NORM MINETA: THE WRONG MAN AT THE WRONG TIME IN THE WRONG PLACE
Department of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, who was evacuated as a young boy from San Jose, Calif., to a relocation center in Heart Mountain, Wyoming, has been the Bush Administration’s most ardent foe of racial profiling. Read my new New York Post column on him here.
Update: 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman agrees with me. According to Rod Dreher, Lehman told the Dallas Morning News editorial board that “The Secretary of Transportation is obsessive about [racial profiling]. He will not relent on it.”
When one of Dreher’s colleagues suggested that “perhaps as a Japanese-American who was interned as a child during WW2,” Mineta has “a special perspective on how badly things can go when profiling goes too far,” Lehman responded, “Look, that’s his problem, not my problem….I’ve got problems too, and I don’t take them out on [public policy].”
Update II: Lucianne Goldberg’s readers agree with me too.
Update III: An American Airlines pilots writes:
Right on!!! As a pilot for American Airlines I vividly remember how I felt when I saw the 60 minutes segment with Secretary Mineta. I recall I shouted obscenities at the TV and almost threw the remote through it. I told anybody that would listen that if I were the President I would have fired Mr. Mineta on Monday morning and done it in the Rose Garden. “We need a person responsible for the transportation systems of this country who understands the realities of today’s dangerous world. Mr. Mineta is not that man.”
Furthermore Michelle, myself and my fellow pilots were furious when our airline was strongarmed into paying a large fine for protecting our passengers and ourselves. I guess bruised egos and hurt feelings outweigh defense of the aircraft at all costs.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
- MartiniPundit
- PRESTOPUNDIT -- "must readings" says Nick Schutz
- Ed Driscoll.com
- The Key Monk
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Norm Mineta
protein wisdom
» A Nannystatist Emily Litella moment [Darleen Click]
Ed Driscoll
» The University ArchipelagoNewsBusters.org
» The War on Terror Made Him Do ItEd Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation
I definately agree as well – he’s got to go. What he’s doing goes against all common sense.
Not all Japanese Americans are as miopic as Mineta. I once dated a Japanese woman whose uncle and aunt had been relocated to a camp in Nevada, as I recall them telling it. It was not a happy time in their lives, but when I asked whether they had any hard feelings about it, looking back, her uncle frankly said this:
If the shoe were on the other foot, and we were Americans living in Japan after America attacked first, do you know where we’d be right now?
There was silence at the table for a minute. No one needed to speak, because we all knew the answer to that question.
It bears mentioning that her uncle managed to become a millionaire in the years following his interment, thanks to some wise investing in real estate and old fashioned hard work. By the looks of it, Conformin’ Norman hasn’t made it out too bad either.
The truth is, the interment camps were essential to bringing the war with Japan to a decisive finish – perhaps more so than bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And while I’m not sure if Michelle’s book points this out, there’s a reason why Germans weren’t also interred in camps. FDR saw very clearly the threat posed by an enemy who had no fear of death, and who would gladly give up his life in the process of taking others with him. The Samurai code was alive and well back in those days, and deeply ingrained in many of Japan’s seemingly normal, everyday citizens.
Just like the enemy we face now.
More “Buck Stops There” BS from the “Save Bush At Any Cost” crowd.
I’m curious to know if Michelle was one of the many “reporters” who belly laughed their way through Bush’s stumbling Q&A at her “Unity” conference?
["Unity" conference]
..yeah, good one. Giant group of liberal journalists (there’s a bit of redundancy) who cheer for Kerry and laugh at Bush….big surprise. If you paid attention to Malkin’s blog, you would know that she volunteered to appear at the conference, but was ignored. You see, “Unity” only means “united against Bush”.
Mineta is the worst Transportation Secretary this country possibly could have had at the most inopportune time.
Mineta should have been replaced immediately after 9/11, since it was obvious at that time that his mindset was not appropriate for the conflict at hand. The fact that he remains in office has to lead even supporters of the Administration and the War on Terror like myself to wonder what Bush and company are thinking. The moment he (Mineta) declared that we would not be using racial, demographic or ideological profiling, he gave ample proof of his lack of seriousness and suitability as a wartime Secretary of Transportation with responsibility for making air travel as safe as possible. His rationale is of little importance. It is the lack of appreciation for the needs of the times that should have led the Administration to remove him in ‘01. That the Adminstration has not shows a certain lack of understanding of these needs in the White House as well.
[Mineta is the worst Transportation Secretary this country possibly could have had at the most inopportune time.]
How so?
Unlike his predecessor, President Bush understands loyalty. Unfortunately, as ably demonstrated by Powell, Mineta and a few others … it doesn’t seem to be a two-way street.
Just like Powell should have house-cleaned at State and run the department as requested by Bush … Mineta should be acting as a TRANSPORTATION guy and keep his opinions on matters other than TRANSPORTATION to himself.
Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” is an total and utter ideological failure.
Carry on.
Read this from a “real” conservative:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/080204.html
An excellent and balanced piece, unlike the one’s on this site.
Gee, maybe he has a dim view of racial profiling because, um, he has firsthand experience in how it can go wrong.
Um, racial profiling isn’t the same thing as internment
Thank you, Surge, for contributing absolutely nothing of value to the comments section.
Care to elaborate, or do you really expect us to fall head over heels for your witty rhetoric?
If hoardes of white jackass males between the ages of 19 and 39 from America were banding together to bring about “the great muslim evil,” and I were living in an arab country and happened to be “profiled,” I would thank God they were taking steps to prevent another attack. A dirty bomb that explodes in an airport is just as likely to kill an arab as an American.
Death doesn’t F-ing profile. People need to wake up and realize that.
“Death doesn’t f-ing profile”??? So oversimplified statements like this are the best way to generate a anti-terrorism strategy? C’mon…
Erik – Internment and profiling are not the same thing, but Malkin explicitly chose to justify one by rehabilitating the other. This is, I think, one of the larger weaknesses of her book. If she wanted to write a book justifying profiling, then maybe her book should have been about profiling.
In my mind, her premise that war preempts civil liberties is undermined 1) by the fact that the “war on terror” is not a war in the sense that WWII was; and 2) that as a result, we essentially face a never-ending war. A profiling regime would make permanent second-class citizens out of all Arabs or Muslims.
I happen to think that it’s one thing for everyone to give something up, but it strikes me as fundamentally unfair (not to mention unconstitutional) for us to select an unpopular minority to be the only group to do so.
If them damn kikes and their Zionist/JUDEO-Christian acolytes hadn’t hijacked THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., bivouaced in that foreign enclave, Washington, D.C., for the last 100 years or so, we wouldn’t need any damned police state security!
Michelle, I read a couple of posted comments from others and feel I should inform you that you’ve got a bunch of brain dead idiots reading and responding to your columns.
Cheerio, Morons!
No more simple than “Bush’s so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an total and utter ideological failure.” At least my grammar’s straight, at any rate, and my comment was on topic.
Oh, and quit deluding yourself by thinking of muslims as just an “unpopular minority.” Um, hel-loooo, they’re the ones that flew a couple of planes into buildings.
If you “brain dead idiots” can’t at least post something worthwhile, and ontopic, please don’t bother.
Of course I can elaborate, miss kitty.
It never ceases to amaze me how we Americans can so easily buy into the notion of the “quick fix”, the “magic pill” and the “magic bullet”.
We prefer “quantity” over “quality” in the products we consume, material as well as ideological. And in the back of our minds, we know going “cheap” is just going to end us costing us more in the end.
Hence the “cheap” cultural and ideological garbage we ingest from the likes of Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern and Michelle Malkin.
They are convenient, and require us not to think, by appealing to our emotion rather than our intellect.
Iraq and Afganistan were supposed to be “quick fixes” to our terrorist problem. Now we see where this short-ranged, narrow-minded view has lead us to: Afghanistan is descending back to extremist Muslim control by warlords, the economy is running on opium and heroin trade. Iraq is STILL not stabilized, and we were not greeted with roses and hugs, as our trusty informant, Mr. Chalabi, had promised.
God/Bush forbid if anybody tries to take a well-thought out, patient, multilateral approach to the War on Terror like Mr. Mineta suggests. Now all of sudden, he is incompetent, practically an Al Qaeda operative, by some folks accounts.
But hey, we’ll do anything to rationalize our “magic pills” and our comfort. That’s just how human beings are. I am just as guilty of this as any of you. Critical thinking is a fashion faux-pas in the Information Age. Not cool at all.
But we’re paying for our selfish narrow-mindedness, as will our children, for generations to come.
Please! Won’t somebody think of the children?!
Why not go ahead and be upfront, Michelle?
Your agenda is, if not entirely entirely transparent, at the very least highly translucent.
You’ve written a book “debunking” the myth of the Japanese internment camps. But why now? Because, obviously, you want to build support for similar camps for Arab Americans.
But I have a couple of questions for you. I’m no expert on the camps, and so for the moment in asking these questions I’ll go ahead and operate on the assumption that every single detail of your book is true. Assuming such, can you answer the following?
1. The Japanese were moved from the West Coast for the duration of the war. If terrorists can strike anywhere, where exactly should we move Arab Americans so that they might enjoy the casual atmosphere of the Japanese camps?
2. According to you, their possessions were catalogued and held in storage. If the war on terror, as some people say, will go on for decades, will we also intern generations of Arab Americans for decades? Will we keep their possession in “storage” indefinitely?
3. What of the majority of Arab Americans who are Christian? Should they likewise be interred? After all, what if Muslim extremists decide to pose as Christians?
4. What about Africans, Southeast Asians, Persians and others who might also pose a threat? What about Filipinos? Should they all be interred as well? If not, why not?
5. Do famous Arab Americans like George Mitchell, John Sununu, and Doug Flutie get exempted from internment, or do they go as well?
In the interest of honesty I hope you’ll answer these questions. Forthright answers would be a great way to defuse some of the accusations of racism against you. If you decline to answer, one will be left to interpret exactly what your silence means.
Elvez, perhaps you’ll enlighten us. Do you know how to end the “war on terror”? If you don’t know who the combatants are how do you defend against them? There are a lot of people want to live, maybe you can give them some sage advice on how to recognize a threat. We need people who are interested in the country to step forward with solutions to our safety. How ’bout it Elvez?
I’m not engaging in any delusional thinking. What I do know is that 20-odd people were involved in a despicable attack. However, to my thinking, that does not justify a knee-jerk reaction by penalizing an entire class of citizens (or residents, since some constitutional protections extend to all “people” not just “citizens”). So in that sense, they are an unpopular minority. That doesn’t mean they are immune from any scrutiny; it merely means that one whole group should not have to sacrifice its rights wholesale because of the bad acts of some individuals.
Mike H – First off, I’m sure this is disappointing, but I think that anyone who thinks they can “end” the “War on Terror” is full of it. I’ve read many blogs/comments from people who seem to think that the easiest solution would be to nuke the entire Middle East. But no one with 1/10 of a brain thinks that this is actually a good idea. Hopefully, no one in a position of leadership would think so either.
Having no formal training in intelligence gathering, I cannot offer specifics on how to defeat terrorist organizations. What I do know is that by profiling every muslim/arab would be a poor use of resources in addition to the problems of constitutional import. I would also hope that we are actively trying to use covert operatives and informants to infiltrate organizations.
With regard to gathering intelligence on American citizens and legal residents, I would suggest a quantum of evidence not too dissimilar to the ones used in our judicial system. If you have indidualized suspicion towards an individual, then by all means, that should be followed up on. (Maybe a standard approximating Terry’s reasonable, articuable suspicion) But if the only reason you suspect someone is because of their ethnicity or religion, then it seems to me that our homeland defense is in worse shape than everyone thinks. Furthermore, if anti-terrorist efforts are directed through profiling, won’t terrorists find a way around these racial/ethnic bounds? Won’t we see islamic radicals posing as middle eastern christians, indians of hindu faith, latinos, or east asians? Do we then extend the profiling to include these groups once (or when) the terrorist practices become more refined? My opinion, in other words, is that any benefit we get will be miniscule, while the burden is solely directed at an unpopular minority.
Just because the stakes are higher does not mean our principles should be thrown out the window. We certainly might get a lot more information on terror activities if we threw out the 1st Amendment altogether and made all electronic media subject to unrestricted government access. Wartime presidents are generally given broader powers, but this power is not infinite (see Youngstown and Padilla/Guantanamo USSC decisions).
Nor should it be. Especially because unless we wipe the rest of the planet clean, some people will always hate us and the “war” will never end. If the war never ends, when do we get our rights back? More importantly, will this sacrifice really make the US more secure or will it only make some people feel more secure?
Elvetz,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I don’t think Ms. Malkin woke up one day and said to herself, “Hmm, How can I justify profiling? I’ve got it! I’ll write about the WWII internment camps!” Indeed, Ms. Malkin explained her reasons for writing the book in her August 3 post:
“My aim is to kick off a vigorous national debate on what has been one of the most undebatable subjects in Amerian history and law: President Franklin Roosevelt’s homeland security policies that led to the evacuation and relocation of 112,000 ethnic Japanese on the West Coast, as well as the internment of tens of thousands of enemy aliens from Japan, Germany, Italy, and other Axis nations. I think it’s vitally important to get the history right because the WWII experience is often invoked by opponents of common-sense national security profiling and other necessary homeland security measures today.”
So it appears Ms. Malkin wrote the book in response to those who criticize “common-sense national security profiling.” Obviously, if some people are going to use the internment issue to criticize profiling, supporters of profiling can legitimately address the internment issue, as well.
Onto the merits of profiling. I agree that profiling raises important liberty concerns. In an ideal world, government should avoid all discrimination based on race, ethnicity, creed, etc.
But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. The rules governing how our security agencies investigate potential terrorits plots aimed at mass slaughter must be governed by the facts of the real world. And the unfortunate real-world fact is that, at least for now, young Arab males, while statistically posing a small risk to any given flight, pose a higher risk than, say, elderly Japanese women. Prudence calls for closer scrutiny (not internment!) of young Arab males.
True, individuals who don’t fit this profile sometimes cause trouble on flights. The ocaisional drunk passenger who becomes unruly and slugs a flight attendent comes to mind. But the danger posed by such individuals pales in comparison up to the danger of those who would conduct a 9/11 suicide-style attack.
Now, of course, al Qaeda could change tactics and start trying to recruit individuals who don’t fit the young-Arab-male profile but who are still willing to commit mass slaughter. If and when we have evidence that such tactics are being pursued with any degree of effectiveness, then, by all means, we must incorporate that information into our investigative toolkit.
The bottom line, though, is that subjecting individuals who fit a particular profile to greater scrutiny is not such a large infringment on liberty — especially considering the potential danger of failing to do so — that it should be dispensed with out of hand.
Eric,
Writing a book about how Japanese internment camps were necessary and just in order to advance the cause of racial profiling of young male Arabs on plane flights strikes me as rather odd and excessive.
What makes more sense is that she wants to desensitize us to the idea of interring Arab Americans. I have yet to read where she has denied support for such a thing. If she has somewhere, please enlighten me.
Captain America
The 5 questions you ask are valid and definately should be part of the debate.
But saying that if Michelle doesn’t choose to specifically respond to you, or if she never even reads your comment, she is admitting she is a racist is just silly.
I beleive that it is only intelligent that along with the increased security around air travel and public events, that the security people be more interested in Arab males than other race/gender individuals because Arab males have been the perpetrators of the previous incidents.
If at a public event a security alert goes out that someone is trying to plant a bomb nearby, it is not in anybody’s best interest that security immediately shakedown my wife. Chances are she is not planting a bomb. And chances are that the person who is trying to plant a bomb is an Arab male.
So, from the standpoint of security endeavors around any given flight or public target/event, scrutinizing Arabs more than others makes sense. For the protection of everybody, of any race, that might be in attendance.
But I do not agree with interment. Of course, if we end up like Israel, with suicide bombers taking people out here and there on a regular basis I might change my mind.
My goal is to protect my wife and child. That is my first loyalty. My family comes before myself, my job, my country and all of you that might read this. I don’t want anyone’s rights to be trampled. I don’t want anyone to be interred. I don’t want war with other countries or cultures. I want a peacefully bliss exchange of the best every culture has to offer.
But since that is an idealistic pipe dream, I have to be a realist.
And realistically I have to admit that all evidence points to a situation where the next attack on the U.S. by terrorists will probably come from an Arab, specifically an Arab male.
Why not focus first on non-US-citizens, especially those from countries that harbor terrorists. Since many of the terrorists from 9/11 were Saudis, i suppose we need to pay extra attention to all Saudi non-citizens who are “visiting” or “working” in America. We are at war, so taking steps to protect American Citizens seems a logical first step.
I would like to make one observation on the whole profiling versus internment issue. The easiest way for modern America to get to the point where they will accept mass internment of a racial or ideological group is to allow another MCE perpetrated by that group. By not focusing resources on the group most likely to carry out further attacks (young to middle aged, Muslim males, probably from an Arab or Turkic ethno-cultural group) we run a greater risk of having an attack take place. If it is costly enough, the reaction may be – and probably will be – much more “vigorous” than the reaction after 9/11. Instead of a few examples of crimes directed at Arabs, Muslims or people perceived to be either or both and a small number of detentions, we could have mob violence and the kind of mass internment or deportations that I don’t think anyone wants to see, no matter how justified it might be (not the mob violence. That would never be justified). By profiling now, we may be avoiding a far more distasteful reaction in the future.
Chris,
I agree that Ms. Malkin may not be a racist if she chooses not to respond to my specific questions. That’s why I said one would be left to interpret her silence. yes, she might not ever read those questions, though I find that highly doubtful given that this is her site.
So more attacks would be enough for you to support internment? How much more would it take for you to support extermination?
You say security should be checking Arabs instead of “your wife,” which I assume means your wife is white. What if your wife was a half-Arab Christian, whose ancestors came to this country seeking freedom and escape from an oppressive society? I just described the vast majority of Arab Americans currently in the United States.
Would you then support more intense security scrutiny of your wife? If suicide bombers started attacking on a regular basis, as you say, would you support her internment for being part Arab? Or, knowing that she was innocent, would you want a special exemption for her, and allow others to be interred about whom you know nothing?
That is a very interesting point Jeff. Everybody who thinks that negative Arab sentiment is high now, wait until another attack takes place. There are plenty of idiotic and violent psychos out there waiting for a reason to cut loose. And, as absolutley wrong as it is, if something blows up in California, there are people who will respond in Georgia by doing something horrific to an Arab they know is nearby. Involvement in terror will not be a prerequisite to violent response.
It is very scary for everyone.
“Writing a book about how Japanese internment camps were necessary and just in order to advance the cause of racial profiling of young male Arabs on plane flights strikes me as rather odd and excessive.”
Answer: The next time you’re in a 747 with 200 other people that is hurling in a fireball back to earth, you can rest easy knowing the owners of the surface to air missile that brought it down didn’t have their civil rights violated…
Chris and Jeff,
The very same reasoning could be used to justify racial profiling of blacks on the road (i.e., driving while black). Such profiling is necessary, you would argue, in order to keep the racist bigots from lynching more blacks. Thus, fellow African Americans, it’s necessary that we be able to pull you over at any time and assume you’re up to something suspicious. Otherwise white people might give into their baser genocidal instincts.
Nice red herring, Bob. You either missed my point entirely or chose to ignore it.
Cap’n America,
Very good arguments. You illustrate well just how confusing and volatile an issue this is.
Obviously, the enlightened side of me easily says that, no, as you described it above I could not support general interment of whole groups of people based upon race. It goes against everything our country stands for.
I never said anything about extermination. Those few that you see that support such lunacy are (hopefully) few and far between.
The point I was making is that in a given security situation it does not serve to protect anybody taking time or resources to double-check my wife (yes she is white) when there are Arab males around who are statistically far more likely to be responsible for the security risk at that moment.
This is not the same as tracking all people of Arab descent in the country or going the next step of interring or deporting them. As you say, most of these people are as American as I am and deserve the same treatment I do. But again, in a specific security situation where a possible terrorist threat exists, Arab males have to be considered more carefully than others. To do less is to take unnecessary risks with peoples lives.
Michelle, how about you lead a letter writing campaign to “W”? That’s where I’m headed next–to send him an email.
Take this situation for example. A series of black churches gets burned down and the KKK claims responsibility and vows more destruction.
Now, you tell me…as the police investigate the attacks, do you think they are really looking equally hard at black suspects as whites? When staking out local black churches looking for suspicious behavior to try and prevent further attacks do you think they need to “shake-down” any black people they find “loitering” around the church? Or is a white guy hanging around this black church “more” of a suspect?
Well, it was not the KKK that attacked, it was Al-Qaida. We know that there are not many black members of the KKK and there aren’t any more Irishmen in Al-Qaida.
Why can’t we concentrate our security where the greater threat lives? Nobody would argue one bit in the KKK scenario.
Chris,
I understand your arguments and for the most part agree with you. We do have to recognize the threats out there and take sensible steps. I think it’s likely that the vast majority of Arab Americans understand this, as they too are fearful, both of the terrorists and of the wrath of people in this country who would lash out innocent people (in a way, not that dissimilar from the terrorists, hmm?).
Yes, you never advocated extermination or even internment, and my question to you was more rhetorical than personal: at one point does one find a horrific act acceptable? And that’s why I have an issue with Ms. Malkin’s book, because it seems to be clearly an attempt to desensitize its readers not just for scrutiny of Arabs on planes, but eventually for internment of Arabs. After all, there clearly WERE threats among the Japanese Americans, right? And the camps weren’t really SO bad, right?
As soon as you buy that argument, you’ve bought the argument that it’s okay to inter people just because of their ethnicity or religion–except, of course, the ethnicity or religion to which you belong.
Can someone please enlighten me with a link or a quote from a verifiables source quoting some time when Michelle has said that she is in favor of interring Arabs, Muslims, Martians, or anyone else? I’ve been reading Michelle’s columns at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/archive.shtml since well before 9/11 and was thrilled when she started a blog so she could make her thoughts available more often. When Michelle tells us that someone has said something questionable, she either hyperlinks to her source or gives us a direct quote and tells us where we can verify it, but apparently it’s fair play to say “Michelle wants to lock up all the Muslims” without providing any evidence. If you look back through Michelle’s blog archives it’s not difficult to figure out that:
* Michelle believes in immigration control and enforcement, including deporting, after due process, anyone found to be in this country illegally.
*Michelle believes in locking up people found to have committed crimes or conspired to commit crimes, whether they’re Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, ….
* Michelle doesn’t think this country is taking airline security seriously enough, and that, in particular, Norm Mineta is part of that problem.
* Michelle believes, in light of evidence that only recently became available, that there was valid justification for interring Japanese Americans during World War II.
How did you get from the evidence we have to the conclusion that Michelle wants to lock people up for Breathing While Muslim?
Because of the Bush administrations immigration and security policies, as exemplified by Mr. Mineta among others, I won’t be voting “for” George Bush this fall. Instead, I’ll vote “against” John Kerry because I know he’d be even worse.
Chris,
As to your example of the KKK burning down black churches, I think you are absolutely correct. If you knew the KKK was behind it (an assumption, but I’ll go with it) it would be foolish to spend much time investigating black people.
But take that example one step further, and ask yourself how absurd it would be to then advocate interring white people in that town or region because there are racists among them who might want to engage in violent acts. We wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing, and yet for some of us, doing it to another ethnic group doesn’t seem nearly as distasteful.
I’m not accusing you personally of such feelings. But I can’t help but see an undercurrent of support for just such a thing on this site and others. And until I’m told otherwise by Ms. Malkin, I’m convinced that is the subtext of her book.
Michelle:
Why are we limiting ourselves to Middle-Eastern-looking people? Why shouldn’t we be on the lookout for any Asian-looking people? Like they could be North Koreans, or, God forbid, Red Chinese! And those darkies, they could be Muslim Africans after all, so we should watch out for any black people too. Oh yeah, remember how al-Qaeda is supposedly turning American-born Caucasians over to their cause? Let’s watch them too. Hell, we should just put a bullet in the head of anyone who looks at a law-enforcement officer in a funny way.
You are a disgraceful example of the fascist tendency of teh conservative power base in this country.
There’s simply no comparison between “profiling” (i.e., subjecting airline passengers of Middle Eastern descent to higher levels of scrutiny) and “mass internment.” Profiling is a rational use of limited resources based on irrefutable statistics — a terrorist attack in this day and age is much more likely to be perpetrated by an Arab male than by any other demographic group.
Recognizing and acting on this obvious reality does not inevitably lead down the slippery slope to internment camps. BUT, if we fail to use common sense measures and more Islamic terrorist attacks are carried out as a result, the anti-Arab reaction in this country will make profiling seem tame.
But Wildman, Ms. Malkin has made the case that internment was not only justified but necessary in World War II. If not then, why not now?
I do not believe Ms. Malkin is trying to justify the mass internment of Arabs in America today, and that issue is a red herring in the context of her post today.
She is, instead, trying to justify profiling by airport screeners, and trying to defend that practice against overwrought critics who say that one will inevitably lead to the other. This focus on internment camps simply distracts from the much more crucial and pressing issue — will we or won’t we ask a disporportionate number of male Arabs attempting to board airplanes to submit to heightened security?
Because male Arabs commit a disproportionate number of terrorist acts, it is hard to argue against such a policy without raising the spectre of internment camps. This is flawed logic — one does not necessarily lead to the other. I can be totally against the idea of internment camps and still support profiling by airport screeners.
“I can be totally against the idea of internment camps and still support profiling by airport screeners.”
Of course you can. But that doesn’t explain away Ms. Malkin’s book, which is an argument justifying the WWII internment camps.
If one wrote a book praising corporal punishment, and then went on talk shows saying that our discipline procedures in schools is currently too soft, might one not reasonably infer that the author is advocating a return to corporal punishment in schools?
Ms. Malkin’s book doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Publishing a book called “The Case for Internment” in such a time as ours, one that justifies internment of ethnic groups in times of war, cannot simply be compartmentalized, especially when Ms. Malkin has not categorically and explicitly stated that she does not support internment of Arabs in this country.
If Ms. Malkin had simply advocated greater security scrutiny for certain groups, I not only wouldn’t be asking these questions, I’d be agreeing with her. But she also wrote a book titled “The Case for Internment.” It’s a title clearly designed to provoke controversy, and so she should be willing to say whether she supports internment of Arabs.
Sorry, I mistakenly called Ms. Malkin’s book “The Case for Internment” when it is in fact “In Defense of Internment.” But that doesn’t alter my argument one iota.
There is a germane FrontPageMagazine article today
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14557,
Connecting The South American Terror Dots
It states that 5510 non-Mexican, non-Central or South American aliens have been apprehended by Arizona Border Patrol agents since 1 October 2003. Rules do not allow the ethnic identity or nationality of origin to be identified. Obviously, this doesn’t account for those who made it in and can’t be tracked at all. A very sobering article
Strike-one against the good guys!
Right on Bob! Some of us here in Cali know that side of the story. Capitano America & Elvez are strangely silent.
Surge – I looked at the site you recommended.
There is a consonance between the mobilization for the Korean War and the mobilization for the War on Terror. In both cases, the military had been downsized [by democrats] to make funds available for vote buying social schemes. I went into battle 54 years ago today with worn out WWII weapons and vehicles and 1943 C-rations.
“There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
Mynci,
“What profiling does do – and I will admit it has one use – is help feed the very paranoia that informs attempts to justify it, creating a vicious circle wherein we tolerate ever greater erosion of our civil liberties and freedoms. Ironically enough, these are the very things we seek to protect from terrorism.”
Civil liberties and freedoms became totally irrelevant to about 3,000 people on 9/11/2001. First let’s worry about keeping 3,000, or 30,000, or 3,000,000 more people from being killed for being American, then we can worry about civil liberties a little more later.
“[T]he only real way to end terrorism is to try and understand why people support it and make it possible in the first place.”
Appropriately enough, you saved your real bottom line for last. It’s all our fault to begin with, so how could we dare inconvenience those poor misunderstood men with the guns and bombs and box cutters by trying to protect ourselves?
A personal note to Walter E. Wallis: I just want you to know that at least one Vietnam vet appreciates the vets of “The Forgotten War.”
“For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.”
Elvez
You have nerve to speak on what another gives up in this war on terrorism. What have you ever sacrificed for anything. I lost family and friends as a result of 9/11 and a career I enjoyed.
Surge
I see you as witty and informed as ever…enough said.
Capt America (Dumb name by the way) You think you make valid points and to a degree you do but racial profiling is an intellegent chose to protect people. If I agree with your logic then in the case of a murder where the witnesses report a black male did the crime we should not look at black males because it would be unfair..Bull you base you security and investigative forces on the most likely subjects first…this is call logic.
Mynci. No disrespect but you are a MORON! You don’t try to understand why someone wants to kill you until after you insure your safety first and have you ever considered that terrorist want to kill because they are twisted
Mynci—
I understand you don’t like profiling because it is simply wrong. However, the technique has been a part of criminal justice for one hundred years. It is perhaps the most longstanding and widely taught methodology in the world. Simply stated, the technique helps to reduce the suspect pool. Is it “paranoia” to exercise proven techniques to secure the Nation against aggression? Isn’t it smarter to let this be part of an evolving terrorist methodology unique to the universal threat of Islamo-fascism? Or do we just grab at straws citing a sensational grievance to slam on the door on the subject. You say profiling won’t curb all terrorist capability. So what? Is the alternative to open the floodgates and let it rip? You can do better than that. If the Border patrol knows 75% of all illegals caught at the Arizona border are ME Arab males from X country with Y characteristics in common, doesn’t this give law enforcement a better chance at discovery and interdiction perhaps closer to a point of origin? And who knows what else they may find? The common argument against profiling is that it denies equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Often, the people espousing this belief are the same ones pushing for open borders and giving non-citizens voting rights. They are the Transnationalists in full support of global legal administration.I’m not saying this is your belief, but it does open a line of thought you may want to consider fully. You may want to detach yourself emotionally from the subject, read Michelle’s book, do some research, and reconsider your position. Your life may depend on it.
Sorry for the double post.
Mr. Kotthoff – I am sorry for your loss. But with all due respect sir, you speak out of turn. You make the assumption that because my opinion is unpleasant to you I must not have had any personal loss on 9/11 or in the war in Iraq.
More importantly, you can’t really expect that you can exclude people from their conversation based on their proximity to the 9/11 tragedy. Now if you just don’t like what I (or others) have to say, I can’t and won’t apologize for my right to do so.
Erik – Aren’t all people who purchase one-way tickets with cash subject to the scrutiny already?