A Muslim PhD student gets targeted as a security risk; now he wants to know why
features.crosscut.com
features.crosscut.com
There are two other problems with this mindset. The first is that objectively quantifying the benefit vs. downside of marginalizing a particular group doesn't happen. Instead, feelings and opinions seep in -- a fear of the "other", if you will. The second is that, by marginalizing a group, you more often that not end up making your problem worse.
The "other way" is to try to understand the root causes behind such attacks, and work with the communities that are closest; in this case, Muslim communities around America. It's quite known by now that American Muslims are very willing to cooperate with authorities when the need arises.
We don't see radical Buddhist bombing things?
> We DON"T have Radical Christians, Radical Hindus, Radicial Buddhist trying to blow up civilians.
Ehh there are in fact radical Christians who kill innocents in the US. Radical Hindus and Buddhists also exist, but in other countries.
> It does mean however that more specific attention should be paid to muslims, as they are most likely to contain the threat.
So I assume you think it's OK to profile people of other religions and/or ethnicities (e.g., African Americans)?
Where? That doesn't sound credible, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt.
Don't get 1 nut job...show me what you mean?
I would argue that all terrorists are nutjobs, so...
Look up the history of attacks on abortion clinics.
It's not representative - only 9 people are mentioned.
edit: I corrected the caps...thank you. I didn't know.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
To everyone in this thread: This entire topic is incredibly contentious and as such requires even more care and benefit of the doubt when engaging in discussion. Please ask yourself, what is your goal in discussion here? To understand the others you're talking with? To express your opinion? To convince the "other side"? If you're not here for useful, constructive, civil, and respectful discussion, please just refrain from commenting. Shouting louder than every one else is not helpful, and as the mods repeatedly point out, HN is not the place for ideological flamewars.
"Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent)."
Apparently (as I literally learned right now via a Google search), this is a thing: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/200...
As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims include the 2017 Charlottesville attack, the mosque bombing in Bloomington, MN, the stabbing of Timothy Caughman, the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, and the 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting.
What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
The government does not discriminate based on religion. That's why he got his security badge and job. This is not about discrimination at all. It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred.
> As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
That term is meaningless here. As I said, there is no religious persecution. It's just investigative agencies doing their job. I think they are being over-cautious in a lot of cases to the point of harassment of a significant number of innocent individuals. But I'd rule out any "bigotry" or discrimination.
> You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims
Not relevant. The vast majority of international terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's what I meant. Other terrorist attacks exist and must be protected against, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this particular method.
> What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
There are many ways. Even though it's irrelevant here, I'll try to mention something. There are few patterns in a lot of mass shootings in the US. All of these can be used to initiate pre emptive investigations on a suspected individual, even though she hasn't done anything yet. Similar to the case mentioned in the article, this can also lead to harassment of a large number of innocents.
Except that we know that people get put on the list by accident and out of spite. (https://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/ and https://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/24/muslim_americans_accu... ).
You write "checks" but checks need balances. Where is the balance here, and is it effective? Was he denied his due process rights? I think so.
"No discrimination has occurred."
How would you know if discrimination has or hasn't occurred? None of this information is public and there's very little oversight.
The State of Texas said that its voter ID laws were not discriminatory. A judge, after receiving far more information than we know about the various US watch lists, disagreed, and granted a permanent injunction against it.