people were faced with expiring visas/green cards. They submitted all their paperwork to the INS by the deadline and have never heard back. Now, they are being arrested for not having these papers."

I don't know what the facts are as to the people arrested, and I suspect you don't either.  The Gov't might be acting improperly, in which case it will come out in the ACLU suit.  On the other hand, the people arrested might in fact have violated the law.  That will be hashed out in the courts, but I think it is too early, and the available information too incomplete, to draw conclusions about whether the Govt is acting properly or improperly.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

I do not know, you are right (none / 0) (#216)
by jester69 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:49:11 AM EST

But the INS is now part of the "homeland security agency."

So far, the Bush administration hasn't impressed me with his fairness and even handedness towards civil rights.

So, you are right, on the one hand I am assuming the worst. However I also said if they were truly here illegally they got what they deserved and should be deported.

I guess my problem is with the way they are doing all of this, but oh well, you are right, time will tell if this is good or bad, it just reminds me of how we treated the Japanese in WWII.

take care,

Jester
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.
[ Parent ]

Not impossible at all (3.00 / 1) (#176)
by BCoates on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:56:12 AM EST

Even if the INS botched their paperwork, which is hopefully (but not necessarily, ianal) a defense, there's no impossibility at all here.

If their visa expired, and they don't get it renewed, they have to leave. It sucks, but the unquestioned right to stay in the country comes with citizenship; the people in question are nationals of another country.

Also note the information the INS provides:

If you are a male born on or before November 15, 1986, and

If you were inspected by the INS and last admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant on or before September 10, 2002,

If you did not apply for asylum on or before November 6, 2002, and

If you will be in the U.S. at least until December 16, 2002.

So immigrants, asylum seekers, and people who chose to leave before the deadline don't have to register.

Presumably that just leaves people who will be in the country on a temporary basis, checking that they are actually leaving when they are required to doesn't sound terribly unreasonable to me.

--
Benjamin Coates

[ Parent ]

We are becoming more like Israel everyday! (3.75 / 24) (#117)
by crunchycookies on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:14:16 PM EST

Assassinations of people that we "just know" are terrorists using rockets fired from the sky.

Torturing suspects. You do know why those suspects are questioned overseas don't you.

Rounding up hundreds of people because they might have done something or may do something in the future.

People held in prison for indeterminate periods without being charged with any crime or being declared a prisoner of war.

Racial profiling.

What happened to our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Everyday we are becoming more and more like Israel. Israel has already chosen its fate. Are we choosing the same fate?



bill of rights... (2.07 / 13) (#134)
by pheta on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:40:50 AM EST

The bill of rights only applies to United States citizens. Hate to put it so bluntly, but these people are not US citizens.

[ Parent ]
Wrong, according to the Library of Congress (5.00 / 8) (#154)
by sacrelicious on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:56:04 AM EST

The bill of rights only applies to United States citizens. Hate to put it so bluntly, but these people are not US citizens.

Dead wrong.

Check out the text yourself. Where does it say citizen?
http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

Here's some debate, but the case is clear:

Under our Constitution, certain rights are afforded only to "citizens." But in the area of civil liberties, which generally refer to those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution does not make distinctions based upon citizenship status, but guarantees certain basic rights to all "persons."
-from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october01/civil2.html

[ Parent ]

Cvil Rights (none / 0) (#190)
by Merk00 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:04:55 AM EST

Well, the text relevant to what we're talking about would be the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While it does use the term "person," from the first sentence it seems fairly clear that it refers to only US Citizens.

Under Common Law, however, more rights have been granted to non-citizens. In general, non-citizens have the same rights as US citizens. These rights are not nearly as sacrosanct as that of US citizens. The Courts have looked much more kindly at the removal of rights of non-citizens particularly during wartime rather than citizens.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Fifth amendment (5.00 / 1) (#231)
by FlipFlop on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:27:27 AM EST

The fourteenth amendment placed restrictions on the powers of state governments. The arrests were made by the federal government. So the fifth amendment due process clause also applies:

No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AdTI - The think tank that didn't
[ Parent ]

Nice straw man argument... (1.00 / 1) (#196)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:51:54 AM EST

Post some government documentation that neither agrees or disagrees with your statement, and then "prove" your statement with a post from a TV show internet forum.

Their civil rights weren't violated.  Arresting and holding people in jail pending trial of charges isn't a violation of civil rights.  And being in the country illegally, without a green card, is just cause to hold.  Regardless of lost paperwork or not.  It's well known court law that ultimate responsibility of being in compliance with the law rests with the individual.

Now, does this suck as an action overall?  Oh yeah.  But I suspect there's something else going on that we're not being told...


[ Parent ]

Responsibilty (none / 0) (#302)
by Koutetsu on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:56:15 PM EST

It's well known court law that ultimate responsibility of being in compliance with the law rests with the individual.

Does the responsibility for the mistakes of incompetent beauracracy fall on the individual, as well?

If you think there's some thing we're not being told, don't just leave us with an ellipses.  Speculate, or go find out what it is.

m(y) d.n.e. Me in terms of You does not exist.
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0) (#447)
by Skywise on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:15:14 AM EST

The mistakes of an incompetent bureaucracy fall on the individual as well.  Regardless of whether or not you filed the paperwork 5 years ago and still haven't received your hunting license, if you go out and bag a deer... you can still be arrested for hunting without a license.

If you don't get your drivers license renewed because the lines at the license branch are horrendously and incredibly LONG and you don't have time.. you'll be the one arrested for driving on an expired license.

If your time to leave the US is in 2 weeks, that's a bad time to start wondering where that green card is.

The ellipses are there for a *reason*.  Speculation is worthless, and I don't have proof otherwise.  But you don't launch a massive sting operation like this without somebody pulling strings.  This was planned, in advance, to capture as many outstanding "muslims" as possible to get them off the street. So here's your speculation:  String pulling occurs for two reasons, power tripping and necessity.  Power tripping would be some LA FBI director going after the muslims for payback.  That's possible, but I think unlikely.  More possible, but still unlikely is that they were pulled as the japanese were with the internment camps.  But if so... why just in select cities which also just happen to be terrorist targets?  I think you're looking at necessity.  I think somebody there has intel on a terrorist group there and is drag-netting to get information on who it might be.  The spectre of deportation is... incentive.

[ Parent ]

Person equals US Citizen? (none / 0) (#201)
by iwnbap on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:22:21 AM EST


I don't know if you've read your Constitution recently, but having just looked it up I discover that mostly it talks about a "person" rather than a "citizen".  Or perhaps non-US citizens are not truly people?


[ Parent ]
Bill of Rights (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by kvan on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:34:55 AM EST

Oh, you didn't hear?

"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
Not enough pruning (none / 0) (#314)
by phybre187 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:57:45 PM EST

If the goal there is to only keep the amendments in the BoR that haven't routinely been violated, we'd be down to two: the second and third. The second because it's completely obsolete, and the third because there's no good reason to violate it. All the rest are constantly disregarded by the federal government. The 10th was the first to die.

[ Parent ]
What a fascinating statement... (3.00 / 8) (#200)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:20:05 AM EST

Anti-semitism around the world is up.

The United States spends DECADES trying to establish peace between the middle-east and Israel.  Meanwhile, the UN (the body that established Israel) looks the other way while Israel is constantly attacked by the middle-east, wins, takes land, and then is forced by the UN to GIVE THE LAND BACK in the interest of "peace".

Finally Clinton and Barak come up with a completely lopsided plan for peace with the palestinians that includes Israel pulling out from almost all the settlements, and turning over Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and kills Barak politically from ever holding office again... and Arafat turns it down because it's not enough.

And, of course, everytime the peace process breaks down, suicide bombings increase to continue the "Noble" fight against Israel.

Then the US, which supported the Muslims in the war against Milosevic, is attacked by radical Muslims because... well because the radical Muslims "hate us".  (Although one year later "now" it's because we support Israel)

But through all of this, Israel is the "bad guy", and now the US is the "bad guy" because we're like Israel... trying to defend against suicide bombings because the "other side" doesn't like us and are "duty bound" to kill us by their religious beliefs thereby avoiding any peace concessions we could come up with?

How can the US or Israel use rational methods against an irrational movement?

Did you compare us to Israel when Clinton mowed down the Branch Davidian complex or was that "justified"?

Have we killed these immigrants? No.  Are we giving them access to lawyers?  Yes.  Are we stopping their message and plight being heard?  No.  Are we putting them up in 5 star hotels?  No.   They're in prison.  (And are probably being treated like any other prisoner is being treated today, but only NOW are we hearing about how bad the prison system has become)

Consider this, next to New York City, Los Angeles is probably the most recognized city of the US.  The terrorists have gone out of their way to say they'll attack the US again in a far greater way than the WTC.  Think maybe there's a coorelation, and we're breaking a few eggs to bake a cake?

But ultimately, I find it amusing that you think that Israel is the "bad guy" and now the US is doing "bad guy" things, but only now has "degenerated" to the "bad guyness" level of Israel.

[ Parent ]

Anti-Semitism? (4.00 / 3) (#211)
by PrettyBoyTim on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:06:26 AM EST

I don't remember the parent poster mentioning Jews?

[ Parent ]
He mentiond Israel. (3.00 / 1) (#251)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:16:19 PM EST

Israel, last I checked, is the ONLY jewish state.

[ Parent ]
How does one mandate the other? (none / 0) (#364)
by ZanThrax on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:50:51 AM EST

Just because someone thinks that Israel does some pretty horrific and immoral things does not make that person an anti-semite.

This is a sig. Please assume that all statements made here are meant to be vaguely humorous and are intentionally simplifying, exaggerating, or simply misrep
[ Parent ]

Don't use Anti-semitism to cover for opression (3.00 / 2) (#257)
by crunchycookies on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:52:51 PM EST

Israel is brutally opressing the Palestinians. They are resisting opression and fighting to overthrow this brutal racist government. That is their basic human right. Their struggle is no different than other struggles against opression that have occured around the world. Their means of struggle are no different than most others. What is different is that their fight is against a brutal enemy that is supported with essencially unlimited resources of money and arms. They are fighting an army, IDF, that is unrestrained by any moral consideration. The Palestinian struggle one of heroism and self sacrifice. We should admire them.

[ Parent ]
Get a clue... (3.66 / 3) (#269)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:38:35 PM EST

The Palestinians are NOT under Israeli rule... therefore, there's no government for them to overthrow.

The Palestinians are perfectly able to form their own state and expand into the unsettled territories and to stake their claim.  They're not DOING that, instead they want to destroy Israel and take THEIR land.

The Palestinian government refuses to setup the infrastructure necessary to support its people.  Instead concentrating its energies on defeating Israel.

The US even offered to sponsor Arafat in the UN to support the creation of a Palestinian state and all the legal protections from the world that that would imply, so long as they would come to some terms of non-aggression against Israel, who would've then had to bow to world pressure to stop invading, and STILL the Palestinians refused.  Because they want it ALL.

Admire them?  No.  Pity them?  Yes.

[ Parent ]

"It's not *my* fault..." (none / 0) (#266)
by bjlhct on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:27:49 PM EST

Sure people don't like to take responsibility for stuff. So it's not something they did, it's "oppression."

And how are we oppressing Israel when we're giving them a lot of aid money...and then that's not enough, so they ask for and get a multibilliondollar special request.....and we half-heartedly try to get them not to take land from other countries in the region? How is giving the land back an unreasonable thing? Is there some special reason I'm missing Israel gets to encourage people to move into other countries, and follow up with tanks, all without even a declaration of war?

Are we giving all these people access to lawyers? Well.......uh.......no, actually. Are we killing them? Well, Shrub apparently can just by declaring them enemy combatants and sending a Hellfire or something down on them, even if it does a little "collateral damage." But we're doing better for most of them, whereas Israel is not. But the government keeps getting rid of civil rights and getting harsher on suspected terrorists. And this isn't even cracking a few eggs to make a cake, because the things they do and how they do them tend to be....not especially effective....which makes me think they're just for show. And unfortunately, if a lot of people think like you apparently do, then it's working. =(

*
kur0(or)5hin - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Some points (none / 0) (#298)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:35:27 PM EST

1)

"Assassinations of people that we "just know" are terrorists using rockets fired from the sky."

Well prehaps the fact that he took credit for terrorist acts and then killed the Yemeni officials who were sent to aprehend him might be a clue that he was in fact a terrorist.

At what point are you justified in using deadly force against people who have declaired themselves to be enemy combatants? Do you need a signed afidavit from them that they will use the AK47 they are holding before you can fire?

2)

"Torturing suspects. You do know why those suspects are questioned overseas don't you."

And you know this how? Are you a guard at X-Ray? Do you know anyone who is? Have you attended any officer training classes where torture of prisoners is taught?

You're jumping to conclusions based upon pure flights of fancy. I bet you don't even know that millitary officer training stresses humane treatment of prisoners do you?

3)

"Rounding up hundreds of people because they might have done something or may do something in the future."

I assume we're talking about the INS arrests here?
What part of "Everyone that we are holding has either violated thier immigration status or is wanted for breaking some other law" was not clear?

4)

"People held in prison for indeterminate periods without being charged with any crime or being declared a prisoner of war."

I assume we are talking about X-ray again here. Have you actualy read the Geneva Convention. According to the Convention itself those people don't qualify for POW status. Yet none of those people were captured in the U.S. nor did they commit any acts in the U.S, nor have some of them ever been in the U.S. so you really can't submit them to the U.S. criminal justice system.

So what exactly would have you do? Say "Well Sam, I know these people were shooting at our troops and that thier comrades haven't capitulated and are still active in the field but they don't fit into any of our neat little arbitrarly defined classifications so lets just let em go m'kay" ?

5) "Racial Profiling"

Officer: "We are looking for a young man of Middle Eastern appearance with medium height and build wearing a faded blue denim jacket for questioning in connection  with a number of serious crimes"

Suspect: "You can't question me!"

Officer: "Why not?"

Suspect: "Well I'm of Middle Eastern appearance... that would be racial profiling!"

Officer: "What about the jacket?"

Suspect: "I'm wearing a faded blue denim jacket... that would be fashion profiling! "

2nd Officer: "Lets go question that Chinese grandmother over there. She doesn't fit the description at all so we should probably be ok."

[ Parent ]

Old Chinese Story (4.50 / 8) (#119)
by hengist on Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 11:23:28 PM EST

Two conscripts were travelling to report for military duty when their cart got stuck in the mud. After trying to free it for some time, one turned to the other and said:
"What's the penalty for being late?"
"Death"
"What's the penalty for rebellion?"
"Death"
"Guess what, we're late!"

Who can tell me what happend next?

My Chinese better half tells me that something like this really did happen, and that it brought down the incumbent emperor.

There can be no Pax Americana

Did They... (none / 0) (#173)
by failrate on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:28:13 AM EST

Did they say "We're late" and then run like hell out of the country?
Voodoo Girl is da bomb!
[ Parent ]
Your anecdote (none / 0) (#363)
by CodeWright on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:48:04 AM EST

...is probably the best comment attached to this entire article thread. Fortunately, those capable of understanding it are equally capable of acting on it. :)

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Conscious?? resistance?? (2.83 / 12) (#135)
by stpna5 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:42:51 AM EST

Excuse me for noticing.........When exactly did this once-interesting site become the lair of all these blue-haired conformists? The martial drumbeat for the sort of fascist mass hysteria referenced above has been rolling out of Washington for well over a year. And concerned citizens will find no help from a timid, weak, corrupt and well paid-off Congress. Instead of massive resignations with honor, on September 12, 2001 by the directors and secretaries of nearly every conceivable intelligence, immigration and even law enforcement --- let alone transportation--- agency, due to their abysmal failures, there is now instead a year-end bonus in federal agencies, a tossing aside of habeas corpus, massive preventive detentions, and colossal burying of public (even paid-for) information and wholesale shredding of the freedoms for which untold numbers of this nation's citizens died to protect and defend. I am glad that my father--- a WWII veteran---didn't survive the year to see this happening to his beloved country. It is truly shameful and a very dark hour for the United States. It seems however everyone has gone shopping at some cheezy mall or is busy playing a video game and/or munching on some takeout. Drink up, America. Brownshirts are the new fashion accessory. And brown people with funny accents are usually the test cases for the next phase of correctional experiments.

Hmm? (none / 0) (#139)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:08:14 AM EST

When exactly did this once-interesting site become the lair of all these blue-haired conformists?

What's this mean? What are you on about then?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

You must not have been paying attention. (2.33 / 3) (#192)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:13:26 AM EST

k5 is where all the communists went when the wall fell.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Interesting. (3.00 / 1) (#245)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:40:22 PM EST

A) I don't see too many communists around here. Better check your binoculars, you big bad freedom-loving red-hunter.

B) Your laughable formulation, "k5 is where all the communists went when the wall fell," is based on the incorrect assumption that the people "behind the wall" before it fell were communists.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Valeko, I think I love you. (5.00 / 1) (#304)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:01:15 PM EST

I used to have a crush on turmeric, but I think you're even better.


--
Now, where did I put that clue? I'm sure I had one a minute ago....


[ Parent ]

Land of the free... (4.66 / 6) (#155)
by DominantParadigm on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:59:11 AM EST

Home of the brave

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


You don't know Squat. (2.70 / 17) (#156)
by opendna on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:06:14 AM EST

First off, accept the fact - yes FACT - that there are only three groups of people who have even the slightest idea how U.S. immigration and naturalization laws work:
Immigrants
INS workers
Immigration lawyers

Everyone else, including every politician and journalist, either have no idea whatsoever or are informed just enough to be wrong all the time.

When Congress and the President ordered NSEERS there wasn't an officer at the local port of entry who didn't immediately understand how empty (and counter-productive) a program it is. They knew it would drain already exhausted human resources. They knew it would do very little to prevent terror. They knew it create hostility at home and abroad.

When it was announced that all previously admitted non-immigrant (!) aliens from "countries of interest" would have to report, they knew what the effect would be. ...And they could have predicted it would take weeks to sort it out, with no complications and no other work being done.

They know there are +6 million illegal immigrants presently in the U.S. and they know that they are *all* waiting for their green cards. But they also understand that they are all subject to deportation.

But who wants to ask the people on the "front line" how the war should be fought? It's not like they know anything about their jobs.

Question: Why would the INS want to deport someone who's legally in the U.S. waiting for their Green Card to be issued?

It's obvious, if you know even the basics.



The INS (4.75 / 4) (#193)
by claudius on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:22:16 AM EST

Having helped my wife go through the naturalization process a couple of years ago, I can attest to the overall level of incompetence and lack of communication within the INS itself.  Hell, they lost my wife's paperwork for almost a year between her citizenship interview, which she passed with no difficulty, and the scheduling of her swearing in, which amounts to the final step of naturalization.  They then suggested (insisted) that she start the entire naturalization process over again rather than ask them to bother with searching their offices for her misplaced files.

Anyone who has dealt with the INS in any capacity knows that they are fully capable of screwing immigrants over royally.  By all accounts, that seems to be the modus operandi of the organization, and I would suspect that the situation is only exacerbated by 9/11 and the blame that the INS and DoJ have had to shoulder.  (Approving visas for deceased hijackers is bad for public relations).

"Waiting for a Green Card" can mean many things.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if in many of these cases it meant that the person was granted a Green Card (filled out all the requisite paperwork, name showed up on the lottery, Green Card request was approved) and the INS was just years behind in doing the "final step."    

[ Parent ]

I am SO not looking forward to this (none / 0) (#198)
by X-Nc on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:57:02 AM EST

> Having helped my wife go through the naturalization process
> a couple of years ago, I can attest to the overall level of
> incompetence and lack of communication within the INS itself.

I will be doing the same thing next year. It's going to be a very painful ordeal... Especially if the US does end up going to war. May the gods help us.

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.
[ Parent ]

A few things you can do. (none / 0) (#375)
by claudius on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:05:58 AM EST

I feel for you, but there are a few things you can do to make the process easier.  Probably the thing that would help out most is to just retain an immigration attorney.  Sure, you shell out many thousands of dollars, but for whatever reason the INS seems to play nicer with lawyers than with the immigrants they are processing.  Just be sure you get a good attorney.  (As I'm sure you're aware, there's lots of fraud out there in this arena).

Another thing that would have helped us would be to have avoided moving during the process.  My wife's paperwork was lost when it was FedExed from one processing center to another.  The second claimed they never received the package, and only after we were able to FOIA the tracking number of the files did they admit they had indeed lost the files at their site.

A third thing that helps is to keep very extensive notes of every conversation, everything that is said, etc.  

The worst part of the experience was the general disdain for immigrants throughout the entire process and the inability to speak with a person to settle whatever issues were there.  It was always "fill out these forms, come back here in four to six weeks."  Oh, that and how I wasn't permitted to go with her to meet with the INS front-line soldiers.  "Due to space limitations, we only have room in our lobby for the immigrants in question and their legal representation.  All family members and friends must wait outside."  So I would sit in the car, she would wait in the lobby for 3 or 4 hours, get to the counter, and find out "No, we haven't located your paperwork.  Come back again in a couple of weeks.  No, there's nothing we can do."

[ Parent ]

Nothing like it (none / 0) (#465)
by X-Nc on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:56:45 PM EST

I kinda have a lawyer (found a site on the web that does the processing of the paperwork into the correct "look-n-feel" for the INS) and have most of the information needed. Right now the obstacle is her father. Her mother is trying to help her convince her father but, well, it's really complicated dealing with other cultures.

Things would be so much easier if the whole world would just listen to me. :-)

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.
[ Parent ]

Which site? (none / 0) (#492)
by opendna on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:41:43 AM EST

What's the name of the site/service? That's something I'd like to have on my hotlist.



[ Parent ]

At first I thought this was an Onion article (n/t) (4.66 / 3) (#157)
by Quila on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:15:47 AM EST



even ignoring the civil rights issues... (4.80 / 21) (#159)
by akp on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:28:35 AM EST

You have to admit that this is a neat little Catch-22. If you're an immigrant who might have a problem with your papers, then either you have to register and risk getting arrested for a visa violation or you don't register and risk getting pulled in as a suspected terrorist. Whatever you do you're screwed; the best that you can do is roll the dice and hope that they don't catch you.

But the neat part about this isn't just how nasty it is to immigrants who fear getting arrested or deported. It's how nicely it will provide propaganda both for the immigration side and for the Homeland Security side. Each person who decides that she is better off going to register despite having overstayed her visit will get pulled in by the INS. Each person who decides not to register and rather risk being caught becomes a suspected terrorist who is a heck of a lot easier to find and arrest than anyone who is actually planning a terrorist act. So the INS appears to be doing its job, and the Homeland Security police (or whoever ends up rounding up the non-registrants) also appear to be doing their jobs. It's a win-win scenario.

Well, win-win for the government departments, that is. It's a big lose for the immigrants who are affected. But it's also a big lose for anyone who is actually interested in preventing future terrorist acts, rather than just giving the appearance of fighting terrorism. Instead of spending their time investigating people who might actually be terrorist threats, the police will instead end up tracking down people whose only suspicious actions are to be from the wrong country and to be afraid of getting arrested for immigration violations. So while this may inflate the appearance of progress in fighting terrorism by providing more arrests, it will actually hurt the effort by pulling resources away from the real threats.

Compare this phenomenon with the War on Drugs. We throw drug user and drug user in prison, and even get a big dealer or two, but the drugs keep coming in and the people keep buying them. And yet people assume that the effort must be helping keep drug usage down; after all, look at all of those drugs that we've captured, and all of those pushers that we've arrested. If we hadn't stopped them, then certainly more people would have been seduced into becoming drug addicts, right? And so we have an ineffective--possibly even detrimental--policy which still has popular support because it gives the appearance of being effective. And that's what we have the potential for here: something that makes it look like we're beating the terrorists, but actually has at best no effect, and at worst actually works against our efforts.

And, before the conspiracy theory angle comes up, no, I don't think that anybody planned things this way. I mean, I have as much respect as anyone for Karl Rove, and would hesitate to label anything as being too Machivellian for him and the rest of the current administration. But it's not necessary to have a shadowy figure pulling the strings in the background for something like this to happen. All it takes is an INS group trying to do its job, Homeland Security agents trying to do theirs, an insufficiently analytical press corps, and a populace which is desperate to believe that their government can protect them.

-allen



Drug Use (none / 0) (#189)
by Merk00 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:58:29 AM EST

Actually, drug use is down. So maybe the drug war is working?

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Or maybe . . . (none / 0) (#220)
by acceleriter on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:53:40 AM EST

. . . drug use is underground.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#222)
by Merk00 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:58:44 AM EST

That was a comparison of drug use by the same study in previous years to the study carried out recently. Unless you suddenly think that everyone started to lie on an anonymous survey that didn't do so before.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Fair enough . . . (none / 0) (#223)
by acceleriter on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:04:56 AM EST

. . . but with the ability to track "anonymous" surveys through coding, I wouldn't be surprised that the rate of lying has increased given the awareness of the practice.

[ Parent ]
Great! (5.00 / 1) (#334)
by greenrd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:03:58 PM EST

The drug war is finally working!

OK, granted, it's at the cost of incarcerating millions of Americans - disproportionately minorities - but hey, who's counting? It's less disaffected youths on the streets, anyways - and that's got to be a good thing!

At least we've stopped stoners enjoying illegal and immoral pleasures, and stopped hard drug addicts stealing to fund their addiction until they get out of jail again! Great, eh?

<sarcasm>


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Drug War (none / 0) (#396)
by Merk00 on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:14:57 PM EST

I never said anything about the tradeoffs. I simply said that the drug war is apparently working. There's a fairly commonly spread idea that the drug war hasn't worked at all. That idea is completely wrong.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#441)
by greenrd on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:36:51 PM EST

I don't think the real motivations for the drug war had to do with getting rid of illegal drug use. So that's the wrong measure.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

I think you nailed it pretty well... (none / 0) (#203)
by mbmccabe on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:26:52 AM EST

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

Now, everyone go read the parent article again.

[ Parent ]

Troll question (4.06 / 15) (#163)
by caridon20 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:20:55 AM EST

Whats the next step. should the USA demand that all imigrant muslims wear a little yellow patch on their clothing so they can be identified ?
I mean "they" seem to take their ideas from 1938
/lynxx

Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Well, it might actually be (none / 0) (#321)
by baron samedi on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:43:57 PM EST

A green crescent. Perhaps black. They probably won't have to wear it on their clothes, but it will probably be located on their national ID card.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
this is no time to be speaking of racism (1.67 / 34) (#165)
by anonymous pancake on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:33:43 AM EST

fact: the people who hijacked the plane which caused the destruction of the wtc and a horrible massacre of innocent americans including women and children were arabs.

fact: Osama and his terrorist cells are arab

fact: the people who are suicide bombing in Israel are arab

I'm sorry but this is a case where racial profiling is not just a need but a requirement. Besides, the arabs brought this on themselves, with the governments of many arab/moslem countries funding terrorist cells.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.

You're a very good troll (3.77 / 9) (#166)
by DominantParadigm on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:39:52 AM EST

You said:

fact: the people who hijacked the plane which caused the destruction of the wtc and a horrible massacre of innocent americans including women and children were arabs.

fact: Osama and his terrorist cells are arab

fact: the people who are suicide bombing in Israel are arab

I'm sorry but this is a case where racial profiling is not just a need but a requirement.

First paragraph of Article:

Between 500 and 700 men (some reports put the number as high as 1000), mostly of Iranian nationality, were arrested by American immigration officials in southern California when they showed up to register themselves in compliance with new immigration rules.

God if you only knew how much the facts show you to be a racist... Keep it up the good work making me feel so ethically superior.



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
sure, and (4.00 / 5) (#167)
by cockroach on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:48:31 AM EST

Hitler was German - why don't you arrest all Germans?
--
Webisoder - never miss another TV episode
[ Parent ]
no. (3.50 / 2) (#215)
by dasher on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:31:27 AM EST

Actually, Hitler was Austrian.

[ Parent ]
Austrians are Germans. (none / 0) (#241)
by haflinger on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:19:57 PM EST

They just don't know how to pronounce German correctly. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
yes and no. (none / 0) (#260)
by AWhiteStar on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:07:25 PM EST

He was an Austrian, but he was granted the German citizenship in 1932.

[ Parent ]
Fact: Iranians aren't arab (4.83 / 6) (#172)
by prolixity on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:23:01 AM EST


Bah!
[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.25 / 4) (#177)
by macavity on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:14:21 AM EST

Referring to an Iranian as an Arab to his face produces similar effects to referring to a Scot as an Englishman. Or to a Canadian as an American. Or to a Hutu as a Tutsi, I imagine.

As I learnt very quickly, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs - the small difference being a couple of thousand years' animosity. I'm glad I made this mistake in a pub in London, not on a street in Tehran.



[ Parent ]
rofl. (2.00 / 1) (#178)
by rakslice on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:15:55 AM EST

Are you confusing cause and effect?

Perhaps you could restate that?

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, what did I do to deserve this? (4.42 / 7) (#179)
by PowerPimp on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:17:27 AM EST

Well? I'm a born American Citizen, but I get searched every time I go near an airport, just because of my name. My privacy is compromised, and my life is inconvenienced by these policies. Arn't I innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that the law of the land, and shouldn't that mean that I shouldn't be punished because some dirty scumbags halfway across the world with whom I share some ethnic heritage don't like American foreign policy? Well? Why should I accept humiliating treatment because of other's actions? I personally would rather have the peace of mind that I was receiving equal treatment under the law then some falsely bloated sense of security.


You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
Oh please... (4.00 / 2) (#226)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:08 AM EST

I'm a white protestant male and I've been searched every time I go near an airport as well because I've got metal pins in my arm.  It *used* to be I could just say "I have metal pins in my arm" and they'd let me through.  Not now though.  (Take off your shoes, unbutton your shirt, blah blah blah)

Aren't I innocent until proven guilty?  Why should I accept humiliating treatment because of other's actions?

I'm not saying I'm happy about the situation either, but it could be far worse.  Lynching has really only been illegal in the US for a little over 50 years.  And 60 years ago, the US rounded up all the japanese without question.  Not just those with invalid visas or violations of their stay.


[ Parent ]

Objective measurement differs from racism (4.00 / 1) (#249)
by Pikachu with an Axe in his Head on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:04:13 PM EST

You set off the metal detector. As poor a weapon detector as that is, that's an objective measurement that will detect a certain actual physical class of weapons: in other words, despite lots of false positives and ways to get around it, it's a direct threat measure. That's ethically very different from hassling you because you're the wrong race.

[ Parent ]
then race *isn't*? (none / 0) (#250)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:10:36 PM EST

I set off a metal detector.  Guns are made of metal.  Ergo, I might have a gun?

I come from a Muslim country.  Muslim's have announced terrorism against the US.  Ergo, I might be carrying a bomb?

At what point do you slice objectivity?

[ Parent ]

Direct threat (4.00 / 1) (#255)
by Pikachu with an Axe in his Head on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:39:53 PM EST

A metal detector is a kinda sorta OK way to detect weapons. A weapon is a tool that increases your effectiveness at doing harm.

Looking at somebody('s name) is a kinda sorta OK way to tell their ethnicity and religion. Ethnicity or religion may or may not correlate with one's desire to do harm, but you don't actually kill people with your Muslim-ness.



[ Parent ]
Oh lord.. (none / 0) (#264)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:18:19 PM EST

I think we've just hit the stereotypical
"Guns don't kill people, people do..." argument...

[ Parent ]
Percentages (none / 0) (#276)
by rantweasel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:01:23 PM EST

Most people who set off metal detectors are carrying/wearing something metal.  A very small percentage have pins in their arms (or the like).  Most people who are arabic or muslim are just average people.  A very small percentage are terrorists, and there's a significant percentage of terrorists who are not arabic or muslim.  Generally, I would say you assume the majority unless you have something else indicating the minority.  

mathias

[ Parent ]

Come again? (none / 0) (#311)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:32:11 PM EST

The MAJORITY of people setting off metal detectors have innocuous metal items on their person and are just average people.

A very small percentage are carrying guns.

And back to your quote:
"Generally, I would say you assume the majority unless you have something else indicating the minority."

And never mind the fact that metal detectors can't detect plastic guns...

My point is, is that segregation of any sort is... segregation... But segregation by race is such a loaded term that any sort of that type is considered non-pc... even when it might be smarter to do so.

[ Parent ]

Did you read my post? (none / 0) (#475)
by rantweasel on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:29:19 PM EST

I said, most people who set off the metal detector are wearing or carrying something metal, and a tiny percentage have pins.  Where the hell did you get guns?  Or the mythical plastic gun?

As for it being smarter to practice segregation, no, it's smarter to not alienate large portions of the population.  It's smarter to have the majority of the population trust the government.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Partial Agreement (none / 0) (#288)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:44:14 PM EST

I'm in partial agreement with you. You definately deserve equal protection/representation under the law. However unless you've be denied due process/arrested because of your heritage (like Japanese Americans in WWII) then you are recieving it.

There is nothing that says that if you happen to fit the profile/description of the people that they are looking for that you shouldn't be subject to greater scrutiny.

Look, I'm a white male in his 30's. If I walk into an airport alone with little luggage I'm going to draw alot more attention then an elderly couple traveling with thier grand kids who are wearing mickey mouse ears. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I expect that.

You shouldn't expect to recieve the same amount of scrutiny as some-one who is far less obviously a threat.

It kinda reminds me of what happaned to my friend awhile back. He is a cop and some-one filed an racial profiling complaint about him. Here's the thing, there was an APB out for a black male of medium build wearing a blue denim jacket, a yellow T shirt and red sweat pants. My friend stopped and questioned a guy on the street who was a black male of medium build wearing a blue denim jacket, yellow T shirt and red sweat pants.
Now the guy my friend stopped wasn't the guy they were looking for, this guy had done nothing wrong.... but was the guy really entitled to recieve the same amount of scrutiny as a short, fat caucasion woman?

[ Parent ]

hmmm (4.00 / 12) (#184)
by werner on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:44:02 AM EST

fact: the people who hijacked the plane which caused the destruction of the wtc and a horrible massacre of innocent americans including women and children breathed air.

fact: Osama and his terrorist cells breathe air

fact: the people who are suicide bombing in Israel breathe air

I'm sorry but this is a case where respiration profiling is not just a need but a requirement. Clearly if the US only let sea-dwelling creatures into the country, all terrorist problems would be over.

There is a serious logic error in your statements: even if we assume all terrorists are arabs (which is patently untrue, e.g. ETA or IRA), this is not the same as saying all arabs are terrorists. I seem to remember the last significant terrorist attack on the US being perpetrated by an american - timothy mcveigh.

Yes, some arabs hate the US, yes some arabs danced in the streets when the twin towers were hit. Yes, some americans will dance in the streets when bagdad gets bombed. America's current actions towards ALL arabs can only increase the negative feeling towards the states in the future.

[ Parent ]

fact: Israel is a brutal racist state. (2.00 / 12) (#197)
by crunchycookies on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:54:52 AM EST

fact: The US props up Israel with mountains of money and arms.

fact: The Palestinians are struggling for their rights against this thug of a country.



[ Parent ]

This is racism (4.75 / 8) (#210)
by cgenman on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:02:55 AM EST

fact: the people who bombed Perl Harbor and slaughtered thousands of innocent American women and children were Japanese.

fact: Hirohito and his evil people were Japanese.

fact: The people who were raping and destroying North Korea and China were Japanese.

fact: My grandfather, a Buddahist monk and gardener, and my grandmother, a Kimono Maker, gave birth to my Aunt next to a dirty toilet in an American concentration camp in Iowa.  My mother could not be present, as she had been forcibly separated from them at the beginning of the war and was being held somewhere in California.  

fact: This can happen here, this does happen here, this happened here 50 years ago.
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

Hmm.. How many... (none / 0) (#493)
by thePositron on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:44:02 AM EST

How many people died of old age last year? Did Arabs kill them as well?

Is death only dealt by Arabs? If so please explain how eliminating Arabs will grant you immortality?

[ Parent ]

There's no rule... (3.22 / 9) (#185)
by Alethes on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:46:28 AM EST

that says we have to let people that are not naturalized U.S. citizens stay in the US under any circumstances -- regardless of whether they come from a hostile nation or not.

Rules (4.50 / 2) (#204)
by bodrius on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:33:25 AM EST

But there's are rules that say that people, naturalized or not, cannot be arrested, held captive and then kicked out of the country with no warning for no substantial reason.

It's a question of due process. After all, aren't things like due process part of the precious achievements of Western secular civilization?

I tend to agree with the author and consider that when you arrest hundreds of people you need very  strong reasons and a closely control procedure to guarantee due process for each person arrested.

Perhaps there is due process in all these cases, and perhaps there is a strong, solid case for each one, but I find it unlikely.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
[ Parent ]

Oh, as long as there's no rule... (none / 0) (#271)
by Happy Monkey on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:56:12 PM EST

Even assuming that there's no rule against anything the INS is doing here, that is hardly an excuse. The lack of a prohibition does not imply that it's the right thing to do.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
UN Declaration of Human Rights. Article 14 (none / 0) (#511)
by hex11a on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 10:26:39 PM EST

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

That's a rule, and the US signed up, so if they are seeking asylum from a hostile nation, yes, in fact there is a rule.

[ Parent ]

As usual, the Simpsons has the answer (1.66 / 9) (#202)
by ennui on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:23:00 AM EST

Remember the episode where the police department was giving away "free boats?" And Homer showed up and the guy in front of him (Snake) went to claim his free boat, and Homer heard him getting beat up? Then they arrested Homer ("make it quick I'm double parked") for 200 unpaid parking tickets. Now, combine that episode witht the one with the bear destorying Homer's mailbox, and instead of giving away free boats, replace with the part when Moe (Mohammed?) says "Immigants! I knew it was them, even when it was the bears I knew it was them!" Now, if you combine that with the episode with the Internet company that made no money but made Flash animations like "bin Laden in a blender" and put a little window in the lower-right hand corner of the screen with Evil Homer doing the Evil Homer dance, and have Comic Book Guy saying "Best...death...ever!" backwards over and over and the last 5 minutes or so of Ms. Lisa Goes To Washington, it'd probably be really interesting.

<(='_'=<)
kirby loves you
Kristallnacht (3.37 / 16) (#208)
by Eric Green on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:56:17 AM EST

First the Jews were required to register and wear a gold star identifying them as such. Then on Kirstallnacht, the "Night of Broken Glass", 7,000 Jewish businesses were trashed and looted, dozens of Jewish people were killed, and Jewish cemeteries, hospitals, schools, and homes were looted while police and fire brigades stood by. The pogroms became known as Kristallnacht, the "Night of Broken Glass," for the shattered glass from the store windows that littered the streets.

The morning after the pogroms 30,000 German Jewish men were arrested for the "crime" of being Jewish and sent to concentration camps.

It appears that the Shrub Administration is pushing the timeline, condensing the registration and roundup steps into one step (and directly doing the pogrom step, such as the forced closure of many Islamic charities under the ruse of "they're supporting terrorism"). But then, nothing is too severe when it comes to dealing with the Jew^h^h^hMuslim threat.

Eric Lee Green, card-carrying member of the ACLU (as of last week, because of all this shit going down... what about you?).
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...

And how would you do it? (3.25 / 8) (#218)
by wrax on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:52:24 AM EST

To compare the goings on in the United States to Nazi Germany is a fallacy, one that is all too easy to fall into. The comparison that Muslims are being treated like Jews were in Germany is not at all accurate. The US administration is trying to catalog who is in their country without valid visa's, and is deporting or prosececuting those who are in violation.

I get a real kick out of people like you, what is the US Federal Government doing that impacts your daily life? Are they knocking down your door and taking you and your family away in the middle of the night? your loved ones? The United States has had basicly the whole Muslim world declare war on them for trying to create markets for their goods. What would you do to protect your country and its foreign interestes? I can only suppose that you would completely back off on international business and stop selling abroad, never mind the horrible consequences that would happen to the world economy.

The United States is attempting to control who gets into and who stays in their country. This is their right as a soverign nation to do. THey are not doing this to naturalized Muslims, no to those who were born in the US, just to the foreigners who may or may not be operatives in a global terrorist orginization. THe US government is absolutly right to detain people it suspects of plotting against it. Unfortunatly some people who get caught up in this are innocent and should never have been detained, these people should be apologized to and perhaps compensated in some way for their discomfort and inconvience.

Remember 9/11 and honor the memories of those who died.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

Short-sighted (5.00 / 6) (#232)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:27:54 AM EST

I get a real kick out of people like you, what is the US Federal Government doing that impacts your daily life?

Um.. let's see. They're building a giant network to gather private, personal data about me. They're taking 12% of my paycheck and throwing it into a giant retirement pyramid scheme. They're spending my tax money on anti-drug propaganda. And if I complain about any of it, they'll arrest me.

What are you saying? We shouldn't vigorously defend our civil liberties until the government comes knocking on OUR door specifically? It's a pretty short-sighted thing to say, but don't worry. It won't be long before they're invading the lives of you and your family members.

Remember 9/11 and honor the memories of those who died.

Spout some more of this fallacious bullshit.. how does it go again? "The terrorists have already won..." "They hate our freedom..." etc. etc.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

Martin Niemoeller (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by Eric Green on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:06:51 PM EST

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

  -Martin Niemoeller
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

You need to quit reading government propoganda (5.00 / 6) (#236)
by Eric Green on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:50:59 AM EST

  1. They are keeping the names of those arrested SECRET. If these are just normal immigration violations, why the secrecy?
  2. They are arresting people who obviously thought their immigration papers were in order (would people who thought their immigration papers were NOT in order come forward voluntarily to be arrested?!). Given that the press is not being allowed to interview these people (or EVEN KNOW WHAT THEIR NAMES ARE!), how do you KNOW that the convicted convicted felon liars at the Bush Administration are not lying to you?
  3. Note that many of these visa "violations" are a result of people fleeing oppressive regimes such as that in Iran applying for political asylum. They have applied for asylum, but their paperwork has not yet been processed by the incompetents at the INS. In the meantime, until they get their actual visa from the INS, they are "illegal". Should we send people back to Iran or Iraq to be killed by the oppressive regimes there just for the crime of the INS being slow to process political asylum requests?!
  4. Similarly, there are many cases of immigrants here legally on student visas who were arrested for changing colleges, for dropping a course, for taking a course not on some approved list for a particular curriculum, etc. Again, we're talking about ticky-tacking stuff that normally bears the same penalty as a speeding ticket. Why are we jailing people for a speeding ticket?
I do not think that I'm far off-base comparing the pogrom against Muslims with the pogrom against Jews in the 1930's. If you want people who are here illegally, I can lead you to a dozen street corners here in Phoenix, Arizona, where you can round up thousands of them. But then, I forget, being able to hire illegal Mexicans makes business more profitable, and the Bush Doctrine is "the bidness of guv'ment is bidness" (i.e., government exists to serve big business, not the people). But I forget, those Mexicans are Catholic, not Islamic....
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]
Finally! (2.00 / 1) (#272)
by EriKZ on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:40:34 PM EST


I've been reading most of the leftist garbage this board has been spewing. Thank you for listing GOOD reasons instead of ranting.

The reason all this stuff is happening, a lazy INS. It's easy to to nail people for stupid infringements and look like you're "Doing something".

I guess actually IMPROVING the agency is too much to ask for.

[ Parent ]

Jeez (none / 0) (#324)
by baron samedi on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:11:49 PM EST

You sound like one of them libruls...
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
and? (none / 0) (#389)
by EriKZ on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:05:00 AM EST


"You sound like one of them libruls..."

Do you have a point to make? There's enough verbal noise in the world as it is.

[ Parent ]

You're right. (4.60 / 5) (#243)
by ghjm on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:26:36 PM EST

The most appropriate comparison is not to Nazi Germany, it is to Imperial Rome. From about 450 BC to the reign of Sulla (88-86 BC), Rome was a republic, with representative democracy (the Senate), checks and balances, constitutional term limits, etc, etc. Sulla came to power at a time when Roman citizens felt their lives were at risk due to slave uprisings. Sulla was given the power of dictator in order to put down the slave revolts, which he did. However, this opened the door to dictatorial forms of government. Julius Caesar used this opportunity to consolidate Imperial power, though he was one of a triumvirate rather; Augustus Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome. As an Empire, Rome achieved dominance over the majority of its known world - but as a dictatorship, not a democracy.

The parallel to America should be very clear. Are we to give in to our fear (and greed), and lose the Republic? Or are we to take the better course?

Note that if you are an American reading this (e.g. you own a computer), you would probably make more money and enjoy more privileges as an Imperial citizen. The only reason to desire a Republic is a moral one, which the Founding Fathers understood. Whether modern Americans care about this, or even really understand it, is very much an open question.

-Graham

[ Parent ]

Just a thought (4.00 / 5) (#244)
by achtanelion on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:31:59 PM EST

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[ Parent ]

Took the words out of my mouth. :-) [n/t] (none / 0) (#246)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:43:46 PM EST


"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Little known fact (4.50 / 4) (#248)
by rantweasel on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:03:40 PM EST

Before the Nazis started with pogroms, beatings, or any of that, they ran detailed censuses.  Every country that they took over, they first set up a census.  Lots of questions on religion, parents, parents names, towns of origin, etc.  Then registration, which was cross-checked against the census database.  The census database was used to make sure that everyone registered, and from there, it all goes downhill.  Any census or registration anywhere that asks for more information than is needed to establish congressional districts (namely, how many people live at this address) is moving onto a slippery slope that does end up with "papers, please" or crimes of heritage.  It's simply a bad idea that shouldn't be acted upon.

mathias

[ Parent ]

Ahem (5.00 / 3) (#262)
by Hizonner on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:09:52 PM EST

what is the US Federal Government doing that impacts your daily life?

Not a damned thing. Well, not unless I feel like flying, anyway.

Some of us, however, have these things called morals, which unfortunately force us to withhold our approval from abusive government actions even if they don't affect us personally. Sometimes (not this time, mind you) we even have to oppose abusive government actions that might in some ways benefit us. We tend to feel that that's what separates us from self-centered, self-serving pieces of shit.

Are they knocking down your door and taking you and your family away in the middle of the night? your loved ones?

My door? No, but they do reserve the right to do so in the future. Other people's doors? Yes, they do it all the time; it's called a no-knock raid, and it's a standard tactic of their war on politically unpopular drugs. Of course, so far they've been following it up with trials, which is something... but they've stated that they reserve the right to skip that little step in the case of "terrorists".

Some of us have this thing called foresight, which allows us to identify and extrapolate worrying trends, and hopefully to do something about those trends before our own personal doors get kicked in... or even before other people's doors get kicked in, if we're not at risk.

The United States has had basicly the whole Muslim world declare war on them for trying to create markets for their goods.

Bullshit. A bunch of psychos (not even psychos in government) isn't "the whole Muslim world". The US isn't popular in the Muslim world, but the majority of them aren't throwing bombs. Not even when the US is throwing bombs. Hell, most of the official governments in the Muslim world suck up to the US... thus, by the way, inflaming the psychos.

And, just to stick in my own personal pet peeve, the only people who use the word "war" for any of what's going on are the psychos... on both sides.

... and calling what the US does "trying to create markets" is a gross distortion and oversimplification. There are lots of ways to sell stuff (and buy stuff, which is actually more important to the US in Middle East flashpoints than selling stuff) without crude, clumsy, oafish, offensive, enemy-making meddling in local politics. Nor are US motivations purely economic, no matter what the "blood for oil" conspiracy theorists think.

What would you do to protect your country and its foreign interestes? I can only suppose that you would completely back off on international business and stop selling abroad, never mind the horrible consequences that would happen to the world economy.

Well, first of all it wouldn't involve a bunch of stupid and inflammatory immigration "security" measures that don't do a damned thing but give morons and sheep the illusion of safety. You've got a fucking lot of arguing to do if you want to claim that this bullshit has any positive effect on international trade. It's not even a good idea from a purely Machiavellian point of view; it gets you too much bad press for too little gain.

[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0) (#512)
by wrax on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 11:01:14 PM EST

Thanks for laying out such a good argument for me to consider. Your words were pretty cool, and I may have to reconsider some of my views a little more.

Thanks for taking the time to educate the masses.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

Bah ! (4.00 / 1) (#296)
by nicodaemos on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:32:52 PM EST

When you don't have anything meaningful to bring to a discussion, the best fallback is to reduce the incident to an emotionally charged analogy. It is far easier to feed the mob mentality than to think as an individual and examine facts.

Now I'm not a Bush supporter, but even I have to give him some credit for standing up for the Muslim community and reaching out to build relationships. After Sept 11, it would have been very easy for Bush to stand up there and feed the mob what they wanted to hear (muslims are to blame, blah, blah, blah) rather than have the balls to separate out the individual extremists who committed this crime and the otherwise peaceful practioners of a religion. Looks like Bush displayed more balls and brains than you.

Your assertion that the closure of Islamic charities is somehow a ruse to cover some nefarious purpose rather than fighting terrorism is poor. If this administration wanted to shut down any Islamic organization for political reasons, the top candidate would have to be the Nation of Islam, but that hasn't happened.

Kristallnacht was a tragic event. To equate the arrest and internment of 30,000 Jews in concentration camps with the arrest of 500-1000, who will ultimately face sentences ranging from release to deportation to prison is just sad.



[ Parent ]
Elections (4.00 / 2) (#214)
by p3d0 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:26:47 AM EST

When's the next round of elections in the US? If I were you, I'd do what I could to make sure this kind of thing became an issue.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
The elections were completed last month (none / 0) (#225)
by Mister Pmosh on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:07:04 AM EST

The next American elections occur in 2006, if I recall correctly.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
[ Parent ]
2004 actually (4.00 / 2) (#227)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:19 AM EST

2004 will be a big election year, with GWB defending the White House and both houses of congress up for grabs.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Calm the Rhetoric (4.38 / 18) (#219)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:52:40 AM EST

Firstly you are only hearing one side of the story:

"For example, some Iranian protesters stated that those detained on visa violations were victims of delays in processing visa and green card (permanent residence) applications by the INS bureaucracy itself."

What would you expect them to say.. "Yes, my friend Joe had an outstanding felony warrent and that's why the INS had him siezed... damn those unfair bastards"?  Remember that the Soviets claimed that they were "invited" into Czechloslovakia and Hungary too.

The truth comes out when both sides are given the opportunity to present facts to back up thier claims and UNBIASED investigation  of those claims occur.

I think it is reasonable to ask for more government transparency in operations like this... along with transparency about people already having been detained/investigated in domestic terrorism investigation. I would support that.

However, using terms like "fascist", "American imperialism" cleary show the authors lack of objectivity and political bias and cause me to relegate the article to the "political spin used to forward a particular world view regardless of the facts" bin. Too bad too, because there are some legitimate concerns that should be addressed regarding this issue.

Here is my take. The government got caught with it's pants down badly by 9/11. That's particularly true of the State Dept. & the INS.
The 9/11 hijackers were issued legitimate visa's even though most of them were on terrorist watch lists. On thier visa applications most of the fields were left blank or filled out with absurd answers like listing "Hotel" for thier intended destination. If the government had just followed the existing entry laws on the books 15 of the 19 hijakers would have been denied visa's. As a consequence of this the government is overreacting in the other direction.

I do believe the government is doing some things it doesn't have the legitimate authortity to do and that some innocent people have gotten caught up in the system because of this overreaction. Not for a second do I believe that this is some sort of Orwellian conspiracy to create an american reich. The reality is that the show right now is being run by politicians and beaurocrats. They are running around like chickens with thier heads cut off trying to LOOK like they are doing something about domestic terrorism. You see they are deathly afraid that some of the blame for 9/11 will rub off on them... or worse yet another act of domestic terrorism will occur and the public will loose confidence in them.  When cooler heads prevail (and I have every confidence they will) these current execesses will be rectified.

The American public, and our politicians, are going to have to learn to live with a certain level of domestic terrorism. Even the best secrity measures can't prevent that. Nor should we go around the world trying to appease terrorists as some people suggest. Frankly alot of these groups have agenda's which involve alot more then just controling the destiny of thier own little corners of the world, they want eventualy to control yours and mine too.... being nice to them won't change that. If there is one thing which we should learn from past history it's that Appeasement and Isolationism don't work.    

Is it rhetoric? (4.00 / 5) (#229)
by bayankaran on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:17:31 AM EST

From todays Washington Post...

One man detained at the INS's Arlington office on Monday was Soheil Varamini, 18, who came with his family to the United States from Iran when he was 2. A freshman at George Mason University, Varamini fears authorities might deport him to a country where he does not speak the language and is not familiar with the culture, according to his sister, Nancy Hedayet.

It is not the one side of the story as you would believe. It is the story.

I also remind you of the nice word...Collateral Damage.

From this day Americans should remind themselves that the international community would consider them on par with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or pre-aparthied South Africa.

America itself is responsible for this mess...propping up Taleban to defeat the Soviets to sucking Saudis dicks for oil.

[ Parent ]
Hotel is an absurd answer? (5.00 / 3) (#253)
by recurzion on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:33:03 PM EST

On thier visa applications most of the fields were left blank or filled out with absurd answers like listing "Hotel" for thier intended destination.

Is this really an absurd answer? Did you think about this at all? I traveled China for 6 weeks, and when I filled out my VISA application, I put "hotels" as my intended destination. I did not have an itinerary ahead of time, and knew I would be staying in hotels.

Should I have been arrested by the Chinese government?

[ Parent ]

No, but... (3.50 / 2) (#259)
by MyrddinE on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:05:59 PM EST

... you should have been required to erase that answer and put in a more acceptable one. As a foreigner, you do not always have the luxury of not having an itinerary. If you don't have one, Customs is within their rights to detain you until you think of one.

[ Parent ]
Yes but... (3.33 / 3) (#299)
by Amesha Spentas on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:44:34 PM EST

The INS accepted the itinerary and gave a visa. Why should they now be allowed to revoke them?

Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (none / 0) (#336)
by greenrd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:08:22 PM EST

That's just plain stupid. You're banning following your nose for the sake of "preventing terrorism". A moment's thought should reveal that that approach won't actually net you any terrorists.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

I have to agree (4.00 / 1) (#282)
by snodgrass on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:15:53 PM EST

I think people give too much credit to the government.  Some seem to think that it's some monstrous entity with single purpose of mind.  I think it's probably much more chaotic than that.  I doubt that this was part of some grand scheme to enslave the unsuspecting American public, but rather it was probably just a reaction to all the heat that they've been getting lately.

Polititians (for the most part) strike me as the kind of people that would sell their mothers for a little public approval.  And for the past decade or so, during the economic high times, it seemed to me that the government offered a place to enjoy all the glory and not worry about the consequences.  But now the public is holding the government's feet to the fire and all these people who have been loafing around finally have to justify their positions, and this is how they do it.

I'm not trying to justify it...on the contrary, I think it just illustrates the ineptitude of our elected officials, I just wanted to concur that I don't think it's a sinister as it's being made out to be.

To add an off-topic comment, I find it irritating that the same people who accused the government of completely fumbling the ball with 9/11, are now criticising the government for trying to prevent another 9/11.  It's true, they're not impressing anybody with moves like this, but I'm sure they'll learn the best ways to handle these things.  (that's not to say that we shouldn't let them know when they've crossed the line)

[ Parent ]

Overstaying your visa (4.12 / 8) (#224)
by Mister Pmosh on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:05:27 AM EST

This report talks about arresting and deporting people for things such as overstaying the time allotted to them via their visa.

"INS spokesman Arcaute said those arrested had violated immigration laws, overstayed their visas, or were wanted for crimes. The program was prompted by concern about the lack of records on tourists, students and other visitors..."
The law is not so clear on these issues. Tourists, for example, are sometimes given only two or three weeks on their passport, other times they are simply given a stamp that looks like a straight line. If you were planning to visit your relatives in America for a year, the line would seem to indicate that you can stay as long as you like.

Student visas are also tricky. You have to maintain a certain number of hours, you can only work certain jobs, and there are other things that you may not realize are in violation of immigration laws. The article stated:

"One activist said local jails were so overcrowded that the immigrants could be sent to Arizona, where they could face weeks or months in prisons awaiting hearings before immigration judges or deportation."
Imprisonment for months and eventual deportation because you dropped a class in college is cruel and unusual punishment. Serving jail time because the customs and immigration agents at the airport were too lazy to put a date that you have to leave on your passport is also cruel and unusual. Some of the people arrested may have deserved it but the majority did not.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
Read the I-94 (5.00 / 2) (#355)
by opendna on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:21:46 AM EST

Unless you're a Canadian, a US citizen or have a green card, you should have a white (I-94) or green (I-94w) card in your passport.

There are two dates on that card:
1. The day you entered. 2. The date by which you must leave.

Some classes of admission (like F-1 students) get D/S which means "duration of status", or "leave when you're done". All I-94s should have an expiration date of some sort. If there's *nothing* call the port where you entered (or go back) and complain. The Inspector made a SERIOUS mistake.

The stamp in your passport only shows when you came in and why.

Oh yeah: If you stay longer than the expiration stamp - even after submitting an application for an immigrant visa/green card - you are subject to deportation.

Canadians may have a third notation "N/C" which has no expiration date.



[ Parent ]

For those in the Boston area (4.00 / 4) (#238)
by winthrop on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:05:27 PM EST

There's going to be a protest today at the JFK Federal Building (regional INS headquarters).  Forwarded e-mail follows:

----
**Please forward widely**

Emergency Protest Outside the INS
Stop the Mass Detentions!

Friday, 12/20, 5:00 p.m.
JFK Federal Building, Boston

(Near the Government Center T stop)

Reports have just arrived that between 500 and 1000 Muslim and Arab immigrants from five different countries were arrested and detained this week in California when they showed up at local Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in compliance with the INS' new mandatory registration program.  It is not yet clear whether similar detentions are taking place in other parts of the country.

In the recent past, the INS has issued a series of calls to immigrants from 20 different countries. All men from these countries over the age of 16 who do not have Green Cards are required to register in person with the INS by the deadline specified in each call or face severe legal penalties.  

Immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Sudan or Syria who responded to the summons in good faith have been summarily arrested and thrown together in crowded detention facilities.  By Wednesday, the jails in southern California were overflowing.

Like the mass detentions of the Japanese during World War II, these arrests are a major assault on the most basic principles of human rights. It is crucial that such actions be met with immediate and broad resistance.  Please join us in front of the INS in Boston and circulate this call to action as widely as possible.

Amer Jubran Defense Committee
www.amerjubrandefense.org
ajdc@amerjubrandefense.org

Some differences (none / 0) (#261)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:09:16 PM EST

There are some major differences between what happaned to Japanese Americans during WWII and this. The two don't even rate a comparison but here goes:

1) The Japanese Americans detained during WWII were full U.S. citizens. None of the people detained in this incident are.

2) The Japanese Americans were detained soley based upon their ethnicity. They broke no laws.
All of the people detained by the INS are accused of either violating a law or being in default of thier visa restrictions. Now some of these may indeed be administrative snafu's and hopefully that gets straightened out, but some of the people who got detained also happaned to have outstanding police warrents.

3) Every Japanese American who could be found was rounded up and detained. The INS only detained a fraction of the people that came in to register. That alone should tell you this was based upon something other then "racism".

4) The Japanese Americans were held for the duration of WWII. These people have been held since Wed. 3 days hardly smacks of being denied due process... you can be held that long for having unpaid parking tickets before you get to see a judge.

         To me these "protests" smack of a knee jerk reaction without having access to any of the real facts of the situation. Lets see what violations these guys are actualy accused of. Lets see if they are able to get hearings in a reasonable amount of time. Lets see the results of those hearings... and lets see just how long the detentions last. Then, maybe, you'll have cause to get worked up.

         But right now harkening this  to the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII does a serious injustice to the memory of those Japanese Americans who suffered a real injustice and a true tragedy.

[ Parent ]

Land Of The Free (none / 0) (#333)
by treat on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:53:57 PM EST

you can be held that long for having unpaid parking tickets before you get to see a judge.

In the Land Of The Free you can be imprisoned for parking incorrectly?

[ Parent ]

comment (none / 0) (#408)
by uniball vision micro on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:12:07 PM EST

"In the Land Of The Free you can be imprisoned for parking incorrectly?"

And you don't think that various other places have restrictive laws. Plus (at least in my area) you have to be pretty delinquent and they tell you about it before they even act.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Conspiracy is not needed for injustice and racism (4.90 / 20) (#240)
by expro on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 12:08:34 PM EST

The law is already very complex. The traps are there. All it takes is an INS which starts arresting people who fall into them.

My wife is an alien. Last year, she went and did all the expensive paperwork to renew her green card. They issued her a temporary green card, which was valid for a year, telling her she would get her green card some time during the next month.

A year later, she goes down to see what happened to the green card (they don't let you just call for most things). After waiting in a long line, again, they claimed that they had sent the green card months earlier in the mail, which we doubt is true.

No one at INS is a bit concerned that (if they were telling the truth) there is a green card which could be in the hands of some postal worker who might resell it.

No replacement is issued. Instead, she is required to pay for all the expensive paperwork all over again, from scratch. She pleads with them to let her give extra money so that they will mail it to her next time by registered mail. Or to let her go down and pick it up in person so that it will not become lost.

They refused completely -- why would they refuse if they cared in the slightest about security? So, we paid hundreds of dollars again, were issued another temporary, again with assurances that the permanent green card would be in the mail. It has been far longer, again, than they claimed at the time that it takes to issue the permanent green card. We expect to have to go through the same process again next year when the temporary is no longer valid.

My wife is from a very favored country as far as immigration goes, not Latin America or any Arab or Muslim Country, but Europe. Imagine now that INS is ordered to stop giving people from certain countries the benefit of the doubt.

Contrast this complete disregard for security by INS plus hostility with what a friend experienced in Europe when I was with him 20 years ago. He lost his US passport. Someone found the passport, and gave it to the police. When we got to his apartment, the police were waiting on the doorstep, where they had been for quite some time (a very friendly gesture). They had refused to give it to anyone else but him. Had he not showed up, he would have had to pick it up in person and prove his identity to be sure no one else got it. They said US identity papers went for $16,000 on the black market.

In Europe, they were very friendly, but very secure.

In the US, they treat the security of documents like it were the prize in a crackerjax box, let the first person who finds it claim it. Combine the attitude and the incompetence with sudden ordered hostility towards people from certain countries, and you have something that a few years ago I would have claimed could not occur again in the US -- rampant racial descrimination and denial of rights.

I am a many-generation native born citizen, and I wrote my senators, who are largely responsible for the mess things are in. I wrote them politely and in great detail explaining the situation with the green card and the refusal of the INS to use any secure means to deliver it to us, and forcing us to start from scratch every time they claim it must have been lost in the mail. The senators have completely ignored the correspondance.

Things are very rotton here. Racism is rampant by not only the Bush administration, but all the Democrats who go along with him. Even if they do not personally behave in a racist manner, they set up circumstances such that it occurs. Americans really should be ashamed.

On the "friendly" Canadian border, the INS is causing all of the same grief, not selecting by the country of origin, but by the apparent country of birth. Canadian citizens who have lived there as good citizens for decades are treated as criminals, fingerprinted, required to register, etc. This is Racism. In addition to the racism, people are thrown in jail for six months without warning or trial just for crossing the border to get cheaper gas at a US gas station.

As American travelers, we have in the past been treated very well by most other countries. While those Americans who do not know what they could learn from other cultures will certainly not care, those who do are certain to be met in the future with increased hostility that they see being applied to their own citizens when they visit America. It will serve us right for letting this happen to our guests.

You do not have to be hostile to be secure. Reasonableness and security go hand in hand. But the US is really rushing to concentration camp mentality.



I don't think it's racism (4.28 / 7) (#256)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:42:30 PM EST

I don't think what you are dealing with is a result of either racism or even any real expression of the governments agenda.

What you are dealing with is an incredibly inefficient bureaucracy run and staffed by civil servents. That is something that is endemic to all government agencies although some are definately worse then others.

The real problem is with the "civil servant" status in this country. They are not paid very well and they are not at all held accountable for thier actions.

My wife works for a federal program. She literaly can not loose her job or suffer a cut in pay unless she is convicted of commiting a felony. She could literaly tell her supervisor to go jump in a lake and refuse to do any of the work assigned to her (some of her coworkers do this on a regular basis) and she would not suffer any loss of status. On the other hand, it would be nearly impossible for her to get a raise based upon merit. Pay scale is derived almost entirely based upon seniorty not even job responsibilty.

If government employees were treated more like private industry employees (i.e. job security and benefits dependent upon performance) alot of the problems with government inefficiency would be resolved.

You can see this even as an american citizen when dealing with U.S. and Foriegn customs agencies.
When dealing with Foriegn customs my experience is that they are almost universaly polite and efficient. When dealing with U.S. customs they are almost universaly rude, even to U.S. citizens and rarely do they seem to care to do more then just go through the motions.

I'm betting if the Foriegn agents behaved that way they would loose thier jobs. But our civil servants can't even be disciplined by thier supervisors.

[ Parent ]

No they wouldn't (none / 0) (#395)
by deaddrunk on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:24:15 PM EST

Just that they don't have to work nights as well to make ends meet.

[ Parent ]
A problem with Americans, not with civil servants. (2.50 / 2) (#497)
by linca on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 09:14:10 AM EST

You know, most of the civil service people in the developed world have about the same status as the US ones.

Somehow, in many other places the civil servants manage to be efficient without being rewarded for job efficiency, having job security and salary progression mostly based on seniority.

Maybe this has to do with the way the US society is centered on monetary wealth and rewards, something not as prevalent in say, Europe, where "doing one's job" is still more or less important? Not to say one or the other system is better. But most customs agency people can't loose their jobs yet are able to be polite.

[ Parent ]

Your -wife- is an alien? (1.50 / 10) (#270)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:40:01 PM EST

So, from context we can assume you are not an alien. Thus, the only reason your wife is an alien is due to a complete lack of desire to gain citizenship - with the marriage to you it would be practically automatic.

So, I'm supposed to cry about the trials and tribulations of somebody who has made a concious choice to not ally herself with this country?

No. No such pity here.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Boy are you deluded. (4.00 / 6) (#280)
by Stoutlimb on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:10:31 PM EST

"Thus, the only reason your wife is an alien is due to a complete lack of desire to gain citizenship - with the marriage to you it would be practically automatic."

"Automatic", using the government definition, can easily mean years of red tape and hassles.  I'm born, raised in, and living in Canada, which has a much better and friendlier immigration system, and it took just shy of 2 years for my European WIFE to be allowed to even set foot in this country.  Just red tape and bureaucratic bullshit.  And while the citizenship application was processing, she wasn't even allowed to *visit* here.  Since I was working and supporting her, I could hardly go there and visit her for any length of time.

This was the "friendly" and "overly pourous" Canadian system.  I shudder to think of what post 911 Americans would have to endure in a similar situation.

People tend to think that bureaucracies go smoothly until they have to endure them themselves.

[ Parent ]

Canada isn't the US. (none / 0) (#289)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:46:33 PM EST

My experience with spouse citizenship was two interviews. That's it. All over.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Have you considered... (4.00 / 1) (#323)
by ShadowNode on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:00:24 PM EST

That, maybe, you where just lucky?

[ Parent ]
Practically What? (none / 0) (#307)
by baba on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:06:00 PM EST

I take it you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as automatic in the process of a person married to an American citizen becoming a citizen in turn. It takes a minimum of two applications (residency and naturalization,) each of which can take about two years to complete. There is also a mandatory five year waiting period between the two. Not to mention travel restrictions imposed during the processing of the application for residency.

So, in what way does a process that takes seven to nine years to complete seem automatic to you?

Also, your attack is particularly odd in the light of the fact that the person you're attacking seems to be in fact engaged in the very process you recommend.

[ Parent ]

Practically Automatic. (3.00 / 2) (#310)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:29:07 PM EST

There is no such thing as automatic in the process of a person married to an American citizen becoming a citizen in turn. It takes a minimum of two applications (residency and naturalization,) each of which can take about two years to complete.

Try a three year process with an interview at the start, an interview at the end, and final naturalization six weeks after the second. Each interview took an afternoon. Yes, that's practically automatic for something as important as citizenship.

You need to stop mixing marriage naturalization with non-marriage naturalization.

Also, your attack is particularly odd in the light of the fact that the person you're attacking seems to be in fact engaged in the very process you recommend.

Perhaps because I'm recently finished with the very process I recommend. You know. Just maybe.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Fucknut retard <nt> (1.66 / 3) (#367)
by CodeWright on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:04:13 AM EST



--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Never assign to malice... (4.33 / 3) (#278)
by flarg on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:04:23 PM EST

Never assign to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

They issued her a temporary green card, which was valid for a year, telling her she would get her green card some time during the next month.

A year later, she goes down to see what happened to the green card

Well, here's one problem. Yes, the INS definately screwed up, but it sounds like she waited a year to find out what happened. That's bad. If their is a problem, you need to pounce on it as soon as possible. They may say "Duh, I don't know. Come back later." and then you need to come back later, but YOU MUST STAY ON TOP OF IT. Keep records, get the names of people who helped up. Go back and say "So-and-so said I that I needed to wait another month. Well, it's been a month, and I still don't have my green card. Please help me."

If you wait a year, the problem becomes lost in a year's worth of problems.

The senators have completely ignored the correspondance.

Once again, this isn't a conspiracy. Some senators receive millions of letters per year. It's impossible to respond to all of the letters. I receive a canned response to about 10% of my letters.

In addition to the racism, people are thrown in jail for six months without warning or trial just for crossing the border to get cheaper gas at a US gas station.

I can't go to Canada or Mexico (or any other friendly country) without showing the proper papers, why should the US be different? Also, why would people risk the law just to get cheaper gas? Very bad judgement on their part.

[ Parent ]

Here's a clarification for you. (4.00 / 3) (#285)
by Stoutlimb on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:30:39 PM EST

"Also, why would people risk the law just to get cheaper gas? Very bad judgement on their part."

Here's something to clear up for you on that gas issue.  The Canadian authorities have a letter from their American counterpart that recognizes this practice and has oficially decided to turn a blind eye to it.  It was common custom, everyone was aware of it, and it was documented as being acceptable behaviour.  The guy who was arrested at random that day was one of approximately 80 others who did the same thing.

The big deal about this is that they changed the rules without notifying anyone, and then simply starting to arrest people who believe they are law abiding citizens.  If they had posted a sign, or written their Canadian counterparts that this action is no longer acceptable, then it would have been the guys own damn fault.

What the American border guards was just plain stupid.  Diplomacy seems to be a lost art for Americans, no wonder they're in the mess they're in.

[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0) (#340)
by flarg on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:31:01 PM EST

Ok, I had no idea this was a common practice, or that the INS had turned a blind eye to the situation. I suppose it makes sense: If Canadian's buy gas in the US, it's more money for the US.

I assumed that the people were sneaking across the border, similar how American kids 18-21 sneak into Canada to go drink.

What the American border guards was just plain stupid.  Diplomacy seems to be a lost art for Americans, no wonder they're in the mess they're in.

Don't go about assuming that all USians behave like our border guards. Most American's consider Border Guards one of the lowest forms of life in the Government.

Things are out of control now, but not without reason. If 3000 Canadian's were killed in a terrorist attack in one of your cities, Canadians would behave similarly.

Hopefully we'll be able to reign in the right-wingers within a few years.

[ Parent ]

A similar story (5.00 / 9) (#252)
by CodeMan on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 01:20:21 PM EST

Read this. Judge orders Pakistani father, son to leave U.S.
I mean this is absolutely crazy. The guys visa was suppose to expire on Dec 10. They filed for an extension and received a letter on Nov. 26 saying that their application for extension has been received. INS laws clearly state that if you file for you extension before your visa expires, you can stay and you are considered in status. And I know it becasue we had people come to our company on H1s and B1s and they went through this process.
The sad part is to see it happen in America. I mean you see judges like this in Iran, Pakistan but here?

CodeMan

That's not a similar story... (3.50 / 2) (#265)
by Skywise on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:24:04 PM EST

In this case, the INS is supporting these guys 100% within their own rules.

That's just one downright stupid judge.

"You don't have to worry about Christmas, right?"

What kind of questioning is that?!?

Oh wait, this is from the state that can't vote...

[ Parent ]

US judges have a history of this (5.00 / 5) (#273)
by hazehead on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 03:49:48 PM EST

You only have to look as far back as WWII and the cowardly judges that upheld the Japanese internment camps.

[ Parent ]
Ya Gotta Wonder About The Timing... (none / 0) (#258)
by Baldrson on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:04:25 PM EST

... the timing of this New York times article declaring race to be a genetic construct after all.  I mean these guys have been working hand-in-glove with their cousins in west LA for decades to tell us the gospel of anti-racism  -- and now on the same day we see them doing a world-class ethnic cleansing schtick and renouncing their prior repeated and extensive solemn pronouncements that there is no genetic basis for "race".

-------- Empty the Cities --------


Skin color not a marker for race (none / 0) (#409)
by kurthr on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:40:53 PM EST

It's all well and good to notice that large groups of people who do not interbreed across continents will share some SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms called "markers" in the article). One will then notice that claimed ancestry will be a fairly good predictor for some (less than 5%) of the 400 tested markers for some fraction of the reporting population.

Fortunately or unfortunately, this may not work very well in the future or even today in the first world mixing pot. Furthermore, it points out not that it is an easy or particularly accurate method, but only that it is possible. How do we know it is doable, because we looked very hard to find a way to genetically determine geographic origin. That so much money and time was spent on this also says a fair bit about the concerns of people and agencies working on it.

According to another recent genetic study, "Colour is no guide to ancestry". Now that's mighty inconvenient for visually identifying discriminators and discriminatees.

To interpret both of these results together, it seems that one can tell the rough geographic background of unmixed populations, but not in mixed populations. A dark skinned Brazilian is not identifiable as African, and in fact is not readily genetically distinguishable from a light skinned Brazilian. Almost by definition there is no significant evolutionary advantage to any particular marker/SNP, and SNPs themselves do not represent recessive/dominant traits. One could easily have acquire SNPs from many different groups while still identifying as 'white' American, European, South American or Indo-Asian.

This probably holds true for dark/light skinned Americans and for other "racial" features as well in mixed populations. One need only look at white American slave descendants (popularized by the discovery of 'black' and 'white' relatives on both sides of the Thomas Jefferson family tree), or the highly mixed American Indian communities. Almost certainly one could easily genetically discern between mixed and unmixed populations. The more successful mongrels could then discriminate against the lower caste purebreds.

[ Parent ]
Small Genetic Differences Can Be a Big Deal (none / 0) (#456)
by Baldrson on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 12:43:24 PM EST

The difference between Greyhounds, German Shepherds, and Labrador Retreivers have an index in the 0.028-0.054 range.  This compares to a similar study in humans (Kimmel et al., Genetic 143, 549-555, 1996) which shows that Japanese and Chinese have an index of difference of 0.029. Larger racial differences are in the range of 0.087 - 0.363. Therefore, genetic differences between dog breeds, which result in large phenotypic consequences, are about equal to intra-racial ethnic differences, and smaller than human inter-racial differences.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Source (none / 0) (#505)
by Baldrson on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:44:13 PM EST

Here's the source of that.

+OK 4487 octets
Received: from smtp05.nwnexus.com (smtp05.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.43])
    by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17088
    for <arthurhu@mail.halcyon.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from onn.pair.com (onn.pair.com [209.68.1.67])
    by smtp05.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA01815
    for <arthurhu@halcyon.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:49:16 -0800
Received: (from slist@localhost) by onn.pair.com (8.9.1/8.6.12) id AAA19884; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:48:35 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:48:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To: arthurhu@halcyon.com
Old-X-Envelope-To: <upstream-list@cycad.com>
Message-ID: <001c01be6ea7$1b844680$53ee2599@cia>
From: "Clyde Bruckman" <clydebruckman@iname.com>
To: "upstream" <upstream-list@cycad.com>
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Mau-Mauing the Dogcatcher:Is it racist to dislike a dachshund?
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:45:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"buowlC.A.kzE.76J72"@onn.pair.com>
Resent-From: upstream-list@cycad.com
Reply-To: upstream-list@cycad.com
X-Mailing-List: <upstream-list@cycad.com> archive/latest/1614
X-Loop: upstream-list@cycad.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: upstream-list-request@cycad.com
Status:  

arthur hu wrote:

>I take it the upstream position is that people are just as
>genetically different as dogs are, or perhaps only to a lesser
>degree?

This is an interesting question.  The reason I posted this article was
amusement that there are people who deny the biological reality of even the
very characteristics for which the dogs have been specifically bred!
Whether human races are comparable to dog breeds is a question I've been
meaning to investigate ever since I read somebody--Matt Nuenke, I
think--comparing the reactions to "The Bell Curve" and "The Intelligence of
Dogs."

I've looked up some data this week and here is what I've found.

Dog breeds are much more homogeneous genetically than are human races.  Thus
the article is correct that stereotypes can be more accurately applied to
dog breeds than to races.  Stereotypes may be statistical truths about
races, but the variation among individuals within a race is so large that it
is often--perhaps usually--inaccurate to apply the stereotype to an
individual.

On the other hand, the genetic distance between dog breeds is smaller than
the genetic distance between races--at least as far as I have been able to
find so far.  In Zajc et al., 1997,  distances are given among three breeds
of dogs:  grey hounds, german shepherds, and labrador retrievers.  The
distances are 0.028, 0.031, and 0.054.

By contrast, in Kimmel et al., 1996,  these distances are about the same as
those between populations within larger racial groupings.  For example, the
distance between Japanese and Chinese samples is .029.

The difference between populations of different racial groups is much
larger--in the 0.087 to .363 range.

Both of these studies calculate distances using microsatellites and as far
as I can tell the distance measures they use are comparable.

Obviously, there are specific phenotypic differences in dogs--overall size
and relative size of body parts--that vary much more than any physical
characteristic in humans of which I'm aware.  It just goes to show that
small differences in genes can make for large differences in the phenotype.

Kimmel M, et al.
Dynamics of repeat polymorphisms under a forward-backward mutation model:
within- and between-population variability at microsatellite loci.
Genetics. 1996 May;143(1):549-55.

Zajc I, et al.
Variability of canine microsatellites within and between different dog
breeds.
Mamm Genome. 1997 Mar;8(3):182-5.

---

This is a message from the Upstream mailing list. Visit the Upstream
Website at http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/  Visit the Upstream
Mailing List archives at http://cycad.com/upstream-list-archive

To subscribe to this list send email to the address
               upstream-list-request@cycad.com
with just the subject
               subscribe

To unsubscribe from this list send email to the address
               upstream-list-request@cycad.com
with just the subject
               unsubscribe

.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

More crackdowns please. (1.84 / 19) (#267)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 02:33:51 PM EST

I'd like to see a 100% deportation rate for expired visas, combined with a 100% tracking rate for those here legally on visas.

Face it folks, non citizens have no right to be in the country, it is a privledge we communally extend. They are guests on the shared property of the US, and as property owners it is very much our right - even our responsability - to know where our guests are.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.

I'll bite (3.33 / 3) (#283)
by bayankaran on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:19:14 PM EST

Sorry, I cant help not reacting to self-righteous dorks.

I'd like to see a 100% deportation rate for expired visas, combined with a 100% tracking rate for those here legally on visas.

When you in your SUV drives to the next fast food drive through window there will not be anyone to serve you. These people are here illegaly because there is a demand for their non-unionised $4-5 per hour/12 hour per day toil.

They dont complain. They are happy because this is a much better deal than what they can get in their home countries. If you were in their situation you would have tried the same.

And what do you mean by tracking? INS already knows the addresses and occupation and other details of persons who are here legally. Should they wear an arm-band?

Face it folks, non citizens have no right to be in the country, it is a privledge we communally extend.

This is not a communally extended privilege as you would believe...this is the stark reality where businesses in US cannot be profitable without these illegal aliens working for them.

They are guests on the shared property of the US, and as property owners it is very much our right -even our responsability - to know where our guests are.

Do you know the exact meaning of a guest? You hound these people for overstaying a visa and say they are your guests. If someone comes to your house and stays for a day or two longer will you arrest/kick them out?

Face it, you or your parents/grandparents took an early boat, what is the difference otherwise?

[ Parent ]
Guest does not mean what you think it means (1.00 / 1) (#293)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:05:01 PM EST

When you in your SUV drives to the next fast food drive through window there will not be anyone to serve you. These people are here illegaly because there is a demand for their non-unionised $4-5 per hour/12 hour per day toil.

If this was true, which it isn't because the fast food companies only hire legals, but if it was it would be the perfect opportunity to boot the worthless leech-citizens from the welfare rolls and force them to work the $4-5 per hour/12 hour per day toil. 6% unemployment after all!

Do you know the exact meaning of a guest?

Yes I do: "staying temporarily" as in "a visting foreigner". Guest does not necessarily mean 'friend', and I would most certainly kick non-friend guests out.

Face it, you or your parents/grandparents took an early boat, what is the difference otherwise?

Yes, and they all became citizens and were immediately immune to registration requirements or visas expiring. So what?

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (none / 0) (#284)
by Mister Pmosh on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:26:45 PM EST

It is difficult to take a person seriously when they are not intelligent enough to spell "responsibility." It is merely a highly visible indicator of the vast fields of ignorance on the plains of your mind.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
[ Parent ]
Are you from slashdot? (2.00 / 2) (#287)
by CodeMan on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:36:31 PM EST

Did you bother to research the issue or even read the original post.
The govt has the right to deport non-citizens who break the law.
The govt has the right to know where the foreigners are in the country
BUT
The people being arrested were not necessarily illegals. Think over it for a minute. You think someone who is in the country illegally will walk up to an INS desk and say 'Yo man, I am not like legal here but I like read this thing on the web that I like gotta come in and get regsitered. so what we do now?". :-) many of them were waiting for their green cards as they had filed for AOS(Adjustment of Status) so they were not illegal. Also just like you have a parking ticket which is not the same as DUI which is not the same as rape, immigration violations come in diferent types as well. When the govt. goes about throwing people in detention for the most minor of violations, it scares off the immigrant communities.
Assume there is an Iranian\Pakistani\Syrian who is out of status (or in the country illegally) and he suspects that someone in his community is part of a terror cell. What do you think he is going to do now? Call the FBI? Heck no, he will be to scared to do that.

CodeMan

[ Parent ]
What article did you read? (3.00 / 2) (#290)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:47:58 PM EST

The people being arrested were not necessarily illegals.

Yes Virginia, being here past your visa makes you an illegal.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Let's try it again.... (3.00 / 2) (#312)
by CodeMan on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:47:04 PM EST

<CodeMan takes a deep breath and reminds himself that it is possible Bartab is on some medication>

It CAN make you illegal. It depends on what, if any, petition you have filed with the INS at that point in time.
A lot of the people that were busted, already had filed their AOS (Adjustment of Status) applications.

I don't think you understand how complex and complicated immigration petitions are. Your one interaction with INS for your wife's naturalization does not make you an expert. An example of this is your statement "..being here past your visa makes you an illegal. " The expiration date of your visa had nothing to do with your legal status in the country. It is governed by the date on your I-94 i.e, Arrival\Departure Record. Got it Virginia?

[ Parent ]
Idiot. (4.00 / 3) (#292)
by ckm on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:59:36 PM EST

My wife is a 'green card holder'.  I am fully responsible for whatever SHE does.  In every single way.  And I, an American citizen, am required to register with the INS and notify them if I ever move.

Why is she not a citizen?  Because it takes YEARS for the INS bureaucracy to do ANYTHING.  The are ALWAYS late, even for their OWN deadlines.  Not only do immigrants face a complex, unaccountable and insulting system, but now they also face arrest and deportation simply for attempting to follow rules.  And at any point in time, for ANY reason, ANY official can decide that you are persona non-grata.  Yes, it's that abitrary, I have seen it myself.

Many, many immigrants have gone to hell and back just to get here, many have escaped repressive, violent regimes and many will die if they are deported.  You apperently have no experience with this and are lucky enough to never be forced into this situation.  

What you 'want' has been a legal requirement for at least 20 years, but the INS has NEVER been able to do it, and the ones who get fucked on a continual basis are the law-abidding immigrants who get caught up in this Kafka nightmare.

The 'terrorists' don't care about 'rules' or the INS.  They know how to manipulate the system and will always either ignore all the laws or fly under the radar.  

This kind of repression only exists to make people like you feel better.  

Do you feel better now?  

Good, here's some more Prozac and thanks for not questioning our facist little directives.


[ Parent ]

INS is easier than you think. (2.25 / 4) (#295)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:14:52 PM EST

My wife is a 'green card holder'.

That's nice, my wife is a naturalized citizen. She's responsible for her own actions (outside the economic tying inherent in any marriage)

Again, I don't give any pity for somebody who has expressly chosen to not be a citizen.

Why is she not a citizen? Because it takes YEARS for the INS bureaucracy to do ANYTHING.

Nope. Two interviews, six weeks. Hello naturalization. Naturalization without marriage takes several years, which is the intent, it's not supposed to be easy. It strikes me that you haven't really tried to get her naturalized based on a marriage, because it's not nearly that hard.

The 'terrorists' don't care about 'rules' or the INS. They know how to manipulate the system and will always either ignore all the laws or fly under the radar.

Idiot. Thats why there should be no lower range for the radar. Every Visa holder should be tracked. What you want is to create that ability for terrorists to "fly under the radar." Every visa violator should be held and deported. I'm glad the INS is taking steps toward that direction after their failure to deny visas to, and deport when expired, those 11 of 15 terrorists on the planes on 9/11.

Good, here's some more Prozac and thanks for not questioning our facist little directives.

I'll question every facists directive, like gun control, wealth redistribution, "drug war", etc. I just don't see registering visa holders or deporting illegals as facist. Just proper management.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Naturalization is a 8 year process. (3.75 / 4) (#300)
by ckm on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:47:23 PM EST

Nope. Two interviews, six weeks. Hello naturalization. Naturalization without marriage takes several years, which is the intent, it's not supposed to be easy.

BS, not after 1998.  You have to have been a 'permenant resident' in the US for at least 3-5 years continuously before applying for citizenship, married or not (5+ years with no marriage).  Continuously is defined as not leaving for more than 18 months.  Kinda difficutlt to do if you have an international career and you move countries every 3-4 years.   On top of that, you will lose your permenant residency if you leave the country for more than 6 months, making you ineligible for citizenship.  BTDT.

Perhaps you should look at the facts before sprouting nonsense.  As of 1998, 'green cards' obtained by marriage are only good for 3 years.  After that, you recieve a 'permenant green card' and only then does the clock start for becoming a resident.  This means you have to wait a total of 5-8 years to become a citizen.  See http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm for the actual FACTS.  

And as far as 'catching terrorists' goes, European (not to mention Isreali) experience has shown that no matter what you do, terrorist will find a way around any measures.  If people are motivated enough to kill you, they will find ways to do it.    

As I said, the only people who wind up in trouble are those who are trying to follow all the rules and those who need to have 'public' displays of 'the government doing something'.

I'm glad it makes you feel better.  The propaganda is apparently working great.

It strikes me that you haven't really tried to get her naturalized based on a marriage, because it's not nearly that hard.

That's an interesting statement about your relationship.  It strikes me that it is not up to me to FORCE my wife to become a citizen, but up to my wife to CHOOSE to become one (which she would do if it was legally possible...)  Obviously, this is a reflection of the controlling, one size fits all attitude that you exhibit about 'citizenship'.  I pity your spouse.

[ Parent ]

Naturalisation can be a 20 year process. (3.50 / 2) (#303)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:56:25 PM EST

It depends on who you are and how you came here. Just because you can "technically" apply for naturalisation after 5 years of permanent residence doesn't mean it'll be granted to you, and in many cases, applying for permanent residence is a choice between being overly confident in getting it versus being sent back to your country for a minimum of x years before you can try again, due to some "work list" arrangement or the other.

It all depends on who you are and how you came here and what your existing status is. I find it hysterically amusing when people crow, "oh, you can become a citizen in 3 years!" .. "oh, green card, 1 year!" ... right, sure. If you're married to an American, maybe. If you came here via, say, the student route, don't count on it.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Naturalization is a three year process. (3.00 / 4) (#309)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:16:53 PM EST

BS, not after 1998. You have to have been a 'permenant resident' in the US for at least 3-5 years continuously before applying for citizenship, married or not (5+ years with no marriage).

Well, I do believe that 1999 was after 1998. Perhaps your leftist math can verify that.

However, its odd that your subject claims an 8 year process and then you state that its really a 3 year process.

On top of that, you will lose your permenant residency if you leave the country for more than 6 months, making you ineligible for citizenship.

I'm sure this is true for non-marriage naturalization. It was not a problem for my wife, even though she was out of country for more than six months in the last three years.

As of 1998, 'green cards' obtained by marriage are only good for 3 years. After that, you recieve a 'permenant green card' and only then does the clock start for becoming a resident.

Duh. This has been so for a long time, except I think it used to be two years. It's to eliminate the "get married, get a green card, get divorced" that was a problem after WWII and the Korean wars. We recently hit that three year mark and for those three years there was no need to even speak to an INS agent, much less wait for visas to get renewed. Since, it was a three year time. We had one interview in 99, and another this year. That was the entire involvement of the INS.

And as far as 'catching terrorists' goes, European (not to mention Isreali) experience has shown that no matter what you do, terrorist will find a way around any measures. If people are motivated enough to kill you, they will find ways to do it.

Forgive me (or don't whatever) for not caring what the Appeasement Nation (aka EU) has decided as functional policy. Israel is having problems because of a combination of day laborors entering and leaving the country every day and local citizens. Regardless, even if people will always find ways to kill us, it is not a reason to make that process easy on them. It's a requirement to make it as hard as possible even if it becomes a hardship on people not trying to kill us - or perhaps you keep your doors unlocked, since thieves will manage to break in anyways? I mean gee, you might lose your keys and it would be such a hardship on you!

I'm glad it makes you feel better. The propaganda is apparently working great.

Is it beyond your broken leftest mind to believe that somebody can actually agree with the policy? I've made it quite clear that if anything, I find the current, much less the 9/10/2001 policy too lax.

That's an interesting statement about your relationship.

Not at all, but its a comment on your reading comprension. All I said is you haven't tried. Please quote where I said you should force your wife. I'll wait here, but while waiting, I'll point out that I previously said that I do not care about the trials and tribulations of someone who does not choose to become a citizen when the choice is available.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Wealth Redistribution?! (4.00 / 2) (#325)
by baron samedi on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:39:35 PM EST

Except for the 'wealth redistribution' of confiscated assets by enemies of the state in Nazi Germany and Italy and Spain and Argentina, where was the wealth redistribution in Fascist Regimes? Especially in Italy's "Estato Corporativo"? Destruction of the capitalist class occurred in Communist regimes, not Fascist ones. If there was anything approaching 'wealth redistribution', it was the favored position of wealthy interests and corporations that supported the regime away from the ones who were stupid enough to not to show enough support.
As I recall, the German war machine was built by private companies, not state-owned factories. Stalin's was, but there's no redistribution of wealth in Fascist states, not as an expressed goal of the regime, anyway.
And don't give me any of that rot about 'National Socialism'. The Nazis were at the opposite end of the political spectrum vis a vis communism. The stress is on the 'National' and not the 'Socialism'.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Interesting spin on fascism. (3.00 / 2) (#328)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:53:16 PM EST

I'll question every facists directive, like gun control, wealth redistribution, "drug war", etc. I just don't see registering visa holders or deporting illegals as facist. Just proper management.

Wealth redistribution is most certainly not a feature of fascism. Haven't you ever heard Mussolini's formulation that "fascism is the merging of state and corporate power"? That's exactly what it is. Fascism is a distinctly state-capitalist arrangement. Wealth is not redistributed in the slightest; if anything, it assumes a more concetrated form.

As for your endorsement of state thuggery (even if it's doled out by bureaucracies) against immigrants, that constitutes fascism. "Proper management" is an extremely dangerous phrase with many different applications, and a very Orwellian overtone.

I'm sure the Final Solution was "proper management" too.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Hey valeko! [OT] (1.00 / 1) (#371)
by Rasman on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:19:27 AM EST

I think you're links are a little funked up here, man.

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
[ Parent ]
Intentional. (1.00 / 1) (#390)
by valeko on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:29:47 AM EST

It's nihilistic commentary on the loneliness of cyberspace. :-)

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Umm... (3.00 / 2) (#403)
by Rasman on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:53:30 PM EST

Dude, that's waaay too deep for me. I guess I'm not the right caliber of surfer to be on your site...

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
[ Parent ]
You missed something... (5.00 / 1) (#297)
by Amesha Spentas on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:33:37 PM EST

In the article it was mentioned that several of the potential deportees were arrested on expired visas. However may of the expired visas we due to the bureaucratic red tape of the government. So you could be arrested and deported due to a late filing from some underpaid clerk in the Immigration office.

Do you believe that those people deserve to be deported? People who have done everything required of them, on time, truthfully and lawfully, who played by all the rules, to become citizens only to have those chances destroyed because they are from the Middle East and a clerk lost their paperwork?

You said that you want "I'd like to see a 100% deportation rate for expired visas, combined with a 100% tracking rate for those here legally on visas."
Are you ready to foot the bill for a bureaucracy that is able to track and guarantee 100% the location and goings-on of any visitors? Would you like it if you were required to contact the government every day to let them know where you were, where you were going and what you planed on doing whenever you visit a country? What would your impressions of that country be? What if you were crazy enough to want to immigrate there? Now you would be required to report on your whereabouts every day for months or years. How practical is that? Ask any immigration officer; mistakes are made all the time. However now when we make those mistakes others are paying for it, as long as they are "dark skinned, scary looking, and born in the wrong place."

Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]

You missed everything... (3.00 / 2) (#301)
by Bartab on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 05:56:00 PM EST

So you could be arrested and deported due to a late filing from some underpaid clerk in the Immigration office.

No, you'll be detained and have your time in front of an immigration judge. If you can convince the judge that that is all the problem is, then you won't be deported. If you can't convince the judge of any such thing, I have no pity.

Also: File earlier. The idea that the gov't should speed up the process to meet your requirements doesn't wash with me. I'd rather have slow and correct, and I'm not terribly interested in spending more money on the INS agents.

Do you believe that those people deserve to be deported?

People who are illegal in the country (either through illegally entering, or by allowing their visa to elapse) or has committed major crimes as a non citizen or has violated the terms of their visa (student visa not maintaining enough hours for example) and are unable to convince a judge that they should not be deported should be deported.

Are you ready to foot the bill for a bureaucracy that is able to track and guarantee 100% the location and goings-on of any visitors?

To a point, sure. Past that point, then we simply stop giving guest visas. If it comes to a choice between spending too much money, not having the tracking, or cutting back on visa grants then its the visa grants that have to go.

Would you like it if you were required to contact the government every day to let them know where you were, where you were going and what you planed on doing whenever you visit a country?

When I visted the birthplace of my wife, I very much had to tell the gov't where I was staying, how long I would be, why I was there, etc. That's all thats being asked here, not day to day movements. Just where they live, who they live with, where they work/go to school, why they are in the country, etc. It's not the FBI tailing them every day.

What would your impressions of that country be?

They were perfectly fine.

What if you were crazy enough to want to immigrate there?

Sure! If living there was an overall positive change, then naturalization - and thus the end of being required to register - would be an even better positive change. Now of course, me personally, I don't see any currently existing country better for my life than the US. Certainly not Socialist Western Europe, although East Europe has potential.

Now you would be required to report on your whereabouts every day for months or years

OH THE HORROR. Being required to drop a line to the gov't in the country I am a guest in everytime I move or change jobs. Holy crap, I might need to talk to them once a year or so!. Maybe, just maybe, I can fill in an extra form when I do my taxes!

Ask any immigration officer; mistakes are made all the time.

Which is why the US system has this thing called judges, to hear the claims and make a ruling.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

And you? (3.00 / 1) (#499)
by Amesha Spentas on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:04:43 PM EST

No, you'll be detained and have your time in front of an immigration judge. If you can convince the judge that that is all the problem is, then you won't be deported. If you can't convince the judge of any such thing, I have no pity.

Here's how it used to work, (and how it still works if your not from the Middle East.) If there is a discrepancy, or a pending renewal, or a minor (Not major) crime has occurred. You are given a notice, perhaps asked to arrive at the immigration office and schooled a time in front of a Judge to plead your case. Or a date is set for you to argue your case. Meanwhile your life continues on as normal.
Lets see what happened in this case.

There is a discrepancy, or a pending renewal, or a minor (Not major) crime has occurred. You are given a notice to show up at the Immigration office to sort out the facts/problem.
You show up.
You are arrested.
You might be transported to another state to wait for several weeks or months. Finally you're brought before a Judge. He sees that your renewal was pending. He says, "Whops sorry." You try to find your way back into your life.

If this had happened in China I'm sure you would be up in arms about the treatment of US citizens.
Picture it. Joe Blow chooses to visit China for a vacation/Inquire about a job/Visit relatives. Joe Blow fills out the paperwork. Receives a Visa. Arrives in Beijing. A month passes and Joe is asked to arrive at immigration headquarters. Joe shows up and is promptly arrested for (Speeding ticket, Not listing every hotel he plans on staying at, paperwork was not received on time because the mailman only picks up from that mailbox one every other week, Etc... Now Joe is arrested, detained, and imprisoned for several months waiting for a Judge to get the time to hear his case.

What do you think the uproar in the States would be like? Look out how many people bitched about that stupid kid getting caned.

I'd rather have slow and correct, and I'm not terribly interested in spending more money on the INS agents.
To a point, sure. Past that point, then we simply stop giving guest visas. If it comes to a choice between spending too much money, not having the tracking, or cutting back on visa grants then its the visa grants that have to go.

First, these are not just visitor's visas. Second, It doesn't matter how early you file if your paperwork gets lost in the bureaucracy and the first notification you get is a summons to INS HQ where you are promptly arrested and detained for several months.

Just where they live, who they live with, where they work/go to school, why they are in the country, etc. It's not the FBI tailing them every day.

Actually the FBI / Homeland security is tailing a large majority of them. Second, They submitted that info when they applied for a visa. They were awarded a visa, so it must have met with all established criteria. Third these people complied with the requirements of the INS and were arrested for it. Instead of taking the time tracking and arresting those who didn't respond, we are filling our jails, to the point where we have to send them to other states, with people willing (at least originally) to work with the system. Now we have fewer resources to inquire about/track/apprehend those who did not respond. Plus we have told visitors and immigrants that trying to work with the government is a lose/lose situation. The end result of which is making it several orders of magnitude more difficult for an INS agent to get cooperation from families/friends in tracking the whereabouts of those who might truly be a threat.

P.S. Those that were arrested due to crimes. They were minor crimes like speeding tickets, (A Misdemeanor crime.) Most major crimes would cause immediate expulsion and/or prison sentences. So these people were not real criminals.

Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]

We hold these truths to be self-evident (5.00 / 4) (#358)
by meaton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:40:43 AM EST

"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration _transcription.html

Don't ever, ever say that someone has fewer rights than you because of happenstances such as place of birth or race. Denying a fellow human being the basic rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers is to deny yourself those same rights. That so few modern Americans understand this is an indictment of our education system for utterly failing to eductate our citizens about our nation's civic principles. This failure should not be taken as an excuse on your part, you need to be responsible enough to understand and uphold your duties as a citizen.

[ Parent ]
You should have at least (none / 0) (#526)
by RyoCokey on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:31:58 AM EST

...picked up in the old failing educational system that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and has no bearing (beyond possibly philosophical) on the laws of the land.

Furthermore, no where in said document are they entitled to move here without our permission.



"Like all important issues, gun control is an emotional issue that will be resolved by politics, belief, and conviction, not by a resort to "facts'." - [ Parent ]
I'm not an expert here... (4.20 / 5) (#286)
by MuteWinter on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:35:44 PM EST

but isn't it the people who didn't show up to register the ones we should be concerned about?

Throwing people who may have accidentally or unknowingly broken the law doesn't help us catch people who pose a real threat.

Kind of like arresting/fining everyone at a rave whether they were doing drugs or not. In the end it only lowers any respect for the law of those who may have had any at the time.

i don't know whether to laugh or cry (2.08 / 24) (#291)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 04:54:44 PM EST

We will soon begin to see that this is hardly true; it is part of a far-reaching goal of consolidating additional political control and cracking down on the elements of society most inclined to resist the new ambitions of American imperialism.

yes, september 11th was awful, wasn't it? it was a great tragedy when 19 foreign nationals of middle eastern decent killed 3,000 in an act of miitant islamic fundamentalism, isn't it?

i'm glad everyone here has the right PERSPECTIVE of where the REAL CRIMES are taking place.

absolutely dumbfoundingly amazing. what would it take for some of you to accept that controlling foreign nationals of middle eastern decent is something of a priority right now in the us? for good reasons?

hello? september 11th! hello? are you listening?

this is not FUD. this is not american imperialist propaganda. this HAPPENED. this is REAL. a REAL THREAT. foreign nationals at work in the US trying to DESTROY it the best they can. these people are GUESTS here. we can kick them out for whatever damn reason we want, ok? and i think we have a VERY GOOD REASON to right now, no?

would someone who thinks this detainment is simply "american imperialism" at work and no more please explain to me what they think is happening in the world right now, and TAKE SEPTEMBER 11TH INTO ACCOUNT. babbling cause and effect that pins the actions of the september 11th terrorists on past us actions does not count, and why? because islamic militant fundamentalists HAVE AN AGENDA ALL OF THERE OWN THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US. hello? are you listening? bali? kenya? what will it take for some of you to WAKE UP AND SEE WHERE THE REAL THREAT IN THE WORLD IS TODAY.

after the trauma of september 11th, what, what would any of you do to protect us citizens from fundamentalist madmen? what would you do if you were president of the us? call off all us aggression and stand before the world and declare it a zone of peace? and you think that will stop islamic militant fundamentalists?

here is the TRUTH for some of you, because some of you have trouble accepting it:

if the USA turned into a big lake tomorrow, and all americans disappeared off of the face of the earth, what, WHAT do you think the islamic militant fundamentalists would do?

after they finished celebrating the death of the great satan by an act of god, what do you really, really think they would do? is that their entire agenda? fight the good anti-american imperialist agenda? is that what they are about? they are great freedom fighters, are they?

take a DEEP BREATH and use the limits of your imagination and tell me honestly what you think islamic militant fundamentalists would do at that point.

ANSWER THAT QUESTION TRUTHFULLY and you see for yourself where the real threat to peace and prosperity in the world today lies.

do you see? do you see where the truth lies? is there light entering the skull at this point? will some of you wiggle out of the deathgrip of your do-nothing propaganda and accept that simple truth? because once you recognize that simple truth, maybe some of you will concern your energies fighting real enemies of peace in the world today.

american imperialism! HAHAHAHAHAHA do i laugh or do i cry?

some of you suffer from some sort of moral autism.

absolutely.

dumbfoundlingly.

amazing.

i mean how BLIND do some of you have to be?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

We'd have to be blinder than you I guess (none / 0) (#315)
by broken77 on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:06:41 PM EST

You accuse someone of spreading FUD, while writing a comment like THAT? Oh, man.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

FUD (1.00 / 2) (#332)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:37:53 PM EST

fud= fear, uncertainty, doubt.

it is the spread of propaganda, lies and half truths intent on fostering an emotional reaction rather than a logical one

so focus now

dismantle these truths:

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.

dismantle that argument please.

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.

please, PLEASE dismantle that statement for me.

now, if i write the same truths in blood red ink in bold size 48 font caps, is it FUD, or is it just a little passion on the subject, which SEEMS TO BE SORELY LACKING FROM THE DO NOTHING LEFT. the do nothing left seems to have bucketfuls of cynicism and callowness, and no passion!

PASSION NOT FUD

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

please explain (none / 0) (#495)
by thePositron on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 05:08:43 AM EST

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.

Since you know what Islamic fundamentalism's agenda is please explain it and how arresting a bunch of persian immigrants who have been here for years will prevent the goals of islamic fundamentalism from taking place?

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.

Is it as clear and present a danger as a car about to run you over? Regardless, how does one eliminate ideas? Is it possible? Or does one work on bridging the gap and synthesizing ideas? Does one do this by coming to compromises and agreeing to disagree on certain issues? .

I don't know. How does one do this? Do we arrest every muslim who we think is a fundamentalist? do we kill them all? Please answer these questions. Thank you...



[ Parent ]
FUD (none / 0) (#510)
by broken77 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 09:33:47 PM EST

We appear to agree on what the acronym stands for, but disagree on its definition. I don't think you have to tell lies or spread false propaganda to spread FUD. All you have to do is instill a sense of fear and doubt in people of what will happen if they don't do things "your way". Sounds like the War on Terrorism to me. Sounds like spreading fear of Saddam to me.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

you're so misguided (3.66 / 3) (#319)
by heng on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:30:54 PM EST

If all those living in the middle east had the opportunities and freedoms you have, there would be no issue.

Do you really think that every middle eastern is an Islamic fundamentalist? My god, I can't even express how ignorant some of your comments are.

It is attitudes like yours that lead to the worldwide hatred of the US, NOT Islamic fundamentalism.

[ Parent ]
oh my gosh (1.00 / 3) (#331)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:34:24 PM EST

MORON MORON MORON

I DID NOT EQUATE MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS TO ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS

FOLOW THE F***ING BOUNCING BALL:

SOME, I SAID SOME YOU MORON, MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS, AND IT MAKES SENSE TO FOCUS ON MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS

where in your gourd of a brain does that not compute?

where, in any of those words, did i issue a falsehood?

focus now

dismantle these truths:

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.

dismantle that argument please.

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.

please, PLEASE dismantle that statement for me.

worldwide hatred of the us by decadent spoiled brats hardly concerns anyone

worldwide hatred of the us by islamic fundamentalists hellbent on destruction CONCERNS ME

SO WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

WE FOCUS ON MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS IN THE US

DO YOU F***ING GET IT LIBERAL FRINGE????

If all those living in the middle east had the opportunities and freedoms you have, there would be no issue.

i agree. what pray tell, are you doing about it? somebody in the us has a plan. it begins by invading iraq. see, aren't we all on the same side here?

geez, i can not believe the thick skulls around here

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wow, you're really anxious aren't you? (4.25 / 4) (#370)
by Hatamoto on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:42:54 AM EST

Just all wound up with nothing to legally shoot, aren't you? Normally I ignore fanatic trolls like this, but I'm bored today so what the hell... so calm down, double your dosage of a prozac, and I'll attempt to help you to see the bigger picture.

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.
Well, duh. I've got an agenda all my own. I would assume you do as well, considering the vitriolic fever pitch which you're assuming. Maw and Paw Normal down the street have their own agenda, too. No great earth shattering suprises thus far.

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.
I'm going to modify your above statement slightly to present a far more broad (and in my opinion, accurate) representation of the world we live in today. It may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but try to mull it over some:

FUNDAMENTALISM is a clear and present danger to the peace of the world.

Fundamentalism in all its forms, be it religious, economic, or political. It's the extremists in this world that are doing the majority of the damage to our planet and its hapless inhabitants. What many people are pointing out is that US policy of late is becoming more and more extremist, more and more fundamentalist in its worldview, and is therefore becoming more and more of a threat to peoples domestic and foreign.

Whereas Iraq is a credible threat to stability, it's a regional dictatorship of marginal military and economic clout, and is a secular state. The US is a major juggernaut of awesome destructive force that, if allowed to completely follow the steady downward trend of quashing personal liberties and tightening its grip on the daily lives of the average joe (starting with the lives of the average akhmed), will ultimately represent the single greatest threat to existance on this planet.

Of course, that's an extremely paranoid view of the trends currently being followed. We're obviously a long way from the US being the overt dictators of the world, and I sincerely hope it'll ever get quite that bad. However, the trends DO exist. Things are getting worse, and many of the liberties people take for granted on this slice of the globe are being snatched back before we're really aware they're gone.

IMO, it's a good thing that there are people watching every move the government makes like a hawk, always doubting, always criticizing. Watchdogs help to keep the system (more) honest, and raise awareness. When foreign nationals are being arrested and possibly deported for specious reasons that aren't being elaborated, that should raise alarms in our minds. We should be told why.

This doesn't mean to blindly follow what the extreme left says, of course, either. A good information consumer forms opinion and makes decisions based on all information sources available. Exclusively watching CNN and Fox does not make you more well informed about world events than getting your news from the ACLU Freedom Pages.

worldwide hatred of the us by decadent spoiled brats hardly concerns anyone
The point raised by many before is that it should. Instead of trite, masturbatory catch phrases like "they hate us for our freedom", the US should think long and hard as to the real reasons why people hate them. I'll try to offer a little insight by elaborating on a tidbit of current afairs in another country (a current US ally) South Korea.

Not to long ago 2 korean girls were run over and killed by US soldiers in some variety of APC. The US military refused to turn over the troops to the korean justice system, refused to accept korean witnesses at the military tribunal over the incident, and subsequently exonerated them. Not suprisingly, there's been an increase in violent acts on americans in south korea lately.

A small, tragic example... yet symptomatic of a larger problem. Just ask anyone who's had to live around a US forces base in any foreign country. Start with Okinawa, for a chuckle... you'll hear some great stories there.

The point being made is that an overall attitude of US citizens (both at home and abroad) seems to be one that human life is less valuable if those people aren't american. The attitude makes its self known in a variety of ways... such as incidents above, in matters of trade, in matters of foreign policy, in the conduct of military escapades where the saving of one buck private from the horrors of a ground war is worth clusterbombing villages that'll kill hundreds of civilians, etc... and I believe that pervasive attitude, as much as overt matters of foreign policy (such as supporting Israel, US backing of 'friendly' dictatorships, et al), give people overseas a negative perspective of americans.

Now I'll be the first to admit my views are 'liberal', especially compared to your own personal Rush-Limbaugh-Wants-To-Be-My-Towelboy extremist right winger standpoint, but it's hardly liberal 'fringe'. Intelligent people should be asking why the situation is why it is, not just reacting blindly in anger and retribution: by bombing villages in a desert, in rounding up suspected terrorists on the slimest of pretexts, institutionalizing racism in the name of security, chipping away at rights away from all citizens in the name of same.

The key word there being, of course, intelligent.

If all those living in the middle east had the opportunities and freedoms you have, there would be no issue.

i agree. what pray tell, are you doing about it? somebody in the us has a plan. it begins by invading iraq. see, aren't we all on the same side here?
First off, the unwavering concept that your way of life is superior to others and MUST be sought after is another example of why the US garners ill-will internationally. It's a sad holdover from the christian fundimentalists who originally colonized the US that still lingers on in this marginally more secular age.

I fully endorse informing others of options, letting them know that I believe I may have a better way for them, but I'm not about to endorse forcing my beliefs on others, 'cuz I know I sure as fuck have no desire for others to foist their beliefs on me. I keep a hatchet and whetstone by the front door for sunday mornings when I need to make that point graphically clear to the incessant peons who constantly try to 'save' me from whatever it is I'm doing wrong this week.

Secondly, someone in the US may have a plan, but there's a great deal of doubt as to whether or not rights and freedoms for the average akhmed in Iraq play into it at all, except as a convenient PR tool. Afghanistan has been 'liberated' for some time now, yet people there are only marginally more free than before, with control being scrappled over by warlords and ex-taliban remnants. Considering the strategic importance of afghanistan, it's suprising that the US didn't use it as an 'example country' of how well a society could be rebuilt out of the ashes into a thriving democracy complete with economic prosperity and enlightened populace. Suprising, that is, if you assume that the US presence in afghanistan had anything to do with liberation, and nothing to do about outright retaliation against a peripheral contributor to 9-11.

My impression of the US 'plan' is that iraq controls a substantial oil supply. Aside from helping Dubya keep the hounds from ripping his throat out at election time over the shithole the economy is in, taking iraq will allow the US to occupy a major oil exporter. That, in turn, will reduce the dependancy on other OPEC nations, specifically Saudi Arabia, thus allowing the slow vilification of that state to begin without making gas prices go up (which'll get someone un-elected faster than boning an intern or taping phone conversations). Saudi Arabia has been a far more prodigious producer of terrorists than Iraq could ever hope to be, and is also a major oil power. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the entire region is either destabilized to the point where they're all killing each other, or the US gains de facto political, military or economic control over enough of the region to feel comfortable.

Of course, my perception of US foreign policy is based the assumption that the government wants to protect its business and geopolitical influence more than it yearns to pragmatically spread the joy of 'freedom and democracy'. Given what I've seen of the history of US policy on matters of conflict between human rights and business opportunity, I think I've made the safer choice to base my assumptions on.

...
On a more personal note, the above is a rational, reasoned, substantive reflection on the state of the world and its direction. It's designed to elicit intelligent debate and counterpoint. I may not agree with all who'll reply to this, but if the rebuttals are researched and thoughtfully written, I will respect them, and probably comment in turn... I'll do so because I think these sorts of forums are some of the most important breeding grounds for political idealism that may help us find our way out of the current quagmire of hate and death we're trapped in. Try to respect that, and engage your brain before attempting to reply with another sophomoric rant.

--
"Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Parent ]

here we go again (2.33 / 3) (#383)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:33:44 AM EST

groan

clap, clap clap.

gee, thanks dad. i didn't know you could be so patronizing. what made you assume i had a problem with ISLAMIC fundamentalism and not islamic FUNDAMENTALISM?

I'm going to modify your above statement slightly to present a far more broad (and in my opinion, accurate) representation of the world we live in today. It may be hard for you to wrap your head around it, but try to mull it over some:
FUNDAMENTALISM is a clear and present danger to the peace of the world.

from my dec. 5th argument with spcmanspiff:

The enemy of peace in the world today is Islamic Fundamentalism. Emphasis on FUNDAMENTALISM, not Islam. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Islam. Christian Fundamentalists are just as bad. The problem is fundamentalists. You would think a bunch of lefties would catch onto this concept, y'know?

follow the thread. it was a good argument. this is not self-aggrandisement and ego-pumping, i say it was a good argument because spcmanspiff and i sparred long and honestly. later i write:

just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you aren't fundamentalist.

a fundamentalist believes in a rigid code of conduct. you believe in a rigid code of conduct.

everything is negotiable my friend. life has curves. life is fractal. it doesn't fit into a neat little box. it is people like you, rigid ones, who, in their arrogant misunderstanding of life, create suffering by refusing to accept to bend by life, and instead, choose to bend life to fit their rigid ways. fundamentalists, of all sorts of flavors, are the ones who create suffering in this world. flexibilty does not create suffering.

here's a test for you: choose one of your rigid and unbreakable rules. now imagine a reason why the rule should be broken. see? there are exceptions to every rule ad nauseum. every rule has an exception., and every exception has an exception. ad infinitum. see what i mean by saying life is fractal? you can not define life by a rigid set of rules. "thou shall not kill." well, what if they intend to kill you first? ok then that rule is broken. see? predator drones come to mind here... lol.

why am i dredging this up? because you write:

Fundamentalism in all its forms, be it religious, economic, or political. It's the extremists in this world that are doing the majority of the damage to our planet and its hapless inhabitants.

ok, thank you you assumptive moron! we basically agree with each other! i'm glad i got the patronizing lecture from you to find this out! i'm so glad my pal my friend that you've taken me in your arms and explained to me WHAT I ALREADY F***ING KNOW. patronizing asshole. don't ASSUME things. it makes an ASS of U and ME. happy now that you went on your little patriarchical "i'm so wise and your so young" tangent? geez. you're arrogant. i'm arrogant. at least i admit it! a little self-knowledge would help your ability to argue. don't assume and then go off on some patronizing tangent. you'll find out you're lecturing a mirror. you'll find out you are a hypocrit. ;-P

Normally I ignore fanatic trolls like this, but I'm bored today so what the hell...

look in the mirror. how much did you write in the comment i am responding too? hypocrit. and the little "but i'm bored today, so what the hell." HAHAHAHA. you basically prejudice typecast me, and then without blinking you immediately do the same damn thing as me! you're a patronizing arrogant hypocrit. i am patronizing and arrogant, but i'm not a hypocrit! loudmouth? yes! because i'm passionate about my beliefs. but better a proud loudmouth than a blind hypocrit. try some humility next time my friend! geez!

What many people are pointing out is that US policy of late is becoming more and more extremist, more and more fundamentalist in its worldview, and is therefore becoming more and more of a threat to peoples domestic and foreign.

ok, so basically you are saying that because the us MIGHT someday, theoretically stray into some sort of danger zone, we should start freaking out? and by focusing our attention on this, clearly, more important problem of impending (?!) american fascism, ignore the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by some clearly, presently dangerous states? come again? are you for real? did you flunk that "greater than" "less than" test in 2nd grade?

here, follow the bouncing ball:

US MIGHT BE threat SOMEDAY.

Iraq IS threat NOW.

oooh!!! a clue!

Weapons of Mass destruction BIG threat.

Treatment of foreign nationals LIITLE threat.

oooh!! another clue!

ok, put it together with the magic ingredient: PERSPECTIVE. see? now which threat are we going to focus our energies on?

absolutely.

dumbfoundingly.

amazing.

i just can't go on. it just stinks too high. the patronization. the belief the world's problems can be solved with roses and holding hands and singing campfire songs. the do nothing lefties. you guys leave my jaw hanging on the ground. i just can't go on with this argument. every sentence is like a chasm right through common sense that i can not even begin to bridge.

First off, the unwavering concept that your way of life is superior to others and MUST be sought after is another example of why the US garners ill-will internationally. It's a sad holdover from the christian fundimentalists who originally colonized the US that still lingers on in this marginally more secular age.

from my story posted yesterday

For the rightist arguments, it must be said that if non-Western societies would adapt Western values, then their people would be happier and richer. You can not say a more deadly thing. Neocolonialism, for one, pops into mind. Patronization, pops into mind. Lack of understanding, another. It reeks of bald-faced cultural relativism of the worst kind: I "understand" what your problems are from watching an hour TV documentary and know exactly how to solve thousands of years of problems in a month or two. But does that mean the West should not get involved in Afghanistan? No. It simply means the West must get involved carefully, and with an eye towards the long haul. Just because the problem is difficult does not mean the problem must be abandoned. That does not make the problem go away.

WE AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ASSHOLE. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE PATRONIZING AND ASSUMPTIVE ABOUT MY BELIEFS. CAN YOU TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF PLEASE? CAN YOU LISTEN TO ME WITHOUT THE "I'VE ALREADY FIGURED OUT EVERYTHING THIS NUTJOB STANDS FOR"???

You complain about having to respond to me, the troll. Can you possibly imagine what it is like to be so haplessly mischaracterized by you for paragraphs on top of paragraphs? I'm the troll?

I fully endorse informing others of options, letting them know that I believe I may have a better way for them, but I'm not about to endorse forcing my beliefs on others, 'cuz I know I sure as fuck have no desire for others to foist their beliefs on me. I keep a hatchet and whetstone by the front door for sunday mornings when I need to make that point graphically clear to the incessant peons who constantly try to 'save' me from whatever it is I'm doing wrong this week.

from my story posted yesterday:

But the deeper observation here is simply that the cultural absolutist of the Islamic world who says "butt out" has no right after saying that to talk about the treatment of women in the West. Because when they do, they automatically lose all of their arguments, because they just became cultural relativists.

Additionally, the left fringe cultural absolutist who sees a pressing need for the West to stop eroding fundamentally different cultures with global Capitalist excesses is usually equally passionate about the West getting involved in ending, for example, African clitorectomies.

Hypocrisy from the right and the left on cultural absolutism and cultural relativism merely reduces these concepts to lightning rod buzzwords for furthering propaganda while they both go about their respective agendas in cynical ways.

you say:

The point being made is that an overall attitude of US citizens (both at home and abroad) seems to be one that human life is less valuable if those people aren't american. The attitude makes its self known in a variety of ways... such as incidents above, in matters of trade, in matters of foreign policy, in the conduct of military escapades where the saving of one buck private from the horrors of a ground war is worth clusterbombing villages that'll kill hundreds of civilians, etc... and I believe that pervasive attitude, as much as overt matters of foreign policy (such as supporting Israel, US backing of 'friendly' dictatorships, et al), give people overseas a negative perspective of americans.

i said in my story from yesterday:

But US belligerence in the world really is a bit hypocritical. If any good can come out of September 11th it is to wake the US out of its cultural absolutist stupor on the freedoms and values it holds so dear. Americans love the ideals of freedom that their country was founded on, but their leaders often get in bed with countries who do not respect such rights. And since, as understood by an American, that these basic rights are supposedly sprung from the universality of human nature, then Americans must lose their cultural absolutism on those said rights. Anything else is hypocrisy, and everyone else can see that.

Americans must triumph and hold all governments around the world against the standard they hold their own government. In a way, this is already happening, as the excesses of the Cold War fade away, and Americans begin to examine their "friends" from that era, like Saudi Arabia, who do not champion such basic rights. The US would do wonders to its standing in World opinion if they became more culturally relativistic and stood for its so-called cherished values more, not less, and applied them globally as a standard of friendship, support, or, as with Iraq, as a standard of grievous belligerence. Hypocrisy is a deadly enemy of good intentions, and America should fast learn that. An America more involved, not less involved, in the world is good, if by more involved you mean an America that acts straight from its most cherished principles, and not as a matter of getting in bed with disgusting regimes out of convenience, necessity, or, in the most cynical light, out of callow disregard for all except its greedy Capitalistic pursuit of sources of energy like oil. The whole of the West, and not just America, must be more evangelical or missionary about their core values, but most unfortunately, they are not. This is unfortunately out of Capitalist excesses, but also out of ignorance, cultural bias, and leftists in the West who fight every impulse to get involved with anyone else out of their neo-isolationist impulses.

And I have to tolerate you comparing me to Rush Limbaugh, for crying out loud.

shall i go on? i can do something like what i have already done for every word you write. you sit there pleasantly and patronzingly informing me of great discoveries of yours in the realm of ideology that i have already examined from every possible angle and already incorporated into my world view years ago.

The point raised by many before is that it should. Instead of trite, masturbatory catch phrases like "they hate us for our freedom", the US should think long and hard as to the real reasons why people hate them.

no, i already know why people LIKE YOU hate the US AND ITS POLICIES. i see your arguments, AND THEY DISGUST ME WITH THEIR ARROGANCE AND PATRONIZATION. you are a work of art in hypocrisy.

On a more personal note, the above is a rational, reasoned, substantive reflection on the state of the world and its direction. It's designed to elicit intelligent debate and counterpoint. I may not agree with all who'll reply to this, but if the rebuttals are researched and thoughtfully written, I will respect them, and probably comment in turn... I'll do so because I think these sorts of forums are some of the most important breeding grounds for political idealism that may help us find our way out of the current quagmire of hate and death we're trapped in. Try to respect that, and engage your brain before attempting to reply with another sophomoric rant.

but i can not respect you. i can not in my faintest imagination respect such a disgustingly patronizing, blind assumptive person such as yourself. you suffer from moral autism. you want me to respond to you pleasantly and in a civilized trite manner because you need that pretext to roll out your feeble arguments. it won't be done. i don't respect you in the least. i respect PASSION. and i don't see any here. i see cynical explanations about why you choose to ignore your humanity and your ability to empathize.

from spcmanspiff debate:

the us has done horrible injustices in the world. the us has done wonderful things in this world. buth are true statements. they are also true statements that can apply to any country. the point is that this he said-she said cause and effect crap you seem to be so concerned with when it comes to the us can go on and on forever. the point? stop thinking about victimization. think about original sin. it goes on all around the world every day. the us, included: i am not denying the us does evil things. so you must be intellectualy honest to me in return and admit to me that other nations, switzerland, costa rica, whoever, included, does evil things. you must also admit, in the face of intellectual honesty, that the us does a lot of good in the world too. the us hardly has a monopoly on evil.

i am not a us patriot, i am merely saying these words in the interest of intellectual honesty and a worldview of problems, not an antiamerican or proamerican view of problems. only when you assume a victimless view of the world can you actually begin to solve problems...

now, follow the bouncing ball: there is a timetable for action on iraq. there is a time table, agreed? we can't sit and debate for five years before we take action, no? good, agreed then. now: you say my answer or bush's answer sucks. then you say that you haven't said what your answer will be. but see here how you just fell off the apple cart? when it is time to act, you are either acting, or not participating. if you have a reason not to participate, then fine. sit on the sidelines. your noncontribution is noted. but you say you have a better action to take! ah! BUT, BUT BUT: you don't know what it is yet!

so, should we all wait with baited breath until this miraculous solution you haven't figured out yet materializes in your brain? should the whole world stop spinning while you figure it all out? see the problem? you appreciate the gravity of the situation: you think that america is acting without due consideration of the gravity, so you cry out "wait!" ok, we're waiting... "wait until i get back with an answer!" uh, sorry dude, too late. we must act in a timely fashion. so you learn two things here:

  1. in life, you don't always have enough time to formulate the best answer.
  2. sometimes, the best answer is still messy, and sitting around and thinking will not get you a less-messy answer. go with what you got.
see? are you beginning to understand? i know! you have these great wonderful golden principles! ok! wow! cool for you! BUT THEY DON'T WORK IN A MESSY WORLD. just because your principles are so golden doesn't mean they lead to a better world! what, you're the first person who has ever lived who had high morals? no one else before you has ever said "it's so messy, wouldn't it be nice if..." fill in the bank. you're not the first frustrated perfectionist. permanent high-anxiety is your fate until you learn to CHILL OUT.

ok! but you care so much! i feel for you! it's so hard to let go... i will never let go of my high minded principles! then you are NOT ADAPTING.

and i hate to say it, but you have just forfeited your right to criticize us action too. why? because the people who are acting and taking risks need constructive criticism. not backbiting selfdoubt. ok? because while you are sitting there thinking up your miraculous perfect solution that hurts no one (which doesn't exist) you are a do-nothing. as a do-nothing, you are worth less to all of us than the do-somethings. so who the hell do you think you are for criticizing them?
 

you want me to act civil with you because your moral autism is so brittle and sensitive. i won't do it. i'm going to shove the truth down your throat. because it's do nothing arrogant patronizing types like you who cause more suffering in this world than any soldier with a bayonet ever could.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Moral autism cannot be brittle or sensitive. (none / 0) (#494)
by thePositron on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:57:48 AM EST

I don't know who taught you this phrase but you seem to be repeating it quite often:

here is the definition:
(Please explain how arguing against the arrest and maltreatment of human beings is an example of moral autism on the part of any person who has argued with you. THANK YOU)

3 entries found for autism.
au·tism   Audio pronunciation of autism ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ôtzm)
n.

A psychiatric disorder of childhood characterized by marked deficits in communication and social interaction, preoccupation with fantasy, language impairment, and abnormal behavior, such as repetitive acts and excessive attachment to certain objects. It is usually associated with intellectual impairment.
autist n.
au·tistic (-tk) adj. & n.
au·tisti·cal·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]

autism

n : (psychiatry) an abnormal absorption with the self; marked by communication disorders and short attention span and inability to treat others as people

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

autism

8 entries found for moral.
mor·al   Audio pronunciation of moral ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (môrl, mr-)
adj.

   1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
   2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
   3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
   4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
   5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
   6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.

   1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
   2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
   3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mrlis, from ms, mr-, custom. See m-1 in Indo-European Roots.]moral·ly adv.
Synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous
These adjectives mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: "Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights" (Jimmy Carter). Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants" (Omar N. Bradley). Virtuous implies moral excellence and loftiness of character: "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous" (Frederick Douglass). Righteous emphasizes moral uprightness; when it is applied to actions, reactions, or impulses, it often implies justifiable outrage: "He was... stirred by righteous wrath" (John Galsworthy).

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]

moral

\Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue. --Hooker.

Mankind is broken loose from moral bands. --Dryden.

She had wandered without rule or guidance in a moral wilderness. --Hawthorne.

2. Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man. Used sometimes in distinction from religious; as, a moral rather than a religious life.

The wiser and more moral part of mankind. --Sir M. Hale.

3. Capable of right and wrong action or of being governed by a sense of right; subject to the law of duty.

A moral agent is a being capable of those actions that have a moral quality, and which can properly be denominated good or evil in a moral sense. --J. Edwards.

4. Acting upon or through one's moral nature or sense of right, or suited to act in such a manner; as, a moral arguments; moral considerations. Sometimes opposed to material and physical; as, moral pressure or support.

5. Supported by reason or probability; practically sufficient; -- opposed to legal or demonstrable; as, a moral evidence; a moral certainty.

6. Serving to teach or convey a moral; as, a moral lesson; moral tales.

Moral agent, a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

Moral certainty, a very high degree or probability, although not demonstrable as a certainty; a probability of so high a degree that it can be confidently acted upon in the affairs of life; as, there is a moral certainty of his guilt.

Moral insanity, insanity, so called, of the moral system; badness alleged to be irresponsible.

Moral philosophy, the science of duty; the science which treats of the nature and condition of man as a moral being, of the duties which result from his moral relations, and the reasons on which they are founded.

Moral play, an allegorical play; a morality. [Obs.]

Moral sense, the power of moral judgment and feeling; the capacity to perceive what is right or wrong in moral conduct, and to approve or disapprove, independently of education or the knowledge of any positive rule or law.

Moral theology, theology applied to morals; practical theology; casuistry.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

moral

\Mor"al\, v. i. To moralize. [Obs.] --Shak.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

moral

\Mor"al\, n. 1. The doctrine or practice of the duties of life; manner of living as regards right and wrong; conduct; behavior; -- usually in the plural.

Corrupt in their morals as vice could make them. --South.

2. The inner meaning or significance of a fable, a narrative, an occurrence, an experience, etc.; the practical lesson which anything is designed or fitted to teach; the doctrine meant to be inculcated by a fiction; a maxim.

Thus may we gather honey from the weed, And make a moral of the devil himself. --Shak.

To point a moral, or adorn a tale. --Johnson.

We protest against the principle that the world of pure comedy is one into which no moral enters. --Macaulay.

3. A morality play. See Morality, 5.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

moral

adj 1: relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; "moral philosophy" 2: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life" [ant: immoral, amoral] 3: adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone" [syn: ethical, honorable, honourable] 4: arising from the sense of right and wrong; "a moral obligation" 5: psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect; "a moral victory"; "moral support" 6: based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence; "a moral certainty" [syn: moral(a)] n : the significance of a story or event; "the moral of the story is to love thy neighbor" [syn: lesson]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

moral

Mentioned in "An Overview of Ada", J.G.P. Barnes, Soft Prac &
Exp 10:851-887 (1980).

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe


[ Parent ]

That's pretty funny, mate! (2.25 / 4) (#326)
by valeko on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:41:14 PM EST

Reactionary rants are so funny. I like the poor grammar too - it's a neat literary device in that it accompanies your laughable illusions.

i'm glad everyone here has the right PERSPECTIVE of where the REAL CRIMES are taking place.

That would be ... western imperialism, led by the United States, in the systematic rape and pillage of the so-called Third World. That's where the real crimes are taking place.

what would it take for some of you to accept that controlling foreign nationals of middle eastern decent is something of a priority right now in the us? for good reasons?

Not sure. Maybe if they were all wanting to kill us? Gee, that would be rather strange, wouldn't it? You don't really think all "foreign nationals of Middle Eastern descent" want to kill us, do you?

foreign nationals at work in the US trying to DESTROY it the best they can.

Who? Which foreign nationals? Where? I don't see any foreign nationals trying to destroy the U.S. I must be ... blind! Yes, that's it! That's the only explanation! Clearly I'm blind!

babbling cause and effect that pins the actions of the september 11th terrorists on past us actions does not count, and why? because islamic militant fundamentalists HAVE AN AGENDA ALL OF THERE OWN THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US. hello?

Really now? You mean, they want to kill you^H^H^Hus all just because we're not Muslim? You mean if the U.S. had no role in their abysmal situation, they'd want to destroy it anyway? Just because?

Interesting formulation. It's one of those "inevitabilities," isn't it.

bali? kenya? what will it take for some of you to WAKE UP AND SEE WHERE THE REAL THREAT IN THE WORLD IS TODAY.

So what you're saying is that we're dismissing the objective existence of the threat of Islamist terrorism? Hardly. That's nonsense. However, that's still light years from what you're saying, which basically amounts to: ARABS ARE ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST NUTCASES WHO WANT TO DESTROY AMERICA FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE SHOULD CONTROL THEM AND MAYBE EVEN MAKE THEM ALL LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all off all us aggression and stand before the world and declare it a zone of peace?

No, I don't think that would do it.

ANSWER THAT QUESTION TRUTHFULLY and you see for yourself where the real threat to peace and prosperity in the world today lies.

What do you mean by prosperity? Capitalist property relations? The right of multinationals to excercise their "right" to "prosperity" -- that is, their right to neocolonial occupation, rape, pillage, and the extraction of thundering profits?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

touchy people act alike (1.80 / 5) (#330)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:30:12 PM EST

MORON MORON MORON

I DID NOT EQUATE MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS TO ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS

FOLOW THE F***ING BOUNCING BALL:

SOME, I SAID SOME YOU MORON, MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS, AND IT MAKES SENSE TO FOCUS ON MIDDLE EASTERN FOREIGN NATIONALS

where in your gourd of a brain does that not compute?

where, in any of those words, did i issue a falsehood?

focus now

dismantle these truths:

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.

dismantle that argument please.

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.

please, PLEASE dismantle that statement for me.

That would be ... western imperialism, led by the United States, in the systematic rape and pillage of the so-called Third World. That's where the real crimes are taking place.

what, WHAT in your mind puts ANYTHING the us does on the same par as something like september 11th? are you really going to sit there and dismiss something like september 11th and compare it to anything the us is doing in the world? are you really that callow and cynical? are you really going to sit there and say that?

Not sure. Maybe if they were all wanting to kill us? Gee, that would be rather strange, wouldn't it? You don't really think all "foreign nationals of Middle Eastern descent" want to kill us, do you?

please, einstein genius, follow the bouncing ball: 19 foreign nationals from the middle east stage a dramatic terrorist event on us soil. in response, greater attention is paid to middle eastern foreign nationals! WHAT THE F*** DO YOU FIND WRONG WITH THAT??? HOW THE F*** DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE TO YOU???

YES

YOU ARE BLIND

Really now? You mean, they want to kill you^H^H^Hus all just because we're not Muslim? You mean if the U.S. had no role in their abysmal situation, they'd want to destroy it anyway? Just because?

yes, you friggin moron, ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS WANT TO KILL ALL NON-MUSLIMS. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU! HELLO, EARTH PAGING MORON.

AGAIN, NOW:

focus now

dismantle these truths:

1. islamic fundamentalism has an agenda all of its own.

dismantle that argument please.

2. islamic fundamentalism is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to the peace of the world.

please, PLEASE dismantle that statement for me.

WHY, WHY, what strange frickin alien matter is in your brain that tells you you have to frame this problem in terms of anti-americanism? why can you not see this threat from islamic fundamentalism all on its own? why do you have to agendize and propagandize this obvious, clear in your face problem?

absolutely

dumbfoundingly

amazing

all together now liberal fringe:

you can pay greater scrutiny to middle eastern foreign nationals, and you can fight islamic fundamentalism by doing that, ok? or do you prefer the way they handle foreign nationals in the middle east?

the cultural absolutism here is amazing. why do i bother?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

bah (3.50 / 2) (#335)
by nomadic on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:04:55 PM EST

Ok, here's a question then: How come "Saudi Arabian" isn't one of the nationalities they targetted. Go ahead, answer it. I'm an American and I'm disgusted with this; just another heavy-handed police action by an incompetent and corrupt executive branch.

[ Parent ]
i dunno (none / 0) (#337)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:10:13 PM EST

i dunno but i'll guess

islamic extremism exists in iran

i consider september 11th to be heavy handed

i'll cry over the mishandling of foreign nationals as soon as i get over crying about average working joes getting incinerated in office towers

and i'll worry about the corrupt and incompetent executive branch when i get over the corruption and incompetence in the middle east

why, will someone pleas tell me why people still focus on the american excesses in the world when islamic fundamentalist excesses in the world are clearly on the rise and more dangerous?

please, someone explain that worldview, that mentality to me please!!??


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 2) (#341)
by nomadic on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:41:02 PM EST

i'll cry over the mishandling of foreign nationals as soon as i get over crying about average working joes getting incinerated in office towers

I'm able to cry over both.

and i'll worry about the corrupt and incompetent executive branch when i get over the corruption and incompetence in the middle east

I'm more concerned with what's happening in my own house (i.e. the US) than in my neighbor's.

please, someone explain that worldview, that mentality to me please!!??

Can you explain to me the mentality of people who can only concentrate on one evil at a time? Or think that because one side is evil (islamofascism), the other side (the people in control of the White House) just has to be good?

[ Parent ]
i can explain (none / 0) (#345)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:01:29 PM EST

I'm more concerned with what's happening in my own house (i.e. the US) than in my neighbor's.

i am a citizen of the planet, you are pledging your citizenship to only a small piece of it. so i am concerned about larger problems, and you are focused on smaller ones. militant islamic fundamentalism is the biggest problem in the world today. you worry about freedoms here. i'll worry about freedoms the world over.

Can you explain to me the mentality of people who can only concentrate on one evil at a time? Or think that because one side is evil (islamofascism), the other side (the people in control of the White House) just has to be good?

i don't concentrate on one evil at a time. it just seems rather nonsensical of me to worry about the air conditioner not working when there is a volcano brewing under my feet. you micromanage the us immigration policy. i'll worry about the nuts who are about to purchase a dirty bomb and truck it to midtown chicago, ok? by the time you have your problem figured out, maybe i can figure out the problem that will make worrying your problem in the first place worthwhile! ;-P

it's called PERSPECTIVE. one problem being a LOT larger and more IMPORTANT than another. geez. it's like flunking those greater than less than tests in 2nd grade. ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

fine (5.00 / 1) (#444)
by nomadic on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 12:52:45 AM EST

Please. I live in freaking New York, I used to go through the World Trade Center on my way to work, believe me I know how dangerous these people can be. But you know something, all they can do is kill me, just like car accidents or lightning strikes or stray bullets. If you spend your whole life worrying about losing it, you neglect the quality of that life.

Bush and Ashcroft have decided that the ideals that this country was founded on aren't that important. I don't want to lose my freedoms just because you want to feel a little safer.

it's called PERSPECTIVE. one problem being a LOT larger and more IMPORTANT than another.

And I think the danger of losing our country to right-wing extremism is worse than a few of our citizens dying. But, as is obvious from your overuse of capitalized words, you don't quite get this "opinion" idea. Who the hell are you to decide what my priorities should be?

[ Parent ]
why i focus on american excess (4.50 / 4) (#352)
by aphrael on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:57:40 AM EST

I focus on American excess because I believe my government represents me. It operates based on the will of the people governed, in theory at least, and that means I am morally responsible for the things that it does.

Not exclusively so. But if my government does things I think are wrong, and I don't speak out, and write letters to my congressman, and try and exercise what little power I have over the system to convince people that it's wrong, I'm complacent, and I'm guilty.

As for the "corrupt and incompetent executive branch" --- if we're at war with some nebuluous entity in the middle east, I damn well want my government to conduct that war effectively, and it pisses me off to no end when it does things that allegedly help in that war and in fact hinder it. Requiring foreigners from troubled lands to register is a good thing; it makes it easier for us to keep track of them. Arresting hundreds of them when they go to register is stupid; it just means others won't register, and it means it will be harder to keep track of them.

When the executive shoots itself in the foot, patriotic Americans should be upset.

[ Parent ]

no, no, no (none / 0) (#368)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:04:23 AM EST

these horrible crimes the us government is committing you discuss is like complaining the air conditioner doesn't work while ignoring the volcano next door.

perspective.

get it?

i'll tell you what: you worry about micromanaging the details of the ins in your horrible terrible moral outrage and i'll worry about the nuts who are buying suitcase nukes to drive into downtown chicago, which makes worrying about your problem worthwhile in the first place, get it?

perpsective.

BIG problem.

little stupid problem.

see?

geez! what is wrong with you people!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

bad analogy. (none / 0) (#401)
by aphrael on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:40:45 PM EST

In my view, arresting people when they register, and thereby making people less likely to register, increases the likelihood of someone successfully brigning that suitcase bomb into chicago, because we just sacraficed the ability to easily keep track of foreigners.

It's exactly the kind of thing that should be complained about.

[ Parent ]

agreement (none / 0) (#419)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:11:35 PM EST

i agree with you. it is a problem

but it is a smaller prolem. it is like complaining about the air conditioner not working while ignoring the volcano brewing next door, see?

so, and this is what blows my mind, the do-nothing left cries howl over this miniscule issue, while ignoring crimes against humantiy of many order of magnitudes greater in other parts of the world. no perspective there AT ALL.

if you say this mishandling of foreign national increases our insecurity, you know what? you are right!

you are right, you are right you are right! I AGREE WITH YOU

BUT WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON THIS MINISCULE INCREASE IN INSECURITY WHEN THERE ARE GIANT INCREASES IN INSECURITY GOING ON ELSEWHERE!?

do you see??? why are attentions being misguided to smaller problems! why is a mountain being made into a molehill while a molehill is made into a mountain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wonder too. (none / 0) (#342)
by /dev/trash on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:56:21 PM EST

Why do we defend the Sauds so much?  Do they really export all that much oil to us?

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
Obviously (3.00 / 1) (#382)
by fhotg on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:33:01 AM EST

that has no strategic reasons. It's just the private buisness interests of our Govt.'s leading figures who happen to have the rich Saudis on their buddy-list. That's hasn't changed just because Osama had to be dropped from it.

[ Parent ]
dude (5.00 / 1) (#344)
by /dev/trash on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:56:34 PM EST

Osama is bad but what's worse?  McDonald's pays it's people slave wages while feeding Americans crappy food!  Let's fuck the real problems in the world and deal with the mega-corporations.

That's my impression of someone who writes for 'indy'media.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#346)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:02:45 PM EST

oh gawd HAHAHAHAHA ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
but (2.00 / 1) (#391)
by lemming prophet on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:57:53 AM EST

i don't wanna be freed by you or your army.

[ Parent ]
of course you don't (4.00 / 1) (#435)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:52:52 PM EST

of course you don't, decadent child of the west. you have no idea what it is like to really suffer, and you are arrogant enough to think your opinion matters, without any real experience with real human suffering and tyranny to inform it.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
tyranny (5.00 / 1) (#458)
by lemming prophet on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:11:35 PM EST

hmm you mean like the experiences with real human suffering and tyranny those iranians are having now? or the guys in guantanamo? or more like the tyranny and suffering we will feel when people like you will attack us for not complying with us laws inside our own country?
--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
hypocrisy reeks so high (none / 0) (#476)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:31:13 PM EST

hmm you mean like the experiences with real human suffering and tyranny those iranians are having now?

yes exactly, those student revolutionaries we should be supporting in their fight against hypocritical theocracy. what exactly is your point?

or the guys in guantanamo?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. i am so glad you can sympathize with the guys in guantanamo. i am so glad you have some PERSPECTIVE and some PRIORITIES. pray tell, what were those guys who are now in guantanamo doing in afghanistan? while we fight the truly evil in the world, you micromanage their tv priveledges in guantamo. unfuckingbelievable.

or more like the tyranny and suffering we will feel when people like you will attack us for not complying with us laws inside our own country?

oh my god. you are truly unbelieveable. is that your spin on troops in other countries? what nation are you a member of? do you have un troops? are they at work in east timor, or afghanistan? or the ivory coast? doing good there that no one else can do? do you criticize them? or in your hypocrisy you only criticize us troops? you are an unbelieveable work of hypocritical art.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yeah right (5.00 / 1) (#531)
by lemming prophet on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:49:30 AM EST

... guatanamo. i am so glad you have some PERSPECTIVE and some PRIORITIES.

I think that a civilized country should NOT have death^H^H^H happy camps ...
Do you think the 'war on terror' is important enough to start KZ'ing people?
I'm hope you know that the german KZ's also started as "interrogation camps" and "specialized prisons"...
First, it's only the foreign fighters, later on it will be political prisoners and in the end it's gonna be the "scapegoat-of-the-day"...

... Troops ..

i am from switzerland, and NO, we do not have Troops who are fighting in foreign conflicts. The Swiss UN troops only do humanitarian work. They're not even armed.
I try not to criticize us troops only, but the european troops do not conquer. Unfortunately, yours do.

--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
American Rapists Out of Japan (none / 0) (#524)
by SporranBoy on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 10:34:29 PM EST

At a minimum, shared hatred of the U.S. provides a focal point around which Islamic fundamentalists can rally support, so it is plain wrong to deny any kind of link between them and the U.S. .

On their own, the hard core fundamentalists can't achieve too much. They require some level of sympathy or tolerance on the part of the moderates living around them, be that in Afghanistan or a neighbourhood in Michigan or the slums of Paris.

Any actions on the part of your government needs to be weighed carefully. Pick up a few Iranians with immigration status violations, more likely to be Pro-US and secular than fundamentalist, but lose the trust of the US muslim community.

I can't help but feel that the US government should be bending over backwards to retain the trust and goodwill of this community. That would require the kind of smarts that are lacking in this country. For every problem there is a "war" to be waged, other approaches don't seem to be considered.

I suppose, if a single actual terrorist were to voluntarily show up and register with the INS, as a consquence be detected and removed from U.S. territory, then this might justify the policy. It might happen but is unlikely to. What is more likely is the loss of trust on the part of the Iranian community, this could be a costly loss of useful allies.

While you lambast the "do nothing" advocates, I would warn you of the dangers of the "do anything" approach.

Your satisfaction at your government giving some "infidel darkies" a hard time won't help you much when Al Quaeda comes a calling.


[ Parent ]

See my post on War (none / 0) (#530)
by Eisernkreuz on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 01:50:43 AM EST

See my post on War. For me to repeat it all here would be spamming. And spam is fattening. But only if eaten.

.

[ Parent ]

Research (none / 0) (#306)
by izogi on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:04:05 PM EST

If you're after a guaranteed PhD in anthropology, perhaps now would be a good time to apply for US Federal research grants.


- izogi


Deport every illegal alien in this country (3.00 / 12) (#313)
by Armand on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 06:57:24 PM EST

(1) Immigration should start before you enter this country illegally. (2) If you don't like your country go home and change it. (3) Don't come over here and tell us how to run our country. (4) If you don't like our immigration policies try immigrating to Autstralia.

Wasn't.... (none / 0) (#322)
by ShadowNode on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:46:38 PM EST

Your country founded by illegal immigration?

[ Parent ]
No. (5.00 / 1) (#362)
by ogre on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:31:03 AM EST

America, like every other nation presently on the planet, was founded by conquest. If you want to compare Europeans moving in on the natives to illegal immigration, then fine, the difference is that the natives then didn't have the power to stop the immigrants and the natives today do.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

No we don't. (none / 0) (#463)
by opendna on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:14:21 PM EST

Somebody with a big title's been feeding you something rather unpleasant if you believe otherwise.

There are over 6 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now. They make up +5% of the population.

300 million people travel through the U.S. every year, equivalent to the population of the U.S.

Most U.S. citizens are so opposed to a national ID card, and so clueless about all matters having to do with immigration, that we they have little proof of citizenship. If the INS were to go on the basis of documents alone, we'd deport 10% of the Americans trying to enter the country for insufficent documentation.

...then they complain about profiling. sheesh.



[ Parent ]

We could do a much better job (none / 0) (#468)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 07:10:14 PM EST

1. When they do catch an illegal, the INS could deport immediately rather than releasing them to be deported later (of course they never come back).

2. Special problem countries like Mexico could be dealt with by creating penalties for illegal entry rather than just sending them back to try again.

3. Immigrants who harbor illegals should have their stay immediately revoked and get deported along with the illegal.

4. We could set up some actual border security.

5. All government social services could be required to report illegals when they encounter them.

It isn't a lack of ability, it's a lack of will. Illegal aliens are a potent political force in this country, and they have PC on their side. Anyone who wants to do something about it is called a racist and ends up having to spend all of his time defending himself against slander. Never mind all the legal aliens who go to the (rather enormous) trouble to register and immigrate legally, only to find that the ones who skipped the process got here quicker and are just as well off.

All in all, though, I'd rather have 5% illegal aliens than a national ID card. Illegal aliens are far less dangerous to me than my government is.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Ooops. We're most of the way there. (5.00 / 1) (#491)
by opendna on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:36:31 AM EST

"1. When they do catch an illegal, the INS could deport immediately rather than releasing them to be deported later (of course they never come back)."

That is exactly what we do to anyone who wasn't admitted (jumped the fence, stowed away, etc).

"2. Special problem countries like Mexico could be dealt with by creating penalties for illegal entry rather than just sending them back to try again."

Special problem countries include most of the world. China, the Philippines, France, Ireland. Everyone's a problem country. With the possible exception of Germany. Germans seem to pay special attention to their paperwork. I'd love to know where that comes from.

"3. Immigrants who harbor illegals should have their stay immediately revoked and get deported along with the illegal."

They are... after they've been given a fair trial. Immigrants *do* have equal protections under the law, you know.

"4. We could set up some actual border security."

Like a thousand mile steel fence and millions of motion sensors patrolled by the Marines. Been done. It doesn't help. It's easier to enter the U.S. legally and just not leave ("over-stay") than to try to sneak across the desert or sail the seas in a shipping container.

"5. All government social services could be required to report illegals when they encounter them."

Which would work great if social services weren't in the States' jurisdictions and immigration law wasn't in the federal jurisdiction. There's the added problem that state employees don't know how to determine someone's immigration status or citizenship. Nor are they much good at identifying counterfeit documents. You might even say that because of the Constitution, States are completely useless in all things having to do with immigration.

"All in all, though, I'd rather have 5% illegal aliens than a national ID card. Illegal aliens are far less dangerous to me than my government is."

Then you might want to start thinking about joining the protests, 'cause you ain't seen nothin' yet.



[ Parent ]

I think you are being theoretical (none / 0) (#504)
by ogre on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:04:06 PM EST

In theory, the INS is not supposed to release people who are awaiting deportation. In practice they do it all the time. One of the beltway snipers was an illegal alien who had been released in this way.

I don't think we get enough illegals from most countries to consider them "problem countries". Maybe Mexico and China. On the other hand it is arguably unfair to single out particular countries for specal penalties so maybe they should be applied to all illegals equally. Also, I would treat people who overstay their visas more leniently than one who enters illegally. People who overstay are arguably just lazy and have no criminal intentions. People who enter illegally are going to a great deal of trouble to violate US laws and there should be penalties for that. Especially for repeat offenders.

I'd like to see how many immigrants actually get their stays revoked for harboring illegals. I'll bet it's less than 1% of those who are caught.

A huge number of Mexian illegals just walk across the border. Some of them do it daily. And no, a huge fence isn't the way, except in populated areas. In unpopulated areas I'd just have small military headquarters established every few miles and have them patrol the border.

Lots of governmental agencies are forbidden from reporting illegal aliens. These policies need to be reversed, regardless of whether the agencies are state or federal.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

LA vs Woomera (none / 0) (#393)
by cam on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:19:22 PM EST

If you don't like our immigration policies try immigrating to Australia.

Some choice, a Los Angeles Jail or a Woomera Deportment Camp.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Well, at least it's not entrapment (4.50 / 2) (#316)
by mveloso on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 07:22:06 PM EST

This seems like a strange situation, because these people are going to register themselves due to the law, but in the process of registering themselves they find themselves in violation of some other law.

Well, I guess that's too bad.

The ones that have legitimate paperwork wending through the INS will most likely be processed out, because that's the law.

The ones who are actually in violation of some law or another will probably be deported.

I suspect the detainment is due to the fact that the INS backlogs are so huge that verifying whether paperwork is in the system is time-consuming and difficult.

This is pretty unfair for those caught in the dragnet, but the US has changed in the last year or so.

I'd suggest that anyone going in to register bring all their INS paperwork with them...or do the American thing, and don't register then act dumb if they catch you. Also, be sure to act tired, aggravated, and above all, don't say you're a victim of racial profiling or some kind of discrimination.

Above all else, though, keep your INS documentation in one place, so you can get it (or get someone else to get it) for you.

exactly (5.00 / 1) (#343)
by /dev/trash on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:56:25 PM EST

The ones that have legitimate paperwork wending through the INS will most likely be processed out, because that's the law.

The ones who are actually in violation of some law or another will probably be deported.
And will you EVER see a story like that from these "indymedia" crackpots?  No.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]

I totally agree, but DON'T PLAY DUMB!!! (5.00 / 2) (#460)
by opendna on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:51:48 PM EST

You're right, the folks with valid paperwork in process, of families in the U.S. will be set free after they're finally registered (unless they've committed a title 18 crime). It's going to take a while because the registration process is so time consuming (~2 hours each, assuming no complications) and every deportable individual has to be sent before a judge for a hearing. It should be noted that California's immigration judges have a reputation for being very lenient, so mass deportation is highly unlikely.

However, one should never, ever "play dumb" with the INS. Anyone who doesn't show up for registration is certain to be deportable forever, without exception. Anyone who has any dreams of every being a legal immigrant to the U.S. should do exactly as Mr. Ashcroft instructs them.



[ Parent ]

No, it's just arbitrary arrest and detention (2.00 / 2) (#462)
by mozmozmoz on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:13:41 PM EST

This is pretty unfair for those caught in the dragnet, but the US has changed in the last year or so.

At the risk of boring you, I'll say again that you're throwing away the freedoms that you think you're defending.

Summarily arresting and detaining people who have broken no law, just because they're from a particular region, is not "freedom". It's against much of what the USA used to stand for, and brings the USA home to roost with the other overt tyrranies that it supports (China, Saudi Arabia etc).

Can you not imagine how far this will go? Do you not remember McCarthy and Nixon, let alone Woodrow Wilson and Jefferson? Can't you imagine how it would feel to live day to day knowing that your Amercan citizenship is no defense if the US secret police decide to arrest and hold (or "deport") you for no visible reason? How would you feel if you were deported back to Belgium with no chance to tell anyone(because your great grandfather was from there, so you're from there, of course)?

I think you're at the point where it's time to start thinking about why you have the right to bear arms (but not the obligation to bear a tyrannical government).

Moz

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

They *did* break the law. (5.00 / 1) (#509)
by opendna on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:48:12 PM EST

"Summarily arresting and detaining people who have broken no law, just because they're from a particular region, is not "freedom"."

How about summarily arresting and detaining people who *have* broken several laws until it can be proven that they have been forgiven?

Suppose someone were to violate section 237(a)(1)(B) and 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), would it then be justified to arrest and detain them? Each charge is a deportable offense.

INA 237(a)(1)(B): In the U.S. in Violation of Other Laws, which includes "overstays".
INA 237(a)(1)(C)(i): Nonimmigrant Violator of Status, which includes anyone who works without authorization.



[ Parent ]

Some of them were later found to have, at least (2.00 / 2) (#527)
by mozmozmoz on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 02:22:48 AM EST

The point is not that a few of those rounded up were later found to have broken the law, the point is that at the time of their arrest they had not been. The US govt is not supposed to round up groups of people on the off chance that some of them might have broken a law. That's one of the key things that the whole secesseion, constitution and amendments was about. Or at least so they claimed at the time.

I realise things are different now, and that at least a substantial minority are willing to sacrifice the liberty of others in the hope of securing their own. The fact that this is known not to work seems to be irrelevant to them.

Have you read any of The Ethical Spectacle? I think How the Israelis Make Palestinians Into Terrorists is relevant to this discussion. Basically, if you treat people badly enough they'll revolt. In other words, by treating groups like terrorists, you create terrorists where none were before. I see that happening now in the USA.

moz

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

Men...why only men, what about the women? (5.00 / 3) (#327)
by chappaz on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 08:49:07 PM EST

It's great to watch you people go off on one about this shameful Orwellian/Kafkaesque behaviour by the American government. But my question is simply this: why stop with the men. Are the/ir women being rounded up? If not why not?

Do the words "can't" "see" "wood" "trees" spring to mind?

As a Brit the perspective we get from here, apart from Tony the Poodle's, is that there is an enormous reaction to 9/11. Understandably so and nothing can condone it. However this reaction has openened enormous floodgates where everything is swamped and the net result is that a notion of panic evolvong in the USA. Panic that results with hyper-aggresive reaction, red mist, perhaps, which is completely typical of the American psyche: just look at the crap Hollywood puts out - the hero saves the daughter and kills hundreds of the "enemy" - once sterotyped as the Latin American (I'm thinking the 1980s - Reagan and Contra Affair etc), now the Arab is the evil enemy.

We are watching the movie of all movies right at the moment, and unfortunately in my mind, the money is on Hollywood prevailing.

Paranoia will set in and no-one will be able to look anyone in the eye without wondering. Everyone will get stressed out and senses will become dulled, lethargy may begin and everyone will seek their own little plot of land, at least 5 miles from the nearest neighbour, to achieve security through distance, non-concentration. Except of course all the poor coloured people will be left in the ghettos.

Could this be the basis for the sequel. One might hope so.

But back to the point. One need only look towards Israel, and the Moscow hostage seige, to note that women can be terrorists too.

Or maybe you're all just too stupid not to spot this one. Doh!



Terrorists (5.00 / 3) (#329)
by greenrd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 09:19:21 PM EST

True. White people can be terrorists too. Being middle or upper class is not a barrier either.

In fact, you'd better not stop there, because even US nationals can be terrorists.

And... whispher it softly, because it will shatter people's cognitive well-being: specifically, US politicians can be terrorists too.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

no, no, no (1.33 / 3) (#349)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:13:08 AM EST

terrorist: your going to work, thinking about your bills and the traffic your stuck in. boom! your dead! why? some argument you had no part of.

politician: i'm going to invade your country if you don't do this. repeat 1000x. maybe actually do it someday.

how does fair warning play into your argument?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Guerrillas (5.00 / 3) (#353)
by aphrael on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:03:02 AM EST

politician: i'm going to invade your country if you don't do this. repeat 1000x. maybe actually do it someday.

Or, alternately, without any warning, simply because the politician doesn't like your government, he's going to fund guerrillas who will work for decades to overthrow the government, killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, and otherwise raising hell. See, for example, the entire sad history of foreign funding of the civil war in Angola.

The US is by no means the only perpetrator of this kind of terrorism, or even the worst. But I don't see how anyone can point to the people the US was paying to overthrow the government there and call them, and by extension their supporters abroad, anything but terrorists.

[ Parent ]

definition creep (1.00 / 5) (#354)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:14:35 AM EST

ok, let's talk about terrorism as defined, ok? let us assume you are right for the sake of argument, and say that the us government is terrorist, ok? wonderful. now the guy who pulls in front of me in traffic, he is a terrorist. and someone doesn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom, he is a terrorist. ad nauseum. whatever.

you have effectively watered down the meaning of the word terrorist. everyone clap.

now that we have argued ad nauseum about what a terrorist is, can you please tell me fine sir, what is the moral equivalency of september 11th to any american policy that has ever remotely existed? and whatever that moral equivalency is, what shall we call people who do those acts, because, please tell me you agree, that september 11th is on a level of extreme moral outrage unmatched by most heinous acts in history. i would have called the perpetrators of such moral outrage "terrorists" before talking to you, but i guess i can't do that anymore. howabout "used car salesmen"? is that acceptable to you?

look, september 11th is heinous and evil and terrible on an extreme level. surely you recognize that. because your babbling about us imperialism and calling it terrorism simply means, for the sake of arguing your point of view, you reduce the suffering of those who died on september 11th, you water down the terror of that event to prop up your world view, ok?

to further bring it home to you, simply for the sake of advancing your stupid little reactionary kneejerk nitwit antiamerican point of view you also water down the suffering of other terrorist bombings, whatever the nationality of the victim or the time in history. do you see my point?

so basically? shut the fuck up, propagandist.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Re (5.00 / 2) (#360)
by djotto on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:30:36 AM EST

I was going to throw you a 1 and move on, but instead I thought it was fairer to give you some feedback. Your text is very confused, and hard to follow. You might want to work on expressing your thoughts (which are quite reasonable) more clearly and logically.

BTW:

what is the moral equivalency of september 11th to any american policy that has ever remotely existed?

Vietnam.



[ Parent ]
vietnam (1.00 / 2) (#366)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:59:20 AM EST

vietnam: in cooperation with south vietnamese forces september 11th: in cooperation with no native forces vietnam: protracted war september 11th: surprise terrorist action vietnam: fought to contain communism, which is being abandoned the world over today september 11th: fought in the name of religious fundamentalism, which proliferating at an alarming rate shall we go on? more ad nauseum compare and contrasts? i have one for you: wounded knee. terrible atrocity committed by us forces. look it up. except this was over 100 years ago. september 11th was last f***ing year. can we possibly move beyond the incriminations recriminations and everyone is an ashole and just examine the glaring, present danger in the world? or shall we be frozen into inaction with a heap of stupid stinking ancient guilt? let's put it this way: imagine the us has done more evil all time throughout history more times and in more ways than you can even imagine. guess what? september 11th is still a heinous act upon civilians. guess what? september 11th is still a militant islamic fundamentalist initiative. guess what? the whole world still has to condemn it. can we go beyond the orignial sin arguments now and agree human nature basically sucks, americna included, and focus on truly heinous events in the world today? geez.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I don't understand your point (5.00 / 3) (#392)
by deaddrunk on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:57:56 AM EST

Who hasn't condemned the disgraceful act of September the 11th? Who thinks it was a good thing? Not the Left, that's for sure. After all a terrorist strike doesn't differentiate between left and right, and we're all afraid.

What Al-Qaeda did was an atrocity, but what you don't seem to or are unwilling to understand, is that Osama Bin-Laden didn't wake up one morning and decide to wage war on the US, this is the culmination of 50 years of flawed US policy in the Middle East.

That is not a justification, merely an explanation. I want Osama caught and Saddam removed just as much as you do. However I also want the Palestinians to have a homeland and I want the corrupt and brutal Saudi regime removed.

The first two may happen, but I can't see the second two ever happening while the US government continues its support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, and as long as this goes on the amount of recruits to the cause will only increase, irrespective of the fate of either Saddam or Osama.



[ Parent ]
i agree with you (none / 0) (#425)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:25:34 PM EST

i agree that us foreuign policy had a hand in creating osama bin laden. but thrusting 100% responsibilty or even 50% or even 25% responsibility for osama bin laden squarely on the doorstep of us foreign policy is completely intectually dishonest. i'll let you imagine the other larger factors in his creation. religious intolerance, etc. these people have an agenda all of their own completely independent of a kneejerk reaction to us policy. why attack bali? why attack kenya? do you see?

i also agree with you on saudi arabia and palestine. you can already see how the us is waking up from its cold war stupor over the strange bedfellows it went to bed with and is beginnning to reexamine the saudis. they should be overthrown if the us is not hypocritical about its core values and beliefs in basic human freedoms and does not think they only apply to americans.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Re (5.00 / 2) (#394)
by djotto on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:21:41 PM EST

Look, you asked:

what is the moral equivalency of september 11th to any american policy that has ever remotely existed?

and I answered your question. I do believe that killing 10% of the civilian population of Vietnam is morally equivalent to the killing of 3,000 civilians a year ago.

can we go beyond the orignial sin arguments now and agree human nature basically sucks,

Broadly agreed. But that's got nothing to do with the question I was answering. BTW, if you prefer a more recent example - Panama.

and focus on truly heinous events in the world today?

Like, say, the way the US rides roughshod over the rights of it's own citizens and others? Sorry, sorry, cheap shot. But I'm sure you get my point.

Ok, lets try it like this. I look up to the US. I think it's a good place, and embodies values the whole world should aspire to. Because of this, I hold the US to a higher moral standard than I do, say, Russia, Zimbabwe or Iraq. When the US kills civilians I feel it more keenly than if, say, China does.



[ Parent ]
reposts (4.00 / 2) (#423)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:17:50 PM EST

Ok, lets try it like this. I look up to the US. I think it's a good place, and embodies values the whole world should aspire to. Because of this, I hold the US to a higher moral standard than I do, say, Russia, Zimbabwe or Iraq. When the US kills civilians I feel it more keenly than if, say, China does.

ok: you have what i like to call moral autism. what i mean by that is is that you really are noble and idealistic and have high moral standards. the problem is that your high moral standards fail to take into account reality of situations. like this: do you think you are the first person who ever lived who expressed moral outrage at the ugliness of the world? do you think you are the only person who sees the ideal, and sees reality, and has a problem with the contrast? no! of course you aren't

but in your moral outrage, you think you are going to tell those WHO ALREADY KNOW THIS that you have a better way to pursue things with them, except your bettter way acts on moral idealism rather than moral reality. get it? moral autism. locked into INACTION through your inability to conform your high-minded ideals to the REALITY of the situation.

like this: you point to us self-interest, failing to pursue the greater good, etc. as if that is all the us and its interests is REALLY all about and you have suddenly discovered this grand utopian vision that if we all hold hands and sing campfire songs all the problems in the world will go away.

THE WORLD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

look, i wrote these words to someone else, and i will paraphrase them to you, and you see if you can see where i am coming from and how my way of dealing with iraq INFORMS YOU about the superior way to go rather you INFORMING ME how your approach is superior. MY POV ALREADY TAKES YOUR POV INTO ACCOUNT, see? i have moved beyond your moral autism into a new realm: action! not inaction!

am i an egotistical patronizing arrogant loudmouth? YESYESYES!!! but LISTEN TO MY ARGUMENTS AND FORGIVE THE EGOTISM PLEASE because i am not the most ideal of messengers, but i can not sit here and deconstruct your worldview without a display of passion and displeasure because i have had to deal with moral autistics on this site FOR FAR TOO LONG.

earlier today, hizonner wrote this to me:

The fact is, neither the US Government nor Islamic fundamentalism presents as big a risk to me, personally, as the chance of getting hit by a car tomorrow. And I'm probably in the top half of the US population as far as terrorist risk goes. This isn't about risk to my life, and it isn't about risk to my personal freedom; those risks are side issues.

What this is about is the fact that the US Government claims to act in my name, and is doing immoral and unethical things in my name. However tenuous the legitimacy of the US Government's claim to represent me, I refuse to strengthen it by remaining silent.

This is about ideas. This is about doing the right thing. Yeah, this is about abstractions; abstractions are what are supposed to be the good part about human beings. Some of us, anyway.

That's right, this is a moral issue. Furthermore, it's a moral issue for Americans to hold themselves and their government to a higher standard than others. Not just as high. Higher. Every person should hold herself to a higher standard than she applies to others, and this extends to any group you happen to identify with.

There are a lot of words for doing the wrong thing to save your own ass. None of them are pretty words.

Not, of course, that this particular program even actually does anything to save any asses. In fact, it probably makes Americans less safe; despite your fantastic, vehement, and completely unsupported assertions to the contrary, there is a connection between the way the US acts and how much the US is perceived as a target.

And, despite your wilfull blindness, there is a significant risk of the US Government running amok and doing damage that Islamists could only dream about.

i posted this in reply to hizonner today, TO WHICH HE RATED MY COMMENTS AS A 5... hallelugha! (sp) I AM MAKING PROGRESS!!!

you demonstrate fud.

fear uncertainty denial

when do we reach your high standards of moral perfection before we can act against an evil in the world? never? do we ever rise to your impeccable standards?

there is a continuum between being too impulsive and being too hesitant . these are extremes. there is a window in which action is appropriate between impulsiveness and hesitancy. some will act without thinking, and they will do wrong in this world. but just as dangerous as the shoot first ask questions later crowd are the never shoot, cover eyes crowd. you have too many standards for action, and you wind up not acting at all.  

the world is messy. sometimes the best possible scenario is not attainable. sometimes the range of options are all messy, but some less messy than others, and inaction is not an option. refusing to do any kind of messy option and in effect veto your responsiblity to act at all is worse than picking amongst the messy options.

the US will act, and i am certain it will not be in the name ofall of its peoples. but for these people, no action is acceptable to them. they are do nothings, and they remove themselves from the struggle in the world in an arrogant disavowal of its realities, an arrogant disavowal of their own humanity by adhering to a rigid, impossible to implement morality.

you suffer from moral autism my friend.

my words from my debate with spcmanspiff

the us has done horrible injustices in the world. the us has done wonderful things in this world. buth are true statements. they are also true statements that can apply to any country. the point is that this he said-she said cause and effect crap you seem to be so concerned with when it comes to the us can go on and on forever. the point? stop thinking about victimization. think about original sin. it goes on all around the world every day. the us, included: i am not denying the us does evil things. so you must be intellectualy honest to me in return and admit to me that other nations, switzerland, costa rica, whoever, included, does evil things. you must also admit, in the face of intellectual honesty, that the us does a lot of good in the world too. the us hardly has a monopoly on evil.

i am not a us patriot, i am merely saying these words in the interest of intellectual honesty and a worldview of problems, not an antiamerican or proamerican view of problems. only when you assume a victimless view of the world can you actually begin to solve problems...

now, follow the bouncing ball: there is a timetable for action on iraq. there is a time table, agreed? we can't sit and debate for five years before we take action, no? good, agreed then. now: you say my answer or bush's answer sucks. then you say that you haven't said what your answer will be. but see here how you just fell off the apple cart? when it is time to act, you are either acting, or not participating. if you have a reason not to participate, then fine. sit on the sidelines. your noncontribution is noted. but you say you have a better action to take! ah! BUT, BUT BUT: you don't know what it is yet!

so, should we all wait with baited breath until this miraculous solution you haven't figured out yet materializes in your brain? should the whole world stop spinning while you figure it all out? see the problem? you appreciate the gravity of the situation: you think that america is acting without due consideration of the gravity, so you cry out "wait!" ok, we're waiting... "wait until i get back with an answer!" uh, sorry dude, too late. we must act in a timely fashion. so you learn two things here:
in life, you don't always have enough time to formulate the best answer.
sometimes, the best answer is still messy, and sitting around and thinking will not get you a less-messy answer. go with what you got.
see? are you beginning to understand? i know! you have these great wonderful golden principles! ok! wow! cool for you! BUT THEY DON'T WORK IN A MESSY WORLD. just because your principles are so golden doesn't mean they lead to a better world! what, you're the first person who has ever lived who had high morals? no one else before you has ever said "it's so messy, wouldn't it be nice if..." fill in the bank. you're not the first frustrated perfectionist. permanent high-anxiety is your fate until you learn to CHILL OUT.

ok! but you care so much! i feel for you! it's so hard to let go... i will never let go of my high minded principles! then you are NOT ADAPTING.

and i hate to say it, but you have just forfeited your right to criticize us action too. why? because the people who are acting and taking risks need constructive criticism. not backbiting selfdoubt. ok? because while you are sitting there thinking up your miraculous perfect solution that hurts no one (which doesn't exist) you are a do-nothing. as a do-nothing, you are worth less to all of us than the do-somethings. so who the hell do you think you are for criticizing them?

djotto! listen to me!!!: do you see where i am coming from on this issue now? do you see my point? do you see the need for action over inaction on iraq? do you see???? please see! i am growing tired of dealing with moral autistics here.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Attack (none / 0) (#500)
by djotto on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:11:01 PM EST

I've been offline for a few days - I hope you see this.

Uhm... 5 for effort, and I really believe you're sincere.

I should point out, though, that I'm broadly in favour of an attack on Iraq. (I don't like it much but I don't think I ever said I was against it... which kinda cuts the feet out from underneath your rant). I take this from a Utalitarian perspective :

People are dying in Iraq - a combination of sanctions and an utter bastard running the show.

The chances of the West removing sanctions while Saddam is in power are pretty much zero.

An attack will kill people. However, if the aftermath is handled correctly an attack will kill fewer people than continuing sanctions, and may make the world a little safer in the short-term.

So, I figure an attack is the least-worst option available to us. It still feels pretty icky, though.

My problems are: Why now - why not five years ago? What about all the other nasty regiemes in the world, up-to and including China? I'd like to see a little consistency in approach here, that's all.



[ Parent ]
reactionary kneejerk nitwit? (5.00 / 6) (#365)
by aphrael on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:53:47 AM EST

wonderful. now the guy who pulls in front of me in traffic, he is a terrorist.

That's quite a leap of logic; I say that funding an insurrection that goes on for twenty years, during which time the insurrectionist army targets civilians and kills them by the millions is a terrorist act, and you respond by saying that the guy who pulls in front of you in traffic is a terrorist.

You've got a perspective problem, my friend.

that september 11th is on a level of extreme moral outrage unmatched by most heinous acts in history

September 11 is on a level of moral outrage unmatched by any events in the western world since the end of the second world war, I'll grant. But 'unmatched by most heinous acts in history'? The events of Sept. 11, 2001, killed roughly 3000 people; more than 200,000 were killed by slaughter in Rwanda in 1994, and 20 million were killed by Stalin during the 30s and the 40s. Lots of truly terrible stuff has happened in history, and the events of Sept 11, 2001 will take their place in that pantheon of evil, but they are by no means the most heinous ever.

you reduce the suffering of those who died on september 11th

No: I elevate the suffering of those the US media doesn't seem to want to talk about. That's a very different thing.

your stupid little reactionary kneejerk nitwit antiamerican point of view

Anyone who disagrees with you is a stupid reactionary kneejerk nitwit? Note that i'm *not* the person talking about imperialism, in general (I don't think it's a useful discussion for the most part) and I said straight outthat the US is by no means the worst perpetrator of this sort of thing. Indeed, my objection when the US does this type of thing is that it is violating its own ideals. So how am I reactionary, and how am I antiamerican? (Kneejerk is obvious from the fact that i'm responding to you at all. :))

[ Parent ]

on and on (1.00 / 3) (#384)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:01:11 AM EST

I say that funding an insurrection that goes on for twenty years, during which time the insurrectionist army targets civilians and kills them by the millions is a terrorist act, and you respond by saying that the guy who pulls in front of you in traffic is a terrorist. You've got a perspective problem, my friend.

excuse me my poetic license. i have to explain it to you slowly then. you get the gist i was trying to make: you reduce the value of the word terrorist. how do you do that? well, for example, calling a guy who drives erratically a terrorist. I DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT IGNORAMUS, I WAS ALLUDING TO THAT BEING SIMLIAR TO HOW YOU USE THE WORD TERRORIST.

good gawd. left our iq at the door did we? i think that was relatively clear. whooosh. right above your head.

you mention rwanda and stalin's purges. heinous acts. so what did i say? "september 11th unmatched my most heinous acts in history?" i think rwanda and stalin's purges make the cut then as matching in heinousness, you agree? ok, they make the cut. glad we got through those hurdles. so what exactly is wrong with what i said again now that we agree on the purges and rwanda??!! geez!

and since you bring these examples up, i might add that historical hindsight has generally come to agree the world at large should have done more about these problems! so thank you for bolstering my argument with these examples! pffftttt...

you reduce the suffering of those who died on september 11th

No: I elevate the suffering of those the US media doesn't seem to want to talk about. That's a very different thing.

ok, can we forgive the american media for covering an american tragedy so out of disproportion? i think we can agree that turkish media covering turkish earthquakes might be, oh i don't know, a LITTLE larger than american media covering the turkish earthquakes! wow! look how that works! ;-P

and how in your right mind can you have a problem with a modern, rich western media unbiased by government interference and free to report whatever it wants to?

oh no, i feel like i just triggered the liberal fringe apocalypse: american media! whore of americn propaganda! bitch of rush limbaugh!

rush limbaugh of course, is crying foul at american media being in the pocket of the left.

see how that works? the fringes do not like the center.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a stupid reactionary kneejerk nitwit?

no. but i grow so deafeningly sick of the do nothing left. i ahve nothing but bile for them. they alternately fascinate me the sense psychological pathology might fascinate someone, and i get to close, and then i am driven away by the reek.

unfortunately the left is loosing influence in america simply because it kneejerks to the right, and stands for nothing in and of itself. ot offers no solutions in iraq other than don't do what the right says to do. that's not an ideology.

but actually, if i hastily grouped you with these kneejerk knitwits without fully appreciating your background, i do apologize.

no really, i apologize if i have done that. sorry.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

so (5.00 / 3) (#373)
by heng on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:43:58 AM EST

terrorist: your going to work, thinking about your bills and the traffic your stuck in. boom! your dead! why? some argument you had no part of.
politician: i'm going to invade your country if you don't do this. repeat 1000x. maybe actually do it someday.
So, if the terrorists said something like, i don't know...
  1. Lift sanctions on Iraq.
  2. Cease support for isreal.
  3. Withdraw all troops from Saudi Arabia.
Would that make the next terrorist attack acceptable (assuming there was no compliance with these demands)? Oh, and the US has already declared war on terrorists, so it's all nice and legal.

Your problem is that your arguments are incoherent. You really must listen to and think about the rebuttals put forward to each of your points made. They are generally very well thought out. Cursing and swearing at people just reduces the credibility of anything you say.

The world is not black and white. You can not draw a line and say terrorists on one side and politicians on the other. Think to yourself what a terrorist is. Not just from your perspective, but very generally. I think you'll find it is not as simple as you make out.

[ Parent ]
terrorist definitions (none / 0) (#385)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:08:27 AM EST

morality. do you know what that is?

no, no, no, not morality, howabout fair play? how does that strike you?

ok, i want you to discuss, in the aspect of fairplay, the taking of commercial airliners and suicide flying them into office towers without any warning at all.

now i want you to compare that to us actions.

and i want YOU to examine carefully what you say. and carefully listen to WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.

i mean, you are telling me to look real carefully at how obvious the comparison is, and what that comparison reveals, us policy and terorist actions.

and i am telling you that outrage at acts of terror, real acts of terror, by fringe elements: al aksa martyrs brigade, aun shyun ryuko (spelling, sorry) timothy mcveigh/ the unabomer, al qaeda in bali/ kenya: these are acts of real visceral terror.

you can not, in right conscience, sit there and tell me i should start comparing and contrasting these kind of people and their intentions and the way they go about business with the us and the way it goes about its actions.

i mean honestly? to begin to detail why these comparisons are nonsensical kind of insults my intelligence, and well, it should insult yours.

clearly, you can see that, no?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I understand what you are saying (4.00 / 1) (#388)
by heng on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:35:17 AM EST

I understand what you are saying, I just do not agree with you.

What I am saying, and where our disagreement lies, is that fundamentally, the US should be as accountable for its actions as terrorists are. In my opinion the problem lies to a large extent with the failure (for whatever reason) of the US to acknowledge that, in fact, they are mostly responsible for the current situation. A cure must first start with an appreciation of the cause.

This is where you and I disagree. You (seem) to think that the US is not even partly responsible for creating the fertile ground for the generation of terrorists. I do agree that the actual terrorists are fringe elements. But the people jumping up and down in the middle east after the terrorist attacks are not fringe elements. Nor are they islamic fundamentalists. They are people that see american troops in Saudi, continuing unerring US support for Israel over the Palestians and sanctions on Iraq. It is these things that lead to the hatred, and it is these things that allow the terrorist networks to maintain the support they do.

These people are not stupid. They are not as misguided as popular press would have us believe. They realise the political situation in the states imposes the kind of foreign policy that exists at the moment. I talk about things like the powerful Jewish lobby that refuses to let the government talk about reducing the support for Israel. The continuing thirst for cheap oil (again, fuelled by powerful oil companies lobbying the government), and the rabid consumerism that results in the mass exploitation of the third world. Ok, the mass exploitation isn't directly related to the government, but it is these companies that are most profitable and so can lobby with more strength.

If the US were to turn round and say "yes, we were wrong, the situation really is partly our fault", and then set about pursuing a foreign policy that promotes the interests of others on the SAME level as their own, then things would dramatically improve. But of course, this won't happen with the current political system, because the current political system supports those that seek to promote self interest.



[ Parent ]
sigh (none / 0) (#414)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:47:21 PM EST

If the US were to turn round and say "yes, we were wrong, the situation really is partly our fault", and then set about pursuing a foreign policy that promotes the interests of others on the SAME level as their own, then things would dramatically improve. But of course, this won't happen with the current political system, because the current political system supports those that seek to promote self interest.

sigh.

i don't even know where to begin.

ok: you have what i like to call moral autism. what i mean by that is is that you really are noble and idealistic and have high moral standards. the problem is that your high moral standards fail to take into account reality of situations. like this: do you think you are the first person who ever lived who expressed moral outrage at the ugliness of the world? do you think you are the only person who sees the ideal, and sees reality, and has a problem with the contrast? no! of course you aren't

but in your moral outrage, you think you are going to tell those WHO ALREADY KNOW THIS that you have a better way to pursue things with them, except your bettter way acts on moral idealism rather than moral reality. get it? moral autism. locked into INACTION through your inability to conform your high-minded ideals to the REALITY of the situation.

like this: you point to us self-interest, failing to pursue the greater good, etc. as if that is all the us and its interests is REALLY all about and you have suddenly discovered this grand utopian vision that if we all hold hands and sing campfire songs all the problems in the world will go away.

THE WORLD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

klook, i wrote these words to someone else, and i will paraphrase them to you, and you see if you can see where i am coming from and how my way of dealing with iraq INFORMS YOU about the superior way to go rather you INFORMING ME how your approach is superior. MY POV ALREADY TAKES YOUR POV INTO ACCOUNT, see? i have moved beyond your moral autism into a new realm: action! not inaction!

am i an egotisitcal patronizing arrogant loudmouth? YESYESYES!!! but LISTEN TO MY ARGUMENTS AND FORGIVE THE EGOTISM PLEASE because i am not the most ideal of messengers, but i can not sit here and deconstruct your worldview without a display of passion and displeasure because i have had to deal with moral autistics on this site FOR FAR TOO LONG.

earlier today, hizonner wrote this to me:


The fact is, neither the US Government nor Islamic fundamentalism presents as big a risk to me, personally, as the chance of getting hit by a car tomorrow. And I'm probably in the top half of the US population as far as terrorist risk goes. This isn't about risk to my life, and it isn't about risk to my personal freedom; those risks are side issues.

What this is about is the fact that the US Government claims to act in my name, and is doing immoral and unethical things in my name. However tenuous the legitimacy of the US Government's claim to represent me, I refuse to strengthen it by remaining silent.

This is about ideas. This is about doing the right thing. Yeah, this is about abstractions; abstractions are what are supposed to be the good part about human beings. Some of us, anyway.

That's right, this is a moral issue. Furthermore, it's a moral issue for Americans to hold themselves and their government to a higher standard than others. Not just as high. Higher. Every person should hold herself to a higher standard than she applies to others, and this extends to any group you happen to identify with.

There are a lot of words for doing the wrong thing to save your own ass. None of them are pretty words.

Not, of course, that this particular program even actually does anything to save any asses. In fact, it probably makes Americans less safe; despite your fantastic, vehement, and completely unsupported assertions to the contrary, there is a connection between the way the US acts and how much the US is perceived as a target.

And, despite your wilfull blindness, there is a significant risk of the US Government running amok and doing damage that Islamists could only dream about.

i posted this in reply to hizonner today, TO WHICH HE RATED MY COMMENTS AS A 5... hallelugha! (sp) I AM MAKING PROGRESS!!!

you demonstrate fud.

fear uncertainty denial

when do we reach your high standards of moral perfection before we can act against an evil in the world? never? do we ever rise to your impeccable standards?

there is a continuum between being too impulsive and being too hesitant . these are extremes. there is a window in which action is appropriate between impulsiveness and hesitancy. some will act without thinking, and they will do wrong in this world. but just as dangerous as the shoot first ask questions later crowd are the never shoot, cover eyes crowd. you have too many standards for action, and you wind up not acting at all.  

the world is messy. sometimes the best possible scenario is not attainable. sometimes the range of options are all messy, but some less messy than others, and inaction is not an option. refusing to do any kind of messy option and in effect veto your responsiblity to act at all is worse than picking amongst the messy options.

the US will act, and i am certain it will not be in the name ofall of its peoples. but for these people, no action is acceptable to them. they are do nothings, and they remove themselves from the struggle in the world in an arrogant disavowal of its realities, an arrogant disavowal of their own humanity by adhering to a rigid, impossible to implement morality.

you suffer from moral autism my friend.

my words from my debate with spcmanspiff

the us has done horrible injustices in the world. the us has done wonderful things in this world. buth are true statements. they are also true statements that can apply to any country. the point is that this he said-she said cause and effect crap you seem to be so concerned with when it comes to the us can go on and on forever. the point? stop thinking about victimization. think about original sin. it goes on all around the world every day. the us, included: i am not denying the us does evil things. so you must be intellectualy honest to me in return and admit to me that other nations, switzerland, costa rica, whoever, included, does evil things. you must also admit, in the face of intellectual honesty, that the us does a lot of good in the world too. the us hardly has a monopoly on evil.

i am not a us patriot, i am merely saying these words in the interest of intellectual honesty and a worldview of problems, not an antiamerican or proamerican view of problems. only when you assume a victimless view of the world can you actually begin to solve problems...

now, follow the bouncing ball: there is a timetable for action on iraq. there is a time table, agreed? we can't sit and debate for five years before we take action, no? good, agreed then. now: you say my answer or bush's answer sucks. then you say that you haven't said what your answer will be. but see here how you just fell off the apple cart? when it is time to act, you are either acting, or not participating. if you have a reason not to participate, then fine. sit on the sidelines. your noncontribution is noted. but you say you have a better action to take! ah! BUT, BUT BUT: you don't know what it is yet!

so, should we all wait with baited breath until this miraculous solution you haven't figured out yet materializes in your brain? should the whole world stop spinning while you figure it all out? see the problem? you appreciate the gravity of the situation: you think that america is acting without due consideration of the gravity, so you cry out "wait!" ok, we're waiting... "wait until i get back with an answer!" uh, sorry dude, too late. we must act in a timely fashion. so you learn two things here:
in life, you don't always have enough time to formulate the best answer.
sometimes, the best answer is still messy, and sitting around and thinking will not get you a less-messy answer. go with what you got.
see? are you beginning to understand? i know! you have these great wonderful golden principles! ok! wow! cool for you! BUT THEY DON'T WORK IN A MESSY WORLD. just because your principles are so golden doesn't mean they lead to a better world! what, you're the first person who has ever lived who had high morals? no one else before you has ever said "it's so messy, wouldn't it be nice if..." fill in the bank. you're not the first frustrated perfectionist. permanent high-anxiety is your fate until you learn to CHILL OUT.

ok! but you care so much! i feel for you! it's so hard to let go... i will never let go of my high minded principles! then you are NOT ADAPTING.

and i hate to say it, but you have just forfeited your right to criticize us action too. why? because the people who are acting and taking risks need constructive criticism. not backbiting selfdoubt. ok? because while you are sitting there thinking up your miraculous perfect solution that hurts no one (which doesn't exist) you are a do-nothing. as a do-nothing, you are worth less to all of us than the do-somethings. so who the hell do you think you are for criticizing them?

do you see where i am coming from on this issue now? do you see my point? do you see the need for action over inaction on iraq? do you see???? please see! i am growing tired of dealing with moral autistics here.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My comments were based on the INS issue (none / 0) (#454)
by heng on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:23:49 AM EST

My comments were based on the INS issue. They were very applicable to this issue. The US is showing real long term stupidity by again and again pursuing policy that undermines relations with the middle east.

Asking for the immigrants to come forward to be registered is one thing. I even accept the possibility that all those that were detained were detained with reason. Where this particular scheme caused pain was in the patently stupid way in which it was carried out. Getting all those of one nationality at a time, and then locking a big chunk of them up (regardless of whether it was right or wrong) was perhaps the best way of further degrading international relations, short of military action. The fact it was Iranians first was even worse.

Why not do it by the dates they arrived in the US? I will now point out the most obvious point of all (again) that makes this whole procedure bullshit. TERRORISTS WILL NOT COME FORWARD TO BE REGISTERED. Fringe elements exist everywhere, and muslims live everywhere. Ergo, muslim extremeists can be found everywhere. There is no shortage of muslim fundamentalists (who would get into the US very easily) that can be brain washed into terrorism acts.

Now for the war on Iraq, as we seem to have got onto that now. The clear conclusion based on my comments is as follows (and morality does not come into it):

The US should not invade Iraq because it will lead to a greater risk of terrorist action. I get to this by assuming the likelyhood of terrorist action increases as the anger in the Middle East increases and that the anger in the Middle East will increase with an invasion of Iraq. That is not moral idealism. That is realism that address the fundamental causes of the terrorism, and does not try to blindly attribute it to Islamic fundamentalism. As for the argument about WMD, any number of states in the world could supply a terrorist network with WMD. Just supply the relevant official with a tidy bribe.

Terrorism can not be stopped until you start understanding the reasons behind the terrorism and start tackling them. This is slowly been learned the long and hard way in Northern Ireland. It is clear now that the way forward is to improve inter-cultural relations. Let us hope that the US doesn't also have to learn the long and hard way.

[ Parent ]
Moral autism. What is it? (none / 0) (#490)
by thePositron on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:33:05 AM EST

Definition please.

You think others have it, but how do we know that you don't?

How should human beings deal with fear? Do you fear what can possibly kill you based on the reports from CNN or what will in most likelihood kill you?

What is more realistic?

What should a person direct their energy towards?
Trying to prevent terror or living their life to the utmost without fear?

Which course of action is morally right?
In what course of action would there be an absence of "moral autism".

Please explain this to me.

In essence how does arresting a bunch of people who are essentially law abiding and treating them poorly reduce the possibility of an act of extreme violence by people with an extreme political or religious viewpoint? How does this contribute to our actual safety? Please,  I am curious in what moral universe does this makes perfect sense?

BTW,,, merry christmas....

[ Parent ]

Boo!! (none / 0) (#488)
by thePositron on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:18:53 AM EST

When you aren't looking.. Did that scare you? Is that an act of terror? What is terror or terrorism? How does one fight terror or commit a war against terror?

It's an emotion that will take more than a war to erase from the human mind. If you think our government will "win" a war on "terror" please explain to me how.

[ Parent ]

Slightly OT (none / 0) (#486)
by owenh on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 12:46:23 AM EST

This Article talks about how the US used it veto to knock down a resolution put up by Syria attacking Israel for killing UN workers and destroying UN food supplies.

Why is this different from the usual "Arab state publicly denounces Israel"? Of the 15 members, the US was the only state to vote against the bill (12 in favour, 2 abstentions, 1 against).

While the article didn't say, this would have to mean that the UK, Russia, and France would have had to vote in favour.
-- Observations of the world we live in
[ Parent ]

can someone please explain (2.58 / 12) (#339)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 10:22:03 PM EST

why, will someone please tell me why people still focus on the american excesses in the world when islamic fundamentalist excesses in the world are clearly on the rise and more dangerous?

please, someone explain that worldview, that mentality to me please!!??

obvously, such people must view the us as more dangerous than islamic fundamentalism. otherwise, they would exert their mental energies fighting islamic fundamentalism instead.

i am sorely at a loss to explain such people. the world will not change by the us going isolationist all of a sudden.

islamic fundamentalism is on the rise. that represents the biggest threat to your freedoms, not the bungling american government.

what will it take to convince you people? another september 11th? another bali? another kenya? how many more killed by militant islamic fundamentalism until you recognize them as the biggest threat in the world? when will you loosen your deathgrip on your paranoia and fud over the us?

the status quo folks, is militant islamic fundamentalism on the rise. it will only get worse. no micromanaging and criticizing of us policy on middle eastern foreign nationals will change that. it is not about the us. the us can disappear tomorrow. the us can pull every soldier, every citizen, every dollar out of the middle east, islamic militant fundamentalism will still rise, and still cause suffering for non-fundamentalist muslims, for minority religions and populations, for all. it is about the global rise of militant islamic fundamentalism, with an agenda all of its own, completely independent and unique of any reactionary view you might have of them based on us past actions.

imagine that! why can't you see that!!??

please, please fight them. then get back to dealing with the bungling us, ok?

its like complaining about the air conditioner not working as a volcanoe opens up under your feet.

i do not understand the lack of perspective here.

american idiocy: SMALLER THREAT

militant islamic fundamentalism: BIGGER THREAT

get it??!!

ok, go out and focus your mental energies appropriately now ;-P

geez!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Simple fact (3.57 / 7) (#347)
by greenrd on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:14:14 PM EST

The simple fact is the American military terrorism has killed more people than all the deaths that have been pinned on "Al Quaida". And Iraq (which is headed by a regime that, for all its barbarity, is no more Islamic Fundamentalist than you are) is going to be the latest "statistic" in a long line of "statistics". But remember, each of those "statistics" of innocent civilians killed represents a real human being with the same right to life as everyone else.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

amazing (2.50 / 10) (#348)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 20, 2002 at 11:23:38 PM EST

you people fascinate me. i mean, absolutely make my jaw drop while i read.

its like this vast psychological or sociological puzzle i have to try and understand.

you are an amazing insect i have to dissect. please reply.

let's tease out some logic from you as best as possible:

let us begin...

explain to me what saddam hussein represents ot the stability of the world.

now explain to me how removing him makes the world better, or worse. use all the propaganda you like.

now explain to me how delighted and happy american military personnel will be with every iraqi citizen they kill in the process of getting rid of saddam. how they will jump up and down and hoot like mad cowboys as they slay women and children. right?

please respond, you are an incredible abstraction, i want to know what makes you tick!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

world cop (5.00 / 2) (#356)
by meaton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:23:39 AM EST

What does Saddam have to do with 9/11 or terrorism? Answer: nothing. The 'war on terror' is a pretext for a U.S. invasion. Unprovoked, I might add. The America that I stand for does not go out and invade foreign nations on a whim. Should we be fighting a 'war on al qaida'? Abso-fucking-lutely. They attacked us, we should attack back. Explain to me again what Al Qaida have to do with Saddam? Should we be fighting a 'war on terror'? I'm not so comfortable with this. Fighting a war against a concept is tiliting with windmills. Much, much better to fight an identafiable enemey.

[ Parent ]
gimme a break (2.50 / 4) (#379)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:08:45 AM EST

1. september 11th happens

2. the us wakes up out of its stupor. there are evil people in the world who can do really nasty things.

3. the us says, we must do something about it.

gee! what an incredible impossible series of events! is it possible that is the conneciton between al qaeda and saddam hussein?

unbelieveable. tilting at windmills indeed.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

so.. no real reply? (5.00 / 2) (#398)
by meaton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:51:20 PM EST

You sputter and exclaim, but your reply lacks any real substance. As I already said, yes we should eliminate Al Qaida. How do you make the logical leap from Al Qaida to an invasion of Iraq? There are many, many "evil" people in the world. Are we declaring war on them too? Or is there some ulterior motive to the proposed invasion of Iraq that people are uncomfortable talking about? If you can't offer anything better than another reiteration of "September 11th happened!" then don't bother replying.

[ Parent ]
good god (1.00 / 3) (#417)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:58:01 PM EST

look, iraq is a threat to the peace and stability of the world. the us is doing a good thing by removing him for the whole of the world.

There are many, many "evil" people in the world. Are we declaring war on them too?

actually, yes, we should! let's clean up africa! let's take the whole of the middle east and turn it into an islamic democracy! is that going to happen anytime soon? no. reality dictates we can not pay for all of this, and too fast of a change in the world does not work. so it will be gradual, it play itself out. as for saddam, he is ripe, his time has come, the consensus in the world and in the un is agreement on this. we can do this. and so we act. do you see? you can't chang ethe world overnight, but if you were omnipotent, which the us is not, we should in all right take out all the bad guys in the world. somalia. zaire. bumra. bad guys doing bad things but there is no consensus to act in the world!

You sputter and exclaim, but your reply lacks any real substance.

sigh. my substance is we should act on iraq, we should not be driven by fud into inaction. is that enough substance for you? what magical substance am i not supplying you with? good god.

How do you make the logical leap from Al Qaida to an invasion of Iraq?

1. september 11th happens

  1. the us wakes up out of its stupor. there are evil people in the world who can do really nasty things.
  2. the us says, we must do something about it.
good lord, isn't the this the third time i've outlined these steps? what do you not understand in them? where are they implausible? what kind of iron plate do you have in your skull? how about an allusion, will that begin to persuade you to the realm of plausibility?:

there are always hunters shooting in the woods behind some guys house. the guy always wants to do something about the dangeours hunters, but he never gets around to it, it's low on his list of priorities. one day, a hunter shoots the guys dog. the guy is mortified, and decides to finally do something about the hunters in the woods behind his house.

HELLO!!?? DO YOU GET THE CONNECTION??? HOW CAN I SPOONFEED THIS SCENARIO TO YOU ANOTHER WAY??!! geez.

 

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I can't believe I'm arguing with you (5.00 / 2) (#420)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:14:43 PM EST

Man I can't believe I'm responding to this.. but..

iraq is a threat to the peace and stability of the world

You haven't said how. WMD? We don't know if Iraq has them. The UN's position is that if Saddam complies with the order that he not develop WMD, we shouldn't invade Iraq.

as for saddam, he is ripe, his time has come, the consensus in the world and in the un is agreement on this

The consensus of the world is decidedly NOT in agreement on this point. Have you even bothered to read the goings-on in the UN, or do you only listen to GWB? There is simply no way to back up a claim that the UN and the world are behind America in an invasion of Iraq. I'm sorry to be an American when I see people like you demonstrating complete ignorance of the world's opinion of us.

  1. september 11th happens
  2. the us wakes up out of its stupor. there are evil people in the world who can do really nasty things.
  3. the us says, we must do something about it.
I fail to see how this justifies an invasion of Iraq. Fine, you say a single terrorist attack suddenly gives us the goal of eliminating evil from the world. Doesn't make sense, but I'll go with it. But why is Saddam the target? He isn't a fundamentalist, he isn't involved with al qaeda, and he wasn't responsible for 9/11.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
step back (1.00 / 2) (#428)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:40:13 PM EST

all the pieces are already there for you. you will figure out the connection. you will figure out how september 11th was a wake up call to clean house in the world. that is the way human psychology works. you will figure it out. look carefully at my hunters in the woods analogy in the post you replied to above and tell me why that analogy makes sense. then you will know the answers to your questions. then you will have deeper insight into human psychology.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Gee thanks, Yoda -NT (none / 0) (#429)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:41:14 PM EST



--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
no problem (1.00 / 2) (#433)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:46:26 PM EST

glad to help, racist fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
What I'm reading here (5.00 / 1) (#416)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:57:27 PM EST

Your style of argument is close to unreadable, but here's what I'm getting: "There are many evil people in the world. We should kill the brown ones, because they're probably related somehow."

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
fucking propaganda (1.33 / 6) (#418)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:03:03 PM EST

EQUATING MY ACTION WITH RACISM IS FUCKING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PROPAGANDA

YOU ARE THE ONLY FUCK WHO INTRODUCED SKIN TONE IN THIS CONVERSATION

ERGO, YOU ARE THE RACIST

WHAT IF I WERE OF JAMAICAN DESCENT YOU RACIST FUCK

WOULD THAT CHANGE ONE SINGLE WORD I HAVE SAID?

NO!

"we don't want your racist war"

THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE WHATSOEVER

YOU SPREAD PROPAGANDA

YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND KNOW YOUR OWN ENEMY HYPOCRIT


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

AN ALL CAPS RESPONSE! (4.50 / 2) (#421)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:15:23 PM EST

I FEEL SO HONORED!

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
an all caps response (none / 0) (#432)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:45:41 PM EST

an all caps response for the asshole who injects racism into the argument

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Calm down (5.00 / 2) (#424)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:25:08 PM EST

Calm down and listen. What other rational reason would you have for associating Al Qaeda and Iraq? They have nothing to do with each other, save for their religion, geographic location, and the label of 'evil'.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
reposts (1.00 / 1) (#426)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:37:25 PM EST

Calm down and listen. What other rational reason would you have for associating Al Qaeda and Iraq? They have nothing to do with each other, save for their religion, geographic location, and the label of 'evil'.

reposts


How do you make the logical leap from Al Qaida to an invasion of Iraq?

  1. september 11th happens
  2. the us wakes up out of its stupor. there are evil people in the world who can do really nasty things.
  3. the us says, we must do something about it.
good lord, isn't the this the third time i've outlined these steps? what do you not understand in them? where are they implausible? what kind of iron plate do you have in your skull? how about an allusion, will that begin to persuade you to the realm of plausibility?:

there are always hunters shooting in the woods behind some guys house. the guy always wants to do something about the dangeours hunters, but he never gets around to it, it's low on his list of priorities. one day, a hunter shoots the guys dog. the guy is mortified, and decides to finally do something about the hunters in the woods behind his house.

HELLO!!?? DO YOU GET THE CONNECTION??? HOW CAN I SPOONFEED THIS SCENARIO TO YOU ANOTHER WAY??!! geez.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stop (1.00 / 1) (#427)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:40:06 PM EST

Stop posting your lame attempt at a philosophical argument! Trust me, I've studied logic and philosophy, and your argument doesn't make any sense.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
explain (1.33 / 3) (#431)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:44:34 PM EST

there are always hunters shooting in the woods behind some guys house. the guy always wants to do something about the dangeours hunters, but he never gets around to it, it's low on his list of priorities. one day, a hunter shoots the guys dog. the guy is mortified, and decides to finally do something about the hunters in the woods behind his house.

Stop posting your lame attempt at a philosophical argument! Trust me, I've studied logic and philosophy, and your argument doesn't make any sense.

tell me explain to me, educate me: how does this analogy not explain us action on iraq because of september 11th? you who have studied logic and philisophy far and wide. you are the great learned scholar. explain to moronic, misguided litte me, please.

YOU WHO SPOUT RACISM TO ADVANCE YOUR VIEWS. AND YOU ARE LECTURING ME ON YOUR GREAT LEARNEDNESS


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

explanation (5.00 / 1) (#448)
by magney on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:25:37 AM EST

It's really simple. What reason do you have to believe that the hunters in the woods behind his house had anything to do with the hunter that shot his dog? What makes you think the hunters in the woods are in any position to get anywhere near any of the rest of his dogs?

And a more telling question: why is he going after the hunters in the woods when the one that shot his dog is STILL AT LARGE?

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

wrong (1.00 / 1) (#471)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:07:59 PM EST

It's really simple. What reason do you have to believe that the hunters in the woods behind his house had anything to do with the hunter that shot his dog?

all hunters behind his house are bad, it only took the action of one of them to focus attention on this fact

What makes you think the hunters in the woods are in any position to get anywhere near any of the rest of his dogs?

you misdirect the analogy. they are all men doing mischief with no concern to the dog owner's safety. unless he acts against the idea of hunters doing mischief behind his house, including the culpable party, the next bullet may go through the owner's head.

And a more telling question: why is he going after the hunters in the woods when the one that shot his dog is STILL AT LARGE?

where does one begin fighting shadowy hunters in the woods? start with the ones you can see.

what, exactly, is your problem with this analogy? it is an attempt to explain to you basic human psychology, not my particular viewpoint. do you have a problem with my viewpoint? or human psychology?

if someone shoots some guys dog, he is going to have a problem with the idea of all hunters behind his house, not only the culpable party. this is, like, pretty fucking obvious human psychology dude. you have a problem with your understanding of human psychology, not me.

and to expand upon an understanding of the analogy for do nothing lefties, i think the do nothing lefties would say the guy should have done something about the hunters in the first place, before his dog was shot. i am glad that the do nothing lefties think human nature is omnipotent. just because you percieve a problem, but don't do anything about it until something awful happens that focuses your attention on the problem, does not make you culpable and complicit in your dog's death. it merely makes you human. it does not reduce the sadness of the dogs death, it does not reduce your remorse at the dog's death. iot does not reduce the culpapbilty of the hunter who shot your dog, or somehow make you a coconspirator in your dog's death. a snake is a snake is a snake. men who fly airplanes into office towers are pretty far beyond the normal bounds of acceptable explanatory cause and effect. i cut in front of you in traffic, so you blow my head off with a gun. yes, there is cause and effect there, but not many would agree a traffic rudeness should be answered with gunplay.

i mean this is so fucking obvious, what the hell is wrong with you do nothing lefties?

as if human beings have infinite time and power to conquer all problems. human beings have an agenda, and focus on what they think is most important first, because they are mortal, and time is short. if they did not perceive the biggest snakes in the grass, now they must share in the guilt with any evil actions the snake makes? that does not make them share their guilt with the snake, it merely makes them human. and it certainly doesn't reduce the culpability of the snake. as if the snake had a reason that was understandable to do the atrocity that it did.  a snake is a snake is a snake. it's like, as clear as day. lefties think human nature should be omnipotent, or that the benefit of hindsight is perfectly appropriate incentive to criticize. pretty faulty logic, pretty poor understanding of human nature.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Pardon me (none / 0) (#472)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:14:37 PM EST

At the risk of another all caps reply, please explain what you mean by this:

all hunters behind his house are bad, it only took the action of one of them to focus attention on this fact

All arabs are bad, and it only took the action of one of them to focus attention on this fact?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

good god (none / 0) (#473)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:21:02 PM EST

go away racist motherfucker

you inject racism into the discussion once, now you do it again. no one is injecting racism into this argument EXCEPT YOU ASSHOLE

YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST

BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO KEEPS BRINGING UP RACE

a hunter= bad people doing bad things, can you possibly get beyond your racist blinders? i will leave it up to your obviously stellar imagination to imagine how that might not have anything to do with race at all.

do you like racism?

no?

LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR. YOU ARE THE ONLY HERE WHO KEEPS BRINGING IT UP.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Unproven (none / 0) (#477)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:35:46 PM EST

There really isn't a basis for the claim that "you brought up race, therefore you are the racist." Many of those who are inexperienced at debate make this assertion, so I forgive you - you are obviously a neophyte in these matters. If you insist in continuing in this direction, please prove how my suggestion that you may be a racist, indicates that I am in fact a racist. If this is true, certainly the entire NAACP, the ADL, even President Bush (for reprimanding Trent Lott) are filthy racists.

I simply don't see what else you could substitute for 'hunters' in your crappy analogy. I don't accept 'evil people' as an answer. If it is your assertion that the US attacks all evil people equally, please explain why China has yet to be the target of a US bombing campaign. China is certainly bad people doing bad things - just look at their history of human rights violations, repression of political speech and religion.

The only possible thing you could mean is, "All people who look like terrorists are bad, Saddam looks like a terrorist, therefore we should attack his country."

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

i suggest you are pedophile (none / 0) (#479)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:42:43 PM EST

i suggest you are a pedophile. that makes sense.

you mean it doesn't? why not? because i have no proof?

read every word i have ever written here. read any word you can ever find that i have ever written on the internet for all time.

find the words that suggest i am a racist.

THERE ARE NONE ASSWIPE.

CAN YOU POSSIBLY CONCEIVE, IN THE GIANT UNIVERSE OF YOUR IMAGINATION, THAT IT MIGHT BE RIGHT TO FIGHT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN A WAY THAT HAS NOTHING IN THE FAINTEST TO DO WITH RACE.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hey (none / 0) (#480)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:44:52 PM EST

I'm not the one who said he had something to do with 9/11, that was you.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
good god you are pathetic (none / 0) (#481)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:53:19 PM EST

you really are pathetic man, even magney thinks so

you are an intellectual charity case. you come in with charges of racism, and now you are talking about a question, the connection between 9/11 and action on iraq, that was addressed in a previous post. don't bring up an accusation i have alreadty dealt with. if you have a problem with my connecion between the two, deal with how i already answered it, don't bring it up again. do you want me to change your diapers too?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#482)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 09:00:46 PM EST

Alright, I can see there's no talking sense into you. This argument is over, I have clearly prevailed. I have no doubt you'll post another whinging, vapid response. It will go unanswered.

I can only grin smugly as I realize that I've brought a (presumably) grown person to the brink of tears, furiously banging away at his keyboard, caps lock on, "I AM NOT A RACIST! WAAH FUCKING WAAH!"

Good day, sir.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#483)
by circletimessquare on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 09:09:26 PM EST

This argument is over, I have clearly prevailed.

you have vanquished me into the nether regions of colossal failure. i salute your noble victory. i am truly humbled beyodn belief. i don't even know what i was thinking. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

i don't know why people don't like trolls, i mean they are like comic relief.

i guess i will have to bang the keyboard some more in my terrible frustration at being dealt such a stinging lesson from you. i thank you heartily for the lesson, i will cry tears all night at my suffering in my terrible defeat. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

For heck's sake. (none / 0) (#474)
by magney on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:29:05 PM EST

circletimessquare is making enough fundamental mistakes of logic and reason without you accusing him of a mistake he isn't making.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Hm (none / 0) (#478)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 08:36:11 PM EST

What else could it mean? I'm all ears.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Despite your post in the other thread... (none / 0) (#489)
by magney on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:31:11 AM EST

I do think that what he means in his analogy is "evil people". You correctly pointed out how bad his analogy was, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the analogy he meant. As Hanlon's Razor says, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

1, 2, 3 (none / 0) (#461)
by lemming prophet on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:52:52 PM EST

didn't you forget something? a long long time ago (actually only 25 yrs but..) 1) the us pays billions for iraqi WMD, supporting the "good" iraq against "evil" iran. 2) iran is no longer the primary problem, so us spends billions to destroy the american weaponry of saddams army...killing thousands of civilians....add an embargo to that and you have hundreds of thousands... [note: 1 + 2 = political problems, massive profits for american weapon manufacturers] even later: - september 11th happens - the us wakes up out of its stupor. there are evil people in the world who can do really nasty things. you forgot to add: most of them sponsored by the us at one time during the last 25 years.... - the us says, we must do something about it. they bomb another country, install a former oil manager ( unocal - karzai ) as president, knowing that the real power will continue to lie within the warlords hands, but the us army camps will prevent them from interfering us interest... and now: 3) with all the cuts on privacy and civil rights and the massivly raised "defense" budget after 9-11 it's a lot easier to keep the homeland quiet while living out the american dream ... err sorry i mean while attacking other countries with resources you need... so, since iraq has lots of oil, why not continue the afghan success story? might well be that another us oil guy becomes president afterwards, and, it gets better, the oil + weapon companies that GWB, Cheney and others invested in will be even more profitable. :(
--
Follow me.
[ Parent ]
Slaying women and children (3.66 / 3) (#381)
by greenrd on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:20:34 AM EST

how they will jump up and down and hoot like mad cowboys as they slay women and children. right?

Well, yes. Do the words "turkey shoot" mean anything to you? Basra Road?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

absolutely amazing (1.66 / 6) (#386)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:13:49 AM EST

dude.

the us is slowly approaching intervention in iraq for the good fo the world.

bad things will happen if they do this, and no one wants the bad things to happen, but regretfully they might.

HELLO!!?? are you 10 years old? what part of these simple, straightforward words do you have a problem with?

are you really hellbent on painting all us forces, all us interests as a "turkey shoot"

HELLO

EARTH TO GREENRD

HELLO

ARE YOU LISTENING???:::

the us is slowly approaching intervention in iraq for the good of the world. bad things will happen if they do this, and no one wants the bad things to happen, but regretfully they might.

boom! presto! changeo! do you see that? do these words resemble reality more? or am i suppose your supposition that the us is going to iraq to "have a turkey shoot" is more like reality

amazing!!!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

In other words... (4.00 / 4) (#402)
by magney on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:45:59 PM EST

you can't actually answer his objection, and are blowing a lot of rhetorical smoke to cover the fact.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

sigh (2.00 / 4) (#412)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:27:21 PM EST

you can't actually answer his objection, and are blowing a lot of rhetorical smoke to cover
the fact.

some people need explanations

follow the bouncing ball:

greenrd is asserting us intervention in iraq will be a turkey shoot.

got it?

i am replying by asserting it will not be a turkey shoot.

ok?

i am not blowing rhetorical smoke, i am disagreeing with his portrayal.

if you have a problem with my lack of support on my position, i reply to you i am sick of stating the obvious.

what are the INTENTIONS of the US in iraq?

answer that honestly.

therefore greenrd's depiction of us actions as barbaric is WRONG because OBVIOUSLY us intentions are NOBLE.

see?

i mean how basically do i have to break thins down?

i am dealing with people who are hellbent on portraying every single possible action the us can possibly do about the dangerous situation of iraq as a step backwards into barbarity.

they absolutely REFUSE to consider the idea that GOOD CAN BE DONE IN IRAQ THROUGH MILITARY INTERVENTION.

they REFUSE to pay any consideration to that which will happen: GOOD IN IRAQ IF THE US INTERVENES MILITARILY.

you will perhaps assert that i will not consider that bad things will happen.

i say to you now:

BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IN IRAQ BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IN IRAQ BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IRAQ.

ok?

are we on the same page now?

excpet that i am not frozen by anxiety to consider that these bad, unfortunate things will be side effects of the much greater good at work by getting rid of saddam hussein, ok?

perhaps you will say to me i agree with you completely, fine.

but i don't think greenrd would even consider that.

i am honestly dealing with do nothing lefties who will not even pay that possibility, excuse me, PROBABILITY, any mental thrift: GOOD WILL COME OUT MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAQ.

they are completely mentally constipated on that simple, obvious point.

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Some people need explanations indeed. (none / 0) (#446)
by magney on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 02:21:20 AM EST

greenrd is asserting us intervention in iraq will be a turkey shoot.

got it?

And for evidence he is mentioning the fact that the last intervention in Iraq was a turkey shoot.
i am replying by asserting it will not be a turkey shoot.
And for evidence you are mentioning... what? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Noble intentions? LOL!! (5.00 / 1) (#453)
by kcbrown on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:17:02 AM EST

what are the INTENTIONS of the US in iraq?

answer that honestly.

Okay, you asked for it: to secure for itself a source of oil as large as any other that we know of. Secondarily, to eliminate a government in control of such resources that won't bend over and be our bitch the way all the other governments that sit on top of similar resources do.
therefore greenrd's depiction of us actions as barbaric is WRONG because OBVIOUSLY us intentions are NOBLE.
Yeah, real noble, the pursuit of wealth. Just as noble as the pursuit of power. Oh, wait, they're basically the same thing...

[ Parent ]
Hear fucking Hear (3.00 / 2) (#437)
by chappaz on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:25:16 PM EST

I couldn't agree more.

[ Parent ]
It's not about security (4.66 / 3) (#376)
by Hizonner on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:22:38 AM EST

The fact is, neither the US Government nor Islamic fundamentalism presents as big a risk to me, personally, as the chance of getting hit by a car tomorrow. And I'm probably in the top half of the US population as far as terrorist risk goes. This isn't about risk to my life, and it isn't about risk to my personal freedom; those risks are side issues.

What this is about is the fact that the US Government claims to act in my name, and is doing immoral and unethical things in my name. However tenuous the legitimacy of the US Government's claim to represent me, I refuse to strengthen it by remaining silent.

This is about ideas. This is about doing the right thing. Yeah, this is about abstractions; abstractions are what are supposed to be the good part about human beings. Some of us, anyway.

That's right, this is a moral issue. Furthermore, it's a moral issue for Americans to hold themselves and their government to a higher standard than others. Not just as high. Higher. Every person should hold herself to a higher standard than she applies to others, and this extends to any group you happen to identify with.

There are a lot of words for doing the wrong thing to save your own ass. None of them are pretty words.

Not, of course, that this particular program even actually does anything to save any asses. In fact, it probably makes Americans less safe; despite your fantastic, vehement, and completely unsupported assertions to the contrary, there is a connection between the way the US acts and how much the US is perceived as a target.

And, despite your wilfull blindness, there is a significant risk of the US Government running amok and doing damage that Islamists could only dream about.

[ Parent ]

fud (5.00 / 1) (#378)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:06:07 AM EST

you demonstrate fud.

fear uncertainty denial

when do we reach your high standards of moral perfection before we can act against an evil in the world? never? do we ever rise to your impeccable standards?

there is a continuum between being too impulsive and being too hesitant . these are extremes. there is a window in which action is appropriate between impulsiveness and hesitancy. some will act without thinking, and they will do wrong in this world. but just as dangerous as the shoot first ask questions later crowd are the never shoot, cover eyes crowd. you have too many standards for action, and you wind up not acting at all.  

the world is messy. sometimes the best possible scenario is not attainable. sometimes the range of options are all messy, but some less messy than others, and inaction is not an option. refusing to do any kind of messy option and in effect veto your responsiblity to act at all is worse than picking amongst the messy options.

the US will act, and i am certain it will not be in the name ofall of its peoples. but for these people, no action is acceptable to them. they are do nothings, and they remove themselves from the struggle in the world in an arrogant disavowal of its realities, an arrogant disavowal of their own humanity by adhering to a rigid, impossible to implement morality.

you suffer from moral autism my friend.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

denial? (none / 0) (#506)
by rodoke3 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:08:30 PM EST

I thought FUD stood for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt."

I take umbrage with such statments and am induced to pull out archaic and over pompous words to refute such insipid vitriol. -- kerinsky


[ Parent ]
Even though (5.00 / 1) (#380)
by fhotg on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:19:43 AM EST

it does not exactly fit the topic, I'd like to point out that car-accidents are by far the greatest threat to the inhabitants of the north-western world and all other mentioned dangers or inconveniences pale in comparison.

So pleas focus your mental powers and talk about how to reduce car-accidents.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#387)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:15:07 AM EST

ok, point taken. HAHAHAHAHAHA ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hey! e. e. cummings wannabe motherfucker (3.75 / 4) (#413)
by Edgy Loner on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:38:25 PM EST

Fucking learn to capitalize your fucking sentances, goddamn it. The first letter of the first word in every sentance is supposed to be upper case. Like this. You see, the capitalization helps to mark the beginning of the sentance, and the punction helps mark the end of the sentance. It makes it so much easier for the reader to understand what you are trying to say when you do that. Here's an exercise you can do at home. Pick ten of your posts a,d rewrite them with proper capitalization. Then compare reading the rewritten posts with reading the original posts. I think you'll agree that this simple technique vastly improves the readability of your writings.

This is not my beautiful house.
This is not my beautiful knife.
[ Parent ]
spelling fascists (2.33 / 3) (#434)
by circletimessquare on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:48:55 PM EST

i love spelling nazis, grammar and punctuation fascists, etc. they are the cutest trolls i have ever met. because they care, they really do. they give me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
here's the explanation... (1.00 / 1) (#436)
by chappaz on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:20:34 PM EST

but a question first: are you a christian fundamentalist? Even if you are not, your country is still a place where incidents of "fatricide" take place - abortion clinic bombings for example.

The only difference is that you Americans kill each other and not members of other states around the world. Well, actually you do kill other people too. You poison the world with you inane movie culture, your fast food chain imperialism and so on, only because you worship the mighty dollar - a false prophet perhaps.

American culture of the 1950s and 1960s was far more significant than the rubbish that is produced today, which I might add always portrays the US as the good guy.

You arrive in Europe and complain that no-one speaks English, that the lavatories are sub-standard, that no-one accepts credit cards. Want me to go on...?

Christian fundamentalism is equally as bad as Muslim fundamentalism, and we only ever see examples of Christian fundamentalism in the USA - bombings of abortion clinics for example. We never hear of this happening elsewhere in the world

The USA cares for only one thing: and that is the mighty DOLLAR. You will stop at nothing to make money, creating wealth it is called, which sounds all too positive, and I must agree that the quest for wealth is not such a bad thing.

However at what expense. Millions of people dying of starvation in Africa and your companies force people to buy GM seeds so that they will only be able to plant for one season before they have to buy seeds for the next year - and the shareholders make their profit. What kind of moral example is that?

The USA uses 25% of the world's natural resources - notably oil - for it's own needs because everyone's just gotta have a car

Shall i continue...?

Simple question: why was the USA attacked and not Switzerland, Sweden, France, South Africa, the UK, Japan, China...? the list goes on.

Stop trying to exert so much influence on the world towards your own favour and perhaps and perhaps the natives won't bite back so hard

Perhaps a more significant question is this: why do you Americans feel so threatened when the majority of the world do not? What is it you fear? WHY? What are the reasons for that fear? Maybe you should reflect on that.



[ Parent ]
Arrogant Europeans (5.00 / 1) (#443)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 12:37:57 AM EST

I see you're working wonders for getting rid of that pesky 'arrogant European' stereotype.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
So ... (5.00 / 1) (#513)
by sonovel on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 12:13:28 AM EST

Exactly how many people have died in abortion clinic bombings?

[ Parent ]
Eurotrash (none / 0) (#532)
by Bluce Ree on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 01:48:04 PM EST

Gee, how much aid does the entire European continent contribute to all of the countries in Africa combined? How does that number compare to the United States? Europe hasn't had to contribute anything since they colonized most of Africa in the past 2 centuries--they just take. How much food does the US contribute to the world? How much food does the US contribute to Africa? Saaaaay, Canada, Mexico & Europe can spend little on their military, why? because the United States will back them up allowing those nations to spend more on social programs, socialized medicine, etc. How lucky for them to have the United States come to their defense. North Korea is starving right now. Completely starving, 1/4 of it's population is in dire need of food. Who is giving them food right now? The United States is. Who sent aid to Iran when they had large earthquakes? The united states did--though they had to remove any US emblems from planes that landed in Tehran. If the US policy makers woke up tomarrow and decided to completely cut off all food & aid to everyone in the world, probably 1/8 of the people on earth would starve to death. The US was attacked because the US directly supports, arms, and economically bails out Israel at any chance it gets. That's the way Israel gets treated by the US since 1947. France, China sell weapons to Iran, Iraq, & anyone who is buying. Why bite the hand that feeds. They fly Mirages & MiGs, they fire AK47's & Chinese SKS rifles.

[ Parent ]
really simple explanation (5.00 / 1) (#449)
by ryochiji on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:38:53 AM EST

>islamic fundamentalism is on the rise

Yes, and this rise is caused by stupid US foreign policies. The US government is behind such foreign policies. So, if the US government smartened up a little, Islamic fundamentalists would find something else to rant about, they'll get off our backs, and hopefully so will our government. Does that make sense now?

See? It really isn't that complicated.

---
IlohaMail: Webmail that works.
[ Parent ]

Numbers (3.00 / 1) (#498)
by LuYu on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 10:48:03 AM EST

Let's look at your supposition here. You said:

why, will someone please tell me why people still focus on the american excesses in the world when islamic fundamentalist excesses in the world are clearly on the rise and more dangerous?

The answer to your question comes in a simple comparison of numbers. The question you must ask is: Are governments or terrorists more of a threat to life and freedom?

How many people did the attacks on 9/11 kill? Somewhere less than 3,000. How many people died from contact with antrax? A handful. How many people died in Bali? One or two hundred.

Adding that up totals less than 4,000 for sure, but just to be on zealous side, let's overestimate to 5,000.

Now let's assume that such and audactious incident could happen every year. In 4 years that is 20,000 people.

What can governments do in a 4 year period?

Let's see, in about that time frame:

  • Polpot killed half the population (approx. 1.5 million people) of Cambodia from 1971-1975. If that were the US population, such an atrocity would account for 125-130 million people.
  • Hitler managed to kill around 6 million jews and quite a few soldiers from the US, England, Russia (over a million), and various other European countries.
  • During China's Great Leap forward, it has been claimed that as many as 60 million people died as a result of the government's policies.

So, even if you do not count all the lives of US citizens lost in wars to protect the freedoms that the government is now taking away (and yes that is in the millions, too), a measly 20,000 people dying from terrorism does not hold a candle to the death and destruction that a government can cause. The US government was killing people in that volume during the 1800's. If you do not believe me, look up what they did to the indians.

But 20,000 people didn't die. Less than 4,000 did. And that was not in one year, but over a two year period. Conclusion: Governments are more of a threat to life everywhere.

5,000 people dying from terrorism a year doesn't hold a candle to the number of people that die from car accidents.

Thank you for proving case in point why terrorists do what they do. They are weak and ineffective, but with the contribution of your fear, they become strong. And with the contribution of your fear, the government becomes strong as well.

I leave you with this quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

One more question, if the government has to take away our freedom to give us safety, what are we fighting for? George Bush said, "to preserve our free way of life." I don't how taking away freedom is a way of preserving "our free way of life."



----------

"I will believe you are not an animal when you do not eat, sleep, urinate, or defecate for one month."

[ Parent ]
LOL (1.00 / 1) (#501)
by valeko on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:56:20 PM EST

During China's Great Leap forward, it has been claimed that as many as 60 million people died as a result of the government's policies.

Yeah fucking right! 60 million people killed as a result of the government's policies rather than the civil war that was taking place during the subsequent GPCR?

Sure. We now return to the History Channel, where invented history comes alive!

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

INS DOES NOT ISSUE VISAS!!!! (4.66 / 3) (#359)
by opendna on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:45:53 AM EST

The INS does not issue either nonimmigrant or immigrant visas.

"Immigrant visas (IV) are a responsibility of the U.S. Department of State, Consular Affairs Bureau (CONS/IV)."
Immigrant Visas Page, US Embassy, Seoul.

Ditto nonimmigrant visas.

VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA,VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA,VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA, VISA!

Your visa is irrelevant the moment you enter the US. It's your class of admission that counts. What the hell's a "visa violation"? You photocopied it and tried to sell it? It doesn't matter when your visa expires, it matters when your admission expires. If your visa expires in ten years but you were admitted until yesterday, you're illegally in the U.S. If you admission expires in two years, but your visa expired yesterday, you're legally in the U.S.

Do I need to reiterate?



It ain't Bush (4.44 / 9) (#369)
by Blarney on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:16:58 AM EST

Not this time. I blame George Bush for everything - and I don't much care whether I'm referring to 41 or 43 either. If I wake up and I'm out of cigarettes and the party store owner thinks that opening before noon is too much trouble for him, I shout "Somehow, this is George Bush's fault!" If a piece of lab equipment breaks or my car won't start, I blame it on George Bush and his "anti-functional policies". That's one of the reasons that people think I'm nuts - and I get lots of interesting mail about various community mental health programs that could improve my life because of my well-meaning coworkers. This time, though, I can't blame Bush.

Sure, Bush may have said that this would be a good time to check up on men from countries which have terrorists activity - but that's not what's going on here. This would be a nationwide directive issued to INS branches in every state. Nothing like this has happened here in Michigan where many Middle-Eastern nationals live - I would have heard about it by now if that was the case. Nor has this happened in the rest of the US.

Know your enemy! This isn't something ordered by Bush, friends, this is something ordered by some bureaucrat working in Los Angeles, California. I don't know why, but I can sure guess. There's an enormous backlog of work to be done in the LA INS - they're located at a major port of entry to the US and many people try to immigrate there. So when people start trooping in to register as Bush has ordered, the clever people at the LA INS have thrown them in jail so that they can reduce their workload. If a detainee turns out to be waiting for citizenship or otherwise in paperwork limbo, they can just deport him. He likely won't be able to fight the case effectively and will just give up - less work to do! If his status is in question because the LA INS fucked up, they can cover up their mistake by forcing him to leave the country. And best of all, once word gets around that you should never register at the Los Angeles INS no matter whether you are a legal alien or not, nobody will! They'll drive off to some other office, maybe in another state, and the LA INS won't have to deal with them. Or they won't register at all - big deal, it's California and it's full of illegal aliens anyway, enforcement is pretty spotty so long as they're willing to work cheaply under-the-table, a few thousand people instantly becoming "illegal" won't bother anyone at the INS nearly as much as actually having to do the work they're paid to do.

The government is covering their ass now, and the mainstream press is allowing them to do so - there's no big story here, no national interment camp, just some lazy bastards who don't want to do their jobs.

I love a good anti-public service rant (5) (5.00 / 1) (#422)
by opendna on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:16:14 PM EST

You're wrong on every count, of course. But it's still great to see someone who knows nothing malign hard working public servants who earn far less than their worth.

Bush ordered several week's work to be done in a day, and the law says the NSEERS applicants can't be set free until they're processed. It doesn't help that so many of the registrees are illegally in the U.S.

Are you sure Michigan's Middle-Eastern community isn't primarily green card holders? It might explain why there wasn't much of a turn-out.



[ Parent ]

Boston Protests (2.60 / 5) (#397)
by winthrop on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:38:44 PM EST

I covered the protests in Boston for Boston IMC. This is the story I wrote:

In what is becoming a familiar sight, protesters again gathered Friday evening in downtown Boston outside the John F. Kennedy federal building, which houses the regional headquarters of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). The thirty-five to forty protesters came despite a heavy rainstorm to protest the detention of hundreds of non-citizens by the INS in southern California. They plan to return to the headquarters for another protest on Monday, December 23, and said they will post the details of the Monday protest on the Amer Jubran Defense Committee website, http://www.amerjubrandefense.org.

The INS has issued an order for certain immigrants to register with the INS in person. The order applies to all male immigrants over the age of sixteen without permanent residency status from up to twenty predominantly Arab or Muslim countries. Following the Monday registration deadline for males from Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Sudan, and Syria, the southern California offices of the INS detained hundreds and possibly thousands of those who registered, according to reports published by the Reuters news agency. Those same reports also include allegations of inhumane treatment and overflowing jails.

Sunaina Marna, an American citizen born in India, said she was protesting because she was shocked and upset by the detentions, which she called a "brazen and cowardly way of terrorizing immigrants". She said the effects of the detentions has been to scare the Indian immigrant community, in the same way, she says, as they were scared to leave their houses following September 11. Another effect it's had, she said, is to bring together many different immigrant communities, including Arab-Americans, Latinos, and African immigrants, who now see themselves joined in a common struggle as immigrants.

Protesters carried signs reading 'Stop the camps before they start/Free the Detainees', comparing the mass detentions with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. During that war, approximately 120,000 Japanese-Americans were imprisoned in camps in the interior of the United States, following orders that they register themselves in temporary "Assembly Centers".

The protest was first called by organizers from the Amer Jubran Defense Committee (AJDC) on Thursday night, and word spread throughout the following day by word-of-mouth, telephone calls, and, especially, internet e-mail lists. The AJDC is an organization which formed to help Palestinian activist Amer Jubran who was detained by the INS and FBI on November 4, and is currently released on bond, but still facing deportation hearings. AJDC member Noah Cohen feels Jubran's case is related to the California detainees and the more than 1,200 predominantly Arab and Muslim men detained following September 11. The AJDC is looking to help build a national network in support of detainees across the United States.

The decision was made to protest in the streets as an escalation of other tactics that activists are pursuing, including letter-writing and phone-calling campaigns directed at District Director Stephen J. Farquharson and Deputy District Director Denis Riordan. Earlier in the afternoon on Friday, a group of AJDC members met with Farquharson on issues regarding Jubran's case. Coming out of the meeting, Cohen felt that Farquharson was not interested in holding a good-faith discussion on issues, but rather in maintaining the INS' public relations image. Previous protests in front of the INS buildings have been held regarding Jubran's case and that of Palestinian-Canadian activist Jaoudat Abouazza, who was detained for forty-one days by the INS before being granted voluntary departure to Canada. During his detention, Abouazza has accused the Bristol County jail of removing four of his teeth without permission, one of them only partially so.

Although the protest was aimed at the detention of immigrants, Cohen feels that it is important for American citizens not only because it is their responsiblity to defend people under attack, but because "what begins with mass deportation of immigrants, ends with repression of all of us." He cited the USA PATRIOT Act, a law passed by Congress in September, 2001 and signed into law in October, 2001, which extends the power of the US Attorney General to detain immigrants as well as the power of law enforcement agencies to surveil American citizens. The United States Department of Justice has a "definite agenda of taking away Fourth Amendment rights" protecting against unreasonable surveillance, according to Cohen.

WARNING: metacomment (1.00 / 2) (#438)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:56:40 PM EST

A note to minus273:
What in particular did you find so offensive in the parent post that made you decide to rate it "just above spam"? Or are you just a clueless dickhead?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Link to Indymedia :) (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#451)
by enterfornone on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:53:56 AM EST



--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
They aren't "immigrants" (2) (5.00 / 1) (#459)
by opendna on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:38:02 PM EST

If they WERE immigrants, then they were not ordered to report for NSEERS registration. They are NON-immigrants.

(sigh)



[ Parent ]

So instead of just getting frustrated (4.00 / 1) (#508)
by broken77 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:45:48 PM EST

Explain to us the legal distinction between the two, ok?

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Shape of Things to Come (2.00 / 1) (#400)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:26:55 PM EST

Personally, I think this action in LA is an indication of the type of things that will be seen in the US as this war gets hotter. There is a real subtle balencing act going on here. Right now Bush, who made a big chunk of his fortune doing business with Arabs, is working real hard to keep this war from getting extended to the whole Muslim world. At the same time, we do have quite a few folks in the US and Israel that think a broader war is inevitable.

The US is a home to several hundreds of billions of dollars of investment from the Islamic world(i.e. oil revenues were largely turned into US based investments). A fundamental question is how do those Islamic investors react to all of this? They can't pull out in this climate without causing major financial problems in the US. What the Islamic investors might do is figure out how to pump up anti-Israeli politicians-which they really haven't done well at this point.

Personally, I think there is a lot of pent-up anger in the US around the immigration policy corporate elites bought from congress. What we've seen here is just a minor, concrete manifestation of that anger. The real question is how does it all get played out? If the US is going to turn xenophobic and the Muslims are going to experience some serious issues, they may find that they can turn the issue against Israel since the US Jewish community played a major role in the expansion of immigration since 1960.



I'd love to see pro-islamic politicians in the USA (4.00 / 1) (#404)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:27:56 PM EST

more voices in the democratic choir are always welcome.


--
Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.


[ Parent ]

But they'd probably be killed by some nut (1.00 / 1) (#405)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:06:53 PM EST

Or the CIA. Just like just about every other successful non-British, non-English American politician.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Sure. Look what happened to Colin Powell. (5.00 / 2) (#406)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:37:36 PM EST

Oh, wait....

I guess you do have a point, though - allegedly the whole reason Powell didn't run for VP (or Pres) was that his wife feared he would be assasinated.

But as far as congress goes, we've had any number of pro-arab non-white people in the House.


--
Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.


[ Parent ]

Re: Sure. Look what happened to Colin Powell. (none / 0) (#516)
by nomoreh1b on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 01:40:13 PM EST

I guess you do have a point, though - allegedly the whole reason Powell didn't run for VP (or Pres) was that his wife feared he would be assasinated.

I can believe you are right about that-but that might change when the GOP plutocrats figure they have a complete looser in Bush. With the stuff those guys have pulled, they need someone that can look like an outsider and will contain some of the anger that is out there. The solution is simple: wack Bush, wack cheney, wack the speaker of the house-blame it on terrorists-let Powell run as an incumbent.

But as far as congress goes, we've had any number of pro-arab non-white people in the House.

Bush and all his oil buddies are all propped up by rich Arabs-it isn't like plutocrats like Bush have any real constituency that might fight/die for them when times get rough.



[ Parent ]

Murder in US politics goes deeper (1.00 / 1) (#410)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:59:45 PM EST

I think you may be right that non-WASPS are more likely to get killed in US politics than are WASPs--on the other hand, quite a few folks that fit that general description have problems-George Wallace, Jerry Litton(another senate candidate that died in an airplane accident in 76), Towers, the senator from Minnesota that got killed recently.



[ Parent ]

What about the whole Oil Lobby? (3.00 / 1) (#411)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:02:32 PM EST

What about Jackson's embracement of Min. Farrakhan? The voice of Islamics in the US is a bit more subtle than Israel's but it is still there.

[ Parent ]
Oil lobby is not pro-Arab at all (none / 0) (#525)
by RyoCokey on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:25:53 AM EST

A little history would help you understand why. Almost all the wells in the Middle East originally belonged to foreign oil companies before they were nationalized at gunpoint. Then they have the gall to contract out the stolen wells to the same companies, while pocketing the profits from the fields.

The Oil lobby is only pro-Arab (Such a general term) as is good for business.



"Like all important issues, gun control is an emotional issue that will be resolved by politics, belief, and conviction, not by a resort to "facts'." - [ Parent ]
Arab Elites and US government (none / 0) (#529)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 11:04:58 PM EST

A little history would help you understand why. Almost all the wells in the Middle East originally belonged to foreign oil companies before they were nationalized at gunpoint. Then they have the gall to contract out the stolen wells to the same companies, while pocketing the profits from the fields.

Well, given that imperialistic powers propped up by financial interests drew the borders in the Middle East, its kind of hard to sort out exactly what is happening here. What is certain is that the US public got the squeeze put on it a lot harder than the oil companies really have--and folks like George Bush have gotten direct political support from Islamic interests(i.e. Arab ADL endorsed Bush for president-and their support was necessary in some key states).

Personally, I think this whole idea of depending on a politically unstable region for energy was a looser from day one. The guvvies should have created some real incentives for energy independence and the US could have avoided throwing over a trillion dollars down this middle eastern rat hole(Which I personally see as a subsidy to oil interests-if foreign oil were taxed at the rate this mideast mess costs, noone would use it).

I personally don't see folks like Bush as real men-they are just puppets of foreign interests that have been bought and paid for.



[ Parent ]

Pinch Me (1.50 / 2) (#415)
by eviltwin on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 06:52:39 PM EST

I feel like i just woke up and its 1933 and the Nazi Government is alive and well.....

It this doesnt scare you then i worry, i relly do

All generalisations are false, including this one.

Why should this scare me? (none / 0) (#430)
by ogre on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 07:42:39 PM EST

The government is locking up a bunch of people who broke the law. It's not scary, it's promising. Maybe the federal government is finally waking up and taking seriously its responsibility to guard our borders. Frankly though, I doubt it will last; illegal immigrants are such an important voting block that no politician wants to piss them off.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Illegal immigrants vote? (none / 0) (#439)
by upper on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:10:26 PM EST

Illegal immigrants, like all other kinds of non-citizens, can't vote in the US.  And that's the best explanation I've ever heard for the behavior of the INS, even the parts that aren't law enforcement -- they know that very few of the people who have to deal with them are eligible to vote.

Have I just been trolled?

[ Parent ]

vote? no. (5.00 / 1) (#442)
by FieryTaco on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 12:09:29 AM EST

Nope they can't vote. At least not legally. However they are counted as population when drawing the various congressional borders. Which in effect artificually increases the number of congressmen that a state will send to Washington. Thus, in effect it makes the legal voters' votes more powerful than areas where there are fewer illegal immigrants.

[ Parent ]
I wanted to make sure you saw my reply (none / 0) (#467)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:54:01 PM EST

here. I've never trolled (except one diary where I went trolling for trolls) but people often accuse me of it. I like to think it's because I don't fit any of the usual political stereotypes.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Or possibly (none / 0) (#507)
by broken77 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:42:44 PM EST

Your logic seems incomprehensible to those who think you're trolling.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

You serious ? (none / 0) (#440)
by fhotg on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:19:23 PM EST

illegal immigrants are such an important voting block

Illegeal immigrants can vote in the US ? No proof of citizenship required to vote ? Please elaborate.

[ Parent ]

illegal immigrants can vote in the US (none / 0) (#450)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:47:04 AM EST

It's called voter fraud and there are stiff penalties on the books, but the laws are never enforced. There have been many cases in recent history of people caught doing this, and no one ever gets punished. And there have been many more cases where this activity was strongly suspected, but no one ever investigated.

So, my comment was intended to be ironic, but it isn't far from the truth.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

How is that ? (none / 0) (#455)
by fhotg on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:48:01 AM EST

Is there criminal energy necessary, or does it work just like that ? I mean, how do you vote ? At election day, you walk into the specified location, you do not have to show an ID, you are not crossed off a list with legal voters and you just vote ?

No mechanisms to prevent multiple voting or voting by tourists either ?

[ Parent ]

Little or no criminal energy is necessary (none / 0) (#466)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:47:21 PM EST

You just have to register, you don't have to offer proof of citizenship. And anytime someone suggests that this is sloppy practice, they get accused of wanting to intimidate and suppress legitimate minority voters. Clearly there are powerful interests who want to keep it safe and easy for non-citizens to vote.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

cool (none / 0) (#469)
by fhotg on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 07:47:10 PM EST

So what state you suggest the rest of the world should target to elect a communist or green senator then (as tourists). Or maybe a campaign in Canada would do. Montralers vote in Vermont !

[ Parent ]
Washington would be best. (4.00 / 1) (#484)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 09:19:07 PM EST

Washington has Internet voting, so you can visit and register any time you want, then on voting day you can do it from the convenience and safety of your own country.

I should warn you though, if this practice starts to endanger sitting politicians, and in particular if non-Democrat, non-Republican candidates start getting elected, it will suddenly become an important issue, standards will be tightened, and people will go to prison over it. So use care.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Hail Bush (2.25 / 4) (#445)
by scrantic on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 02:20:41 AM EST

My god the American Government is on crack where the fuck do they get off treating people like this. The problem is what can be done when you have a fascist regime in place who control things like this happening.

When will America wake up to the fact that the undertakings in their homeland are racist and intolerable, when will America realise that they are the hypocrites of the world.

The problem is America doesn't know when to shut the fuck up. They just keep going and going, pushing it further and further pissing people off more and more as they go on their merry little way.

America need to get over them selves and realise they can't continue to treat people like this. How can one remain in a country with such archaic beliefs towards other races?

"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace" Michael Franti (Spearhead)

Nearly everyone's been released. (5.00 / 1) (#464)
by opendna on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:54:57 PM EST

"INS officials said Friday afternoon that all but 20 people had been released. Those 20 are still being held "because they are of interest to various law enforcement organizations," said an immigration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. She added that each would be evaluated individually, and some may end up being deported."

Iranians furious over INS arrests Abuse alleged after men agreed to register in L.A., in the LA Times.

Those who are still of "interest" of course, triggered a flag in a system, probably written by this company, which got it's start doing something similar to the Information Awareness Office under DARPA. They undoubtably have prior arrests, convictions or outstanding warrants... or maybe they were actually terrorists. It wouldn't be the first time this program netted the INS a terrorist.



Does that change a whole lot? (2.00 / 1) (#470)
by valeko on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 07:51:34 PM EST

Interesting. But does it change the vibe that this registration program gives off now? My guess is that some of these detainees have been released due to such a tide of public pressure, or perhaps that they have been released pending immigration (deportation?) hearings, rather than unconditionally.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Well, yes and no. (4.33 / 3) (#487)
by opendna on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:14:20 AM EST

I'm not supposed to share my personal feelings about INS policies in public. It's in my contract. So I'm not going to suggest you're right or wrong that the vibes given off by the registration process are productive or otherwise. I'm all for people lobbying against the tightening of national security system if they feel it undermines human and civil rights or democracy - I *am* sworn to protect the Constition, including the 1st Amm.

However, I think it's really offensive to attack the workers who enforce the law, it's dangerous to pull a Chicken Little, and it's stupid to make arguments when ALL of your premises are false (e.g. "overstays shouldn't be detained" when they're supposed to be deported, "the INS doesn't have the authority" when it clearly does or "the immigrants" who are - by definition - non-immigrants).

It is doubtful any of the "detainees" were released due to public pressure. The INS doesn't do that unless the pressure comes from another agency (FBI, DEA...) or up top (Attorney General, President...). It's more likely (my experience says certain) that they were detained in the first place because there were so many of them, it takes so damn long to do each registration and there were limited resources (equipment and manpower).

Most were set free because they're doing everything they're supposed to be doing. Those who broken immigration laws but have valid claims processing in the system will undoubtably be allowed to stay (e.g. everyone with a green card application pending).

A few will be deported because they've committed enough crimes (e.g. shoplifting), or one serious enough (e.g. killing someone while drunk driving), that they can't be allowed to stay. A few will be deported because they violated immigration law (e.g. overstayed) and have no claim to stay.

If the truth be known, many of these folks will be treated by the INS similarly to Cubans: Even if they immigrated illegally (which most did)they'll be allowed to stay just because their home countries have such god-awful human rights records.

The INS is kinda schitzophrenic that way: one half wants to keep/throw everyone out, the other wants to let everyone stay.



[ Parent ]

In your contract? (3.00 / 2) (#503)
by rantweasel on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 03:32:31 PM EST

Does this mean that you work for INS or some related TLA or the like?  Oh, wait, I just noticed the sig.  Nevermind.

mathias

[ Parent ]

land of the free? (2.00 / 1) (#496)
by flowerbear on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 08:48:58 AM EST

it seems that the  terrorists have won if we give up the things that this country was founded on. i  think Nietzsche said it best: He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

liberty and justice for some!
flowerbear flowerbear@phreaker.net FORTRAN programers don't eat quiche!!

What this action does (none / 0) (#514)
by nomoreh1b on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 12:36:50 AM EST

Is send the message to lots of foreigners living in the US that they have no long term future here-without revoking residency privileges. I personally think there ought to be deportation of a large number of illegal immigrants-and that the status of many legal immigrants need to reconsidered. Still, there is a real difference between pursuing those kinds of actions in an up-front, humane way-and this kind of weasily, capricious action. For example, when deportations are conducted in earnest, if it were handled correctly substantial resettlement packages could be given out(funded by seizure of the property of businesses that have made use of illegal alien labor). What we are seeing here is an aribitrary action that is taking place outside the law-it is harrassment and is as bad or worse than no action at all.



Mass-arrest of hundreds of Middle Eastern foreigners in southern California | 531 comments (504 topical, 27 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort: