Other Vice President Attacks Wrong Target

MyndFyre · February 13, 2006, 11:30 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html

Algore alleges that the US "indiscriminately" rounds up Arabs and that we're making a mistake in how we handle our visas.

So.... we're not allowed to "discriminatorily" round them up (profiling), and now indiscriminately is bad too? Why don't you just tell us we're not allowed to round them up, damnit?!?

DarkMinion · February 13, 2006, 11:47 AM

Al Gore is a retard. Anybody who listens to a damn word he says after some of the ludicrous claims he's made over the years is equally stupid.

Grok · February 13, 2006, 01:35 PM

Well regardless of who said what, they're both right. We cannot discriminantly round up people based on Supreme Court-defined discriminatory attributes, such as race, creed, national origin, sex, nor can we round up people indiscriminantly, which doesn't mean without regard to a discriminating attribute, but does mean people who have shown no probable cause to be a suspicious person.

Indiscriminantly would be just grabbing you as you left the grocery store because they needed 5 bodies in a lineup.
Discriminantly would be grabbing you for that lineup just because you were a dumbass. (j/k)

MyndFyre · February 13, 2006, 02:23 PM

Quote from: Grok on February 13, 2006, 01:35 PM
Well regardless of who said what, they're both right. We cannot discriminantly round up people based on Supreme Court-defined discriminatory attributes, such as race, creed, national origin, sex, nor can we round up people indiscriminantly, which doesn't mean without regard to a discriminating attribute, but does mean people who have shown no probable cause to be a suspicious person.

Indiscriminantly would be just grabbing you as you left the grocery store because they needed 5 bodies in a lineup.
Discriminantly would be grabbing you for that lineup just because you were a dumbass. (j/k)

I think doing so disciminately is okay. If we have knowledge that 70% of all criminals are members of minorities, and that 90% of all violent crimes are committed by men, then in what order are you going to monitor the following people using prioritized limited resources:

white man
white woman
black man
black woman

?

This is racial and gender profiling. So technically speaking we shouldn't prioritize at all. But common sense tells me that we should prioritize. What do you guys think?

Grok · February 13, 2006, 03:25 PM

Profiling is one thing. Rounding people up based on profiling is quite another. While technically, and even morally, you wish you wouldn't have to profile by race, or gender, you do. X% of violent crimes are indeed committed by men. X% of violent crimes of particular types are definitely committed by women. It would be stupidity to not profile based on discriminatory measures. But profiling only shows you who to spend your limited resources on giving more attention. We cannot take action against people based ONLY on that sex, race, religion. If they exhibit further suspicious behavior or other evidence points to them, fine, detain them briefly for questioning.

CrAz3D · February 13, 2006, 05:09 PM

Why not round up based upon profiling order?
They all comitted crimes. They should all be punished

iago · February 16, 2006, 12:01 PM

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 13, 2006, 02:23 PM
...90% of all violent crimes are committed by men...

I vote we round up all men and either kill them or put them in concentration camps. It will make the world much safer, right? So does the end justify the mean?

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 13, 2006, 05:09 PM
Why not round up based upon profiling order?
They all comitted crimes. They should all be punished

To paraphrase one of my favorite books:
Officer: How can we hold him? We have no proof that he committed the murder!
Chief: Just find out what he's guilty of, and hold him for that. Everybody's a criminal if you look hard enough.

And I'm pretty sure it's true. If you look hard enough, I doubt that there's anybody in the world who has not broken the law in one way or another. Do you suggest we "round up" everybody?

DarkMinion · February 16, 2006, 01:29 PM

QuoteI vote we round up all men and either kill them or put them in concentration camps. It will make the world much safer, right? So does the end justify the mean?

If you would pay a little more careful attention, nobody is saying round them all up based on sex and/or race, but they're saying that profiling is sometimes necessary, though it is regrettable that it is so.

Grok · February 16, 2006, 02:37 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 13, 2006, 05:09 PM
Why not round up based upon profiling order?
They all comitted crimes. They should all be punished

I can tell you've never been falsely accused of anything and honestly believe you never will be.

CrAz3D · February 16, 2006, 04:49 PM

I have faith in the justice system that what is right will prevail.

As far as 'rounding them up', I believe it would be best to collect 1st degree felons from all profiles, & then 2nd, followed by 3rd.
I'd like to restate what I said and say that maybe people should be monitored by the 'profiling system' and arrested/charged by crime.

E.g.:
Poor neighborhood, watch them more closely for w/e crimes than a 'nicer' neighborhood.

Grok · February 16, 2006, 04:53 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 16, 2006, 04:49 PM
I have faith in the justice system that what is right will prevail.

In other words, you've never been falsely accused and subjected to the "Justice" system.

CrAz3D · February 16, 2006, 04:54 PM

Correct.
But I originally meant that I have faith in the justice system that in the end of everything, the truth wil prevail.

DarkMinion · February 16, 2006, 04:59 PM

Unfortunately, that isn't always the case, and you are naive for believing that it is.

CrAz3D · February 16, 2006, 05:10 PM

I know innocent people get incarerated for doing nothing wrong.
I've seen those people get off on DNA after sitting 20 some odd years in prison.
But I also believe that those people have been made right.
I don't believe that anyone has been persecuted specifically and just charged of some random crime they did not commit.

I understand people have been more focused on by police because of their ethinicity or political stance (John Lennon), but I think most that have been arrested under those circustances had done something wrong (John Lennon).

Kp · February 19, 2006, 10:45 AM

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 16, 2006, 05:10 PM
I know innocent people get incarerated for doing nothing wrong.
I've seen those people get off on DNA after sitting 20 some odd years in prison.
But I also believe that those people have been made right.

How exactly is it "made right" if they waste 20 years of their life sitting in prison for a crime they didn't commit?

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 16, 2006, 05:10 PMI don't believe that anyone has been persecuted specifically and just charged of some random crime they did not commit.

Of course not. Picking a charge at random substantially reduces the chances you'll have the evidence to make it stick. When making false accusations, the government is much better off choosing a crime which seems plausible. Would you believe the government if they tried to charge a convicted embezzler with mass murder?

What about if they charged him with cheating on his taxes? Assume that both of the new charges are false (the embezzlement charge is true, however), but that you can't prove/disprove either. Which seems more plausible?