I am interested in Nox's opinion of the following, whether he predicted something like this happening, his approval/disapproval. I ask because I believe Nox has a great deal of influence on this posting site... I wonder how he will react. And, of course, I'm interested in anyone else's thoughts too...

Reported on Yahoo News 20/12/02

"Hundreds of Iranian and other Middle East citizens were in southern California jails on Wednesday after coming forward to comply with a new rule to register with immigration authorities only to wind up handcuffed and behind bars.



Shocked and frustrated Islamic and immigrant groups estimate that more than 500 people have been arrested in Los Angeles, neighboring Orange County and San Diego in the past three days under a new nationwide anti-terrorism program. Some unconfirmed reports put the figure as high as 1,000."

What do you think?

Every anti-terrorism in this country has been blatantly unconstitutional, and I would personally shoot each one of their authors if no consequences against me would occor.

Homer

Sounds a little like a referee doing a make-up call after blowing one earlier in the game. But if a few persians spending a night or ten in jail will prevent me from being killed by a car bomb, I'm okay with it.

Why, exactly, were they arrested, according to law enforcement? Your article doesn't say, and I'm wondering why.

It will come as no surprize that I am in favor of what happened. I will now qualify that statement:

The only thing about it that I know is what appeared in your post. If this is all the information that the story contained, then this is a flagrant attempt to distort and put a political slant on news, ie, 'the poor immigrant'.

My hope is, that there is more to the story and I have twenty bucks that says that there is.

Here is my speculation, and I will try to confirm/deny it later: This was a 'sting' operation. The folks that showed up thought they were going to get some kind of amnesty for overstaying visas or an automatic extension of the visa and were arrested when they proved their identity.

I have zero sympathy.

If they are illegally in this country, for whatever reason, they are criminals and should be deported. The fact that they are Middle-eastern is purely academic.

I find it interesting that you feel that I am in some way an opinion maker at Totse. It is totally true that I am opinionated ... however, I have always tried to explain why I have any particular attitude/opinion/philosophy as opposed to just making a blanket statement and letting it go. Now, if someone reads my opinion and my rationale and finds it consistent with their own feelings, then the only thing I have done is 'break the ice' for their subsequent post. If someone has no particular feeling one way or the other and they read my words which directs their opinion, then I am indeed an opinion maker. I try to state often that my words are one man's opinion.

Nox

Nox, once again, you have a Partial point.
a)If they are here illegaly, then oh hell yes they need to go
b)most here illegally would not show up for something like this.
c)this law will not stop people from staying here illegally, it will cut down on middle eastern people over here.

Homer

[This message has been edited by HomerJay603 (edited 12-20-2002).]

Ok Nox, we all need to get real about our role on this site. What I mean is, we all need to recognise our influence upon the thinking of others. Yes, I have noted that you show your arguments in the light of objective appraisal. But, we all know that you have an agenda you lean towards. Hence, it is unlikely you (or anyone for that matter) could avoid presenting your spin on things even when you make "neutral" political posts. Keep in mind that all of us do it, we can't help it. I'm not singling you out; I'm hoping that you are aware of this dynamic in all of us.(Even if its just that we choose to present certain "true" facts in preference for other "true" facts).

This was an article from Yahoo. If anything, I have noted time and time again an American point of view espoused with this news service. They're not very professional (so I agree with your criticisms of it being a potentially flawed source of information) and I don't monitor them in order to stay properly aware of our political planet. I monitor them to see how everyone else views their world. (Everyone else being those people who will read news, accept it as gospel and alter their value systems accordingly... something no one could accuse you of doing).

Now, to break down your argument a little; you've said you approve of these people being jailed because if they are here illegally they should be deported. Prima facie, this argument is sound - so, most people will read your post and be influenced by it... except that there is one big problem with this argument. By the argument you've initially presented every single one of the people who have been detained would have to be deported if they (as it turns out) are here illegally. So if they are NOT all deported, then some innocent people have been put away without due process. That sucks.

But you're right, we don't really have enough information to make sound judgement in this case. Notice, however, that my tendency is to lean towards individual rights (without my having enough information in this particular case), yours is to lean towards the Lady of Liberty (without your having enough information in this particular case). I find this interesting - what do you think? Are we as infallible as we'd like to think we are?

How do you (and anyone else for that matter) feel about this statement:

"The Law should reflect morality, not the other way around."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Sounds a little like a referee doing a make-up call after blowing one earlier in the game. But if a few persians spending a night or ten in jail will prevent me from being killed by a car bomb, I'm okay with it.

Why, exactly, were they arrested, according to law enforcement? Your article doesn't say, and I'm wondering why.

---

This is bizarre, I went back to www.yahoo.com to give you the specific address, but the article's disappeared. It was there 4 hours ago. How strange.


[This message has been edited by 123Tool (edited 12-20-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
By the argument you've initially presented every single one of the people who have been detained would have to be deported if they (as it turns out) are here illegally. So if they are NOT all deported, then some innocent people have been put away without due process. That sucks.

---

I want to discuss this further, but I have a long day tomorrow and it's getting late. I will put out this tidbit as food for thought: Since they were arrested, there must be some charge against them. I do not know what it is, but there is a charge. It is possible some will not be deported, but that does not make them innocent of the charge for which they were arrested.

Much, much more to follow tomorrow ... I have not yet begun to pontificate.

Nox

harhar, I look forward to your pontifications... hmmm ,the exact same article has been printed in the Taipei Times, without a source included; almost like they've taken it directly off the Yahoo news service...

The article in question.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/021219/reuters/asia-138089.html

And even if every single one of them has overstayed their welcome, the "G" could have gone about this a little better.

Nox, why is it you assume that they were arrested with a charge? Are you suggesting the government's action are self-justifying? We know that the government can legally arrest them without a charge (American Patriot Act). The only thing that's missing is a logical reason they would, which leaves the issue open for question. I still think it's incorrect to automatically assume there was a charge, because arresting them for the hell of it doesn't go beyond our legal bounds.

Maybe they just arrested them to make it look like they were doing something about the terrorist boogey man. Lets see, AQ is still running around blowing shit up like nobody is looking for them, and everyday you hear about the "G" picking up someone's brother because they can't find the guy they were looking for in the first place. Yeah, we're getting our moneys worth, now lets give someone a medal.

a wise man on this site once said:
"Your war on terrorism is not a war, it is a crusade."
Nothing could be closer to the truth.
On very little, if any, evidence, the Bush administration is planning to charge on into Iraq, trumpets blaring, carrying miniature american flags, spouting shit about "freedom" and "justice," and not believing it one bit (or at least not acting the part).
There will ALWAYS be terrorism.
Since explosives have become redily available, small groups have decided to prove their point by hit and run bombing tactics. The victim country always screams "stop killing civilians, leave the innocents out of this!"
No one in this country is innocent who continues to support war, who continues to support "regime change," who continues to support the united states' "lets-play-favorites" foreign policy, or continues to support Israel, ignoring the injustices of the jews because the palestinians are less white.
Peace is not OUR responsibility.
Peace is the responsibility of those fighting.
The US has continued and will continue a "we are better than everyone else" and a "our ideas are better than yours" kind of attitude to the rest of the world. I recently asked a classmate about this and they said "because we have the biggest army." This is not an uncommon thought in america. The united states has become so stupid and neanderthalic that we actually believe that because we can beat up the nerd for calling us an infidel that we should. We should know that the more we do that, the more explosive paper airplanes we are going to have shot into our house.
After our "solution" to terrorism, I officially will not act sympethitic to the united states no matter what they shoot at us.
We dropped two bombs on Japan after WE were attacked, how would it be any less moral for arabs to do the same to us?

Homer

Global,

I read your link. I still have a ton of unanswered questions from the article. I'm just in the house for a quick in and out, more later.

I appreciate the link, but that article so far leaves me with the distinct flavor that the who, what, when, where, and why of journalism has yet to be fully explained.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
We dropped two bombs on Japan after WE were attacked, how would it be any less moral for arabs to do the same to us?
Homer

---

This implies that we attacked the Arabs first. Help me out here. It is a real stretch to associate the US of A with the Crusades. Now you need to show me where in history, that the USA was the aggressive initiator with the Arabs. Agressive responder, yes ... Aggressive initiator ...

Nox

I....am....not....completely....sure....but....it....may have something to do with the fact that we moved a BUNCH OF FUCKING JEWS ONTO THEIR LAND!!!
The arabs never really got pissed at us until not only did we set up israel, but ARMED THE FUCKERS TO THE TEETH!!
Do you think that we just randomly got attacked because they do not like us?
This legitimate grevience that they have against us has lasted for a long time.

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
Now, to break down your argument a little; you've said you approve of these people being jailed because if they are here illegally they should be deported.

---

I need to point out another thing here. I made this response to the limited information in your post. When I wrote that, I had not read the entire article, which came in a later link by Global.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
not only did we set up israel

---

Homer,

The last time I looked, "LORD BALFOUR" was a Brit not an American. And I get really tired of reminding the world of that ... especailly the Brits who constantly bellyache about the US Israel policy.

Nox

Thank you Mr. Nox, I too loath to have to remind people once again we didn't make the mess, we are trying to fix it. But, like the person who complains when you give him a million dollars in singles, some persons from England want to nit pick and cry foul about the way we are cleaning up their mess.

If you don't like the way we're doing it, why don't you show an ounce of balls and step up to the plate yourself?

First of all, although the action was oficially taken by the brits, it was under american pressure (there are a LOT of jews here, much more than in britain).
No one really believes that the british did set up Israel.
WE ARE NOT CLEANING UP ANY FUCKING MESS!!!
We are throwing fuel onto a fire. The palestinians will NEVER accept a treaty negotiated by such obviously biased diplomats. Plus the constant supply of arms to israel, and the grabbing of ships transporting arms to the palestinians? This is bullshit. To say that we are cleaning up the mess in israel is to say that Trent Lott is giving George Bush lessons on english.

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
First of all, although the action was oficially taken by the brits, it was under american pressure (there are a LOT of jews here, much more than in britain).

---

Homer,

This is false. Go to the web and look up Lord Balfour and the Balfour Declaration.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
"The Law should reflect morality, not the other way around."

---

The Law should reflect REALITY.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
First of all, although the action was oficially taken by the brits, it was under american pressure (there are a LOT of jews here, much more than in britain).
No one really believes that the british did set up Israel.
WE ARE NOT CLEANING UP ANY FUCKING MESS!!!
We are throwing fuel onto a fire. The palestinians will NEVER accept a treaty negotiated by such obviously biased diplomats. Plus the constant supply of arms to israel, and the grabbing of ships transporting arms to the palestinians? This is bullshit. To say that we are cleaning up the mess in israel is to say that Trent Lott is giving George Bush lessons on english.

Homer

---

You are in dire need of a history lesson. I suppose I'll have to give you one.

During and after World War I the British made two conflicitng statements, the first between the British and the Arabs and the second between the British and the Jews. The first would be the Husayn-McMahon pledge in which the British assured the Arabs of their independence in return for their military support against the Ottomans. The second was the Balfour declaration in which the British expressed sympathy for a Jewish state in Palestine.

After World War II tensions escalated between the Zionists and the Palestinians, when the British tried to intervene they were attacked by both the Zionists and Palestinians. After some time, the British realized that, that little area of worthless land was worth all this trouble so they gave up their mandate and transferred the problems to the UN. Eventually the UN decided to create to seperate states, Israel and Palestine (even the Soviets voted for this arrangement). The rest is history.

I find it interesting how the Palestinians always claim their land was stolen from them. Throughout history, borders have always been drawn and redrawn, nations created and destroyed. For example, after world war II Germany's eastern border was moved westward and the land given to the Poles. After world war I the Czehslovakia was created from the spoils of the Austro-hungarian Empire. In the nineteenth century the French sold the Lousiana territory to the Americans even while the Indians were still living there. It's simply the way the world works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
I....am....not....completely....sure....but....it....may have something to do with the fact that we moved a BUNCH OF FUCKING JEWS ONTO THEIR LAND!!!
The arabs never really got pissed at us until not only did we set up israel, but ARMED THE FUCKERS TO THE TEETH!!
Do you think that we just randomly got attacked because they do not like us?
This [b]legitimate grevience that they have against us has lasted for a long time.

Homer[/B]

---

Just when you thought it was safe to bitch about Israel, your favorite asshole has arrived on break.

Homer, If you look at history, you will see that not only the UK set up Israel, but the Czechs, French, and the UK armed them. You don't see U.S. arms showing up until 1967. And hey, since it's okay for arabs to kill Americans because of our Israeli policies, Is it okay for us to kill Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and however else arms arab terror organizations?

I expect to hear some crap about how it's a totally different situation, or a certain someone saying I totally missed the point, but supplying no reason why the point was missed. So bring it on.

Oh..yeah, a big howdy to Nox and Global. What's up guys?

quote:

---

But if a few persians spending a night or ten in jail will prevent me from being killed by a car bomb, I'm okay with it.

---

Cute.

Did you guys clone a Spirit of '22 while I was away?

quote:

---

If they are illegally in this country, for whatever reason, they are criminals and should be deported.

---

I also see you changed some laws in America. Last I checked, all had a right for a fair trial before being declared as criminals.

Ah well, it's not surprising really - things change very fast nowdays. You wake up one day and there's the homeland security bill, you wake up another day and there are hundreds of aliens arrested. Soon, i'll wake up to find out that the Bush Youth has just been formed.