In a moment of excessive sarcasm I was going to title this post "44 Percent of Americans are Scared Morons," but, wisely I think, I elected not to. Still, these poll results aren't exactly encouraging.
The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. Forty-eight percent said liberties should not be restricted in any way.
The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.
I have to say, forty-four percent is higher then I would expect from a poll like this. The question is somewhat vague; I'm going to give some of these people credit for thinking perhaps the surveyers meant scanning their email, or something similarly unobtrusive. That twenty-seven percent favor requiring them to register where they live doesn't surprise me. I'm sure if you asked a question as to how many thought we should be shipping them off to "internment" camps, any number above zero would be a bit disappointing but not surprising. As for the last two...well, racial profiling is a touchy subject, not easily defined, and honestly for the idea of infiltrating Muslim organizations...clearly that would be one of the techniques law enforcement agencies might actually use to pursue terrorists, out of necessity and not pre-emptively to beat the bushes for terrorists, so I'm not sure how valuable that question is either. Still...
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.
Well... fancy that. That's one element of the survey that doesn't surprise me at all.
Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.
While researchers said they were not surprised by the overall level of support for curtailing civil liberties, they were startled by the correlation with religion and exposure to television news. "We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding," Shanahan said.
Uh, I'm not too surprised by this either. I would like to know how many of these TV news watchers were watching Fox, but frankly, television news is crap. If you want the most amount of coverage with the least amount of content, turn to television news. I suppose if everyone was watching the Jim Lehrer news hour, Frontline, Nightline, Charlie Rose, or Bill Moyers (to name a few of the quality shows out there) that might be different, but I have a feeling CNN and Fox are the real culprits here. To be fair, it is difficult to fit as much information on the screen with the huge banners, waving American flags, and stock, sports and headline tickers going.
Anyway, I guess the problem I have with this is that there is a significant portion of the population who think that a vague, intangible and uncertain terrorist threat is a justification for drastic and questionably effective measures. Whose civil liberties do we curtail? Everyone who's a converted Muslim, including the entire Nation of Islam? Anyone of Arabic descent Muslim or not? Muslims born here, or only the ones who have recently immigrated? Second or third generation, or more? Anyway, I'll hang my hat with the 48% who don't believe any American's civil liberties should be curtailed. Giving up our freedoms (or anyone else's for that matter) to defend our freedoms has always sounded a little absurd to me anyway.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm for it... as long as we do the same for all white males. You never know who is going to be the next Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols!
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security!" - Ben Franklin
He probably should have added "other people's liberty" too. But, oh, what did that old fart know anyway?
Alright, I want to join in the fun.
Christians wary of Muslims? Where have I heard that before? Crusades perhaps...
Alex makes a good point at the end. Is it freedom for all or freedom for some?
As far as new Muslim or Arabic immigrants: I feel all immegrants, despite origin, should go through some sort of screening process (and I'm sure they do). I also think the intelligence agencies are already screening emails and keeping an eye on certain organizations. Racial profiling is indeed a tricky thing, but you have to ask yourself: If another terrorist attack occurs, what race of people would be the most probable instigator?
See that's the thing. That's why I don't think "racial" profiling is as god-awful as some liberals make it out to be. I mean, the people most trying to kill Americans right now are Arabic, or at least non-white. To either screen everybody or nobody out of some sense of fairness is absurd. The problem is not taking it too far; you don't wanting to yanking off Grandma's veil to check for bombs. But I think a young Arabic guy with a questionable history is fair game.
Anyway I don't get this kind of stuff anyway. Let's be honest; the threat from terrorism can NEVER rise to the level threat the Soviets presented to us during the Cold War, and yet we managed to get through that without fundamentally changing our society, or rounding up all brown people everywhere. Granted, the Soviets were not at all times attempting to kill us, but the fact is if they wanted to they could have killed ALL of us(and we could have returned the favor.) Terrorists will never, barring obtaining a deadly virus a la "24" have that ability. So we should just...well, relax a little.
Well right, as long as there is something beyond a person's race that they are using to determine a possible threat. It can't just be a young Arabic guy, he has to have some questionable history as you said.
Well, that's a disheartening little anecdote! But I understand. On a flight home recently I spent 45 minutes waiting to go through a "special" screening, along with a woman and her young boy, an older arabic woman in a wheelchair, two young hispanics, and a black woman my age. The screeners seemed as annoyed with my presence there as I was, and I'm not sure that it did that much good. I give the screeners and the people who try to figure this stuff out a lot of leeway because it's a tough job and they'd rather err on the side of caution, but honestly there has to be more efficient and effective things we could be doing.
Post a Comment