[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oh boy. John Ashroft must be wetting himself with glee. The police state inches ever closer.

And for those of you who say that they need additional information should read the full article. It says that if you're flagged red, you will be taken into police questioning and maybe arrested. All that, just becuase you fit what they believe to be a pattern. There is no actual crime that needs to be commited.

So if I'm travelling to New York, on bin Laden's birthday, with my friend who is a Muslim, and I have a criminal record for drunk driving. Well then, I guess I'm terrorist.

This doesn't actully improve security. It only makes people feel safer. Anyone with half a brain can avoid these patterns, if that is their intention. I also like how they try to scare people: "It not only insures that you're not sitting next to a terrorist, but also that you're not sitting next to an axe murderer". Oh yeah, cause theres obviously hundreds of axe murders each year. Its the latest fashion. What are we living in 1850 now?

Much of a pol's job is pandering. If the populace doesn't like you and FEEL safe, they won't vote for you. That's politics.

[Descenterace]

The thing with freedom is that it shouldn't interfere with the freedoms of others.  In an ideal world, people would all understand that and live in harmony with nature and each other...(insert 'tree-hugging hippi crap' here).

However, this is not an ideal world.  There are selfish criminals out there who don't give a damn about other people's freedom or rights.  While they exist, everyone's freedom must be reduced slightly in order to stop it being eliminated altogether.  

While there are multiple people on this planet, some of whom are criminal, freedom is never absolute.  If you want to complain about 'lack of freedom', read 'Foundation and Earth' (by Isaac Asimov) first.  At one point, Asimov describes a planet called Solaria, which used to be inhabited by the Spacers (humans with artificially-extended lifetimes).  As the second wave of settlers spread out from Earth (those who shunned genetic engineering and robots), most of the other Spacer worlds died.  The Solarians did not.  They retreated undergound and hid themselves away, and aimed for ultimate freedom.  Their view of freedom meant only 12000 Solarians on the whole planet, each owning a vast estate which was run by robots.  To make 'freedom' total, they manipulated their genes until they became hermaphroditic, so they would never have to see each other except by video screen (during planetary council meetings).

Solaria had a crime rate of 0.  But a society like that is a high price to pay for 'freedom'.  Be thankful that we don't measure freedom by Solarian standards.

[Rictor]

But thats so extreme. No one is proposing that, and I frankly don't see the corrolation. The only thing that is being asked y the critics here is that an actual crime be commited before an arrest is made. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As for those criminals, the ones who "don't give a damn about other people's freedom or rights", well how about the US government for one. It has killed more people in the past 3 years than all the terrorist attacks of the previous decade. The US government only cares about the freedom and well-being of US citizens, everyone else can shut and get bombed.

[Flipside]

I think the fear here is more a case of branding people with the same fork, as it were, ie. all people of a certain religious background are by definition suspicious.
[Deep Quote]
Most of the great atrocities in this world have been commited by people who are not particuarly bad, nor particuarly good, just particuarly people, scared, ignorant, gullible and all too ready to believe Information, without searching for Meaning.
This is, I think, just another example of the Information Age gone mad, now they know they can keep info on you, they want to keep everything, like a phsycological cleptomaniac
This is, at it's bare roots, division and segregation through division, Venn Diagramming up society. While it may be the only profit-making way that Airlines can protect it's interests, I fear the knock-on effects may well be far more than the Airlines are counting on
[/Deep Quote]


Flipside

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Rictor
But thats so extreme. No one is proposing that, and I frankly don't see the corrolation. The only thing that is being asked y the critics here is that an actual crime be commited before an arrest is made. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As for those criminals, the ones who "don't give a damn about other people's freedom or rights", well how about the US government for one. It has killed more people in the past 3 years than all the terrorist attacks of the previous decade. The US government only cares about the freedom and well-being of US citizens, everyone else can shut and get bombed.

You can shut about the "bombed" part. Nobody has the right to blow up INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Yes, the Al-Qaeda ****s wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. We try to cause as few civilian casualities as possible, but there will always be some, it being war and all.

[Flipside]

Ok, let's just remember that this is American companies doing this to American civilians. So it is still they who are paying the price here.

Flipside

[Ace]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


You can shut about the "bombed" part. Nobody has the right to blow up INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Yes, the Al-Qaeda ****s wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. We try to cause as few civilian casualities as possible, but there will always be some, it being war and all.

Keep in minds that in their eyes there are no innocents. You're either part of the problem or the solution.

Which is true, but both parties involved are the problem

[Flipside]

I'm sure if we all searched hard enough, we could find atrocities from just about every Empire in history, my own country included.
But remember that our own shame of 'Bloody Sunday' in Northern Ireland stems from the fact that we thought we were 'protecting' people.

Flipside

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


You can shut about the "bombed" part. Nobody has the right to blow up INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Yes, the Al-Qaeda ****s wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. We try to cause as few civilian casualities as possible, but there will always be some, it being war and all.

Your second sentence contradicts the rest. And it is the second sentence with which I agree. Dead is dead, by accident or on purpose. It doesn't make a difference to the victims and their families.

And if you don't like that example, how about trade sanctions. They kill more people than most wars, and the people being killed are almost always (lets say, maybe 99%) innocent. Its not like the effects of sanctions aren't well known. No trade=no money=no food=no life. I don't know the exact figure of dead as a result of sanctions in Iraq alone, but its over 500,000. I'll find a link to a good article later on today and post it.

[CP5670]

I sure hope I and you will both be on HLP when you'll have to get a job. That sure will be fun to see how you'll manage.

I'm ready to go out if I am getting paid for it (although as a math professor I may not have to go five days a week) or need to purchase something. I just will not go anywhere for leisure, especially things like tourism.

From now on I no longer give a **** what they do and what they want as long as they don't bother me.

Actually I remember you saying something to that effect several months ago, so it must have been from then on.

So CP, you don't happen to see the similarity between this and the whole "check your papers please?" business of the old USSR and Nazi Germany?
...
Countries don't turn into police-states overnight, it takes small steps first...

Well even in those societies, why not? Considering what the governments' goals were, their screening systems certainly made sense to work towards those goals. Now the US government's current objective (relevant to this discussion) is to prevent, or postphone rather, further 9/11s. The only real alternative to what that article was about is to do nothing and keep things the way they are, which seems a bit silly since the terrorists can then carry out exactly the same plan over and over again every time. If you introduce new measures in place, that could potentially delay them (they will eventually find a way around it, but it will take time, which is the whole idea). Some people will whine if these measures take effect, but the thing is that a lot more people will whine if nothing is being done, and this majority is important in a democratic system.

I think what is even funnier than the public paranoia about upcoming terrorist actions is that of the liberal crowd over any little change that is going to make everything a big bad fascist society.

It does make you pause for thought, such questions as 'Religion' and 'Race' MUST feature in any scheme like this. And that most certainly smacks of Nazi Germany. I don't deny that people need protecting, but are bigger guns and Big Brother the right idea, or is it a simply a case of the 'Government' utilising the peoples fear to control them more?

My concern now is that it is the latter, makes you feel a bit sad at the term 'Land of the Free'

Yes, those things will probably come into play, and so they will inevitably bag a lot of normal people who happen to match their profiles, and yes it is unfair. (e.g. my parents are from India and therefore look similar to Arabs, so they are sometimes taken aside for extra scanning/questioning when boarding planes) But there has to be a compromise made between being fair and safe; the government needs to be fair enough and make things safe enough to keep as many people happy as possible, but you cannot have both at maximum, or anything close.

And governments always have controlled their subjects through emotions and such ways; that's what a democracy is all about. The "land of the free" thing is indeed rather silly though; it's just yet another land.

As for those criminals, the ones who "don't give a damn about other people's freedom or rights", well how about the US government for one. It has killed more people in the past 3 years than all the terrorist attacks of the previous decade. The US government only cares about the freedom and well-being of US citizens, everyone else can shut and get bombed.

But you see, there is nobody to stop it from doing all that (and by extension, no enforced law to label it as a criminal), and so the US government is neither a criminal nor a policeman; it just does stuff. As for the last part, um yeah of course; that's why it is called the US government and not some other country's government.

[Kamikaze]

Argh! Whenever there's a controversy you beat me to arguing the points I would!

[Rictor]

hehe CP. Due to your position of simply not giving a crap about justice, fairness, freedom, peace etc (or rather your, in my mind, flawed defentions) and disimliar priorities, I kinda just tend to ignore your opinions. Sorry about that, but you're spending waaaay to much time in the world of math, and trying to apply the same rules to human society.

[CP5670]

Argh! Whenever there's a controversy you beat me to arguing the points I would!

lol, I only responded to a few of the posts since I didn't have time for all of them, so feel free to join in the fun here.

hehe CP. Due to your position of simply not giving a crap about justice, fairness, freedom, peace etc (or rather your, in my mind, flawed defentions) and disimliar priorities, I kinda just tend to ignore your opinions. Sorry about that, but you're spending waaaay to much time in the world of math, and trying to apply the same rules to human society.

In other words, you're not clever enough to think of any rational response to my arguments; fair enough. Besides, it doesn't look like you care much about justice either, since you said that it doesn't matter whether the "innocents" are intentionally or accidentally killed, so we're in the same boat.

Besides, why don't you care about the justice, fairness, freedom and peace of chairs as I have described here before? I mean, you must be one heck of an evil person.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by CP5670

But you see, there is nobody to stop it from doing all that (and by extension, no enforced law to label it as a criminal), and so the US government is neither a criminal nor a policeman; it just does stuff. As for the last part, um yeah of course; that's why it is called the US government and not some other country's government.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by CP5670

In other words, you're not clever enough to think of any rational response to my arguments; fair enough. Besides, it doesn't look like you care much about justice either, since you said that it doesn't matter whether the "innocents" are intentionally or accidentally killed, so we're in the same boat.

I fail to see how that is the same. Maybe you'de care to explain why you think so? An action is judged based on the result, not the intention. Thats why shooting someone unintentionally is a crime. Aside from that, I don't think that American troop excerise enough caution and place enough value on human life. Though I may have run over someone by accident, if I was driving while blindfolded that isn't really an excuse.


[/i]
Besides, why don't you care about the justice, fairness, freedom and peace of chairs as I have described here before? I mean, you must be one heck of an evil person. [/quote]

See this is what I mean. You fail to differentiate between people and inanimate objects. Either that, or you have (in my mind) demonstraed in the past your opinions to be extreme enough so that I take that comment literaly and fail to notice the sarcasm.

The question being asked here is not whether the given solution is effective. I would guess that it is more effective than nothing, so in that regard its better. The question being asked (by me atleast) is whether the intent of the solution is valid and moral.

You saying that lethal injection is an effective way of execution. I'm saying that the person should not be executed in the first place. See the difference?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by CP5670

But you see, there is nobody to stop it from doing all that (and by extension, no enforced law to label it as a criminal), and so the US government is neither a criminal nor a policeman; it just does stuff. As for the last part, um yeah of course; that's why it is called the US government and not some other country's government.

So, if I find out that, by the letter of the law, killing a person by dropping them from a helicopter into a minefield (just using an example that is unlikely to happen, to illustrate a point) is not wrong, then doing so does not make me a criminal? Morality does not depend on definitions or enforcement. What you fail to realize is there are moral absolutes. Good and evil if you will. Were we, as a soeciety, to view things only in terms of effectiveness, it would indeed be a very scary place to live in.

Aswell, rights and freedoms of people are universal. What is regarded as "basic human rights" (which I assume includes not being killed) is applicable to all humans. Not just citizens of a nation. Every government should treat every person as one of its citizens, because place of birth is so arbitrary. Just because I was born in say, Baghdad, does not mean my life is worth less than someone born in New York.

[StratComm]

Yes, this system is controversial.  What that means is that the system that actually gets put into place will be far less extreme.  It also sounds like this has some basis in that failed national security catalogue that the Pentagon (or the CIA, can't remember off hand) was planning to compile, but without that I can't see how efficient this system would be.  By due process of law and the constitutionality of such a system, it would have to be slanted towards letting people through rather than holding them.  I can see a lot of folks getting thrown into "yellow," which just takes the random out of random screenings, but "red" I would think would take something like being wanted for a serious crime or being on the terrorist watch list.  Note the wanted, being convicted and serving time for a serious crime would not set off the alarm.  

And we have once again successfully entered that grey realm of International politics, with the US isn't under a "law" thing.  A debate I'm not eager to see again and again.  First off, the US government does act in the interest of its own citizens first and foremost, as it should.  It does this on a national level, through social programs, laws, and security, and it does this internationally through diplomacy and war.  So the sanctions on Iraq, which is a favorite soft spot for anti-american sentiment, were not the best idea in the long run.  Then again, they were under UN mandate (yes, I know US political pressure led to the enactment of the sanctions but they were also approved, no matter how grudgingly, by at least the 8 other members of the Security Council).  And it's not like we could just lift the sanctions while Saddam was in power, as that can be seen as a concession and can lead to far worse problems.  (Watch 13 days, a similar example for those of you who remember the cold war)  Saddam did, after all, try to build a cannon capable of shelling the US as its explicit purpose, so no matter how much anyone argues otherwise he was rightly a percieved threat.  And for the record equating flying an airliner into a 100 story office building with the relatively few civilian casualties caused by a war is some very f****d up reasoning.

And too, while I'm on the subject, I grow VERY tired of the anti-American sentiments that are so often vocally expressed on this forum.  I would have you know that I am a civicly responsible citizen of the United States.  I believe that our government, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world.  I support my nation's soldiers and I support my nation's leaders, even if I do not wholeheartedly agree with them on several major issues.  I don't support the US-led war in Iraq as it was sold to the world (while I do see it as ultimately being a good thing for the  Iraqi people, and it would have been even more so if the military brass had done better planning for post-war Iraq), but now that we are there I believe that we should stay there until the situation is stabalized.  Leaving now would be irresponsible both the to the lives lost in the war and to the citizens of both countries.  Take that as you will, those are my stances and they are not going anywere.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by StratComm
Yes, this system is controversial.  What that means is that the system that actually gets put into place will be far less extreme.  It also sounds like this has some basis in that failed national security catalogue that the Pentagon (or the CIA, can't remember off hand) was planning to compile, but without that I can't see how efficient this system would be.  By due process of law and the constitutionality of such a system, it would have to be slanted towards letting people through rather than holding them.  I can see a lot of folks getting thrown into "yellow," which just takes the random out of random screenings, but "red" I would think would take something like being wanted for a serious crime or being on the terrorist watch list.  Note the wanted, being convicted and serving time for a serious crime would not set off the alarm.  

I think you are reffering to the Total Information Awareness database, later renamed Terrorist Information Awareness, headed by DARPA. I find that any sort of "pattern searching" is not only ineffective but also discriminatory. Now, discrimination isn't that big of a thing, but nabbing someone based solely on him fitting a pattern is.

[/i]
And we have once again successfully entered that grey realm of International politics, with the US isn't under a "law" thing.  A debate I'm not eager to see again and again.  First off, the US government does act in the interest of its own citizens first and foremost, as it should.  It does this on a national level, through social programs, laws, and security, and it does this internationally through diplomacy and war.  So the sanctions on Iraq, which is a favorite soft spot for anti-american sentiment, were not the best idea in the long run.  Then again, they were under UN mandate (yes, I know US political pressure led to the enactment of the sanctions but they were also approved, no matter how grudgingly, by at least the 8 other members of the Security Council).  And it's not like we could just lift the sanctions while Saddam was in power, as that can be seen as a concession and can lead to far worse problems.  (Watch 13 days, a similar example for those of you who remember the cold war)  Saddam did, after all, try to build a cannon capable of shelling the US as its explicit purpose, so no matter how much anyone argues otherwise he was rightly a percieved threat.  And for the record equating flying an airliner into a 100 story office building with the relatively few civilian casualties caused by a war is some very f****d up reasoning.

Civilian Deaths
9/11 : 3000
Iraq:   7000

very few eh?
And what kind of threat would lifting sanctions during Saddam's reign represent? Do you honestly think sanctions prohibited Saddam from aquiring the weapons that he needed? Sanctions affect the people first and the military last.

[/i]
And too, while I'm on the subject, I grow VERY tired of the anti-American sentiments that are so often vocally expressed on this forum.  I would have you know that I am a civicly responsible citizen of the United States.  I believe that our government, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world.  I support my nation's soldiers and I support my nation's leaders, even if I do not wholeheartedly agree with them on several major issues.  I don't support the US-led war in Iraq as it was sold to the world (while I do see it as ultimately being a good thing for the  Iraqi people, and it would have been even more so if the military brass had done better planning for post-war Iraq), but now that we are there I believe that we should stay there until the situation is stabalized.  Leaving now would be irresponsible both the to the lives lost in the war and to the citizens of both countries.  Take that as you will, those are my stances and they are not going anywere.

I can understand that you do not want to see your country portrayed in a bad light, but its not exactly like the arguements are baseless and mere namecalling. So far, I think that any anti-American sentiment shown here has been very specific and very relevant. Why should someone not criticize somthing if he believes his criticism to be factual and correct?

[YodaSean]

As the government takes a new, large role in one aspect of screening, it is rolling back its presence in another. By late 2004, some airports are expected to replace the federal screening force with private screeners. A security law passed after the terrorist attacks allows airports to "opt out" of the government's federal screening workforce in November 2004. Many airports, frustrated with the staffing cuts and the inability to control the number of screeners at each station, believe they might have more control over the operations if a private company were in charge.

"I've been in various meetings with many airport managers who are saying, 'We don't want as much government control around,' " said James McNeil, chief executive of McNeil Technologies Inc., which provides security screeners at the airport in Rochester, N.Y., one of five test airports that employ private screeners. McNeil said he has talked to 20 to 30 airports that are interested in his services. A large association of the nation's airports estimates that many small airports will opt out of government screeners next year because their limited flight schedules require that screeners work flexible hours. The government will still have a role in security because the private screening companies will operate under contracts managed by the TSA.

If many airports, particularly large hubs that handle a major portion of the nation's 30,000 daily flights, choose to revert to the private screening force, some aviation industry leaders have wondered what that will mean for the TSA.

It seems that not all airports are happy with this either.  .hopefully some of them will opt out of this thing when they can.

[CP5670]

I fail to see how that is the same. Maybe you'de care to explain why you think so? An action is judged based on the result, not the intention. Thats why shooting someone unintentionally is a crime. Aside from that, I don't think that American troop excerise enough caution and place enough value on human life. Though I may have run over someone by accident, if I was driving while blindfolded that isn't really an excuse.

Of course, but that's not "fair" and "just," eh? It's because the whole concept of determining morality in practice depends on intentions. If you base it just on actions, then there becomes the problem of what exactly did the "bad thing," since there are usually a number of people, objects, scientific laws, etc. responsible for one of these actions, and all of them could concievably be labelled as bad.

So, if I find out that, by the letter of the law, killing a person by dropping them from a helicopter into a minefield (just using an example that is unlikely to happen, to illustrate a point) is not wrong, then doing so does not make me a criminal? Morality does not depend on definitions or enforcement. What you fail to realize is there are moral absolutes. Good and evil if you will. Were we, as a soeciety, to view things only in terms of effectiveness, it would indeed be a very scary place to live in.

I don't know what the laws say, but that is quite irrelevant; we are talking about what common morality dictates, and depending on how exactly the other guy fell out of the helicopter, you may or may not be viewed as "bad" by the public. Also, what you fail to realize is that there are no moral absolutes. Suppose I say that going on a murdering spree is "good," and that sitting on chairs is "bad." Can you prove it to be otherwise? I think not. Everyone can have their own ideas about these things. Furthermore, even if we hypothetically assume that certain actions are good and others are bad, so what? That doesn't mean anyone will follow those guidelines, and especially not governments, which are usually smart enough to know what will work towards their long-term goals and what will not. As for the last sentence, in that case, it is indeed a very scary place to live in, and trying to make it less scary by defining moral absolutes to make yourself feel better is only going to make you look silly in arguments. Go into math like I have to relieve the scariness.

Aswell, rights and freedoms of people are universal. What is regarded as "basic human rights" (which I assume includes not being killed) is applicable to all humans. Not just citizens of a nation. Every government should treat every person as one of its citizens, because place of birth is so arbitrary. Just because I was born in say, Baghdad, does not mean my life is worth less than someone born in New York.

Yes it does, to the US government, because its objective is to protect US citizens. I don't know what every government "should" do, but this is simply what they do. And it is no more right or wrong than what you are proposing. This concept of "basic human rights" is quite silly if you think of it with an open mind, since why not then have the basic chair rights that I talked of, or basic rights for any other conceivable object? People get rights from the governments not because they "deserve" them, but because if they don't get them they will revolt. If they are incapable of doing that for some reason, then they will not get the rights; it's as simple as that.

I can understand that you do not want to see your country portrayed in a bad light, but its not exactly like the arguements are baseless and mere namecalling. So far, I think that any anti-American sentiment shown here has been very specific and very relevant. Why should someone not criticize somthing if he believes his criticism to be factual and correct?

Perhaps because it is anything but. I am quite fine with anti-American sentiments, but what really gets funny is that they are frequently based on the most ridiculous of excuses, and moreover, recycled excuses that have been dealt with several times in the past in this place.