Sarah Palin isn't short on opinions. The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate weighed in on airport security, questioning why it is "politically incorrect" to profile suspicious persons at airport security gates.
In a Friday Twitter posting, using web shorthand, Palin urged the Transportation Security Administration to "profile away" whenever national security is an issue. "We profile individuals/suspects in other situations," she tweeted.
In a second posting, Palin wrote, "law enforcement profiles individuals/suspects when seeking info 2 prevent or deal w/other crimes; why can't this be done @aiport 2 prevent?"
Awesome. Hey Sarah, let's just have two lines at the airport, white people and colored people, and subject everyone in the colored people line to "profiling". Profile away, indeed. Two reasons of course prevent this: it's illegal to use racial profiling as a pretense to obtain evidence against someone (evidence gained this way is inadmissible in court) and singling out all people of a particular group of people as potential criminals to "prevent" crimes is also not only patently unconstitutional but immoral as well.
This of course hasn't occurred to Lady MacMoose here, but it's perfectly fine for the white chick in her late 40's to say "profile away" to guys like me. Nobody would dare touch Palin or her family.
But why stop at airports? Why not institute "profile away" at all public buildings, stadiums, schools, courthouses, office buildings, restaurants, stores, malls, anywhere where people can gather and terrorists can attack it as a soft target? Just bring back Jim Crow laws as a national effort to fight terror. Single out any Muslim, single out anyone darker than Sarah Palin, slap a "might be a terrorist" warning label on them, subject them to humiliation. Only way to be sure. Millions of suspects out there. We don't know for sure unless we constantly check "them".
Won't it be great with President Palin in two years?
Profile away, America.
Posts
15 comments:
Why not put on the No Fly list anyone who's ever spoken publicly on record in favor of secession? Such treasonous people worry me a lot more than someone who doesn't resemble my siblings.
Sarah Palin is evil. Stupid and evil.
Two reasons of course prevent this: it's illegal to use racial profiling as a pretense to obtain evidence against someone...
Did you know that every member of the Mafia, wiseguys, are Italian? So when wiseguys are arrested and put away, isn't that racial profiling?
Do you and the other wizards commenting on this thread actually know what Palin was talking about, and that what she said is right? Or is it just easier to throw out the race card to avoid actually having to talk about it?
Do you know that in order to put wiseguys away, they have to get evidence specifically on them first instead of automatically arresting every Italian-American in the United States for the "crime" of being Italian-American?
Or are you really that dumb?
"Did you know that every member of the Mafia, wiseguys, are Italian? So when wiseguys are arrested and put away, isn't that racial profiling?"
Depends. Do you have evidence that non-Italian organized criminals are treated differently when their illegal activities are discovered?
Didn't think so.
"Do you and the other wizards commenting on this thread actually know what Palin was talking about, and that what she said is right?"
Um, yes, to the former, and the second is a matter of opinion, not fact, an opinion with which I disagree.
"Does SteveAR construct dioramas of his vision of a Galtian paradise, using his own poop and boogers as construction material?"
Yes.
Zandar:
Do you know that in order to put wiseguys away, they have to get evidence specifically on them first instead of automatically arresting every Italian-American in the United States for the "crime" of being Italian-American?
Yes. But you didn't answer my question. No matter. The answer to my question is no, it is not racial profiling, and for all the reasons you provide.
So if you look at Palin's second tweet, She is talking about a similar type of profiling, profiling that isn't based on race. Wouldn't the kind of profiling Palin is talking about make sense?
Allan:
Um, yes, to the former...
No, you don't. You don't know much of anything.
I like SteveAR. He brings up the most *asinine* arguments. That boy's gotta stop watching his tapes of The Godfather.
Also, as a playful aside, the only wizard here that I know of is Bon.
StarStorm:
He brings up the most *asinine* arguments.
Uh-huh. Nevertheless, neither you or anyone else has answered the basic question that Palin brought up:
"law enforcement profiles individuals/suspects when seeking info 2 prevent or deal w/other crimes; why can't this be done @ai[r]port 2 prevent?"
Zandar doesn't want to actually answer the question, so Zandar throws out the race card to avoid having to address it. Everyone else ignores it, including Bon "the wizard". But the question is still out there. Who wants to explain why non-racial profiling is not as good an idea compared to what the Obama administration has foisted upon the American people with his (not Bush's) TSA policy?
I think Obama's policy is terrible.
I think separating anyone suspected of being a Muslim for patdowns is terrible, illegal, unconstitutional and vile.
Why do I think racial profiling is vile?
Because it assumes guilt until proven innocence. America doesn't work that way. Oh, I know it happens all the time anyway, cops pull over minorities. It's still wrong.
It's folks like you who tolerate it that really piss me off.
Who is talking about separating anyone suspected of being a Muslim? Who is talking about racial profiling? Not me, and not Sarah Palin. There are other ways to profile that don't include race; the behavior of a person in the airport security line, for example. You're the one who brought race into this and tried to make it seem as if Palin did. And you still haven't addressed the type of profiling Palin is talking about.
Again, somebody acting suspicious would be probable cause.
You seem to think there's not a history of racial profiling in law enforcement. And given Sarah Palin's previous blanket statements on Muslims, yes, I'm assuming this is what she means here because like most Republicans, she's advocated it.
And in your zeal to exonerate Moose Lady there, you've yet to address why such draconian TSA screening is even needed. I mean buses and trains are blowing up all the time because we don't have body scanners at train and bus stations, right?
Schools are exploding, along with stadiums, courthouses, etc.
Why wouldn't a terrorist target those easier public areas? And yet they're not.
First off, I'm not denying racial profiling has existed in this country. Second, mentioning someone is a Muslim has nothing to do with race; Islam is a religion, and its adherents aren't people from just one part of the world. I've followed Palin's statements closely over the last couple of years and she never made a blanket statement about Muslims; hell, liberals like Glenn Greenwald make it a point to make blanket statements about Muslims all the time (just read any of his pieces on the subject). Therefore, your assumption is, to be plain, wrong. It also denies the obvious; while all Muslims are not responsible for the terrorist attacks by Islamists, Islamist terrorists are Muslims. That's a fact.
I don't think these draconian measures are needed. As a matter of fact, I mentioned this the other day in a post. The problem with these measures is that the only thing that gets profiled are objects. The government, going back decades (even before Bush and Obama), has been playing whack-a-mole to secure the country from the infinitesimal combination of things that can be put together to make a weapon to bring a plane down instead of concentrating on who would use such a weapon. But too often, government does things bass ackwards in order to expand its bureaucratic reach. That tipping point was reached with the latest policy.
And as bad as the current TSA policy is, it does not create the excuse for profiling of Muslims as terrorists.
It doesn't change the fact that you want to assume the guilt of a particular group of people based on religion.
And if you think Glenn Greenwald does, I question your ability to actually read English.
Now you're just trolling again, making up facts, and being obnoxious.
This isn't your blog, son.
Post a Comment