|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
RACIAL PROFILING TO FIGHT TERRORISM?
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:57:06 PM)
acial profiling has come to represent the most fearsome form of institutionalized racism. For minority Americans what could be scarier than the prospect of being subject to systematic discrimination by powerful law enforcement agencies capable of invading every sphere of one's life? For Asian Americans the dangers of racial profiling are amply illustrated by the World War II internment of Japanese Americans and the more recent Wen Ho Lee case.
The September 11 terrorist attack suggests a scenario in which racial profiling might not only be acceptable but necessary. Fact is, every terrorist linked to the plot was an Arab male. One wonders if the horrible tragedy that took thousands of innocent lives and plunged our economy into crisis could have been averted had our intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies been given a freer hand to subject airline passengers to intensive searches and background checks on the basis of nationality or ethnicity.
Rational Americans may question whether it is even possible to conduct a workable campaign against terrorist attacks on American soil without intensive resort to racial profiling in airports, at border crossings and hotels. After all, terrorists are fighting a holy war premised strictly on religion and nationality. Despite the obvious dangers of racial profiling, it seems reckless to suggest that the United States can fight terrorists in a race-neutral fashion. Why subject every American to the same levels of delay and discomfort when only a small percentage fit the profile of potential terrorists? On the other hand, are we ready to undermine the constitutional and moral high ground on which our society is built?
The newly declared war against terrorism may well be the ultimate test of our sincerity in rejecting racial profiling. Is it time to rethink our position?
This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
Geoff DB,
you wrote "I'm willing to give Attorney General Ashcroft and his agencies a great deal of latitude given the gravity of looming terrorist threats. He is serving our country well. However, we've got to make sure we keep an eye on the executive branch. We can never let the weight of one federal branch outweigh the other two."
Fair enough! That's a reasonable compromise.
Although if things get ugly again you can pretty much be sure that all bets will be off.
I believe in civil liberties/rights myself but I'm sure that cooler heads will probably not have an opportunity to prevail. It'll be sad but it'll also be an issue of survival.
Political Observer
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 07:58:17 (PDT)
Historian,
Just want to clear up one thing.
This statement
"I think that the immigrants bring the fresh blood/energy, they work very hard for one generation, then get seduced by the American dream. It is America's secret weapon."
was made by NYhomeboy.
I never said this. Just wanted to clear that up.
Political Observer
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 15:10:58 (PDT)
"You didn't direct this comment to me, but I disagree with your argument. In order to make a difference there has to be several commonalities. Commonality of thought, of purpose and of determination. Those commonalities are not in place and the type of increased immigration you suggest is not worth the trouble. It increases minority vs. minority racism. It erases racial progress."
These are the fruits of globalization...we have to take it all or leave it and live like we lived in the 1930s when many of us did not have enough food to eat.
"I think that the immigrants bring the fresh blood/energy, they work very hard for one generation, then get seduced by the American dream. It is America's secret weapon."
I have to totally agree with you fro a change.
Historian
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 13:55:57 (PDT)
Political Observer:
I agree to some extent. Let's keep in mind, however, that civil liberties is at the very foundation of our United States Constitution. If we sacrafice them, then we risk diminishing a precious document. We can ill afford that. It would be fatal.
I'm neither liberal or conservative in politics. I'm fiscally moderate, socially moderate and moderate/conservative when it comes to criminal justice issues.
I don't completely trust law enforcement or intelligence officers. We must demand fairness and professionalism, and hold them accountable. And, you know what? Our forefathers never intended us to trust any one government branch. That's why we have checks and balances: The Congress writes/enacts laws; the President enforces laws; and the Supreme Court interprets laws. We never leave the hen house to be watched over by the foxes. And, believe me, cops and intelligence officials are crafty, evasive and vindictive. It's in their very nature. In fact, it's partly what attracts them to their jobs.
Having said that, yes, we do need to protect our national institutions (our precious America), otherwise we won't have anything to protect.
I'm willing to give Attorney General Ashcroft and his agencies a great deal of latitude given the gravity of looming terrorist threats. He is serving our country well. However, we've got to make sure we keep an eye on the executive branch. We can never let the weight of one federal branch outweigh the other two.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Monday, July 22, 2002 at 22:20:56 (PDT)
Geoff DB,
you wrote "As I've stated before, if we save the union at the expense of professional police work, equal protection laws and civil liberties, then what is there left to defend? Not much."
The problem is if we allow foreign terrorists groups to destroy our country we won't have anything left to defend. It pains me but we really don't have a choice. These people want to destroy all Americans and our way of life. We can't afford to be gentle with people who want to see our demise.
Although Geoff, you are a considerate person for thinking that way.
Political Observer
Friday, July 19, 2002 at 11:37:14 (PDT)
TO: Political Observer and Historian
I'd say it depends on the source of the immigrants. Keep in mind our country was partially populated by immigration. We have to be careful not to be insensitive to people who want to come here to truly make a difference and be productive and law-abiding in American society.
Although, we do need to be very selective who we accommodate.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 22:13:06 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|