Dietl on racial profiling: "[I]f I see two guys that look like Aba Daba Doo and Aba Daba Dah, I'm gonna pull 'em over"
On the August 7 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox News contributor Richard "Bo" Dietl, a private investigator and former New York City Police Department detective, stated: "[I]f I see two guys that look like Aba Daba Doo and Aba Daba Dah, I'm gonna pull 'em over, and I wanna find out what you're doing." Dietl and host Neil Cavuto were discussing the arrest of two college students from Kuwait and Egypt who were allegedly found with pipe bombs in their car near a Navy base in South Carolina.
On the March 14 edition of Your World, Dietl stated that instead of flying, six Muslim imams who were removed from a US Airways flight at St. Paul-Minneapolis International Airport in 2006 should "call your cousin up there, Ali Baba Boo, and go by cab."
From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: My next guest says it is not racial profiling, just good police work. On the phone, former New York City police detective Bo Dietl. He's a Fox News contributor now. So, Bo, what do you make of this? Not profiling?
DIETL: Hey, Neil. You know, I'm going up to visit Little Bo up in the Poconos. I'm gonna bring a couple of pipe bombs with me. That's a normal thing to have them in my trunk.
These names, Mohamed and Yousef, don't they sound kinda familiar? Well, you know what? Everyone is -- wants to be politically correct. The political correct thing of this whole thing is, we have to find out of allegedly all these Muslim students that are in our country, are they here really studying or are they here for something else.
We know there's a war by fundamentalists and terrorists to kill us. So we have to be able to profile. And I'm sorry, if I see two guys that look like Aba Daba Doo and Aba Daba Dah, I'm gonna pull 'em over, and I wanna find out what you're doing. And you're near a naval base, and all of a sudden you have pipe bombs in your car? You know, something's wrong here.
CAVUTO: All right, so now the government is going to pursue what it thinks was a threatened attack, and people are going to come back and say, "If these were white, Anglo-Saxon guys in the same type of circumstance, would we have been as vigilant?"
DIETL: Yeah, but you know what? We're at war. Neil, I think you think we're -- I think we all know we're at war with these Muslim fundamentalists. Not all Muslims, fundamentalists that want us dead. So when we're profiling, you have to profile when you're looking for someone who's going to give up their life or take some Americans' lives. I'm sorry, that's the way -- this is the way this society structures.
Does anyone like to be pulled over just because they're Muslim? No, but what is the facts of life? The facts of life -- the one most likely to blow somebody up is someone with a Mohamed or a Yousef name.
CAVUTO: All right.
DIETL: And, I mean, that's -- I have this problem every time I talk about this, but we're at a war.
CAVUTO: OK.
DIETL: Now, if these two guys blew up that base, all of a sudden -- and they didn't get pulled over, and the sheriff didn't pull them over, they would say, "Well, they didn't do their job."
CAVUTO: All right, Bo. Thank you very, very much.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Dietl, who is such a racist, ethnocentric, Xenophobic freak that he really ought to have a regular show on Fox, does a great job masking his paranoia with legitimate concerns. "If you look Muslim, you ought to be pulled over, I'm going to want to know what you're doing....if you are driving near an air base and all of a sudden you have pipe bombs in your car, you know something's wrong here."
Yep- if you are a Muslim, you should get pulled over, because you probably have pipe bombs in your car. If you disagree with Dietl, you are soft on terrorism because you think people should be allowed to have pipe bombs or that that authorities should not have the right to search for them. When Civil Libertarians complain about racial profiling, Dietl will say "Liberals dont care if you have pipe bombs!" What a load of convoluted crap.
"We're at war." Yes we are, Mr Dietl. Get your ass to the front lines, you SuperPatriot you. What a worthless pig.
How about Aba Dabba Dietl ????
The facts of life -- the one most likely to blow somebody up is someone with a Mohamed or a Yousef name
Cavuto could have said: "Uh, Mr. Dietl, what about McVeigh and the abortion clinic bombers?"
I know a fact about Mr. Dietl's life - he's simply a racist.
Just stop. There isn't a worldwide war against crazy abortion-clinic bombers and weirdo separatists. Just stop.
Terrorism takes many forms, Dexter. Islamic extremism is only one of them.
Get out of here. Timothy McVeigh was an isolated incident. He was a terrorist, but to equate the risk of him to the risk of international islamic radical terrorism is ridiculous. You investigate and pursue hardest the GREATEST threat, not every threat.
An isolated incident? Really? It just amazes me how many non muslim groups there are on this list!
1. Dude, it's a Wikpedia list.
2. They have Lincoln's assasination on the list, LOL!!!
1. facts are facts
2. It's a comprehensive list of all known recorded terrorist acts throughout history.
3. Ergo, you have no point.
1. Facts are not facts if they show up on Faux News though, right? You must have a reliable source for people to believe in your "facts".
2. The assassination of Lincoln was not a terrorist act. While I'm sure people were terrified to watch it, it was a personal vendetta/politically-motivated attack.
I can't think of an assasination of a political leader that's not terrorism. Maybe you need to look up the definition of terrorism. Here's one from our own Dept of Defense.
"Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Are you really going to try to claim that John Wilkes Booth didn't want our government to change the path they were on so that it would better match his ideological objectives?
It appears that Dexteritas0071418 has no idea what it is which he/she is cheerleading against. Typical of conservative non-thinkers
By the way Dex, McVeigh was a right wing, Rush Limbaugh/G. Gordon Liddy lamb who actually followed through with what they were preaching to him daily. McVeigh's intention was to shrink big government--one building at a time.
You sure like to put words into people's mouths, don't you? I don't have problem with any fact regardless of source if it can be proven true. And as for Booth? He was part of a conspiracy that planned to kill Lincoln, vice president Johnson and secretary of state Seward. Sounds like a terrorist plot to me...
So, the assasination of a political leader is not a terrorist act?
A terrorist act is defined as what its purpose was, not the action itself.
Exactly. Often an assasination of a political leader is a terrorist act because of what they want to accomplish with that action.
Hinckley shooting at Reagan was not a terrorist act. He was not trying to do much of anything besides impress Jodie Foster. Most other political assasinations are going to be terrorist acts.
Maybe Hinckley shot Reagan because Bill Clinton put him up to it. :-)
Booth's motivations were directly related to the 'war of Northern aggression,' as so many of my neighbors like to term the civil war. It was a politically motivated action, and is - therefore - terrorism, and no less so than if someone of any background assassinated the Boy King for the war he's initiated in the middle east.
Come to think of it, I think the Boston Tea Party may be able to be called terrorism, as well, but I'd have to read up more on specifics to make that determination.
Dex,
Are we protecting the globe or the US?
US first. I know it's up for debate how that is best handled.
This is another example of one of the weaknesses of those on the right.
For some strange reason, they think we can only fight one battle at a time. Therefore, we need to suggest that only Muslim-looking people are dangerous. With that same reasoning they suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is somehow keeping terrorists from attacking us here, when of course that's malarky.
We need to fight terrorism in effective ways, and that not only includes those terrorists who might be from outside the US but also includes those people inside the US who might be crazy. Reasonable people understand this.
Reasonable people should ALSO understand that not acknowledging consistent physical/cultural characteristics of a major terrorist threat is UNreasonable and illogical.
I am not asking to disregard other terrorist threats, but I AM asking you not to disregard a very common characteristic of the MOST MAJOR terrorist threat because it isn't COMPLETELY consistent.
A tiny percentage of Muslims in the US even condone terrorism, much less participate themselves in it.
It is not appropriate to target Muslims because such a small percentage of them do wrong.
It would be wrong to target all men because some of them are rapists. There's very few women rapists, so given your criteria, we should target men because a few of them might be rapists, but not women because so few of them do it.
Considering that rape is much more likely to happen to an American than a terrorist attack, shouldn't we profile all men?
i know a few women who would love to search all men to see if they are carrying that weapon with which rape is done. Once the weapon is found I guess that will show they are rapists.
NOMOBUSH,
"It is not appropriate to target Muslims because such a small percentage of them do no wrong"
You are kidding right? Who in the HELL do you think propogates radical Islamic terrorism? It ain't the Amish, it is Muslims. Therefore, to adequately track down MUSLIM elements in this country who are trying to KILL you and me there has to be some sort of monitorng of the Muslim community. I don't agree with complete disregard for any citizens civil liberties but the fact remains that if someone would have profiled the 9-11 hijackers maybe things would be different. You have to recognize your enemy to be effective in battle. How would you suggest we recognize our enemies here in America? If you have a better idea I would love to hear it or read it rather.
Timothy McVeigh was not an isolated incident, there are far more "right wing" terror attempts in the USA than "radical muslim" ones. Look it up.
Dietl is a shocker who gets off with inflammatory crap like what has just come out of his mouth.....but to compare, by any stretch of the imagination, abortion clinic bombers or one nut like McVeigh, to the worldwide threat we face against Islamic extremist fanatical murderers, is ludicrous.
Don't tell us, tell the Oklahoma victims.
Tell them what? That they could lose another family member because the Dept. of Homeland Security didn't want to offend an Imam?
What Imam are we afraid to offend?
"Tell them what?"
What Tommy said. Was I not clear enough for you?
Despite your accusation, I stand by my comments which in no way disrespected the victims in the Oklahoma bombing or any other act that killed innocent lives.
But your dismissing the real threat we face from Islamic fanaticism is quite disrespectul of those that have been slaughtered at the hands of such terror. So, tell that to those victims.
Tommy,
I'll ask you the same question that I asked Dexter. Are we proetecting the entire planet or just the US?
If it's just the US, how many attacks by Islamic Jihadists have we endured?
I don't know what your point is, this is obviously a global struggle against Islamic radicals, however our first allegiance and priority is to keep our country and citizens safe. Would you not agree with that? That doesn't mean we are not vulnerable to threats from all sorts of nuts, obviously.
Tommy,
How does it effect us if a terrorist carries out an attack in another country and doesn't kill a single American citizen?
How does it affect us? Meaning what exactly? One way would be to assist in any way possible to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible. And work with that country to determine why the attack occurred and what can be done here, and there, to prevent another attack.
Tommy,
Is it a threat to the US?
What is your point? Obviously you feel the threat is overblown and no big deal, or something. You are entitled to your opinion.
I am just thankful that no presidential candidate from either side shares your cavalier attitude.
Tommy,
Can you not answer the question? My attitude isn't cavalier, it's grounded in reality not your fantasy/nightmare scenarios.
Please explain what it is that you are so afaraid of, what threat this poses to our country and then we can discuss the appropriate level of response/defense.
What you want to do is erect an impenetrable fortress to hide from a group of people that have little to no chance of affecting you.
I will answer you. Global terrorism as a tactic carried out by Islamic radicals is indeed a threat to the U.S. and every country in the world.
Sorry, if you think we are just being scaredy cats or ratcheting up fear.
Tommy,
There are many things that are more likely to kill you than islamic terrorists. These terrorists are also not a threat to the American way of life like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were.
So on a scale of 1 to 10 where do you rank the threat of Islamic Terrorists as compared to Nuclear Holocaust (initiated by a current ally). Which one
Talk about a strawman. That is not the point. I probably have a better chance of dying from a car accident than terrorism, but that is not the point.
If you aren't the least bit concerned about Islamic terror, that is your business. As I said, thankfully nobody running for office shares that attitude.
Tommy,
So why are you so concerned about something that you admit will never affect you?
I'm really curious about this obsession with these terrorists.
Also, that isn't hypothetical or a strawman.
You have a much greater chance of being killed by one of the thousands of nuclear weapons in our allies hands than being killed by a terrorist.
I never said it would never affect me.
Look, if you feel that terrorism will never affect you and the threat is......well, you fill in the way you feel about the threat, that is your business.
Tommy,
So we are back to the original question, this time I'll phrase it a little differently to make it easier for you to comprehend.
How much money and time are you willing to spend on a threat that isn't as significant as many other threats that we spend no time and money on?
So, you want me to give you dollar amounts and some arbitrary times? That's absurd and a quesiton obviously I am in no position to answer.
Let me just say that the #1 priority of our government is the safety and security of our citizens. All efforts, attention and resources necessary to achieve a safe homeland should be undertaken, within the bounds of our laws and constitution. I want politicians who understand that and realize that is job number 1.
Tommy,
Even if Islamic Terrorists aren't the number one priority because they aren't the number one threat?
What do you think the number one threat is?
If I am wrong, please correct me Skep.....your answer is Bush.
Tommy,
You are wrong.
Appreciate the correction.
The number one threat to the American way of life, American Ideals and Principles are people like you and Tommy who are so afraid of there own shadows that you are willing to give up everything our Founding Fathers fought for.
I'm sure glad that we didn't have to rely on people like you to fight in the real wars or we might be speaking German or Japanese or even Russian right now.
Nice little baseless and ridiculous accusation there.
If expecting our politicians to uphold their duty to protect and serve our country and keep us safe from all foreign and domestic enemies is, as you say, "scared of our shadows", then BOO! I'm scared.
Tommy,
Unfortunately for you, the shoe fits perfectly. I almost thought you were thinking for once, but you reverted to your defense of the admin again.
I don't know how you can convince yourself that this is the biggest threat to us, even after you've admitted it isn't.
Stairs are a much bigger threat to the American public than terrorism. Bathtubs are too.
We have yet to outlaw multi-story buildings, and most residences have bathtubs.
We need to have an appropriate response to the threats we all face, with a reasonable cost-benefit analysis done.
No one was asking you to name dollar amounts.
If the number one priority of our government is the safety and security of OUR citizens, why are OUR tax dollars being spent in Iraq insead of on police, free medical care, and schools, in OUR country?
And, pray tell, who are the terrorists who mailed the anthrax to various Democratic pols and media under cover of 9/11? Are you aware that anthrax has been found in the possession of our own home-grown right-wing militia extremists? I consider that a greater threat, considering how much they are coddled by right-wing pols in this country.
LAPSED LAWYER: Thanks for bringing up the Anthrax. Right on the heels of the attack of 9-11-01.
Here we are almost SIX years later, and no one in the administration makes mention of where that investigation is.
Haven't hard Gonzalez utter a peep, or Ashcroft before him.
I would not be surprised at al, in fact think that it was a "home grown" attack on the hells of the chaos of 9-11-01 and given the individuals and companies, and institutions that were targeted. It looks like it was some radical wing nut group.
Are they being wiretapped. Where oh where are the militia organizations of yesteryear. They haven't completely disappeared in the woods have they? The white, "Christian" men...
Who doesn't label the Klu Klux Klan a terrorist home grown group? Folks don't think they are alive and well.
This use of smear and fear is a classic way to erode and destroy citizen freedom, for the power and gain of a few. We are living this now.
Where is the accountability of the Administration? Impeachment is way overdue.
And many appear to have short term memory loss or ADD or combination of both. We DEAL with Muslims all the time- where are we buying our oil? How cozy do you think the Saud Royal Family is with Bush, Cheney, et al.
Yep, in bed together. That cozy.
On one hand we have the Administration, and talking morons like Dietal vilifying everything and everyone Muslim. Nice.
On the other hand not so long ago, the Administration came up with a swell plan to OUT SOURCE our port security to Muslim countries.
What's wrong with this picture?
Yes, a radical group who happen to be Mulim attacked the country on 9-11. They call themselves Al Qeada and are not associated with any one country, and may or may not be "state sponsored" by some. They have attacked randomly ALL over the world. They do NOT represnt Muslims as a whole.
In fact we are fighting a WAR in Iraq tro supposedylyy bring and ensure democracy to a Muslim country.
The ignorance, bigtary and blind hate with no logic or foundation is enough to make one's head explode. And it's coming from... Americans. See above article.
Jesus, are you just a moron, or are you purposefully evading the question? Let me make this REALLY simple question even MORE simple for you- there are terrorist groups all over the world, and there have been, for centuries. If you really believe "Islamic Fundementalism" is THE threat to world security are you in favor of a worldwide war against THAT particular brand of terrorism? Because it seems to me that Israel, India, the Phillippines, Northern Ireland, etc etc etc have been hit by terrorist attacks for decades without the kind of response we see now. And please spare me the 9/11 jargon- you aren't going to convince me that committing thousands of US troops and more than a trillion dollars in a country which DIDNT ATTACK US is making us one iota safer from "Islamic Fundementalism." Never mind the level of stupidity you have to reach to convince yourself that two attacks coordinated by a tiny group of people (in 1993 and 2001) points to a worldwide Islamist plot to destroy the United States.
BTW, I live in a neighborhood with lots of Muslims. I'm afraid I'm not patriotic enough to peek into their windows at night or open their mail when they are not at home. I'll regret it, I'm sure, when they break down my door, rape my children and cut my throat.
Lets just give you that. Since the worlds most populace Islamic country is Indonesians we now need to add south Asians to that list. The problem with racial profiling, besides its obvious constitutional problems is it is stupid and gives the illusion of doing something without actually helping in any way. While they are profiling Jews and Arabs, since its pretty hard to tell a Sephardic Jew from an Arab the radicals from India, Indonesia Bosnia or Kurds none of which are racially Semetic slip through. If the point is to actually try to keep us safe not take psuedomeasures that make bigots feel good, then racial profiling is dumb and would be ineffective.
That is not their point. As non-Muslims they just don't want to be hassled at the airport because they know they aren't terrorists themselves and seem to think ignoring people who don't look Muslim or who don't look like a stereotypical threat will make us safer. In actuality, it would make us much less safe. In order to ensure safety, everyone should be checked -- even if it inconveniences a few grandmas.
Of course, this is just selfishness and maybe even a bit racist to some degree. Pushing off inconveniences to themselves onto other people who look different or practice a different religion.
I think the Ku Klux Klan is as big a threat if we are talking about internal security. They've definitely proven themselves capable of murder and other atrocities, why not do the same thing to them?
Because they are not as big of a threat to US security as international terrorism.
Continuing Dexter's post- "they just aren't. They just aren't. Finger in my ears. Nanananananananah...."
Here's a bit of blaphsemy- Islamic Fundementalists are no threat to US National Security. The far bigger threat to our way of life is the phenomenon of Christian Fundementalism. No, they won't blow up as many buildings, but they WILL do their best to shred the Constitution, take over our schools, outlaw homosexual behavior and deny women control over their own bodies.
Oh yeah, I'm really afraid of ISLAMIC Fundementalism.
Really? And how do Islamic fundamentalist radicals feel about homosexuals and women?
Tommy, who cares? They don't need to come here and impose their views on such things- the Fundementalist Christians are doing it for them.
BTW, do you realize by your argument that you are actually suggesting that you believe Islamic Fundementalists are a threat to TAKE OVER America? Congratulations- you are the most paranoid fool on this thread.
Please show me where I said they are a threat to take over America? Typical. You have no argument so you misrepresent what I said. And you call me paranoid? That is hysterical.
Take your insults elsewhere, I am not interested.
Wow, it's really like talking to a child. Tommy, listen carefully. Islamic Fundementalists are not a threat to our way of life, like I said. They aren't a threat to our National Security, like you agreed. So WHY ARE WE FIGHTING THEM AGAIN?
Actually, never mind. I can't imagine what pretzel you are going to twist your argument into this time.
By saying that it is the #1 threat and saying the leaders should do everything to prevent it. If some faction is plotting a literal coup in this country you suggest that is a lesser threat. If we should do everything possible then everything would include diverting all efforts to that threat including putting all traffic cops on it and sending all funding to the effort. It would suggest an universal draft to maximize our ability to respond or protect.
So if black people were being lynched by people in sheets, you would not keep an extra eye on people in sheets hanging around a black person's house?
"The sheets" are nowhere near "the house" if you're using muslims and America as your equivalents. As a matter of fact, your incredibly horrible analogy would only work if a minority of the population around that house regularly wore sheets yet have no connection with the Klan at ALL.
For your sake, I'm really hoping you didn't think you were being clever or witty with that bass-ackward analogy.
It's not dismissal, it's reminding everyone that we face threats not just from foreign origins, but also from Americans willing to murder and destroy in the name of their ideology. There are American-born extremists of all kinds that have proven they are willing to kill other Americans and destroy property. They can't be dismissed either.
I am not dismissing anything. Let me ask you, would you be comfortable voting for a presidential candidate that made this type of speech "The terror threat we face in this country from the KKK, or abortion clinic bombers, or another possible Tim McVeigh should receive the same attention and resources as any threat we face from Islamic radicals." I doubt it. No candidate would ever say something so ludicrous, they would be laughed off the podium.
Tommy,
No-one is saying that. You have erected a straw man. The problem is, most people don't feel that Radical Islammists will destroy America, unless we give up everything we stand for to appease power hungry politicians.
Do you think these radicals have the ability to destroy/takeover/rule our country? That is really the only threat we should care about, isn't it?
No, it is not a strawman. Every time someone talks about the real threat against Islamic radicals, the stock response from some is McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers. Just look at earlier postings. The comparison is inevitably made as to their equivalence. No strawman.
Tommy,
It's a straw man because you put those words into the mouth of a Presidential Candidate.
Now you have once again backpeddled.
I asked you a hypothetical, considering that is the opinion of many here. If you don't care to answer, fine.
Tommy,
Your hypothetical is foolish. I would like to deal with what is really happening and discuss an appropriate set of actions.
Can you actually deal in real terms or do you have to make stuff up?
What isn't foolish is your statement about "power hungry politicians". That is your real motivation here. For if you accept the threat we face as being real instead of some rightwing fear mongering, that will not square with your ideology.
Sorry, we disagree.
Tommy,
Now you put words in my mouth. Power hungry politicians of all stripes have used threats to increase their power throughout all of time.
Now I understand that you are simply defending this administration rather than looking at the reality of the threat.
That was the first honest thing you have said today.
I never made any reference to power hungry politicians, you did. Which means your motivation is more political than anything else. I have no interest in defending this administration or any other. But my "hatred" for any one administration does not blind me to real threats we face. I guess we're different that way.
Tommy,
I brought up politicians in general and did not assign any affiliation right or left. You spoke of the right wing admin.
Maybe you need to review your statements and your defense of this admin.
Tommy, you are being disingenuous.
"The comparison is inevitably made as to their equivalence."
Hogwash. We are pointing out that historically speaking, the United States' domestic security is just as vulnerable to attacks from its own citizens as it is from immigrants and visitors who come here with the expressed intent to do us harm. We are pointing out that if we are worried about our security instead of the security of everyone around the globe, we need to stop being so myopic in our attention on suspects who are muslim. Youare presenting your argument as if every suicide bombing in Iraq would have happened in Atlanta, GA if it weren't for our continued attention on The War Against Turrism (TWAT).
Really? Then why is the comparison always made here when the threat of terrorism is brought up? Tell me. I asked a simple question about a hypothetical candidate's speech, and none of you will answer it. So you call me disingenuous, nice dodge.
"Really? Then why is the comparison always made here when the threat of terrorism is brought up?"
I assume that you're concerned about terrorism because you're concerned about domestic security, yes? If you are truly concerned about domestic security, you will worry less about the 'muslim threat' and acknowledge that our home-grown terrorists are just as dangerous as those that come from outside of our borders. The biggest excuse for being overseas given by our President and his bobbleheaded supporters is "If we fight them there, we don't need to fight them here." This is hogwash, experts will tell you this is hogwash, and our current attitudes towards our foreign policy and our domestic policies regarding American muslims are a threat to our domestic security, not a boon.
"I asked a simple question about a hypothetical candidate's speech, and none of you will answer it."
You asked it about five minutes ago, Tommy. I'm sure someone here will take your bait, eventually. I, on the other hand, will be content to watch you whine about your question not being addressed for another dozen or so posts when in fact it's a load of **** that no one should be paying any attention to in the first place.
Additionally, it was far too poorly worded to come from any viable candidate.
Terrorism, home grown and the threats from abroad, should be taken with the appropriate amount of seriousness and attention, and given the proper resources in defeating them. I could not agree more, if that was your point.
Yes! :) That is exactly my point.
... and, additionally, my fear is that as long as our officials think of turbans and beards when they hear the word "Terrorist," they're going to miss the threats that don't attend mosques, or may even have sandy blonde hair. Racial profiling on the level that Dietl suggests promotes laziness in security by hinting that if the person isn't muslim, they're not much of a threat.
I don't disagree with anything you've just said. In fact, it was very well stated.
Yeah, you've restored my faith in people being able to be reasonable on this issue.
So, in other words, you would vote for your hypothetical candidate. Are you being hypocritcal now, or were you just looking to score a bogus, disengenuous debating point earlier?
If I was Osama, I think I would choose someone who was as pale as Andy Warhol to carry out my next attack.
So I think the people to fear would be white people in business suits (actually that's a good thing to fear in general) :}
It is almost impossible to racially profile these people. Richard Reid - the shoe bomber was Jamaican. A Belgian woman was a suicide bomber in Israel a while back.
Racial profiling is just a false sense of security. It is usually proposed by short-sighted people who believe they should not be inconvenienced at the expense of others who should be.
Besides, all Muslims don't look alike and who is to say a traveler intent on doing no good would be so kind as to identify his own religion adequately.
I'm more scared of a bridge collapsing under me than of a terrorist attack.
"Every time someone talks about the real threat against Islamic radicals, the stock response from some is McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers."
No, Deitl's not talking about "the real threat", he's talking about profiling and suspicion of a real threat. Dietl's brand of profiling is USELESS against the McVeighs, abortion clinic bombers, etc.
The terrorists will destroy our way of life when gutless, cowardly little pricks like John Cornyn convince enough Americans that we can't be safe and keep our civil liberties, and our security is more important than our rights. When "better fascist than Islamic" completely replaces the "better dead than Red" attitude of fifty years ago, the terrorists will have won, because the Freedoms that Bush himself said "they hate us for" will be long gone.
I stated no assertions about allocation of resources. My comparison is based on the willingness and capacity to kill Americans. There is no comparison in terms of the scope of the threats, but that becomes irrelevant when you become an American victim of an American terrorist.
If it's not about resources, or attention given......then why the comparison or the equivalence at all?
BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVEN THEY CAN KILL AMERICANS JUST LIKE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS HAVE. BECAUSE THE GRIEF THEY CAUSE IS NO LESS SEVERE.
The ideology of the perpetrators makes NO DIFFERENCE in the horror and brutality of death in the name of terror.
Yes, the attacks themselves vary in scope and scale, but the pain and loss of the families of American innocents dying at the hands of murderers IS STILL THE SAME no matter who is responsible and no matter how many are killed.
Yeah but Pete, dont you get it? The violence created by all those other groups isnt as spectacular as that created by fundementalist Islamists. Also, a lot of domestic terrorists are white Christians, and white Christans are big-time consumers and voters and therefore dont make convenient targets. Besides, Islamists are darker than most Americans and they wear funny clothes and speak a funny language and call God by a different name.
Also, targeting domestic terrorism isn't great for ratings, and it doesn't do much to pour treasury money into the coffers of big corporations through no-bid contracts and spiking gas prices. So if you really think about it, it's pretty obvious why Islamic Fundementalist terrorism trumps Domestic terrorism on all fronts.
And I did say resources, not attention.
I'll bite. You're damn right I would. And I think if it were presented to Americans, most of them would to.
How is it dismissing the threat posed by Islamic extremists to say you should not racially profile *all* Muslim people?
Racially profiling all Muslims would have been like pulling over every white, Christian right-winger after the Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombing, or the Oklahoma City bombings.
Also, even Islamic extremists can be non Middle Eastern or Arabic. Look at the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. Look at Jose Padilla.
Dietl throwing in things like telling them to call their cousin and take a cab is completely racist. So now Muslims that have nothing to do with terrorism cannot even fly on a plane? They should have their rights taken away, and be insulted with cab jokes?
If somebody is doing something suspicious or criminal, law enforcement has a reason to pull them over, but they shouldn't just pull them over based simply on the way they look.
Pull your head out of the sand. There is a new world of Islamic-based terrorism that exists and has been growing since Billy-boy took office, Since he chose to work more with his interns, he allowed Islamic-based terror to fester and left the heavy lifting to the next administration. Your assumption that we have to worry more about white, heterosexual, male, homegrown terror is regretable, but typical of the liberal mind-set.
YOUR post is typical of conservative ignorance and stupidity. Clinton did FAR more about terrorism than Bush who was committed to operation ignore the terrorists until 9/11 woke him up. Even Rayguns counterterrorism chief said he gave him high marks on the terrorism front. The guys who did the first bombing of the WTC are in prison right now. Osama Ben Forgotten is partying in Pakistan and making MTV videos. Clinton might have dont more, a criticism that can pretty much always be made, but he DID make terrorism a priority. Bush made his terrorism task force a photo op and it NEVER MET until after 9/11/ Your weak propaganda is just flat dumb.
This is pretty typical of Dietl. This is the type of race-baiting he use to do on Imus, along with McGuirk. I was amazed that a few months ago when Dietl was mocking Obama's middle name on Cavuto, Dick Morris called him out on it.
100? 500? 3,000?
During his NYPD career, how many victims do you suppose this walking definition of police incompetence left in his wake?
The only conceivable reason that Cavuto would book this guy on his show is that Cavuto wanted someone dumber than he is to appear on his show.
Sean Hannity must have been unavailable.
I'm sure every member of Al Qaida, would like to thank M. Dietl for its tips on how to avoid scrutiny: disguise myself and use false id. All they have to do is use a cliché latino look and a fake portorican passport or recruit blond aired and blue eyed converts. Racial profiling is so much easier and cheaper than investigation and behavorial scrutiny. And so much easier to deceive...
So where's the ex-cop profiler Fixed Noise contributor who wants to pull over every short-haired white man driving a rental truck in a city that has federal buildings?
Remember that after the OK City bombings, the feds and the cops were running all over the place looking for the Middle Eastern terrorists who MUST have been responsible (I'm convinced that if Bush had been President at the time, we would have invaded Iraq the next day, middle eastern terrorists would have been blamed, and today Tim McVeigh would be on his brother's patio sipping iced tea.) Dietl thinks that in the event of a bombing, it's the job of the feds to pull over and question every Muslim within a 50-mile radius of the event, I'm sure. Green light to white, blue-eyed nutjobs out there- do your worst, in our current state of war we are presuming you are innocent because of your appropriately anglo names and proper skin color.
Fact: Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
Fact: It is unfortunate that most acts of terrorism globally are headed by Muslims.
That statistic drops -dramatically- when one looks at the domestic terrorism that has occurred on US soil. If we're concerned about the safety of this country, ignoring the home-grown crazies like Kazynsky (did I get that right?) and McVeigh in favor of racially profiling guys that look just a little bit middle-eastern does a disservice to all of us.
Look, I recognize that we're in a Global War of Turrism <tm>, but I do truly believe that domestic security is best served when our security officials aren't quite so myopic in their watch for trouble. I don't like the idea of Abdul and Mohammed being pulled over for a full-car search while Jim Bob and Billy Bob are passing by on the way to the state capitol with a carload of ammo to show the governor how upset they are about hunting dog leash laws.
Additionally, I'll point out that as spoiled brats that happen to be members of American Islamic families get into the teenaged angst years and actually take notice of how they're treated in public, how their family is treated, and how their bretheren overseas are being treated by our government, our continued treatment of American muslims as potential terrorists will breed home-grown terrorism, itself. I believe we've seen some of this already from American muslims who have waged minor one-man wars inside the borders. They're people who do not have and likely will never have ties to Al Quaida, but feel the need to make a large demonstration regarding how upset they are with this country and its government's treatment of people they care about. The longer that "contributors" like this give the public an excuse to lay an onus of suspectability on otherwise innocent people, the more likely it's going to be that we'll be dealing with this problem domestically on a much larger scale.
That statistic drops -dramatically- when one looks at the domestic terrorism that has occurred on US soil.
How did you come up with this? I disagree. We have had 5 pretty major terrorist attacks (From foreign fighters) on US soil since 1920. Only 1 I can think of by a US citizen.Now, if you want to pull out the Abortion Clinics, then I will pull out the DC snipers. We could go on and on.
Look, I recognize that we're in a Global War of Turrism <tm>, but I do truly believe that domestic security is best served when our security officials aren't quite so myopic in their watch for trouble. I don't like the idea of Abdul and Mohammed being pulled over for a full-car search while Jim Bob and Billy Bob are passing by on the way to the state capitol with a carload of ammo to show the governor how upset they are about hunting dog leash laws.Pretyy pathetic argument, IMO.
Additionally, I'll point out that as spoiled brats that happen to be members of American Islamic families get into the teenaged angst years and actually take notice of how they're treated in public, how their family is treated, and how their bretheren overseas are being treated by our government, our continued treatment of American muslims as potential terrorists will breed home-grown terrorism, itself. I believe we've seen some of this already from American muslims who have waged minor one-man wars inside the borders. They're people who do not have and likely will never have ties to Al Quaida, but feel the need to make a large demonstration regarding how upset they are with this country and its government's treatment of people they care about. The longer that "contributors" like this give the public an excuse to lay an onus of suspectability on otherwise innocent people, the more likely it's going to be that we'll be dealing with this problem domestically on a much larger scale.
Al Quaida is not the only enemy, extreem islamism is. You may be able to blame a very small precentage of "homegrown" terrorists based on our current actions. I agree, but it is ignorance that breeds killers. The ignorant imams are our enemy. And those imams are coming HERE, not breed here.
I seem to recall that the DC snipers were US citizens, yes? Additionally, if I recall correctly, they were not middle eastern, although I believe the father was muslim.
Yes, I will bring out the OK city bombings, the Unibomber, the Atlanta city bombings at the Olympics, the VA tech massacre, the Columbine massacre, the clock tower shootings, the doctor-snipers and bombings at the clinics. I'll thrown in the militias that train themselves to be ready to "defend themselves" against the US government and amass a platoon's worth of weaponry.
I'm not saying there's not a threat to our security from outside our borders, I'm simply saying that we cannot allow fear of that threat to override our vigilance inside the borders. To racially profile at the level Dietl is suggesting is to suggest that our single biggest threat is anyone who is middle eastern, and that is very simply not true within the borders of our land.
Valid, thanks.
The problem with this guy's comments are the racist, bigoted names he assigned to any given Muslim. Fine if you're trying to make a stand-up act successful to the right crowd, wrong if you're going to have him on a news channel.
But, we should absolutely take into account an individual's apparent ethnicity and background when evaluating terrorist threats.
Great. Are you willing to include white men in Alabama?
You are so disingenous and dishonest in the name of PC, it makes me sick.
1. How many terrorist attacks have been attributed to this militia?
2. Would I have any problem with security pulling a redneck out of line, who was wearing a flak jacket and carrying no luggage? HELL NO!
Somebody forgot to take his loyalty oath today!
I think you get minus points for your statement if this was a real, judged debate.
"1. How many terrorist attacks have been attributed to this militia?"
We're discussing profiling and suspicion, not actual perpetrators.
This won't be racial profiling if a middle eastern guy with this BEHAVIOUR get extra scrutiny. We're talking about giving extra scrutiny to EVERY middle eastern looking guy without ANY other clue. The problem is where do you draw the line of racial profiling. Would you give extra scrutiny to a saudi student of a german engineering school in western clothes in vacation in the US, like Mohamed Atta or to a bearded US citizen of afghan origin in traditional clothes coming back from vacations in his family ? I guess M. Atta would pass without any problem the racial profiling, after all, he didn't "look" like an extremist...
How many terrorist attacks were attributed to these two guys with pipe bombs?
Dex- I can see you are not understanding that radical Muslims who distort the faith of Islam in the name of their cause are in NO WAY representative of the millions and millions upon millions of Muslims around the world and living peacefully in this country as American citizens.
Many posters have provided you information on many different kinds of terrorists attacks and terrorism in this country and around the world, and still you do not see.
The bigger issue as many have said is this use of fear and bigotry and profiling someone because they are of Muslim descent is MORE of a threat to our freedom, than any reality that we will be or are under siege.
The nature of Al Qeada is they will be found anywhere and everywhere in the world.
Let me give you yet another example of what I consider your flawed reasoning on baseless profiling.
In Sudan the government is Muslim with a strict adherence to Islam beliefs. Thy have slaughtered, maimed, poisoned, destroyed other Muslims in Darfur because they are not the "right kind of Muslim".
Who do you profile here?
Do you also have any understanding of the millions Muslims( and those of other beliefs) who have fled war torn countries in Sudan and Somalia to refugee camps to live in PEACE.
Really. Please, Broaden your horizons.
Our way of LIFE is threatened by fools like Dietl.
Do you know the basic profile for a serial killer? A white male of above average intelligence in a middle class job. There are at any given time about a dozen serial killers active in the US. If the FBI started profiiling white males based on that the outrage and howling could be heard all over the entire globe. It is only right to protect the rights of minorities in the same way you protect the rights of the powerful majority.
Dex,
Maybe we need to take into account their ties to radical organizations and not ethnicity since you can't pick a radical from a mainstream by sight!
Well, this is sure gonna blow Lolo's assumptions right out of the water!
I find it hard to believe that anyone's asking his wife for proof of citizenship.
On a side note:
Fox News Flooded
I think this is asign.
Once the water recedes, they'll have no problem drying the place out, since it's chock full of hot air!
<Badump, crash!>
Thank you, thank you, you're too kind!
There are around 600,000 muslims in New York City.
It's a waste of time and valuable resources to pull over each and every one of them to "find out what they're doing." How about we pull over anybody who exhibits suspicious behavior?
Dietl was booked because he's entertaining to some. He fills the caricature of a New Yorker to many in the heartland.
I would start by throwing all the radical Imams out. They are the preachers of evil and ignorance.
Nomo,
Throw them out to where?
whereever they came from. Are you aware of the ignorance these Imams spread? If not, do some reseach. It is amazing how pathetic, and ignorant these preachers of hate are.
Nomo,
What if they came from the US?
If they are preaching hate for Jews, Homosexuals, and non-believers, THROW THEM IN PRISON THEN!
Throw them in prison for what? What crime are they committing exactly?
You sound as ignorant as they are. Do you know what a Imam is?
Are you familiar with their preachings?
I am familiar with Imam's and the vast majority preach love and respect and tolerance.
Maybe it is you that is the ignorant one?
How do you know a vast majority do.
Tollerance, as in the Samali Cab Drivers?
Tollerance as in Sharia Law that one can not handle pork at work? CAIR stepping up and demanding a kid in New York recieves a hate crime punishment for throwing a Koran in the toilet? Tollerance?You think they preach much Tollerance at Islamberg (known terrorist camps in the US) and alike around the US?
Imams like so are hard to find.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C10%5Cstory_10-7-2007_pg7_10
Nomo,
Have you read the Old Testament?
I have heard of it. Are there millions of people still living in the name of the "Old Testiment"?
Umm...ever heard of Jews? (The O.T. isn't precisely correct, but close enough for the point.)
Yeah all those Christians that demonise Homosexuals love to refer to passages from the Old Testament.
Nomo,
Also, how do you know they don't?
How many Muslim mosques have you been too? My Muslim friends only have good things to say about their Imams and my pastor has great relationships with the Imams in my area. How many Muslim people do you talk to that say otherwise? Where are you getting your information about the Muslim community?
I did say, "Radical Imams", did I not? Wanted to clear that up.
Nomo,
You initially said radical but later changed your questions to include all, at least that's the way it appeared to me.
I am not the best at crossing my "t's" and dotting my "i's". I do understand that my every word is under a microscope on this forum. Guess I better learn.
In the Islamic faith Imams are the religious leaders of Mosques or they can be religious instructors in religious schools. An Imam is the equivalent of my Baptist pastor who is the leader of our church. Your statement indicates that maybe you’re the one who doesn’t know what an Imam is and that you think the term is somehow synonymous with terrorist leader. Certainly there exists Imams that espouse extremist views and since there is no centralized leadership in the Islamic faith, there is no equivalency of the Pope so Imams can't be excommunicated per se and it's essentially up to the congregants to turn their back on a hateful-violent message if it is espoused. Look if my Pastor started talking crazy tomorrow, only the congregants of my church could remove him from his leadership role, there isn’t some external body that has that power.
I understand the role of a Imam clearly. Thanks Lynn.
well that wasn't evident in your previous posts.
Dude.
I don't like Pat Robertson either, but he does have the right to speak his ignorant mind. No need to imprison him for taking advantage of the first amendment.
I hear ya.
Of course he has the right. But, so do the Imams, unless they're here illegally. If you can show that they are directly inciting violence, maybe you can get them for something. But you can't imprison someone for preaching hate and ignorance.
'twas my point, actually.
If you want to throw people in jail for preaching hate for "Jews, Homosexuals, and non-believers" Then there will be many radical Christian Preachers in jail as well.
Really? Does that mean we also throw Weinerdog Savage and Ann Coultergiest in prison for preaching hate about Arabs, liberals and homosexuals? Or is only the kind of hate YOU dissaprove of worthy of prison?
Okay. While we're at it, can we also eject those other preachers of evil and ignorance like James Dobson and Pat Robertson? Just curious.
How typical of a response. Lets focus on the past on not the present.
I think Dobson and Robertson are still here...aren't they?
My bad, I was focused elsewhere. I do not agree with those idiots either. THROW THEM IN JAIL!
Hi Nomo, would this be a vigilante type of throwing, ala Savage's "hang them from lamp posts with their guts hanging out" or is there some lawful method you have in mind? Because, I'm sure you would have to trample on someones free speech rights to throw them out just for speaking. Why do you hate America so much you would advocate either lawless vigilantism or abdicating free speech rights?
We have laws on the books currently that allow us to jail people convicted of inciting violence.
People like that don't need to be profiled. Their actions indict them.
Most people I know from either side of the aisle want to indict, convict, and punish people who incite violence. We don't jail people for making stupid statements. That's good for people like you.
I feel the same about you friend.
Yeah, but I have a strong basis for my conclusions. You have nothing upon which to think that I'm ignorant or that I reject facts or that I think crazy thoughts.
Examples of Radical Non Muslim Terror in the US
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=549&printable=1
WEAK!
Are we talking about Acts of Terrorism, or Plots to Terrorize?
"Are we talking about Acts of Terrorism, or Plots to Terrorize? "
Bo Deitl, the subject of this thread, is clearly talking about plots to terrorize, since he's talking about profiling and suspicion of people whose only offense is looking like "Aba Daba Doo" but are otherwise innocent.
He's not talking about actual perpetrators.
CS's headline reads,
Examples of Radical Non Muslim Terror in the US
Yes, "terror", not "acts of terror" as you so specifically put it.
Hasn't the word 'terror' been redefined to label the enemy? To describe those who denounce and threaten the U.S.?
We are in a "war against terror" are we not?
Are we not "confronting terror" overseas?
Al Qaeda undoubtedly is comprised of terrorists who have yet to commit their first act of terror, is it not?
Is Al Qaeda not lumped under the general label of "Islamic Terror"?
NORO...
and where would you throw all the right wing hate mongers?
Right wing? Before make what could be, "a fool of yourself", learn a bit about the argument you are responding to.
Well, everything you stated that these alleged Imans should be thrown out for, you could look at just about any evangelical right wing Christian church in this country and say the exact, same, things about them. But because these Imans (doesn't surprise me that you can't come up with specific examples of these radicals in the US) are preaching Islam, they should go?
Now that's just plain old un-American. Why do you hate freedom of religion, America, and the Constitution?
I am not ignorant to the fact there are many good imams. You make it sound like there are NONE. Why do you hate freedom and our Constitution?
I mean to say, "You make it sound liek there are no hate preaching Imams in the US".
I don't doubt that there are, but I was challenging you to provide an actual example. You are the one making that claim.
Last I heard though, hate wasn't illegal. That's the great thing about America. It's easy to defend the things that we agree with, but it's really hard to defend the things we don't agree with. Are there Imans in the US preaching hate? Probably, I don't really doubt it. Are they inciting violence and terrorist acts? I doubt that as well.
Please provide an example, I'd be willing to see and or read what you post.
I will have a very difficult time providing links to hateful preachings by Imams in the US. The Media and Goverment officials do not seem to like to challenge these issues. But to think that there are NO Evil Imams in the US is ludacris.
I cannot provide you with proof of sparkling pink unicorns frolicking with Yeti in our national forests, because the media and the government are in a conspiracy to keep us from knowing about these frolicking unicorns, but to assume there aren't any sparkling pink unicorns frolicking with Yeti in our national forests is "ludicris."
Evil?
Evil Lib?
Is that you?
If so we've missed you.
Evil is dead......
Finally succombed to complications due to lack of brain function?
This is Bo Dietl doing his best Archie Bunker impression.
It's racist, bigoted, and well, kind of stupid.
However, if he'd added 'doing something suspicious' I'd be all for it. But that of course should include anyone..of any race, religion or ethnic background.
Jeter,
That's the point, isn't it?
Nobody would have a problem if he said someone doing something suspicious, regardless of race, creed or color!
Yeah Skep that should be the point.
Except of course we had the case of the "Flying Imams", where Middle eastern Muslim men were acting suspicious [according to many observers] and we know how that turned out. Charges of racial profiling leveled at those that reported the suspicious behavior...
The Flying Imams. What a scam they are trying to pull on the US.
I think education is in order for the American public, and we unfortunately do not have video evidence (odd, that - aren't there cameras everywhere in airports?) of what happened. The Imams say they were merely praying. Onlookers say they were taunting the Americans.
Fact: The Imams would have been praying in the language of the Koran, so the onlookers would not necessarily have been able to know what they were saying, unless they spoke Arabic themselves.
Considering the intelligence of the average American, do you think they'd be able to tell the difference between suspicious plotting & mockery and fervent prayer? The answer may be yes or no. I honestly don't know who was in the right in that case, because of my secondary fact: Idiots abound in all groups. The Imams may just have been ***holes.
There where people present that spoke Aribic.
And who spoke Arabic as well.
...add to that "were" not "where"
Yes, Arabic.
Jeter,
The problem with that examplke is that those Imams were not doing anything suspicious.
Had they not been muslim, no-one would have reported anything.
The problem with that examplke is that those Imams were not doing anything suspicious.
Well that's still up for debate. Certainly those that observed their behavior & reported it had a different take on that.
This is a huge problem. When & what & who do we report? And when is it a legitimate concern, and when is it simply hysteria?
9/11 has heightened our awareness, but it's also heightened our suspicions.
Well that's still up for debate.
Based on what I've read, that the group was trying to provoke a response is at least plausible However, I consider it equally possible that the incident was the result of a bit of mass hysteria. Given the conflicting versions of events, only a jury may be able to sort out who's telling the truth.
No, not really.
Their behavior has been described by people hysterical about muslims, and has been described by the men themselves. Any reasonable person would not be suspicious of them after both their explanations of their behavior as well as the police investigations into their behavior.
They had no weapons. They had no plans to do anything bad. They didn't violate rules by changing seats. That was never true. They were big guys, and they did ask for seatbelt extenders because of that. There was no there there. It looks like one person became panic-stricken, and then he/she told a couple of other people, and innocent behavior was given sinister motives.
You where not there, how do you know.
People thinking that they are acting suspicious and them actually acting suspicious are two different things.
People like Dietl making comments like this only help confuse the issue. It sure looks like the Imans weren't doing anything suspicious at all, in fact. Hysteria caused by comments like this led people to see danger where no existed. They did use the seatbelt extenders. They were large men. They did not do anything unusual in their seating choices or changes. They were praying in their own language. It was hysteria driven by people like Dietl that profiled these people simply because of what they looked like. Based upon their looks, their other normal and acceptable behavior looked sinister to others.
Let me be clear. I do not believe that airlines should discriminate against Muslims, the vast majority of whom are good law-abiding citizens.
Nor do I believe it is wise for security to profile Muslim men. That makes it too easy for potential terrorists to succeed by breaking with the profile. But it also is unwise to pass laws that deter citizens from reporting suspicious behavior by individuals who belong to groups more likely to support terrorism.
Hi Jeter. This case is an interesting one. Although I believe the alegations of suspisious behaviour have been pretty well debunked and the supposed witnesses that came out publically turned out to not even be first hand witnesses but just repeating what they heard others saying. I agree we don't want people to ignore warning signs and we want people to be vigilant about there surroundings. But what is your position on the issue if in fact there was no suspicious activity and it was a case of people making things up because they didn't like how these people looked and didn't like their religion. Should it go unpunished when false reports are made to law enforcement? Should those who may have been damaged by the false allegation be left with no remedy or recourse? Do we allow those who would intentionally damage the reputation of innocent people to cause that damage with out consequences for their bigotry? I think it is an interesting issue and one of many real issues that have arisen about our freedoms here in the US due to the "war on terrorism".
Hi LostLogic,
You have presented an interesting dilemma:
But what is your position on the issue if in fact there was no suspicious activity and it was a case of people making things up because they didn't like how these people looked and didn't like their religion. Should it go unpunished when false reports are made to law enforcement? Should those who may have been damaged by the false allegation be left with no remedy or recourse?
I believe Congress just passed [or it's pending] a John Doe law that would protect those that reported alleged suspicious behavior from being sued. I may be a bit off on this...news flies by so fast I sometimes only absorb a gist of it ;-)
This is of course one of those two edged sword examples.
Good: If you or I honestly report something that appears suspicious, even if it turns out not to be-- we can't be sued.
Bad: This opens up the possibility that you mentioned, folks intentionally reporting something false to damage another person, or persons reputation.
I wish I could give you a definitive opinion on this...but I'm torn.
I'm Italian, I tan up pretty dark in the summer. I have brown eyes and dark brown hair. I've never been mistaken for being Middle Eastern, but if someone--out of spite--dropped a dime to the authorities alleging something false about me, I'd be pretty ripped that I couldn't haul them into court.
Still, we don't want anyone not reporting suspicious behavior that might be legitimate out of fear they'd get sued if they are wrong.
So I guess I'm just confused on this topic :-/
I'm with you on this one. I have seriously conflicted feelings that run along the same lines you pointed out. I actually have the same conflict about several other things that are currently going on in the name of secuirty. For instance the whole wiretapping/eavesdropping thing...I listened to some of the debates on C-span and I have to say it left me very conflicted. while I naturally gravitate towards protecting our privacy some of the republicans made some substantial arguments for their version of the bill. It has become a very strange time and blurred the lines even more for me as to what whould be done.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=269824091134203
The Imams are free to sue. They did exhibit strange behavior. I think the complaints against them were legit. I would do the same thing. I would also complain about the blond white guy sitting next to me who exhibited extraordinary behavior. The Imams moved around to sit in the same seating pattern as one of the 9/11 crew. I don't care if they weren't planning on taking the plane down, their behavior was intended to intimidate and the passengers had every right to complain. Horrors! I am white, and not ashamed of it, and I am disgusted with human rights groups who choose to lick the ass of every non-white person in this country. Lick all you want, but don't expect me to join in.
And here you prove your ignorance of what actually happened there.
What is "9/11 style seating?" And how many people actually know where the hijackers on 9/11 actually sat and where they sat and what they did? Come on now, you've got to be joking?
The reason why civil rights people "lick" non white butts is because those are the people whose civil rights are normally abused and or wiped out. Poor you. I'm sure being a white male (I assume here) you've been so discriminated against in your lifetime. Sad sob story about being the persecuted majority.
White female, actually. I have been discriminated against plenty, but I did not announce it to the world and demand everyone to stop and feel sorry for me. Persecuted majority? Interesting. I would like to think we have become civilized enough as a society to refrain from “abusing” or “wiping out” anyone’s civil rights. The problem is that the definition of civil rights has become so gray and distorted that something as innocent as looking at somebody cross-eyed can now be considered a violation. More eggshells to walk on, and increasing ignorance all in the name of PC. I live by the Golden Rule, how long will it be before someone claims that a violation?
I assume you are a white male?
BTW, Dietl is a hard-nosed cop. Can his callousness be attributed to years of dealing with the scum of society? If years of civil rights protection hasn't, by now, created a glorious society where nobody hurts anybody else's feelings, then how can we fault him for his persona? How frustrating!
Callousness yes, racism no. There is no excuse for his racist and bigoted views, nor is there any excuse for yours.
Bo Dietl, to use Solon’s favorite term is a MORAN plain and simple. His ignorance come from simply being ignorant. How can we fault him? At what point does a person gain some type of intelligence? When their 10 years old or 20 or 30 or 40 or even 50 years of age? For Bo it appears he’ll have to turn up his toes before he stops spouting Aba Daba Boo and realize that he need a brain to take part in any type of intelligent conversation regarding the safety of this nation.
Well then we are even. I am sick of ignorant, bigoted, cretins like you making white people like me look bad.
Can somebody tell me why this Dietl twerp is even on television? I had always assumed that he appeared on Imus occasionally as a joke, since he sounded like a character actor from a cheap mafia movie. Is he supposed to be some kind of expert or something?
He's a former NYC police department detective, so yes, he's considered an expert on some level. He also explains much of thinking behind a department that is capable of churning out men who can put 72 slugs in an unarmed man.
....and plungers in people's anus. I certainly hope Dietl isn't representative of New York's finest, if he is New Yorkers are in trouble.
This racist garbage from Bo Dietl is nothing new, after all he spewed this type of racist garbage when he was on Imus and he does it now on FOX.
And he gained fame as one of those joke interviews on the Daily Show. He was so awful that they interviewed him TWICE!!!
I am not condoning profiling but.... A local sheriff in CO was using profiling to catch CA gangs transporting drugs through his county. They eventually had to stop because one car load of youths who were charged with intent to sell ( many pounds of various illegal controlled substances were discovered in the rental car after "voluntary" search) were successful in getting their charges dismissed because the original reason for pulling the car over was strictly profiling. What profile you ask? late model rental car with out of state plates, more than 2 young male occupants, wrappers and packaging from fast food/convienience stores. The sheriff is a friend of my wife's and claimed that out of only a dozen or so stops made with this profile, only one did not result in drug trafficking charges. So, my point is, racial profiling is too blunt an instrument, but there are methods of profiling that are effective, and it is not violation of rights to start surveilance based on a profile. As long as the surveilence leads to court admissable evidence, independent of the original profiling, the charges should stick, and no ones rights are violated. It's important that the surveilence is not publicized as that would violate a right to privacy.
Profiling is a very slippery slope, due to the pressure the law enforcement officers are under to get convictions, but it can used legally and effectively.
It should be obvious to true Americans that racial profiling is anti American, and is illegal for good reason.
Very well written and thought-out. Tommy and I (dunno about the pseudo-savage nomoto whatever) are simply saying that we think it is illogical to dismiss one's ethnicity and religion as ONE consideration when identifying potential threats.
I am on the same page.
I would like to clarify that it is illegal and anti-american to use ethnicity and or religion at all for profiling.
No. You may use facts to make educated guesses without being assailed as un-american.
"That guy driving by is black and a teenager. I'd better find an excuse to pull him over because I'd bet he's guilty of something."
That is un-American, and that is not an educated guess, but that does happen, and it is what Dietl seems to be advocating to the muslim community.
The problem is that many people from the Mideast have many of the same physical characteristics just as many Europeans, Asians, Africans do.
Since we are at war with Islamofacists and so far they have been primarily from the Middle East, it is easy to put two and two together. After all, Little old ladies in walkers do not generally sneak bombs or box cutters onto airplanes, but young Arabs have.
If for example, all islamofacists wore a red headband, it would make it easier to spot them. Unfortunately they don't, but because of the freedoms here in the U.S., the islamofacists know they can walk around here relatively unchallenged.
If we were not at war, things might be different. However I don't have a problem with authorities using their common sense and visual clues to check young Arab men. I think it should be done professionally and with courtesy, and with as little disruption as possible, but I think it only makes sense to have our law enforcement officers be vigilant.
Since somebody earlier brought up the Old Testament as if the crusades had happened yesterday, I'd like to point out that if Christian radicals were flying planes into buildings and plotting to do several other terrible acts, I would be TOTALLY fine with ANYONE wearing some sort of Christian symbol on their selves when boarding planes or other mass transit to be pulled and searched.
I was under the impression that the IRA was steeped in a specific brand of Christianity, yet I sincerely doubt anyone was worried about a person with a bible in his luggage boarding a plane from Dublin to London.
Yet, if the English DID stop people traveling from Belfast with red hair and wearing a crucifix, or at least considered that as part of a broader suspicion, would you call them paranoid?
Oh what a good idea. Stopping people with red hair in Ireland. Faith and begorrah.
A splendid illustration of the point. You can't tell a Provo from an Ulsterman by their hair. Either you stop everybody (which is what they actually do) or try to develop intelligence on the actual bad actors.
Red hair? Oh good...profiling based on an ignorant stereotype. You'd only be missing about 90% of the Irish population.
Uh, YES. I would call them paranoid. Are you honestly saying it would be somehow acceptable?!
the IRA were are a socialist/marxist movement fighting forces of occupation stopping catholics would have been piontless since not all IRA volunteers were catholic in fact one of the most revered martyrs Wolfe Tone was a british protestant .IRA intelligence officer and main gun runner Roger Casement was a former british naval officer . and we dont all have red hair just as all americans dont wear stetsons
The idea of lines of priests, nuns and other religious being singled out for searching makes me laugh. This is becoming farcical.
So you're saying, AA, that we at war with all Arab-looking people?
Usually one reads to gain understanding. I have my doubts in your case.
I know by reading your posts I've gained zero understanding of how your brain works.
Surely AA you don't think that Middle Eastern men should be randomly stopped and questioned just for looking Middle Eastern? Besides being a violation of the young mens rights, its a monumental waste of money and effort.
I still laugh whenever anyone uses the term 'Islamofacist". Do you even know what Facism is? And if so, do you realize how ridiculous it is to use the term "Islamofacist"?
Let us look at the facts first. They were not pulled over for looking like Muslims. It was a traffic stop. After that it became a cause for alarm. So do not assume they were pulled over because of racial profiling.
Bruce from Florida
I think Fox Noise has broken its own record for the most racist blather in a single "news"cast.
“Islam is a very inclusive religion, but Muslims have given it a bad name,” Hendi, who was born in Nablus on the West Bank and came to the United States 20 years ago, told Reuters."http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C10%5Cstory_10-7-2007_pg7_10
Don't forget MSNBC paired him with Lisa Daniels and gave them a half hour show.
I think it lasted about a week.
1) Islamic terrorism is a real threat. Al Qaeda is a real threat. And I do think that terrorist attacks worldwide are fewer than they''d otherwikse be because tens of thousaands of dedicated folks from many nations working hard every day to thwarrt terrorists and root them out.
But if Al Qaeda is a threat, why does in still exist? Why is Osama Bin Laden still alive and free? George W. Bush sent the world a devastating message: if you attack America destroy builldings and kill thousands of civilians, you will get away with it.
And should we protect our country? Not if it means inspecting our container shipping, or guarding our chemical factories or tank cars carrying lethal loads with actual troops, now. No let's let those bottom-line-firsters hire their own security! And let's let an Arab company manage the ports! And of course let's have a national network of first responders to cope with a terrorist attack so that, when it happens, the damage will be minimized and America gets right back on its feet! Yeah, and let's get a guy from the Arabian Horse Association to run it! Oh, and requiring a security check to see if the guy buying an assault rifle might be a terrorist? Can't do that!
None of those actual, real-life defensive measures have been taken--but oh! They're ready to suspend the Constitution! We're supposedly in the fight for the existence of Western Civilization--but war taxes? A Draft? Hey, guys, it's 1938! Where's the draft? Where's the commandeering of factories? Where's the rationing? We're at war!
I'm not going to talk Al Gore: if George W. Bush had given Richard Clarke the respect he deseerves, we might not have had 9/11. And even if it had, if Richard Clarke had been in charge of the subsequent global war on terror, Al Qaeda would not now exist.
But the wingnuts invoke 'extreme Islam' while we sell the most extremely Islamic nation on the face of the planet billions of dollars of weapons. And we scream about an Islamic nation who maybe one day might get a nuclear bomb (maybe two!) but say nothing about a nation full of extreme Muslims that already has numerous nuclear weapons. Oh, but they're our allies!
NONE of these real measures are taken. Instead, the War of Civilizations is invoked for two purposes only: 1) shutting up political opponents, and 2)profiteering.
And will you listen to yourselves? The nation should cower and suspend the Bill of Rights because of pipe bombs? Why, with pipe bombs they could attack Fort Dix! They could ...
Instead of good police work, Bo Dietl espouses the tried and true tactic of the southern sheriff: harrass on the basis of ethnicity. It's the same thing: instead of actually fighting terrorism, they're using it as an excuse for their ugly tendencies.
This article seems to be very similar to one MMFA did on Dietl last March, except then he was concerned about people named Ali Baba Boo.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150013
It's nice to see that Dietl continues to hone his comedy material.
Dietl also runs a private security firm (Beau Dietl & Associates), which counts among its clients the Saudi Royal Family. I'm assuming he doesn't think that they should be profiled, and I'm wondering what they think of their nasty little employee's denigration of Arab names.
Yeah but this isn't what Dietl is talking about is it?
it seems to me that if a police officer carries out his or her duties based up their personal prejudices then that is either an unfit, or a poorly trained police officer
Basic police work like stopping vehicles that match those reported to have been used in a crime or even questioning somebody who fits a witness description is a far cry from racial profiling.
Agreed, but that isn't what Dietl was saying.
His exact quote: "So we have to be able to profile. And I'm sorry, if I see two guys that look like Aba Daba Doo and Aba Daba Dah, I'm gonna pull 'em over, and I wanna find out what you're doing."
He is clearly advocating profiling based solely on looks, and not in answer to a report responding to a specific crime. If a witness sees a person of a particular description leaving a crime scene, then it is good policework to investigate people in the area who fit that description.
Even those who are extremely opposed to ethnic profiling typically make an exception when one is looking for a specific suspect for a specific crime (typically called the B.O.L.O. or "Be On the Look-Out" exception), but even then it should be paired with other distinguishing characteristics.
On the other hand, Dietl's apparent distaste toward Arabs and Muslims generically (as evidenced by his making up demeaning and nonsensical names to describe them), in my opinion makes him less than qualified to describe a fair scenario under which civil liberties are observed.
Ethnic profiling also runs counter to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
Have we not learned anything in this country? After all the years and all the mistakes (Japanese internment camps) can we not claim to have learned anything? When faced with a problem lock up everyone who we think looks like our enemy. People even police officers can't tell the difference between someone who is Sikh and someone who is Muslim. My God all those "dark" people look alike. Take a look at the mistakes ignorance causes http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=278
Do we think that Islamic radicals could not and would not change their attackers based on our "supposed" profiling? Maybe they would send someone who no longer looked so "Muslim"? Maybe he/she would be a "blond haired" and "blue eyed" attacker? My God what would that "racial profiling" get you then?
People like Dietl make me sick. Name calling like Aba Dada Doo have no place in intelligent conversations about the security of our nation. Fox network has no shame when they allow ignorant people to appear on their network.
the sad than about bo dietl comments are,this person use to be new york city police officer, so a person could imagine, how he treated people of a different race or religion in the streets of new york
Different?
I fear the way he treated his own race in NYC.
Dietl was just being a jerk, doing his act to make himself more attractive to the news outlets.
Bo Dietl has my vote if he ever runs for any public office. If you morons want to open your minds a bit, why don't you click over to [link to jihadwatch.org] to see what this very real threat is all about.
I have a neighbor very much like you. Sad. We bring him food once in awhile, and try to talk to him. He is afraid of just about everything Fox tells him to be afraid of, and misses the obvious wolf in sheep's clothing like self-proclaimed uber-Christians.
This man is exactly what terrorists want. They want us to be terrorized, just like Fox "News" wants us to be afraid so they can attempt to increase their viewership.
Hey... just like the Repubs, I can now state emphatically that the terrorists want Fox "News" and Christofascists to prevail! Just how scared would be be without these crazy people running around telling us the second coming is near?
You know nothing about me. Your ignorance is evident. I'm not terrorized - but like any good citizen should be, I'm concerned about recent events in my country.
Take some time to really educate yourself about Islam. Read the information at the link I provided, and do some independent research on the subject. My god man, open your eyes.
Good googly-moogly! Take some time to really educate yourself about history, because you would be hiding in your basement for fear of the Christians. Read the information at the link you provided in the context of world hstory, and do some better independent research on the subject.
My god man, you are a pawn to BushCo and Fox.
It's a shame that you are so closed-minded and ignorant. Wake up, because Islam is a real problem that threatens our very way of life. I'm not talking about terrorism - I'm talking about Islam. Take a look at what's happening in the U.K., the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. Those countries embraced Islam as a "peaceful" religion and allowed it to permeate their society. Now they're fighting to retain their national identities because of the Islamic onslaught. We're headed down that same path if we continue to disregard our borders, language, and culture.
I welcome all INTELLIGENT replies. I know this might be asking too much on this site, but please try to refrain from irrelevant points & personal attacks...
"I know this might be asking too much on this site, but please try to refrain from irrelevant points & personal attacks..."
You mean like the following: "If you morons want to open your minds a bit..." "Your ignorance is evident." "I welcome all INTELLIGENT replies." "It's a shame that you are so closed-minded and ignorant."
I wish we could have an INTELLIGENT conversation, but you keep pointing to ignorant propaganda links. Then you tell us we are morons for obviously having read more than you and understanding far more. You and your ilk want the US to act like scared pawns, then tell us with wide-eyes that WE do not get it. Nazi Germany definitely got your message some time ago, where seemingly intelligent people believed (yes, actually believed) that the "others" were coming to get them and change their ways of life.
The awful history of hard-core religious fanatics is the only thing we need to keep in mind, and I'm keeping my eyes on Christianity. Good Lord, open your eyes.
It is a shame you are so closed-minded and ignorant. Sorry, it sometimes feels good to use silly, childish statements once in awhile. Maybe it is time for me to get to BillO's site and tell them that they are all blind.
Those are just true statements based on what I've read of your posts. You don't offer any real discussion, just these other sub-issues to hide your lack of understanding of the real issue.
Now it's your turn to offer up some irrelevant statistics like more people die in aircraft accidents, or ask some ridiculous question about what I was afraid of prior to 9-11. Go ahead.
Let me offer you some truths and statistics. YOU are a moron. YOU are a bigot. 95% of the people of the entire world pity you for your obvious stupidity. You have the IQ of dryer lint on a GOOD day. The fact you thought you had offered ANYTHING other than bigoted and stupid opinions shows how dumb you really are. Give us a break, your inane posts would lower the standards at a KKK website. Please spare us your ignorance and bigotry. Life is too short to read such useless drivel
Why would you want an intelligent reply? Your stupidity is monumental. You are an ignorant bigot. You wouldnt recognize logic it if kicked down your door sat at your breakfast table and ate your cornflakes. Your stupidity passes human understanding. It must be left over from the primordial ooze of original stupid. You are a bigot. Your ignorance and prejudices do not define reality. Reading the vast ignorance of your posts has my braincells screaming for the sweet release of a coma. Do us all a favor, increase your medication and let the grownups talk now.
I am sorry but the judges have ruled you are FAR to ignorant a cretin to be giving us any advice. You are a moron, and a bigot and your advice is worth less than the mud on the bottom of my shoes. Your stupidity is noted and your posts are worthless. I could eat a bowl of Alphabet soup and crap out a more thoughtful post. Please obtain a working cerebral cortex before affronting us with any more of your ignorant rantings.
I should have stopped at the “Bo Dietl has my vote”. Make sure when you’re hiding under your bed you have your special blanket to suck your thumb with. Bo could not run for any “public” office cause he could not open his mouth.
By the way you are more likely to die in a traffic death than terrorism.
August 24, 2006 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 43,443 people were killed on the highways last year.
Bathrooms and multi-story buildings are much more threatening to the average American than harm from terrorism, but we've done a cost-benefit analysis of this and the benefits are worth the cost to have buildings with stairs and wet porcelain surfaces.
If we did a fair cost-benefit analysis of profiling all people who looked Arab and/or Muslim, the costs would far outweigh the benefits.
Good vote for whoever you want. If you thought your demonstrable ignorance and abject stupidity were a cogent argument for something please try to obtain some functional braincells. Stupid, bigoted and clueless are no way to go through life fool. I will see your rightwing hatesite and raise you one that claims the Smurfs are an international communist conspiricy. Grow up, grow a spine and rent a brainpan, moron.
Driving while Muslim?
Julietwaters,
What were you scared of before 9-11?
Why do you ask?
Dietl couldn't get elected to dog catcher in New York City.
Most people here recognize him for the clown he is.
Woohoooo. 217 posts and counting, and this isn't even a "Why is this here" thread! First, Barry Bonds, now this!
"So we have to be able to profile. And I'm sorry, if I see two guys that look like Aba Daba Doo and Aba Daba Dah, I'm gonna pull 'em over, and I wanna find out what you're doing."
Unfortunately for Dietl, Muslims come in lots of different packages, from Africa to Southest Asia, from Europe to the Americas. Dietl's just going to have to pull everybody over, unless they have a fish on the car -- and even that could be camouflage.
As Gabby Hayes used to say, he's a durned idjit.
is yaba daba do what yogi the bear said ? so big bo is looking for a large bear and a small bear wearing hats driving cars i for one am keeping my eyes peeled julietwalters are you with me ? we can start yogibearwatch.com
Too many posts to read but I think that Mr. Dittle would get pulled over by himself if he looked in the rear-view mirror? Are we sure he is not a sleeper cell terrorist? Someone arrest him? Let us get to the bottom of this...He shows the features of a something and that is good enough to question him. I think!!!
Without any exaggeration, the talking heads on FoxNews from hosts to regular guests ALL look corrupt. FoxNews has become unreliable. Its now an act to see who can outdo each other with the most perverse information. Disgraceful journalism.
Very good Mr. Dietl, but what we are all really wondering is whether or not you have graduated...from third grade.
This is sooo unworthy of me, and my convictions regarding civilized discourse . . . but his "aba daba" comment made me realize how much he resembles Fred Flintstone--or maybe Fred's dumber, meaner cousin. I'm sorry for that.
That guy's name is Richard "Bo" Dietl? Hmmm, I always thought it was Tom something.