The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Congress Looking to Make A Big Mistake

chance1

JUB 10k Club
Banned
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
21,347
Reaction score
16
Points
0
Location
NYC
Banning racial profiling is looking like a hot issue for Congress - uh oh

Last I remember, 911 was perpetrated by men from the Middle East - not granny with homemade cookie bombs - I don't think that's racial profiling - rather common sense moving forward

While I'm sure mistakes can be made and they are regrettable - what is more regrettable would be the loss of lives due to this PC bullshit

my 2 cents
nothing personal


Congress Pressured to Ban Racial Profiling

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
AP
WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) - 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.

The incident happened in November, made national news and reinvigorated an old proposal that got little attention from the GOP .

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.

No bill has been introduced so far, but Feingold made it clear the issue will be a priority for him.

"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," Feingold said. Although the vast majority of law enforcement officers don't engage in the practice, he added, some do and it must be addressed.

"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," he said.

Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington office, said he was optimistic a bill could get through Congress.

"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," he said.

Shelton said he's spoken about the issue with Conyers and is hopeful for action on legislation soon — perhaps as early as next month. Conyers declined to comment for this story.

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.

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."

Some security-oriented groups are gearing up to fight a new version of the bill.

"It would have the effect of estranging police officers from the community that they serve," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "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."

Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, mocked the 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?" said Gadiel, whose son, James, died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. "We don't have to worry about 80-year-old ladies with bleach-blonde hair and southern accents."

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.

"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," said Elturk, 52, who was born in Lebanon. "This is not the country I came to know."

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.

"However, we will scrutinize cargo and individuals coming from high-risk countries — no matter what your nationality," he said, adding that people can also be detained if their name matches one on a watch list.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-01-28 12:06:25
 
It really shouldn't be racial profiling, but terrorist profiling. Stopping every fifth passenger for a more invasive questioning is stupid. Stop people who fit the profile of a terrorist. If the terrorists happen to be Arabic males between 20 and 35 years old, then that's who should be challenged. If the profile changes, then so should our response.
 
It really shouldn't be racial profiling, but terrorist profiling. Stopping every fifth passenger for a more invasive questioning is stupid. Stop people who fit the profile of a terrorist. If the terrorists happen to be Arabic males between 20 and 35 years old, then that's who should be challenged. If the profile changes, then so should our response.
I agree Jack. When the henhouse is losing your best layers and the tracks are clearly those of a fox, its only common sense not to shoot your dog (I put this in for the Governor Huckabee fans here at JUB). ;)
 
For having been "racially"-profiled several times myself, I can only agree with this ban on a discriminating and unfair behaviour... I don't understand why I should be suspected and bothered because some people I don't know have commited whatever crime and they happen to have about the same ammount of melanine in their skin that I do... I am not a statistic, I am a human being, thx.
 
There isn't even a bill to criticize yet. No bill will exempt mid eastern men. It would make no sense to challenge every mid eastern male or only mid eastern males. I'm sure that the police will be given the discretion to do their job, but given the anti arab-hysteria, they do need some guidance. Let's wait until something is actually proposed.
 
Banning racial profiling is looking like a hot issue for Congress - uh oh

Last I remember, 911 was perpetrated by men from the Middle East - not granny with homemade cookie bombs - I don't think that's racial profiling - rather common sense moving forward

While I'm sure mistakes can be made and they are regrettable - what is more regrettable would be the loss of lives due to this PC bullshit

my 2 cents
nothing personal


Chance has it exactly right here. How the hell can Congress be so stupid as to ever consider this.
The Secretary of Transportation under Clinton, and for several years under President Bush basically banned profiling in airports and other places under his jurisdiction. What rubbish! [-X

I think the Republican party did deserve to loose the last national election, lot's of stupidity on their part. But the Dems are not getting their turn off to a great start with this sort of shit being talked about.
 
There isn't even a bill to criticize yet. No bill will exempt mid eastern men. It would make no sense to challenge every mid eastern male or only mid eastern males. I'm sure that the police will be given the discretion to do their job, but given the anti arab-hysteria, they do need some guidance. Let's wait until something is actually proposed.

Any time I hear "police" and "discretion" in the same sentence I get worried.
Around here, "police discretion" means they arrest anyone they don't like, and figure out why later, inventing whatever details are necessary to get "probable cause".

More and more, I keep wondering Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
Even so, the question is a valid one.
It appears that your police department needs to fire the chief and begin a re-education program for all the officers. Where I'm from, that situation doesn't exist and wouldn't be tolerated. In fact, thats what happened here about five or six years ago when some abuses were uncovered.
 
But the Dems are not getting their turn off to a great start with this sort of shit being talked about.
BushRepublicans spent the past five years doing their best to silence discussion and debate.

Speaking out in opposition to current policies, hashing out ideas, even bad ones, is the best way to solve problems. At least that's what our Founding Fathers thought when they set up Congress and protected Free Speech the way they did.

If Democratic control brings out discussion then we're better off.
 
Did we profile after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building?
 
It appears that your police department needs to fire the chief and begin a re-education program for all the officers. Where I'm from, that situation doesn't exist and wouldn't be tolerated. In fact, thats what happened here about five or six years ago when some abuses were uncovered.

Well, the city council fully supports the police chief. And the county sheriff can only be investigated by the state; he isn't subject to any county authority. Since at least three neighboring counties are the same or worse, and those police chiefs are supported by their (interestingly, Democrat) city councils, and the sheriffs are applauded as being "tough on crime", the chances of any investigation short of the governor's office is unlikely -- but he's a tax-and-spend type Democrat who just wants the state to have more power, and basks in a high rate of arrests as showing he's "tough on crime", that's not going anywhere either. And the prosecutors love these guys; it gives them a chance to give the junior prosecutors "experience" by taking cases they know can't be won -- it supposedly gives the juniors a "fighting spirit", a desire to win. And if a bunch of innocent people get their lives ruined along the way, well, it's in the public interest, right? 'cause it's definitely catching more criminals!

They need to remember what the Founding Fathers affirmed: it's better for a thousand guilty to walk free than for one innocent to be condemned.
 
BushRepublicans spent the past five years doing their best to silence discussion and debate.

Speaking out in opposition to current policies, hashing out ideas, even bad ones, is the best way to solve problems. At least that's what our Founding Fathers thought when they set up Congress and protected Free Speech the way they did.

If Democratic control brings out discussion then we're better off.

Yes.

I'd rather go back to the way things were in Andrew Jackson's time, with a senator firing shots into the ceiling to get attention, than having a boring Congress that doesn't even read the bills they vote on. Back then, they argued over the wording of particular sentences; now the best COngress can seem to do is argue over the titles to bills, to make them seem patriotic!
 
BushRepublicans spent the past five years doing their best to silence discussion and debate.

Speaking out in opposition to current policies, hashing out ideas, even bad ones, is the best way to solve problems. At least that's what our Founding Fathers thought when they set up Congress and protected Free Speech the way they did.

If Democratic control brings out discussion then we're better off.

On most issues you're right

National security PC'ism is dangerous

Our Founding Fathers did not have to deal with terrorists flying planes into buildings or placing bombs in subways, etc.

Apples and oranges unfortunately - and the need to look at it differently is a matter of life and death
 
The answer is obvious. Ban airplanes, tall buildings and subways. Problem solved. Next!

And BTW.....talk about bone-headedness. A mental midget could figure out that enormous passenger jets and really tall buildings on the same planet are a really bad idea. 9-11 was as inevitable as the sunset.

Whatever you're smoking, send me some - LOL
 
The answer is obvious. Ban airplanes, tall buildings and subways. Problem solved. Next!

And BTW.....talk about bone-headedness. A mental midget could figure out that enormous passenger jets and really tall buildings on the same planet are a really bad idea. 9-11 was as inevitable as the sunset.

I don't know about inevitable, but the brutal intersection of aircraft and buildings can be found in science fiction as far back as the 60s... possibly the 70s. So, for that matter, can terrorism using that "tool".

Which makes the claim that no one had ever thought it could happen, ridiculous -- those famous explorers of the possibilities of our technology and attitudes in our world hit it on the nail at least four decades prior to the event.
 
On most issues you're right

National security PC'ism is dangerous

Our Founding Fathers did not have to deal with terrorists flying planes into buildings or placing bombs in subways, etc.

Apples and oranges unfortunately - and the need to look at it differently is a matter of life and death
You're wrong, and BushRepublicans were wrong in their approach of shutting off discussion including opposition opinion.

It's better to talk it out, hear different viewpoints, come to a conclusion based on information and diverse ideas. When you reach a conclusion based on one way of thinking you end up with Bush's Iraq war. A big fat mess.
 
Oh and by the way ...

Our Founding Fathers did not have to deal with terrorists flying planes into buildings or placing bombs in subways, etc.
If they had, they probably wouldn't have ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing that warned Bin Laden wanted to attack the United States.

Apples and oranges unfortunately - and the need to look at it differently is a matter of life and death
True. It's a time for the President to not take long vacations and ignore reports warning of attack, or to sit dumb in a classroom after being told we're under attack, or start a war with someone who isn't an imminent threat while the real threat remains potent, or to ignore well informed advice like that from the Iraq Study Group ... it's a time to listen to others and take smart action.

The Democratic majority in the House is going in the right direction -- discuss all options.
 
It's a time for the President to not take long vacations and ignore reports warning of attack, or to sit dumb in a classroom after being told we're under attack, or start a war with someone who isn't an imminent threat while the real threat remains potent, or to ignore well informed advice like that from the Iraq Study Group ... it's a time to listen to others and take smart action.

The Democratic majority in the House is going in the right direction -- discuss all options.

I suspect that Bush was doing an FDR -- he wanted us to be attacked. FDR rigged it in a more elegant way, though, and followed it up more pointedly.

Can you show me where the House has discussed increasing the troop levels to 300,000? That's an option.
 
Back
Top