Muslims outraged at Justice Department

AP Newswire | 16 November | John McFarland, AP Writer

[RobbyS]

Racial profiling is not discrimination.

Right. Critics nvere look at the actual cause for stopping a certain person, which is as often as not completely unrelated to race. A car without a taillight, or a missing or obscure license plat, or a luxury car "cruising" in a poor neighborhood.

[FITZ]

I'm not exactly trusting. I get flamed enough for admitting I will not be flying in any planes, partly because I refuse to submit to the searches and I refuse to be frisked for no reason. Of course I'm not being forced to fly, I can drive instead and so far there aren't agents out on the highway checking drivers. At least once I get past the border checkpoints they have posted miles away from the borders.

[BARGE]

Muslims murdered 5000 Americans on 9-11. They're lucky we're not interviewing them with baseball bats and rubber hoses.

[pray4liberty]

In fact, it could still be done, but it's not even discussed. Why?

My guess--and that is what this is, a guess--is that if war is formally declared, we will have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This 'intelligence' war cannot afford to be hampered by the edicts/rules of the Geneva Convention. In other words, if you don't declare war, you take no prisoners either.

[rodeocowboy]

The people from Oklahoma and Indiana are citizens. The people coming from all of the countries listed in the interviewing lists are NOT citizens, therefore, they do not enjoy the same rights. For instance, because they are here legally on a visa doesn't give them right to vote.

[JRadcliffe]

"The people from Oklahoma and Indiana are citizens. The people coming from all of the countries listed in the interviewing lists are NOT citizens, therefore, they do not enjoy the same rights. For instance, because they are here legally on a visa doesn't give them right to vote."

I understand your point. I even respect it. It is just that we are not looking at the full picture here. We already have examples of the government taking one Bill that was intended for something totally unrelated to what it is eventually used for.

The FBI has already issued a list of Terrorist Characteristics to the police. These characteristics are so broad that ANYONE could fit it. (they are covering all bases see?)

It IS just a matter of time before the Orwellian Patriot Bill is used against us. By then, it will be too late.

There are many, many Socialists on this site who will try to attack me because they don't like the message. Many of these people have admitted that they work for, or have worked for the Feds. DO NOT TRUST THEM! Their livelyhood depends on the ever-broadening reach of their god, government. They will sell you for a few gold coins. Mark my words. The constitution does not say what it says unless it has the approval of government, in their minds.

[JRadcliffe]

"My guess--and that is what this is, a guess--is that if war is formally declared, we will have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This 'intelligence' war cannot afford to be hampered by the edicts/rules of the Geneva Convention. In other words, if you don't declare war, you take no prisoners either."

I understand your point. But listen carefully to what you are saying (unintended I'm sure).

You are saying that in order to keep a pact our government made with foreigners, they are justified in destroying the pact they made with US. How patriotic is that?

[zip]

The terrorists won!

only your mind.

[zip]

If the government had been doing its job, these KNOWN terrorist would not have been here in the first place. Now you want to give these same dead-beats run over your life.

A little convoluted thinking here. Almost everyone responding to you are saying "let's get the terrorists" and you're spinning "We can't because we didn't declare a real war." that is my problem with your concept.

[Roscoe]

THE TERRORISTS WON!

You wish.

[kstewskis]

DALLAS (AP) - Arabs and Muslims expressed outrage Friday at the U.S. Justice Department's plan to interview 5,000 young male foreigners, who are not suspected of any crimes, as part of the terrorism investigation. Civil rights activists say the action constitutes racial profiling.

Tough noogies. Its war, baby. Deal with it, Arab/Muslim-ACLU. ;-P

[KC_for_Freedom]

In other words, if you don't declare war, you take no prisoners either.

It is pretty much as you say, the troops in the field are not certain which rules of engagement to follow. (They realize the Taliban and Co. will not follow any rules.) I heard a soldier say on O'reily that he was not sure what would be expected if a Taliban fighter threw down his weapon and surrendered. Our guy said he intended to follow the Geneva Convention, but that the rules of engagement were not that clear.

[Roy Tucker]

Congress voted unanimously in the Senate and 434-1 in the House to support the Executive Branch's action. You do not think they could not have garnered the three little words "I declare war"? Calling President Bush "treasonous" when Congress supports this action and the Supreme Court has confirmed the constitutionality of Congress permitting such powers would not give you a leg to stand on in court. I would be very interested in your thoughts on "treason".

The reason they don't formally declare war and haven't done that is because of our NATO alliances and the embarassment of having to ask certain countries to join us in war when their parliaments might refuse (causing political troubles for allies).

By extension of your logic, the last legitimate war the US fought was WWII. If Hitler had not declared war on 8 December, 1941, you would have been opposed to us declaring war on Germany. Most of Europe would be very different if we had followed your dictum.

Furthermore, there were curtailing of liberties during WWII such as rationing and biletting of soldiers in homes, wage and price controls that came off after the war. I think citizens have to be vigilant about their liberties, but I also think that you have to be realistic about the world we live in.

[pray4liberty]

You are saying that in order to keep a pact our government made with foreigners, they are justified in destroying the pact they made with US. How patriotic is that?

The short answer is, it's not, but then this isn't the first time that citizens are being given the bait-and-switch. Particularly, the switch.

Now I'll just go and crawl back into my hole and think about this for a while. Flame away.

[Roy Tucker]

He went to Congress and got almost unanimous approval for this action before starting the action. In your opinion,is there an instance when military force could be used by the US (with the approval of Congress) without a formal declaration of war?

[Roy Tucker]

He went to Congress and got almost unanimous approval for this action before starting the action. In your opinion,is there an instance when military force could be used by the US (with the approval of Congress) without a formal declaration of war?

[bluester]

Those men were questioned because, based on the evidence, there was credible reaon to believe that they may have been involved. There is no such evidence (at least not according to the government) that these 5,000 men had ANYTHING to do with this, other than their nationality.

There is a difference. And I most definitely would not have agreed with the government had they decided to round up ALL white men.

Excellent point.

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bttt

[Imal]

DALLAS (AP) - Arabs and Muslims expressed outrage Friday at the U.S. Justice Department's plan to interview 5,000 young male foreigners, who are not suspected of any crimes, as part of the terrorism investigation. Civil rights activists say the action constitutes racial profiling.
[...]

[From JRadcliffe]
Read my post #47. YOu still have not shown me where the President is authorized to take this action without a formal declaration of war.

I don't see how a formal declaration of war is necessary to conduct a criminal investigation. You seem confused about what is going on here, so I'll summarize: the Justice Department is planning to interview 5,000 young male foreigners who are not suspected of any crimes as part of the terrorism investigation. They want to ask them questions, apparently many inane questions at that.

So just where does a declaration of war come into this? It's a criminal investigation, and the DOJ is planning to interview a bunch of people who may or may not know something useful. There are people who are upset because they characterize this as racial profiling.

As far as I know, there is no prohibition against the DOJ talking to whoever the hell they want to for whatever reason they want to. We're talking about interviews here, not arrests or summary executions.

Your diatribe in Post #47 is remarkable in many ways, not the least of which is its complete irrelevance to the subject of this thread.

Oh, and as for Post #50, your statement about acts of force being unconstitutional suggests that the executive has no law enforcement powers. You may want to study the Constitution more thoroughly.

As for Pearl Harbor, the point you apparently missed is that the attack itself was an act of war, and regardless of what Congress may have subsequently declared, Japan was waging war against us as of December 7, 1941. It only takes one belligerent party to start a war. Even without a formal declaration by Congress, the executive branch, including the armed forces, was compelled to defend the nation.

Imal