Bush administration is arguing that it has the right to lock up U.S. citizens forever

BigToe said:

And outspoken- you yourself said you are not against racial profiling, so indeed the "race card" is infact a very valid one to "pull"

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

that's exactly what you impled and said. They all dress the same way, thus one of your reasons how they are racially profiled. Please document the police sitting outside these meetings waiting for them to come out to id each one of them. I doubt you could because it simply doesn't happen. As for going to mosques, again, document policement sitting outside the mosques so they can id each person coming out. Again, I doubt you can because it doesn't happen. You're grasping at straws here.

Click to expand...

BigToe said:

and the current trends in crime are that our very government can betray the very trust they demand we have in them. yes, its a wonderful trend

Click to expand...

BigToe said:

Wow, you don't even know her and you are implying that she and her husband might have commit the crime, talk about the undue discrimination based on race!

And on what grounds do you assume the police had probably cause?


See? This is what is going on with the people being held prisoner. People are only hearing one thing instead of seeing any and all evidence. They are passing judgement on a few small details (their race and/or religion) and condemning them. That isn't how the United States of America works. Innocent until proven guilty remember? Not guilty based on petty differences until well wait, we're gonna lock you up forever so you're always guilty based on petty differences.

Click to expand...

BigToe said:

well it certainly was giving you the justification to say you hope mhattan didnt commit a crime she had already told you she hadn't. sure sounds like you are making assumptions that because someone is of a different race than your own that they will be the bad guys.

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

here is where you assosaited it to police/government action. so there ya go as far as racial discrimination, that's their right as americans, though we might disagree with it.

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

Again, she said she had not commited a crime. 1. I dont' know her 2. I haven't examined the evidience of that case

thus I cannot say she did not do it. From what I know of her, I don't think she did, and I made that apparent in my post. As far as race, I had no idea what race she was until a few posts later.

Click to expand...

JENINOELLE said:

why does the bush administration get blamed for everything? does anyone remember 9/11? anyone?

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

Again, she said she had not commited a crime. 1. I dont' know her 2. I haven't examined the evidience of that case

thus I cannot say she did not do it. From what I know of her, I don't think she did, and I made that apparent in my post.

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

so a muslim dresss a certain way all the time? Wow, and you're not racial profiling? considering the Muslim population in the US is mostly moderne, they have no specific type of dress.

I have to say, this may seem drasitic but I am showing you how there is nothing going on here in terms of racial profiling, its just another foul called because of the race card, something that is quite invalid.

Click to expand...

BigToe said:

way to quote a post that has nothing to do with my discussion of arabic or muslim students. i was talking about the police and racially profiling black people- as mhattan's example. i then went to talk about the people in solitary confinement that are the point of the OP. the students at my school had nothing to do with that post of mine. If you are going to use a post of mine to show some contradictions on my part- please do so with posts that are referring to the same thing.

Click to expand...

WinAce said:

Real slick explanation... Quite a masterpiece of "innocently phrased" under-the-radar flame. I commend your brinkmanship skills, sir.

Anyway, I dislike the very idea of racial profiling. There's reason to be wary of any person under some circumstances. I would not be more reassured of a shady-looking white character than a shady-looking black character if both were standing around looking at passers-by in a dark alley. It's a good idea to be wary of anyone you don't personally know, at least if they exhibit suspicious behavior.

But this doesn't mean you should just go around automatically assuming everyone's a criminal--especially everyone of a minority. In fact, this can make you less careful against other criminals who you should be paying attention to, simply on account of their "favorable" race or nationality. For instance:

"Law-enforcement agencies have generally responded to accusations of profiling by arguing for its rationality. Because blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, the argument goes, profiling is justified.[...]

Extensive new research on profiling, however, has exposed this rationale as a myth. In the April 25 juvenile-justice report, minorities were at least twice as likely as whites to be sentenced to prison, even comparing youth with similar criminal histories.

Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office study showed that minorities were far more likely than whites to face intrusive searches by US Customs. In fact, Customs Service searches did not correlate with the likelihood of discovering contraband. In at least one category, the disparity was startling: The report found that black women were 9 times more likely to be x-rayed after a frisk or pat-down in 1997 and 1998, but actually "were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white women."

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's study of the "stop and frisk" practices in New York City, using a complex statistical model, found that 50 percent of all police stops were of black New Yorkers, though African-Americans account for only 25 percent of the city's population. Even taking into account the demographics of each police precinct and the crime rate by race, the report found black New Yorkers were still twice as likely to be stopped and frisked as whites." - The CS Monitor

Click to expand...

rahma said:

There are other ways of profiling people other then dress (although I get the dress all the time, as I wear hijab). Some specific things I have witnessed are government officials trying to obtain lists of people who attended conferences, or surverying mosques. Because a person attends conferences, or goes to Friday prayer, they are a suspect.

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

1. I'd have to see the evidience.
2. I agree this should not be used
3. that being said, how can you account for people using mosques for cover? maybe those police you saw are watching the mosques for people going INTO them to threaten them?

Click to expand...

Outspoken said:

"April 25 juvenile-justice report"
1. does this take into account the repeat offenders?

2. This is judges, NOT what I was refering to. They can act however they want, you disagree, try and have them proven as so, thus this is invalid.

"In fact, Customs Service searches did not correlate with the likelihood of discovering contraband"

Evidience?

"in 1997 and 1998"

I'll use bigtoes argument here, "that's not recent at all thus not good evidience"

"found that 50 percent of all police stops were of black New Yorkers, though African-Americans account for only 25 percent of the city's population."

this can be accounted for geographical location. In a section of NY there could be more stops then others, and in that geographical location the AA. might be the clear majority race.

"Even taking into account the demographics of each police precinct and the crime rate by race"

This does not account for the above objection.

Click to expand...

New Jersey Attorney General issues a lengthy and controversial Report on racial profiling by state troopers (April 1999).

STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Department of Law and Public Safety
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/

SELECTED HIGHLIGHTS OF THE INTERIM REPORT
OF THE STATE POLICE REVIEW TEAM
REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILING

Released: April 20, 1999

This Interim Report is limited to the examination of the practice commonly referred to as racial profiling. The Report specifically focuses on activities of state troopers assigned to patrol the New Jersey Turnpike, which is considered to be a major drug corridor. This circumstance provides the incentive and opportunity for the State Police to use drug interdiction tactics that appear to be closely linked to the national racial profiling controversy. [Report p. 2]

Although this is only an Interim Report and is not the final material that will be developed on this subject, it represents a major step, signaling a recognition of the problem and proposing significant changes in State Police practices and procedures. [Report p. 3]

The Review Team believes that the great majority of state troopers are honest, dedicated professionals who are committed to enforcing the laws fairly and impartially. The Review Team has determined that the State Police has not issued or embraced an official policy to engage in racial profiling or any other discriminatory enforcement practices. In fact, the State Police has undertaken a number of steps to prohibit racial profiling, including issuing Standard Operating Procedures banning such practices; providing in-service training programs and bulletins; requiring state troopers to have reasonable suspicion before requesting permission to search thereby imposing a prerequisite to consent searches that goes beyond the requirements of state or federal caselaw; and prohibiting the patrol tactic of spotlighting the occupants of motor vehicles at night before deciding whether to initiate a stop. [Report, pp. 3-4]

Despite these official policies and preventative steps, the Interim Report concludes that the problem of racial profiling is real and that minority motorists have been treated differently than non-minority motorists during the course of traffic stops on the New Jersey Turnpike. The problem is more complex and subtle than has generally been reported. [Report p. 4]

The Interim Report recognizes that to a large extent, conclusions concerning the nature and scope of the problem will depend on the definitions that are used.

The Review Team has chosen to define the problem of disparate treatment to include the reliance by a state trooper on a person's race, ethnicity, or national origin in conjunction with other factors in selecting vehicles to be stopped from among the universe of vehicles being operated in violation of the law or in making any discretionary decision during the course of a traffic stop, such as ordering the driver or passengers to step out; subjecting the occupants to questions that are not directly related to the motor vehicle violation that gave rise to the stop; summoning a drug-detection canine to the scene; or requesting permission to conduct a consent search of the vehicle and its contents. [Report p. 5]

The Interim Report reveals two interrelated problems that may be influenced by the goal of interdicting illicit drugs: {1} willful misconduct by a small number of State Police members, and {2} more common instances of possible de facto discrimination by officers who may be influenced by stereotypes and thus may tend to treat minority motorists differently during the course of routine traffic stops, subjecting minority motorists more routinely to investigative tactics and techniques that are designed to ferret out illicit drugs and weapons. [Report p. 7]

The issues and problems addressed in the Interim Report are not limited to the New Jersey State Police. Because this Interim Report embraces a broad definition of the problem of racial profiling and disparate treatment, the specific remedial action steps described in this Interim Report are offered as a guide to other state and local jurisdictions where the racial profiling controversy has surfaced. This Interim Report goes further than any other jurisdiction to date in facing up to this national problem and in proposing the establishment of multi-faceted systems to ensure that laws are enforced impartially by State Police members assigned to patrol duties. [Report p. 9]

The Review Team recommends that a clear policy for the New Jersey State Police be announced providing that race, ethnicity, and national origin may not be considered at all by State Police members in selecting vehicles to be stopped and in exercising police discretion during the course of a traffic stop, other than in determining whether a person matches the general description of one or more known suspects. This proposed policy goes beyond the requirements of federal law. [Report, pp. 12, 52-56]

The Interim Report describes the sequence of steps that may occur during a typical traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. This is done to demonstrate the decision points that can arise during a traffic stop where a state trooper must exercise reasoned discretion. [Report, pp. 13-22]

The Interim Report describes compiled statistics for stops, arrests, and consent searches conducted by State Police members assigned to patrol the New Jersey Turnpike.

These data show that 59.4% of stops that were examined involved whites, slightly more than one out of every four [27.0%] stops involved a black person, 6.9% involved a Hispanic individual, 3.9% involved an Asian person, and 2.8% were identified as other. [Report, pp. 25-26]

The data reveal that very few stops [0.7%] result in the search of a motor vehicle. The available data indicate that the overwhelming majority of these searches [77.2%] involved black or Hispanic persons. Specifically, 21.4% of these searches involved a white person, more than one-half [53.1%] involved a black person, and one of every four [24.1%] involved a Hispanic person. [Report, pp. 26-27]

32.5% of arrests involved white persons, 61.7% involved African-Americans, and 5.8% involved persons of other races. [Report, pp. 29-30]

Based upon the foregoing statistical information, the Review Team made several observations:

Minority motorists were disproportionately subject to consent searches. The data concerning consent searches were deemed to be especially instructive because the decision by a trooper to ask for permission to conduct a search is a discretionary one. Given the concerns engendered by this data, the Review Team proposed that the State Police undertake a case-by-case review of every consent search that was conducted on the Turnpike in 1997 and 1998 to determine whether the searches were conducted in accordance with all applicable State Police Standard Operating Procedures and the requirements of law. [Report, pp. 30-31]

Click to expand...

rahma said:

1. If you're not going to believe a person who has experienced this herself, who will you believe? Just among my group of 10 friends who wear hijab, 4 have been pulled over for no reason by traffic cops, the group of us were followed around a mall by security, among other things.

3. All the FBI would need to do is ask us and listen to our sermons on Friday (which they already do, undercover), and they would realize there isn't anything with our mosque. The issue is that everyone is being surveyed, when I go to my place of worship, I am a suspect. I cannot freely worship without being put on the FBI radar.

Click to expand...