In reply to:


In reply to:

(number6)
the next step will be for all Arabs to have wear "Red Crescent" badges, and then ...



That will never (or shouldn't) happen to US citizens.



Really? Are you sure?
Reports indicate that some of the "Arabs" rounded up are in fact legimately in the US and are in some cases, "legal aliens" who may have been Green Card holders.

Also, when was the last time you studied your own countries history about events such as the McCarthy "trials" in the 50's and other similar "round ups"? [e.g. post-Pearl Harbour].

Its happened before then as well - recall before and even after slavery was abolished in the US, how in some parts any "Black" person was still rounded up and treated as cattle? - even if, as some slaves had - they managed to legally obtain their equivalent of a "Green Card" and were therefore citizens of the US with all the entitlementsand rights that carried?
Even afte rslavery was abolished, racial segration was still practised openly even after it was outlawed by Federal laws?

Sure, these folks didn't have to wear or do anything special - their skin colour was their badge.


In reply to:


I don't think having anyone wear a red crescent badge would do anything other than possibly publicly humiliate or aggravate the person wearing it, and I think it would be an extreme measure that isn't necessary.



Ask the Japanese who were rounded up post Pearl Harbour - do you think they felt grateful about how their **own** country (the US) treated them then and later - once the war was over? Even before the detentions happened they were openly villified by many of their fellow countrymen - those same US citizens who were willing to fight and die post Pearl-Harbour to defend the "freedoms" that their fellow "Japanese" US citizens were actively being denied.

You are right it is/was an extreme measure, but extreme measures have a habbit of becoming the "norm" in times of "war".

And, are you not currently, in your own presidents words, "engaged in a war on terror"?


In reply to:


Racial profiling against a country's own citizens is wrong, since it violates their own basic rights, but "racial profiling" (as long as it is to be expected) against visitors to maintain safety is okay.



Racial profiling of any countries citizens is plain wrong - it violates all manner of basic human rights laws.

Human Rights laws upon which the US is supposedly founded on and which in the name of upholding such laws, the US undertakes all manner of miltary actions around the globe to "stop" such rights abuses in "other" countries.

Basic rules like all "men" are created equal which are part of the US constitution.

To distinguish between the citizens of the US and the citizens of other countries in the US when justifying these sorts of actions is a mighty fine line to draw.

I don't dispute the US governments (and peoples) rights to draw this line, but the US government runs the risk of some very serious consequences because of it.

When you find that as a US citizen abroad (if and when you ever travel abroad), you are required to register, be fingerprinted and photographed on entry to a foreign country and be treated as a potential terrorist whereever you go, even amoungst your countries former "allies" - you will have no-one else to thank but your government for that sad state of affairs.

In reply to:


Since these people have no legal right to come here at all, and since they are here by their own choice and at our will, it does not violate their basic rights. If they don't want to abide our rules, they don't have to come play.



Yes, you are correct, the visitors to the US will have come under the prevailing rules of the time, which did not require such measures. These rules allowed them into the country and they had every legal right to do so - your government (the INS in particular) after all, did let them in past the "borders" of the US - they didn't for the most part, sneak in via a shipping container or in the trunk of some car going across the Mexican border.

And, yes, now the rules have changed, those people may who are there now may chose to leave the US because the polcies and rules have changed.

I point out that if a country wants to prolong an existing economic downturn, discouraging (legal) visitors to come who will therefore not spend their money in your country *is* a good way to ensure this.

The short term consequences may be safer-feeling streets for some, it will have afar longer economic effect far beyond the short term benefit of "locking up some Arabs".

In reply to:


If you want a superpower to pick on about human rights policy, take a look at China.



Well, amoungst many of the differences between the US and China - China does not hold itself out as "the defender of the free world" and "defender of universal human rights" - the US does -so the US is even more culpable than China when it choses to act differenty at home from the way it acts abroad.

This is more of a case with the US right now saying "do as I say", not "do as I do".

Hardly the ideal role model for "democratic and human rights for all" is it?

Yes, China has a lot to answer for, but THATS another thread.

The topic at hand is the US governments internment of "Arabs". - if you want to discuss China, start another thread.