Foxy, You are using the right words even though you are arguing from the wrong side.
First of all the word "soft". I agree that Americans are being too soft.
These reactionary measures to make people feel better are "soft". The fact that GeneralTsao is pulled out of a crowd because of his appearance should raise the ire of any fair-minded and freedom loving American.
It takes courage to hold to the ideals of America in the face of attacks. It is easy to give up liberties, especially those of others. I do respect that GeneralTsao is willing to give up his own rights instead of the rights of others.
Second, the word "politically correct".
Unfortunately right now it *is* politically correct to subject darked skin folks to extra scrutiny. Many Americans have succombed to this fear and are willing to accept actions, that at their core are unamerican.
I am calling for Americans to not be soft. We must hold to our values in the face of fear- both perceived and real, because if we stop being Americans, we lose the thing that is most precious. These people you are subjecting to extra scrutiny are fellow Americans. They are part of my country and are promised the same rights that I am.
I realize that my opinion is not politically correct now. But it is right.
Our national anthem speaks of "The land of the free and the home of the brave." Taking away liberties because of fear is not something I am willing to accept.
I agree with your sentiment on principle ebrown, but disagree on the substance of the argument. If the victim of a serial rapist or a witness to a murder identified the rapist or murderer as a red headed man, and the crime had just been committed, wouldn't it make sense to pull aside and question red headed men at the airport, etc.? Wouldn't it be pretty silly to question black people or people of obvious Asian ancestry? If you were red headed, would you mind if it was explained that they were looking for a dangerous red headed criminal?
My friends and relatives who believe they have been targeted for extra scrutiny because they are darker skinned or might look 'middle Eastern' have not minded. General no doubt is correct in his perception that any scrutiny he has received is probably not as 'random' as suggested. (In this I would wish that the security personnel would just admit that and not insult people's intelligence.)
But when the policy is implemented, those who get on the airplane whether red headed, light skinned, or dark skinned, can all feel more secure that they are not on there with terrorists who intend to kill them.
I don't see this as violating anybody's civil rights or even an unnecessary inconvenience. It isn't politically correct by current definitions because it is racial profiling. But if it can save dozens or hundreds or thousands of lives, it is worth it.
a major tenet of conservative methodology has consistently been "cost-benefit ratio," when someone, anyone, comes along with a database demonstrating such a cost-benefit ratio in which reducing liberties results in increasing safety they may propose such an argument that justifies said reduction in liberties. simply stating that "dozens or hundreds or thousands of lives may be saved" remains absurd without demonstration of fact.
What liberties are being reduced in this case Dys?
Is there a law on the books anywhere that says 'extra scrutiny' is a violation of civil rights?
Yes, but that depends on the nature of the scrutiny, the motivation for it as well as the evidencial standard for the motivation.
