View Full Version : I'm flying American
05-16-2004, 11:01 PM
I don't usually read Ann Coulter just cause she is obviously one-sided, but if this is true, I'm damn scared to fly.
She goes on to say in a different article that airlines are fined (and sued, obviously) if they detain more than 2 people of Arab descent for a flight. Now, I don't want people getting unnecessarily hassled, but it seems to me that quotas like this are dangerous.
BTW, unlike Miss Coulter, I do not blame liberals for everything, including the assertions in these articles, but it scares me that our security systems are this ass-backward.
AC is a wacko. here is the real story.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't usually read Ann Coulter just cause she is obviously one-sided, <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Coulter:</font><hr> If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn't travel commercial air with the little people. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, hey right there at the end of the article you quoted shows Ann is bipartisan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif I am not sure I would still campaign for Kerry, but that would be a step in the right direction for Kerry or another candidate. Might be tough to win Muslim vote. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
05-17-2004, 06:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> AC is a wacko. here is the real story.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
[ QUOTE ]
"Even though I made it safely to my final destination that day, I will never again feel free to travel in the future, because my basic right to travel free from discrimination has been grossly violated," Cureg said. "The plane I was booked on left without me, and it was 11:30 p.m. before I arrived home. I spent the saddest New Year's Eve of my life alone, exhausted and depressed, with a bitter taste that lingers in my soul to this day."
Like this has never happened to any of us.
The poor babies were offended. Well boo-freaking-hoo. As far as I'm concerned they can kiss my red, white, and blue American ass. Dammit this pisses me off.
"Four of the passengers are United States citizens and the fifth is a permanent legal resident; two of the five are of Arab descent.
Dasrath and Cureg's cases are two of five being filed today. While details of the incidents vary, the cases share certain key elements: the men are all of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance; they had all passed rigorous security checks and were cleared to board; they were all ejected after passengers or flight crews said that they "felt uncomfortable" with them on board; they were all immediately offered seats on subsequent flights without any further security checks ; and the incidents all occurred more than a month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, some as late as New Year's Eve."
There was never any mention of a security risk. If there were real security problems, no-one would be complaining. These specific cases were pure discrimination based on skin colour.
but thats JMO.
05-17-2004, 08:36 AM
I hear ya Wally,
I worked 9 yrs in a row on New Years and Christmas out of the thirteen married. I don't even want to hear that wineycat.
[ QUOTE ]
There was never any mention of a security risk. If there were real security problems, no-one would be complaining. These specific cases were pure discrimination based on skin colour. <hr /></blockquote> The mention of security risk was the woman who told the captain she thought the two "brown men were acting funny.
While I think discrimination and profiling are close relatives, I have absolutely no problem with a little profiling on the airlines. The only terrorism in the US which included a plane, building, and the murdering of 3000 people, involved men of middle eastern descent. It is hard to argue that. While it is a pretty crappy role of the dice for the innocent people (of middle eastern descent) this is all we have. If you are a person of middle eastern descent then you should expect longer wait times and accept that the airlines are more concerned with safety than feelings. There should be no hostility towards the innocent people and they should be cleared quickly and allowed to fly on the plane.
This will never happen with the ACLU out suing everyone on the basis of discrimination. I would find you hard pressed to find a lawsuit brought on by the ACLU where a white man was the victim and his attackers were minorities. When do you think the ACLU will sue a large corporation when a white man does not get a job and is given to a black man strickly because of the skin color and quota? I don't mention this because of race, but rather because the ACLU does more to hurt the people it "helps" than to help them.
05-17-2004, 09:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> ...... There was never any mention of a security risk. If there were real security problems, no-one would be complaining. These specific cases were pure discrimination based on skin colour.
but thats JMO.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
Tuff luck. Live with it. Or learn to drive.
Quote of the year. LOL
[ QUOTE ]
The mention of security risk was the woman who told the captain she thought the two "brown men were acting funny <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I would find you hard pressed to find a lawsuit brought on by the ACLU where a white man was the victim and his attackers were minorities.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Actually, eg8r, I think the ACLU is pretty consistent on fighting for civil liberties of all stripes. They have filed many, many lawsuits fighting for the right of KKK'ers and other right-wing white-only organizations to march without being harrassed by minorities or anyone else. The ACLU's stance is pretty much that you should have the right to free speech no matter how stupid or full of hate your message is.
On to the profiling issue: you are right, no matter how you softpedal it, profiling is dicrimination, but discrimination based, hopefully, on valid incidence rate data rather than ignorant prejudice. There is no easy answer to when, where, and to what degree "profiling" should be used. Its use tends to both raise the efficiency of law enforcement and therefore snag more bad people and simultaneously lead to the arrest, detainment, or worse of many innocent people. Conservatives tend to focus on the former issue and liberals on the latter. The enforcement issue is important because we all don't want to die on an airplane, etc. The individual rights issue is important because, in the long run, our country's strength comes from our principles of innocence until proven guilty, due process, and all people being created with equal inalienable rights. To dismiss either issue as unimportant doesn't make much sense.
So both issues need to be taken into account and balanced against each other when making public policy. If we are letting murderers go on a regular basis to avoid offending anyone we've gone too far in one direction. If we are locking up everyone that resembles someone who murdered someone we are going too far in the other direction. Obviously there is a middle ground somewhere and people are going to argue about where that middle ground is.
The ACLU takes its job as keeping in mind the long-term historical view of the individual rights dimension, and to fight in the courts to make sure it is not eroded, especially in times of strife and conflict. The fear being that this is a slippery slope toward gestapo-land. There are some unfortunate lessons from history that give some validity to this concern, IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, eg8r, I think the ACLU is pretty consistent on fighting for civil liberties of all stripes. They have filed many, many lawsuits fighting for the right of KKK'ers and other right-wing white-only organizations to march without being harrassed by minorities or anyone else. The ACLU's stance is pretty much that you should have the right to free speech no matter how stupid or full of hate your message is. <hr /></blockquote> The bolded part cracks me up. As far as the ACLU defending KKKers, you are probably correct, however I just don't think it is as balanced as your post might make it sound.
About profiling, there is a time and place, and I would hope the innocent were dealt with carefully. Right now is the time and place in airports, as far as I am concerned.
05-18-2004, 06:04 AM
Sorry. I can't be "fair and balanced" on this issue. Nobody is talking about locking anybody up. We're talking about inconveniencing a few individuals. If their friggin' Arab brethren would quit acting up they would not have to deal with this issue.
Wally, I agree, to an extent. I don't have enough information about the details of what really happened here, but from the little information listed on the ACLU website the actions of the airlines don't seem very extreme. At that point, if you were the airline, you had to err on the side of caution. But I do think the airline should be making their decisions based on their own security criteria, not because a passenger feels uncomfortable. And I don't understand the logic of putting them on the next plane with no further security checks?? If they were security risks on the first flight, how did they suddenly become safe for the next one? I guess we only have part of the story. Also I think the airline should offer a free round trip airline ticket anywhere as compensation to any innocent people who get bumped! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> As far as the ACLU defending KKKers, you are probably correct, however I just don't think it is as balanced as your post might make it sound.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Just Google KKK and ACLU and you will see they have filed suits on behalf of their right to free speech over several decades. They also defended the right of groups identifying themseves as Nazis to march through neighborhoods of Jewish holocaust survivors. Whatever you may think of their mission, the ACLU has been very consistent in fighting for individual liberties wherever they see them threatened. Even so, they are a favorite whipping boy of the Limbaughs, etc. who never put their court battles in the larger context.
Once again, I am not doubting you about their defense of the KKK's right to free speech. I am doubting however they are as fair and equal as your post might sound.
05-18-2004, 11:54 AM
All I know is they seem to have a zealous desire to remove God from the public arena.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> All I know is they seem to have a zealous desire to remove God from the public arena. <hr /></blockquote>
The ACLU makes a clear distinction between government endorsed religion and religious expression by individuals. They oppose the endorsement of ANY particular religious beliefs by the government or its institutions. AND they fight for the right of any individual to express his or her beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, athiest, or whatever.
For example, here is an ACLU case from last week:
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
May 11, 2004
DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student’s entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.
“While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students,” said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. “In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a student’s speech because it was religious in nature.”
The ACLU and the school district were able to negotiate a settlement in the matter, thus avoiding the need to file a lawsuit. The terms of the settlement include the following:
The district will place a sticker with Moler’s original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school;
The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students’ yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive;
The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school;
The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.
How long would you have to watch the so called "fair-and-balanced" talk shows to find out about this ACLU case or others like it? I'd be very surprised if they ever mention it because it doesn't fit the image they want to portray of the demonic ACLU being anti-God and anti-Christian rather than what their legal case history shows them to be: anti government-endorsed religion of any type, NOT anti-religion in general.
05-18-2004, 09:12 PM
My main complaint with the ACLU is a lot of times they use their litigation strength to bully communities into doing what they believe. Whether or not you agree with their position, it is saddening to see that many times, the issue is not decided in court, but by how much of a fight the local community is willing and able to put up.
"What do you call 100 lawyers buried to their necks in sand? Not enough sand /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif."
05-19-2004, 06:36 AM
I think you made that up /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Wally~~senses a conspiracy /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
lol! I haven't resorted to that yet, Wally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Here is another recent ACLU case you probably wouldn't hear about:
Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church
April 19, 2004
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh today announced the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in a local town’s refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.
The ACLU had filed the lawsuit in 2002 after the Borough of West Mifflin, located about 9 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, refused to issue an occupancy permit for an abandoned church building that the Second Baptist Church of Homestead had been trying to buy.
"We are pleased that the case has worked out to the parties’ satisfaction," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jon Pushinsky. "The interests of religious freedom have been advanced and there is now nothing to prevent the church and local officials from cooperating with each other for the betterment of the entire West Mifflin community."
Reverend Donald Turner of the Second Baptist Church added: "The church is very pleased that the whole matter has settled and that we can now focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Grace Christian Church had closed after the Reverend Michael William Altman was imprisoned on fraud charges and the Second Baptist Church bought the property from the court-appointed trustee. Even though West Mifflin officials had granted Grace Christian Church an occupancy permit to operate a church in 1998, the Borough demanded that Second Baptist apply for and receive a permit. The Borough then denied the permit application without saying why, despite a state law requiring an explanation for such denials.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church in October 2002, claiming that the Borough’s refusal to issue a zoning permit allowing the predominantly African-American church to use an existing, but unused church was illegal discrimination.
The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin, CA-02-1834 (W.D.Pa., Cercone, J.). Earlier press releases and court papers in the case can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2015 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.