What Part of “Constitution” Doesn’t Paul Nelson Understand?
In his bid to unseat Democrat Ron Kind (progressive score: 67/100, conservative score: 0/100), Republican Paul Nelson is doing everything he can to get some kind of attention. His latest remarks sure have done the trick. As the Associated Press reports:
“Racial profiling is one way that we can cut down on security risks,” Nelson said in an interview with WIXK Radio in New Richmond. Part of the interview was posted on Wisconsin Radio Network’s Web site. “It’s time to stop being politically correct here and be serious and tough on the war on terror.”
When asked how to tell what a Muslim male looks like, Nelson replied “Well, you know, if he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Mohammed, that’s a good start.”
Nelson told the AP he doesn’t understand why his remarks would be controversial. Muslim extremists have been at war with the United States for a quarter of a century, he said.
No one during World War II was afraid to say the United States was at war with Nazis, he added. He pointed out that the United States rounded up Japanese-Americans during World War II, and although he doesn’t condone that action, it shows that the nation has been tough in the past.
“Why we must continue to fight this war in a politically correct fashion is beyond my comprehension,” he said.
The opposite of correct is incorrect. And politics is about policy. So let’s think about policy correctness, then. What’s correct for American policy in a security situation? Well, it has to be constitutional; that’s not an option in our American system, because the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the United States Constitution mandates equal treatment under the law. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Racial, religious, or other profiling, when it results in unequal protection under the law, is verboten. It’s unconstitutional. You just can’t do it. Period. If Paul Nelson doesn’t know about this passage in the Constitution, what is he doing running for national office? If Paul Nelson does know about this passage in the Constitution, but doesn’t think it needs to be followed, then what business does he have running for an office, the constitutionally-mandated binding oath for which (Article VI) includes a pledge to support the Constitution?
Jim: Have you not pointed out the obsurdity of taking old white women out of line for inspection? Let’s get real here: The people who have plotted against us and, in some instances, have carried out those plots, are Muslim men ages 18-40. Not all, of course, but most in recent history.
Not old Mexican ladies with limps.
Not black babies born in Detroit.
Not Japanese businessmen who prefer a nice Scotch after work.
I’m not saying every Muslim man betwixt the ages of 18-40 is guilty or wants to kill all non-Muslims; I AM saying that, if the suspect’s description is a tall, blue-eyed man with shaggy blonde hair between the ages of 18 and 25, the cops aren’t looking for an old black woman with an Afro.
Paul Nelson may not get a medal for tact (the “Muhammed” comment), but he is correct. We’re not at war with the Swedish Bikini Team. (If we were, I’d definitely sign up for duty.)
“Not all, of course.”
Like the suspected anthrax terrorist: a white man.
Like the Unabomber: a white man
Like Timothy McVeigh: a white man.
Like that Waco fella, David Koresh, right? I think he was Muslim.
Boy, who was that terrorist in the subway in Tokyo? Some Muslim, right?
What’s your “recent history?” Is three decades recent? If so, rent Weather Underground and get back to me on that. The Weather Underground included tall, blue-eyed men with shaggy blond hair between the ages of 18 and 25.
Then there’s the Black Panthers, who while not being as terrorist as J. Edgar Hoover made them out to be, did espouse terror as an ideology at times and did include old black women with Afros.
Please read here and explain to me, in the form of a detailed protocol the TSA can actually follow, how you would in practical terms go about profiling for Muslims.
Kevin wrote “The people who have plotted against us and, in some instances, have carried out those plots, are Muslim men ages 18-40. Not all, of course, but most in recent history.”
Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim?
Thanks for that little piece of Right Wing Realitee (TM).
Three of the UK terror suspects were born in Britain with the names:
Don Stewart-Whyte
Oliver Savant
Brian Young
If anyone would like to share photographs of these terrorists so that we might be able to profile their looks in the future, as Kevin suggests, I’d appreciate it.
Sikhs wear turbans. Not muslims.
Wow, this is my neck of the woods. New Richmond is like 10 minutes away. I really need to get a clue on what’s going on in my local politics.
Here’s a pop quiz for y’all. I wish I could take credit, but a blogger named The Exorcist made it up.
1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Roger Staubach
c. Roger That!
d. Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Florence Joyner
c. George Foreman
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. Sonny Crockett
b. Ricardo Tubbs
c. Rick James
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Paula Jones
b. Monica Lewinsky
c. Kathleen Willey
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny
b. The Supreme Court
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In 2004 - the Spain Railway was bombed by:
a. Condoleeza Rice
b. Jerry Rice
c. Uncle Ben’s Rice
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. In 2005 the London Bus & Railway was bombed by:
a. Warren Oates
b. Hall and Oates
c. Quaker Oats
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Sorry it’s all scrunched up. Hard to read.
I hate it the way those blue-eyed Buddhists are ruining the airline industry.
Kevin,
Wow. That was really, really, long.
And beside the point. You chose your examples. Congratulations, you chose 12 examples of terrorist attacks, one assassination, one murder and one war going back to 1968 carried out by Muslims.
Going back to 1968, I can pick out 24 examples of terrorist attacks, more than one assassination, more than one murder and more than one war committed by individuals who were not Muslim.
Whoop Dee Doo.
Now why don’t you stop ignoring me. Please read here and tell me exactly how you’re going to set up a TSA operation to actually profile for Muslims. Give me an actual, useful operational protocol.
I’m not ignoring you, Jim. I’m back at work, and work is especially busy this year. I blame the drugs that make these kids all emotionally disturbed and crap like that.
You know me, Jim. You know I don’t “ignore” stuff. Well, not often, anyway.
But Jim, those are only RECENT examples. I could go back many centuries, if you would like me to but this is your blog and I won’t clog up the space. And I never said that ALL terrorist attacks were carried out by dark-skinned Muslim men. Jeez, Jim. I might be Conservative, but I’m not an idiot. (At least my Mom doesn’t think I am.)
However, you are being naive to think that, for the most part, terrorist attacks against the United States in the last half-century or so have been carried out by- drum roll, please- MUSLIM MEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 40. It’s not a secret, Jim. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a fact. It’s in the news archives for you and anyone else to peruse. You seem to think I’m insinuating that ALL terrorists, regardless of motive/intention/sexual orientation are Muslim men. No. That’s NOT what I’m insinuating, but I see how my comments would lead you to believe that. I apologize for the ambiguity.
I’m speaking of people who: Hijack planes, hijack planes and ram them into buildings, behead “nonbelievers”, strap bombs to their chests and blow-up stores filled with innocent people, use children as human shields, threaten to wipe an entire country off the map simply because the citizens of that country are a) not Muslim, and/or b) Jewish, etc.
Most serial killers are white males between the ages of 25 and 50. Does that mean that all white males fitting this chronological description are serial killers? Of course not! But history tells us that, most of the time, a serial killer is a white male between the ages of 25 and 50.
Yes, Timothy McVeigh was white. Atruro Resendez-Ramirez (The Railroad Killer) was/is Hispanic. You’ve proven that yes, there are exceptions to most every rule. Congratulations.
Protocol:
* Young men of Middle Eastern descent, ages 18-40.
* Pay particular attention to those who have one-way tickets, visas, etc.
* Look for behavioral indicators: nervousness, sweating, looking around frequently, etc.
* Look for unusual carry-on item combinations that could be used as a make-shift detonation/explosive device.
This isn’t a comprehensive list, nor am I a qualified profiler. This is simply my answer to your question, Jim.
Flame away.
However, you are being naive to think that, for the most part, terrorist attacks against the United States in the last half-century or so have been carried out by- drum roll, please- MUSLIM MEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 40…
Should read, “have NOT been.” Freudian slip?
I’m not going to “flame” you. I’m going to “respond.”
You have a lot of words that boil down to four items in a protocol:
1. “Young men of Middle Eastern descent, ages 18-40.”
2. Patterns in tickets
3. Behavioral indicators
4. Carry-on items
#2, #3 and #4 have nothing to do with being Muslim. You say we have to find Muslims. How do we find Muslims?
#1 is not an item that can be used in an operational protocol. “Operational” means directly observable. People don’t have their geneologies and ages tattooed on their foreheads. How will you, practically, look for this? Should people be required to bring certified family ethnic histories with them? Even for “Middle Eastern Men,” the protocol won’t work.
But for you above it’s not just about “Middle Eastern Men.” I notice that you have done a shifty shift: from “Muslim” to “Young Men of Middle Eastern Descent.” You know, of course, that a number of Muslim terrorist suspects in the UK are not of Middle Eastern descent. This is not only referring to this month’s incident, but going back to Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber.” You also know, of course, that Jose Padilla is not of Middle Eastern descent.
No, you were talking about “Muslims.” So give me a protocol for “Muslims.” How do you find a “Muslim” in your protocol?
So, Kevin wants to produce a racist profile to gum up the works and pull out huge numbers of people who are completely innocent, and subject them to extra harsh treatment just because of their ethnic background and religion in spite of the fact that, as Jim has shown, the system wouldn’t catch anything close to all the terrorists.
So, in one shot, we would get to 1) Rip the Constitution to shreds, and 2) have an anti-terrorist system that doesn’t work.
Illegal, anti-freedom, and ineffective. That’s the Republican War on Not Being Afraid for you.
If someone wants fo profile me when I get on an airplane, it’s fine with me. If it will make flying safer and protect the economy from the wild flutuations that occured as a ripple effect from the airline industry, please, please, profile me. I suspect I have already been profiled, when I asked to have a camera hand inspected instead of x rayed, when I arived at a gate at the last minute and got pulled out of the line for extra thorough search…
Oh, the extra harsh treatment I have been subjected to: people taking my shoes for chemical tests, people actually looking through my carry-on bag, the indignity, the horror….but I am willing to make such an extreme sacrifice to help make that plane just a little safer when I get on it.
Iroquois Honky, the fact that you are not bothered if the law is not applied equally is not a good reason for the law not to be applied equally. In a system of laws, one person does not get to speak up and say that it’s okay if the law is ignored. What other people think matters, and more than that, what the law says matters.
If you really are not bothered by unequal protection under the law, then what you ought to do is support a Constitutional amdendment to undo the guarantee of equal protection under the law. Otherwise, you’re just talking.
You’ll take a little bit of safety instead of your liberty, huh? Benjamin Franklin had a few choice words to say about people like you.
Patricia: Oh, how I was hoping you would respond! I’m still waiting for the proof (it’s been almost 2 years now, c’mon!) that I’m a sexist that calls women “bitches”, etc. Oh, and I promise not to kill and eat your neighbor’s daughter, or anyone’s daughter, son, mother, father, lover, etc. Oh, and Patricia, if a few innocent people (myself included) are inconvenienced for the safety of the masses, I can live with that. But Patricia, please enlighten me as to YOUR miraculous solution to the problem. And yes, it IS a problem, whether you want to admit it or not. You’re quick to criticise (as usual), but slow to offer proof and/or a solution (as usual).
Jim: The flame comment wasn’t directed at you. I knew you would stay civil, even though I tend to not stay civil at times. The comment was directed at others. Okay, I waive the white flag with “Muslim.” Point: Jim. There are Muslims of every color, as far as I can recall. I’ll stick with “Middle Eastern descent.” Do you agree that the last 3 suggestions I offered are at least viable? Or not?
Like I said, I’m not a professional profiler. My opinions were offered as OPINIONS because Jim requested them. I have absolutely no connections to inspectors, airport personel, Molly Hatchet, or TSA officials.
And Jim: Yes, there are exceptions to every rule (Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, etc.) No system will be perfect, no system will be foolproof. But a system that reduces the chances of another 9/11 (whether on that scale or larger or smaller) is worth it. And yes, innocent people will be accused/inconvenienced; but I have faith that our justice system will work in their favor (yes, I realize that there are exceptions to that as well!).
But if you go to “Middle Eastern descent,” then your connection between terror and the people you would profile gets even weaker.
You cannot have it both ways.
What’s the color of your skin, Kevin? It would be awfully handy for you to say you’re ok with profiling if it turns out you won’t be the one being harassed.
How can you tell if someone is Muslim? They know how to tell, but it is harder for us in a different culture. For one thing you can look at their passports. If it says Saudi Arabia, they are definately Muslim. For countries with Christian populations, the name is usually the clue. Again the people who live in those countries can tell you, this family name is Muslim, this family name is Christian, this family has both Christian and Muslim branches. You can look at the first names. Mohamed is a dead giveaway, there are other names from the Qoran not as obvious: Hassan, Hussein, Fatima, Gassem.
I think you have to approach the problem from two directions at once. First given absolute authority, how can you make air travel safer–make no mistake, it is vital to our national well-being. But are you actually making air travel safer and not just inventing some bureaucratic mumbo jumbo so you can say you took action. Then second, how much of that is, or how can you modify it to be, within the constraints of the constitution, and what is your Plan B for the long term for when all those pesky consitutional issues hit the fan–and they WILL hit the fan eventually.
The other obvious solution is to profile everyone equally, hire enough people at the airports to do thorough searches on everyone who gets on, and raise the fares and/or safety surcharges. Oh, yeah, also prepare for even longer lines.
Is making air traffic safer really vital to our national well-being? Really?
It’s more vital than upholding the Constitution of the United States of America?
You know, I just don’t think that increasing air traffic is especially vital to our national well-being. I think that if we left it as it is, our national well-being would be pretty much okay.
Kevin, it seems that you can’t really respond to Jim’s points, and are admitting as much.
Iroquois Honky put it more elequently than I, Jim and Fruktaka. Blame my impending marriage for my clouded and muddled thought process that weakly transforms itself onto a computer screen.
But Jim, I don’t mind being “profiled” as long as I know I’m innocent. It’s like drug testing- I don’t mind being tested ’cause I don’t use drugs. My skin right now is a combination of shades- a brown residue left over from a weekend on Mackinac Island over the summer and red from overseeing 7th/8th grade students run 1 mile on the school track yesterday. So, if someone with skin tones resembling mine does something naughty, I’m screwed. Ugh.
Kevin: you don’t mind drug testing, but do you mind if i look around on your computer to see if you’ve been looking at porn or stealing mp3s or writing things against any par tof the government or suggesting that minors do or should drink alcohol or telling people how to make phone calls for cheaper? do you mind if i bug your speedometer to see if you speed? do you mind if i just generally invade your privacy to see if you ever in the slightest do anything wrong? keep in mind that, depending where you live, various forms of sodomy — including oral sex with your wife, or any form of sexual contact with your fiancee — may still be illegal. do you mind if i set up a camera in your bedroom to see if you do these things?
actually, the better parallel is this: all the things you claim you do with your fiancee are legal, but if you punch her during sex, that’s illegal. so we’re going to watch you for a few nights just to make sure you aren’t punching her. is that OK?
the point of privacy is that you get it whether or not you need it. and just because you want it doesn’t mean you’re guilty. refusal to submit to a search is not the same thing as admitting you have something to hide. I don’t want to undergo drug tests, not because of what a test might find (nothing) but becaues i don’t want to imply that they have the right to the information in the first place. just like i don’t want the feds watching me make my move on a woman, or humble myself to my god. it’s not their business.
and if i could hide my ethnic background comfortably, i might. i come from a historically violent people, and they’re known to have committed many crimes. It is not worthy of doubt that i am descended from rapists and murderers. luckily, they look different than the people currently on the top of the wanted lists, so i don’t have to be fearful or ashamed due to the crimes of my ancestors.
and another problem with racial or religious profiling is that there are not always definitive tests for guilt of the actual crime, so people use the profiling as “good enough”. innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean “innocent after we giv eup on trying to prove you guilty, but treated as guity on reasonable suspicion until then” … and religious, racial, social, fashionable, gender, sexual orientation, language of choice, cigarette brand, and coffee preference profiling are each, or even all taken together, a pretty far cry from reasonable suspicion.
Vynce: I read your post and I agree with you. But I’m not talking about what people do behind closed doors; I’m talking about people boarding planes with the intent to kill others. I’m talking about people who WANT to kill others solely because they don’t like them/their religion/their country. I’m talking about preventing people from dying, not preventing people from cumming in their homes.
And if I let loose any secrets as to what I do with my fiancee behind closed doors (”all the things you claim you do with your fiancee are legal”) I must have been drunk. And no, I don’t want you to set up a camera in my room. You wouldn’t get much footage anyway; I lead a pretty boring life. (Work, work out, come home, shower, eat, watch Days Of Our Lives, read, sleep).
but how can you tell people boarding planes with an intent to kill others from people boarding planes with an intent to see grandma? people plot the conspiracies behind closed doors first; if we had been in their bedroom watching for blowjobs, we’d have caught them with their blueprints down.
My privacy is my privacy whether I’m in my house or on a plane. there’s an extent to which I’m willing to let them look out for my safety; but they should profile me based on whether I have anything actually dangerous on my person, not the color of my skin, name of my god, size of my ears, or cut of my jib.
(for the record, i was not saying you had claimed you did or didn’t do any particular thing; that was part of the hypothetical i was setting up. as in, “let’s say we ask what you do in the bedroom, and you tell us, and all those things are legal…” )
Didn’t Tom Ridge (former head of Homeland “IN”Security) just say over the weekend that the “shoe scan” was completely bogus. Couldn’t we just check to see if their last name is Bin Laden and detain them and investigate …. oh I’m sorry, our policy on them is to just load their luggage on a private plane and say “Have a nice trip.” Why are we still talking about this, we should be discussing Jon Bennet Ramsey. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Fractata, for an idea of what 9/11 did to the nation pull out the financial statements of anything for the last 10 years. You will be able to see 2001 without looking at the years at the bottom of the line graph. Look at anything, airport revenues is the most obvious loser–a lot of airlines did not break even, the airport income took hit as well, this city still has two airlines in bankrupcy and some Canadian airlines were just getting over 9/ll when SARS hit toronto–still in bankrupcy. Pull out the records for a municipality, you will see the dip in revenues, or look at something idiotic like casinos, again you can see the dip in the charts without looking at the year.
Vynce, we’re not talking about airports doing something nasty like putting cameras in your bedroom. No one expects that ever. We’re just talking about who to search more thoroughly at the airport. People do expect to have their baggage searched at an airport. They don’t search everyone, they just do additional searches at random. Last time I flew, they picked 1 out of 10 at random to inspect their carry-on bag. The Arabs are saying, don’t pick us to do an extra thorough search just becasue we’re Arab.
So the people who are screaming about profiling are not screaming about something odious like cameras in their bedrooms. They are screaming about someone looking inside their backpack in a public airport before they get on an airplane. The black screeners always pick me and I am blue eye blonde. Go figure.
Vynce: I was just tryin’ to be funny, seeing as how I didn’t divulge any secrets. I knew you were just settin’ up a hypothetical situation. Didn’t mean any harm.
Are you a lawyer? I didn’t think so. Let me tell you why you’re wrong when you say the Constitution absoluely forbids racial profiling. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law.” When a government statute has the effect of creating a “suspect class,” i.e., treating one class of persons differently than others, a court will apply what’s called “strict scrutiny” analysis. The government must show there is a compelling interest at stake and the only way to achieve the interest is through the legislation. It’s a heavy burden but if the government meets the burden, the law will pass the “strict scrutiny” test and will be held constitutional. So, you see, it’s not “verboten” prohibited under the Constitution.
A quick perusal of the posts here indicates there are many “useful idiots” (as Lenin termed ‘bleeding-heart’ types) here. Newsflash: Timothy McVeigh died several years ago. He was an isolated lunatic and not part of an ORGANIZED, WORLD WIDE, TRANS-NATIONAL ORGANIZATION dedicated to the violent destruction of the very liberties you lay awake at night fretting about losing because some watchful government employee chooses to pull a muslim off to the side for a search rather than a poor old white lady.