Ann Coulter: Torture & Patriot Act are "Great"

[bingley]

I eat neocons for breakfast.

Hey, keep it in the bedroom! We don't need a, um, blow-by-blow account of your honeymoon with Ann.

Da Bing

 

[Phil502]

Yes, and mass killings are horrible atrocities... but that does not validate any argument in favor of racial profiling.



QUOTE]
Profiling based solely on race, no. Profiling based on say, men age 20 to 50 from certain middle eastern countries, non-Americans, with other factors that I don't know about, yes. At least it makes more sense to me to profile based on likelyhood. There is a large group coming out and saying we hate America and we want to kill you and they have delivered on their statements. I find that better then checking grandpa's colostomy bag and Mrs. Meir the retired schoolteacher from Memphis, bra and panties.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I find it interesting that some of you are still focused on "racial profiling" when others of us who are advocating profiling have repeatedly said that it's not about race or religion, it's about INTENTION, which is why the Israelis have been so successful in stopping aerial terrorism with their airline. The sort of mindless rote-procedure show security measures instituted by the TSA are EXACTLY what the enemy hoped to accomplish with the bombing attempts - which succeeded even while they didn't work as hoped - because we are crippling ourselves using measures that don't work and decrease our faith in our government, a classic aim of revolutionary terror tactics.

 

[bingley]

I find it interesting that some of you are still focused on "racial profiling" when others of us who are advocating profiling have repeatedly said that it's not about race or religion, it's about INTENTION, which is why the Israelis have been so successful in stopping aerial terrorism with their airline.

It's not just on this forum. It's in the public debate and probably actual implementation as well. When it comes time to sort out a likely bad guy, in spite of all our advances we seem to jump to race or to other factors that mark the subject as "not one of us." Why is that? We are scared of the foreign, of the other races, of the other religions. Also, our lives are not so integrated with these other people that we know just because someone is this faith/color/etc. he is not a terrorist, because we know a bunch of people who are this faith/color/etc. and they're all OK. In other words, maybe too many Americans are racist/xenophobe/ignorant to make intelligent profiling work. Instead of catching a guy with a bomb, we'll just catch brown guys going to Yellowstone for vacation.

Alternatively, we are just really dumb. We can't tell a good guy from a bad guy, and so we are just going to grope everyone and use the naked scanner on them, giving everybody cancer. Take your shoes off, take your laptop out of your bag, no liquids in bottles more than four ounces...

Da Bing

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I find it interesting that some of you are still focused on "racial profiling" when others of us who are advocating profiling have repeatedly said that it's not about race or religion, it's about INTENTION, which is why the Israelis have been so successful in stopping aerial terrorism with their airline. The sort of mindless rote-procedure show security measures instituted by the TSA are EXACTLY what the enemy hoped to accomplish with the bombing attempts - which succeeded even while they didn't work as hoped - because we are crippling ourselves using measures that don't work and decrease our faith in our government, a classic aim of revolutionary terror tactics.

The application of criminal profiling requires knowledge about the person... if you wanted to profile a serial killer, the clues would be gathered by the evidence found at the crime scene... the way the body was left, the angle at which wounds were inflicted, any odd rituals performed that lead to psychological correlations. By analyzing the evidence that is gathered after a crime, specific assumptions can be made about the profile of the perpetrator. The FBI term for criminal profiling is not even profiling, its something like criminal investigation analysis or something similar.

Since that cannot be applied before something happens, racial profiling is one of the only types of profiling that can actually be applied to a large population before a crime is committed... at, say, a TSA terminal...

You can use other methods... like watching for physical reactions, emotions, possible suspicious activity, etc etc... but that still is not criminal profiling... watching for suspicious activity is not profiling... someone who is acting suspicious is acting suspicious, regardless of their profile...

Even taking someone who is acting suspicious aside and asking them probing in an attempt to gauge emotional response is not profiling...

So what type of profiling is applicable other than racial profiling when speaking about TSA screenings? I can understand background checks, and giving people that have previously committed crimes more attention than others... but that is about the extent of profiling that can be applied, and I have never even heard that form of profiling questioned when it comes to airport security screenings.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The application of criminal profiling requires knowledge about the person... if you wanted to profile a serial killer, the clues would be gathered by the evidence found at the crime scene... the way the body was left, the angle at which wounds were inflicted, any odd rituals performed that lead to psychological correlations. By analyzing the evidence that is gathered after a crime, specific assumptions can be made about the profile of the perpetrator. The FBI term for criminal profiling is not even profiling, its something like criminal investigation analysis or something similar.

Since that cannot be applied before something happens, racial profiling is one of the only types of profiling that can actually be applied to a large population before a crime is committed... at, say, a TSA terminal...

You can use other methods... like watching for physical reactions, emotions, possible suspicious activity, etc etc... but that still is not criminal profiling... watching for suspicious activity is not profiling... someone who is acting suspicious is acting suspicious, regardless of their profile...

Even taking someone who is acting suspicious aside and asking them probing in an attempt to gauge emotional response is not profiling...

So what type of profiling is applicable other than racial profiling when speaking about TSA screenings? I can understand background checks, and giving people that have previously committed crimes more attention than others... but that is about the extent of profiling that can be applied, and I have never even heard that form of profiling questioned when it comes to airport security screenings.

The Israelis screen every passenger ticketed on their airline and have a very efficient system for weeding out terrorists. THEY call it profiling, and race doesn't have much, if anything to do with they way they make their determinations.

 

[rambone]

I'm all for profiling, if they are profiling for Probable Cause of an actual crime.

Sweating and getting pissed off at a nosy government agent do not constitute a crime.

Israel does what they do because the people are not free, and they do not have a Bill of Rights or a constitution.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Ahem: citation please. Or else state that it is only your opinion.

She's an IDIOT!!!!!

If she turns you OFF, why do you whine, and yet stll have her turned ON !?!?!?!?!? Libtard troll tactics. Or else Sol Alinsky's.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

"We will DO whatever we damned-well WANT to do."

"The application of criminal profiling requires knowledge about the person...<snip> assaying the "evidence found at the crime scene..." & " the odd rituals performed that lead to psychological correlations." <does Alla U Akh-boring come into play as evidence, hollered at or after the killings?> ... < continuing:>"... specific assumptions can be made about the profile of the perpetrator." <Yup: that works for me.> "The FBI term for criminal profiling is not even profiling ... ... since that cannot be applied before something happens, racial profiling is one of the only types of profiling that can actually be applied to a large population before a crime is committed... at, say, a TSA terminal..." <The phrase, "every time they get a chance, they'll try to kil us [folk not of their mindset]" would seem apt here.> And you drone on & on. But whatever it is, if it saves OUR lives, it is worth itg, especially since ["they"] don't givAdamn about their own. Heck, "groping" may even be good for your mental health. L1S1

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The Israelis screen every passenger ticketed on their airline and have a very efficient system for weeding out terrorists. THEY call it profiling, and race doesn't have much, if anything to do with they way they make their determinations.

They "profile" mostly by age from what I understand, a concept that has never been shown to increase their frequency of success... Do you realize Osama Bin Laden would not fall into the age profile of a terrorist?

The Israelis are better at airport security PERIOD. It does not revolve around profiling exclusively - it revolves around the strict application of more developed techniques... Israeli airport security very methodically questions every potential passenger to a much greater degree than the TSA... The analysis of microexpression I can agree with in practice - because the individual's behavior is what is assessed. Calling that profiling I would even accept, but generally that does not fall into the category of controversial.

When it comes down to it, the disagreement with racial profiling does not impact our ability to apply successful security measures... We can still apply those measures without racial profiling, even if the media only focuses on racial profiling... the media focuses on racial profiling not because they are trying to make it out to be the only form of security - but because it is controversial, and airing controversial things gains viewers, which leads to ad revenue.... Nobody argues against accepted means of security, so covering that would be boring - leading to less money.

<does Alla U Akh-boring come into play as evidence, hollered at or after the killings?> ... < continuing:> <Yup: that works for me.> <The phrase, "every time they get a chance, they'll try to kil us [folk not of their mindset]" would seem apt here.> And you drone on & on. But whatever it is, if it saves OUR lives, it is worth itg, especially since ["they"] don't givAdamn about their own. Heck, "groping" may even be good for your mental health. L1S1

No, religious affiliation does not come into play as evidence, since we are not looking for the criminals that hijacked the planes during 9/11 - they are already deceased. Since they are dead - their profiles are meaningless to us, because we are no longer looking for those individuals.

The phrase "every time they get a chance, they'll try to kil us" - is applied to who? Who is they? I have issue with that type of broad thinking, because it always tends to generalize entire groups of people that did nothing wrong, and do not intend to cause harm.

Someone that believes racial or religious background is a determining factor in terrorism - ignores terrorists that are not of that background. Religious and racial profiling can make us less safe.....

The same sort of broken logic is used by anti-gunners to argue for gun control.... people get killed with guns.... criminals that commit murders with guns possess guns... therefore guns are scary, and we should control and watch anyone that possesses guns... When you make broad speculation based on a correlation - without the existence of a causal relationship - you can never expect for that speculation to prove true.

Just like possessing a gun does not cause someone to become a criminal - an individual's age, sex, religion, or political affiliation does not cause them to become a terrorist. Anyone who can demonstrate a causal relationship between a select group of people and terrorist activities will change my mind.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm all for profiling, if they are profiling for Probable Cause of an actual crime.

Sweating and getting pissed off at a nosy government agent do not constitute a crime.

Israel does what they do because the people are not free, and they do not have a Bill of Rights or a constitution.

I'm curious if you've ever entered a country outside of North America? I'm not exactly a world traveler, myself, but I've been to a few countries in my life where physical security was an issue. The first time I ever got "patted down" was LEAVING Seoul, Republic of Korea in 1975. This is speculation on my part, but I believe your comment stems from the fact that you've never lived in a country (before now) where there was a known physical danger to the citizenry from an outside source. I'm quite certain the citizens of Israel do not have the same freedoms we do; I'm sure you're wrong about Israel not having a constitution. It may not be the same as OUR constitution, but they abide by the rule of law, unlike their close neighbors, for example. And they've been under threat of annihilation for practically their entire existence as a modern nation. And they are certainly more free than any of their neighboring countries, except for Lebanon-that-was-before-Hezbollah.

 

[Expat]

They "profile" mostly by age from what I understand, a concept that has never been shown to increase their frequency of success... Do you realize Osama Bin Laden would not fall into the age profile of a terrorist?

Given that none of the old guys that happily send others out to blow up civilians ever do so themselves may play into that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

They "profile" mostly by age from what I understand, a concept that has never been shown to increase their frequency of success... Do you realize Osama Bin Laden would not fall into the age profile of a terrorist?

The Israelis are better at airport security PERIOD. It does not revolve around profiling exclusively - it revolves around the strict application of more developed techniques... Israeli airport security very methodically questions every potential passenger to a much greater degree than the TSA... The analysis of microexpression I can agree with in practice - because the individual's behavior is what is assessed. Calling that profiling I would even accept, but generally that does not fall into the category of controversial.

When it comes down to it, the disagreement with racial profiling does not impact our ability to apply successful security measures... We can still apply those measures without racial profiling, even if the media only focuses on racial profiling... the media focuses on racial profiling not because they are trying to make it out to be the only form of security - but because it is controversial, and airing controversial things gains viewers, which leads to ad revenue.... Nobody argues against accepted means of security, so covering that would be boring - leading to less money.



No, religious affiliation does not come into play as evidence, since we are not looking for the criminals that hijacked the planes during 9/11 - they are already deceased. Since they are dead - their profiles are meaningless to us, because we are no longer looking for those individuals.

The phrase "every time they get a chance, they'll try to kil us" - is applied to who? Who is they? I have issue with that type of broad thinking, because it always tends to generalize entire groups of people that did nothing wrong, and do not intend to cause harm.

Someone that believes racial or religious background is a determining factor in terrorism - ignores terrorists that are not of that background. Religious and racial profiling can make us less safe.....

The same sort of broken logic is used by anti-gunners to argue for gun control.... people get killed with guns.... criminals that commit murders with guns possess guns... therefore guns are scary, and we should control and watch anyone that possesses guns... When you make broad speculation based on a correlation - without the existence of a causal relationship - you can never expect for that speculation to prove true.

Just like possessing a gun does not cause someone to become a criminal - an individual's age, sex, religion, or political affiliation does not cause them to become a terrorist. Anyone who can demonstrate a causal relationship between a select group of people and terrorist activities will change my mind.

You appear to be agreeing with me (or I with you, depending upon which order these posts came in) but we apparently have different views of application. Have you ever played a police-type video game where you have to engage targets quickly and the game inserts "innocents" which are not targets? Any security is the same game (with the ratios of innocents to bad guys vastly different, of course) wherein the good security process must identify the bad guys but not hurt the innocents in the process. The current TSA security process hurts the innocents while being obvious enough to allow bad guys enough information to circumvent the security measures, if they care to make the effort. This is exactly the opposite of the way the system should work.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You appear to be agreeing with me (or I with you, depending upon which order these posts came in) but we apparently have different views of application. Have you ever played a police-type video game where you have to engage targets quickly and the game inserts "innocents" which are not targets? Any security is the same game (with the ratios of innocents to bad guys vastly different, of course) wherein the good security process must identify the bad guys but not hurt the innocents in the process. The current TSA security process hurts the innocents while being obvious enough to allow bad guys enough information to circumvent the security measures, if they care to make the effort. This is exactly the opposite of the way the system should work.

On that point we can also agree... and I think quite a bit of that stems from an attempt to be politically correct... they just go about it the wrong way...

In my worthless opinion, many of the TSA checks in our country are nothing more than theatrics... When they force an old lady to strip down, they are attempting to make the statement "hey look, we do this to everyone - so it is fair, and that makes it alright".

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Given that none of the old guys that happily send others out to blow up civilians ever do so themselves may play into that.

While that is often the case, it is not exclusively so...

Most violent crime is committed by young males, but recently women have been used much more frequently to commit terrorist attacks.

If we profile based on things like age and sex, people that are outside those categories will be less prone to detection. While it does not have to lead to less suspicion of excluded categories, when you are methodically profiling large groups of people every day, it would likely have an impact.

So, we cannot deny a correlation exists, but profiling based on that type of broad characteristic can also lead to flaws in security practice.

 

[Titanium Man]

Anyone who hates Ann, really shouldn't own a gun!!

It's simple, she stands up for your gun rights.

Just because she rubs someone the wrong way on some other issue, they want to throw the baby out with the bath water??



I always get a big kick when I run into someone who is a liberal, and owns and enjoys weapons. Actually, the two do NOT go together.

My Doctor put it the right way. What a great lady!! Quote "Any of my liberal friends on Facebook, I immediately defriended" End Quote

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think we have too many "Liberals" here; what I do think we have are idealists who want their paradise NOW, and don't realize they are never going to get it because humans are imperfect and so is everything that humans create. Our government, as originally constituted, was the best we were ever going to get. We're lucky it took us 200 years to get to this point. Perhaps, if we are very fortunate, we can gain back some ground in the future, but societies based on this planet are never going to be the utopia that we'd like to see.

 

[Denny347]

If she turns you OFF, why do you whine, and yet stll have her turned ON !?!?!?!?!? Libtard troll tactics. Or else Sol Alinsky's.

What????? I speak English on this board. Turns me off? What are you talking about? I watched the clip in the OP and commented. How it that trolling? Liberal? Well, I guess being a libertarian is seen as being a "Libtard" as you call it by those who are far in right field I guess. BTW, using childish names like "Libtard" only exposes your shortcomings. "libtard" = Liberal Retard. Retard is poor language considering it is a slight against those with mental problems. But since you are still a newbie I'll let this slide this time. Mr. Alinsky's first name is Saul...not Sol.

 

[Denny347]

Anyone who hates Ann, really shouldn't own a gun!!

It's simple, she stands up for your gun rights.

Just because she rubs someone the wrong way on some other issue, they want to throw the baby out with the bath water??



I always get a big kick when I run into someone who is a liberal, and owns and enjoys weapons. Actually, the two do NOT go together.

My Doctor put it the right way. What a great lady!! Quote "Any of my liberal friends on Facebook, I immediately defriended" End Quote

Wow, way to paint life in either black or white terms. Yes, I do not like Ann. I have heard her speak and I believe she says many of these things to sell books. So that makes me unfit to own firearms? Laughable. If I a m not conservative like you then I MUST be a "liberal"? Oh the horror!!!!!!! Could it possibly be that I am neither. I am a libertarian and I guess that makes me a liberal in your eyes. Gotta love the political intolerance around here sometimes. So she stands up for gun rights..so what? She will trample on other aspects of the Constitution but as long as gun rights are ok, to hell with the rest. You can have the crazy broad.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Anyone who hates Ann, really shouldn't own a gun!!

It's simple, she stands up for your gun rights.

Just because she rubs someone the wrong way on some other issue, they want to throw the baby out with the bath water??



I always get a big kick when I run into someone who is a liberal, and owns and enjoys weapons. Actually, the two do NOT go together.

My Doctor put it the right way. What a great lady!! Quote "Any of my liberal friends on Facebook, I immediately defriended" End Quote

If Hitler fought for my right to eat cookies, I would still not support him... and I like eating cookies.

You do not have to be a liberal to dislike Ann Coulter - all you have to do is listen to the words that come out of her mouth.
For that matter, a "liberal" can support the unalienable right to bear arms, contrary to the typical stereotype of a "liberal" - since restricting firearm ownership is not a liberal philosophy. Many liberals identify with the Democratic party, and many of them do believe in stricter gun control - but it is not included in liberal philosophies.

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

People like Ann Coulter give conservatives a bad rep... I think she should be able to exercise her first amendment rights like everyone else... but sometimes I wish she would just stop engaging in political caricatures.

Ann Coulter is to conservatives what Larry the Cable guy is to rural Americans.