Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Jun '13 22:59
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-muslim-arab-americans

    "If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance.
    Muslim and Arab Americans have been the targets of intrusive monitoring
    programs even when they 'have nothing to hide'."
    --Anna Lekas Miller (19 June 2013, 'The Guardian'
  2. 20 Jun '13 00:09
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-muslim-arab-americans

    "If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance.
    Muslim and Arab Americans have been the targets of intrusive monitoring
    programs even when they 'have nothing to hide'."
    --Anna Lekas Miller (19 June 2013, 'The Guardian'
    What's the point in posting this? I doubt there are many honest Americans who don't know that
    1) People with Muslim names are under more scrutiny
    2) America isn't the easiest place for Muslims to live in
  3. 20 Jun '13 08:23
    Originally posted by dryhump
    What's the point in posting this? I doubt there are many honest Americans who don't know that
    1) People with Muslim names are under more scrutiny
    2) America isn't the easiest place for Muslims to live in
    replace muslims with "african-americans" and you would get the US of the 60's


    would you ask what is the point of mentioning that?
  4. 20 Jun '13 09:49
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-muslim-arab-americans
    Interesting article. Still, one small point: I wonder if it is slightly dishonest in mentioning the historic district of Little Syria, which it strongly implies, without actually stating, was a Muslim district. In fact, the majority of its inhabitants were Arab Christians.
  5. 20 Jun '13 13:26
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    replace muslims with "african-americans" and you would get the US of the 60's


    would you ask what is the point of mentioning that?
    This isn't the US of the 60's, live in the now. Most people acknowledge this is a problem. Why don't you suggest a way of solving it instead of endlessly complaining about it. Terrorism has changed lots of things in this country and few of those changes have been good. Honest people acknowledge this, how do you propose we solve these problems? Maybe we could start by showing this.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Jun '13 14:20
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-muslim-arab-americans

    "If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance.
    Muslim and Arab Americans have been the targets of intrusive monitoring
    programs even when they 'have nothing to hide'."
    --Anna Lekas Miller (19 June 2013, 'The Guardian'
    If they "have nothing to hide" why are they in "fear of NSA surveillance"? What will the surveillance turn up that they don't want discovered if they have "nothing to hide"?
  7. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    20 Jun '13 14:39
    Originally posted by sh76
    If they "have nothing to hide" why are they in "fear of NSA surveillance"? What will the surveillance turn up that they don't want discovered if they have "nothing to hide"?
    Maybe they subscribe to Glenn Beck's newsletter and don't want an IRS audit
  8. 20 Jun '13 14:57
    Originally posted by dryhump
    This isn't the US of the 60's, live in the now. Most people acknowledge this is a problem. Why don't you suggest a way of solving it instead of endlessly complaining about it. Terrorism has changed lots of things in this country and few of those changes have been good. Honest people acknowledge this, how do you propose we solve these problems? Maybe we c ...[text shortened]... lims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
    well the first step to solving the problem is not ignore it. it is hard to get the average american to care when they are not empathetic to their plight.
  9. 20 Jun '13 23:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    If they "have nothing to hide" why are they in "fear of NSA surveillance"?
    What will the surveillance turn up that they don't want discovered if they have "nothing to hide"?
    During the Third Reich, if Germany's Jews were all loyal to the Vaterland
    and had 'nothing to hide', then why should they complain that the Gestapo
    tended to put them under more surveillance than it did non-Jewish Germans?
    Surely, you (Sh76) should have no objection to that, should you?

    Can you understand the principle behind the US Constitution's Fourth
    Amendment? Or would you believe that it should not apply to US citizens
    of Muslim faith or heritage? Or perhaps you believe that appearing to be of
    Muslim heritage is 'probable cause' in itself to be suspected of wrongdoing?
    I note that some American Sikhs have been murdered by 'patriotic' white
    Americans who seem to have misidentified them as Muslims.
  10. 21 Jun '13 00:00
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Interesting article. Still, one small point: I wonder if it is slightly dishonest in mentioning the historic district of Little Syria, which it strongly implies, without actually stating, was a Muslim district. In fact, the majority of its inhabitants were Arab Christians.
    A disproportionately large number of Arab immigrants in the USA are of
    Christian faith or heritage. Given the popular stereotyping that 'all Arabs
    are Muslims', some Arab Christians have found it hard to convince some
    'real' Americans that they truly can be both of Arab and Christian heritage.

    "But you claim you're a Palestinian, so how could you be a Christian?
    Everyone knows that all Palestinians are Muslims, if not terrorists."
    "Well, my family comes from Bethlehem, a place that's not unknown
    to Christians, and..."
  11. 21 Jun '13 00:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    If they "have nothing to hide" why are they in "fear of NSA surveillance"? What will the surveillance turn up that they don't want discovered if they have "nothing to hide"?
    The system can make mistakes and cause grief to a family. There are innocent people in jail right now; we know that. The system is also subject to corruption and abuse, as these people might well appreciate, from their national backgrounds.

    This comment is intended to explain, not to justify. The justifications pro and con surveillance will come from the law.
  12. 21 Jun '13 00:31
    Originally posted by sh76
    If they "have nothing to hide" why are they in "fear of NSA surveillance"? What will the surveillance turn up that they don't want discovered if they have "nothing to hide"?
    Is it fear or is it really the desire for privacy? Won't be long before NSA is watching everyone shag their ol ladies. They will be sitting in their control room making bets on how long little Jonny takes to spank his monkey or if young Billy will eat his booger. Next they will be kicking doors open in the middle of the night because a computer has predicted a resident will commit a crime. Of course it will predict who is going to commit an act of terrorism and all due process will be non existent for them. Better to have security than freedom though. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING FREEDOM!!!!!!
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '13 00:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    During the Third Reich, if Germany's Jews were all loyal to the Vaterland
    and had 'nothing to hide', then why should they complain that the Gestapo
    tended to put them under more surveillance than it did non-Jewish Germans?
    Surely, you (Sh76) should have no objection to that, should you?

    Can you understand the principle behind the US Constitution's murdered by 'patriotic' white
    Americans who seem to have misidentified them as Muslims.
    I was commenting only on the internal inconsistency of Ms. Miller's statement. But, in any case...

    Obviously, I think the 4th Amendment applies to protect everyone, including Muslims. Whether the NSA's spying policies violate the 4th Amendment is not at all clear and it's quite possible that the entire thing consisted of monitoring information that is not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy and so is not protected under the 4th Amendment. Assuming that the program did not violate the 4th Amendment, the government has ever right to profile in determining which legally obtained data to mine through. If it did violate the 4th Amendment, then of course it should be stopped.

    The appeal to emotion (or something resembling it) with the Gestapo example is not worth a response.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '13 00:48
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Is it fear or is it really the desire for privacy? Won't be long before NSA is watching everyone shag their ol ladies. They will be sitting in their control room making bets on how long little Jonny takes to spank his monkey or if young Billy will eat his booger. Next they will be kicking doors open in the middle of the night because a computer has predic ...[text shortened]... for them. Better to have security than freedom though. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING FREEDOM!!!!!!
    Slippery slope arguments have never impressed me. Let's discuss whether what actually happened was illegal, not whether the NSA might start doing illegal stuff in the future.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jun '13 00:52
    Originally posted by JS357
    The system can make mistakes and cause grief to a family. There are innocent people in jail right now; we know that. The system is also subject to corruption and abuse, as these people might well appreciate, from their national backgrounds.

    This comment is intended to explain, not to justify. The justifications pro and con surveillance will come from the law.
    It's very hard to make the argument that certain searches should not be done because they might mistakenly turn up false incriminating evidence. Of course there are innocent people in jail and there are problems with the system that need to be fixed. Blame bad or lazy police work. Blame overzealous prosecutors. Blame stupid juries. Blame incompetent defense lawyers. Blame lying witnesses. But blaming the guy who searched the premises for evidence? Hard to do that.