Well, a lobby group is now trying to influence Congress to ban “Racial Profiling.”
“The repercussions of an airline’s decision to remove a group of imams from a commercial flight in Minneapolis could be heard in Congress this year, with civil rights groups pushing Democratic lawmakers to ban racial profiling.”
These, of course, are the Muslim religious leaders who were acting suspiciously at an airport. They wore traditional Muslim clothes, spoke in Arabic and after boarding the plane together, dispersed all over the plane. Basically, they were acting like some of Osama’s terrorists. After the airlines detained them and they turned out to be innocent, they accused the airlines of “racial profiling.” If you walk into an airport to board a plane acting like you’re about to perform a terrorist attack, shouldn’t you expect to be detained for questioning by the airlines? Apparently, these “imams” have the audacity to think that the airlines should waste anti-terrorism resources on little old ladies, instead of on them. Rather than let them lobby Congress, I’d be putting them on a terror watch list.
“The incident happened in November, made national news and reinvigorated an old proposal that got little attention from the GOP.”
So, this “reinvigorated an old proposal” that the Republicans ignored? What is this proposal, an Amnesty for bin Laden Act or something else?
“Now, a champion of the legislation, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction on the issue. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored legislation to ban racial profiling in the last Congress, now chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.”
Apparently, this is a “racial profiling” ban being proposed by Democrats John Conyers and Russ Feingold. Feingold’s notable as the only senator to oppose the Patriot Act, but he’s nowhere near right on this issue.
“No bill has been introduced so far, but Feingold made it clear the issue will be a priority for him.”
OK, so he’s making it a priority to pass a politically popular piece of legislation? He didn’t take the political stance on the Patriot Act. Well, this legislation, if passed, would encourage crime and terrorism and so it must be defeated.
“Many law-abiding African Americans, Arab Americans, Latino Americans and others live with the fear of being racially profiled as they go about their everyday lives. Although the vast majority of law enforcement officers don’t engage in the practice, some do and it must be addressed.”
These people who supposedly live with a fear of being racially profiled should be angry at the criminals who look like them and make police suspicious of them, rather than the police officers. Maybe then, they’d be able to eliminate street gangs and other criminals from “the hood.”
“I look forward to working with Chairman Conyers in the House as well as others to ensure that no one is judged by how they look or where they worship.”
They aren’t being judged by how they look or where they worship. They are judged for acting suspiciously like a stereotypical criminal. If the hijackers had been detained on September 11th, we’d know them now as racial profiling victims.
“Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington office, said he was optimistic a bill could get through Congress.”
The NAACP is optimistic a bill can get through Congress. Well, they should be. It’s a popular, but wrong stance.
“I’m convinced that once the body of evidence of racial profiling occurring in our nation is presented before the U.S. Congress and the American people, that indeed they’ll be compelled to do something about it.”
Why doesn’t he use his time to discourage criminal activity instead?
“Feingold’s last bill would have banned federal, state and local law enforcement officials from “relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion” during investigations.”
The Police and other Security groups have a hard enough time preventing terrorist activities as it is. Why should we restrict them from using everything at their disposal? So Osama can attack us again?
“An exemption would have been made for specific information that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified incident or scheme.”
That still wouldn’t have prevented 9/11. That would require the police to be sure that somebody was a terrorist before they could do anything.
“Some security-oriented groups are gearing up to fight a new version of the bill.”
As well they should.
“It would have the effect of estranging police officers from the community that they serve. It would make them more hesitant to stop people who might well be in violation of the law for fear that they’re going to get written up because of some racial protocol.”
- Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police
That’s 100% correct. If the police aren’t able to try to prevent crimes from escalating, crime will get alot worse. 9/11 Families for a Secure America are also opposed to this legislation.
“The 9/11 atrocity was committed by 19 young single men from Arab nations. If you want to hand this country over to terrorists, why don’t you say it right out front? We don’t have to worry about 80-year-old ladies with bleach-blonde hair and southern accents.”
Right on the money.
“Steve Mustapha Elturk, an imam in Troy, Mich., said he would welcome a ban on racial profiling. He said U.S. authorities have detained him four times since Sept. 11, 2001 — twice at the Canadian border and twice while traveling by air — even though he has done nothing wrong.”
Shouldn’t the government go after potential terrorists? He should be spending his time condemning Osama and the terrorists, something no Muslim is able to do without being thrown out of their mosque.
“It is pathetic for an American citizen who has spent more than half his life in this country to have to fly fearing that I will be stopped and interrogated. This is not the country I came to know.”
Yes, you may be interrogated, but it doesn’t violate your rights to make sure you aren’t a terrorist. Be angry at the terrorists instead.
“Eric Blum, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman, said that while he couldn’t comment on specific cases, the agency does not use racial profiling.”
That’s because there is no such thing. Customs is only checking to make sure we aren’t dealing with terrorists.
“However, we will scrutinize cargo and individuals coming from high-risk countries — no matter what your nationality. People can also be detained if their name matches one on a watch list.”
I’m glad they’re checking, because we cannot allow a terrorist to enter the country. I’m not going to criticize any interrogations to protect against terrorism. However, if somebody is jailed when they turn out not to be a terrorist or other criminal, that is unacceptable.
