由 D. PARVAZ | 如果您想知道多么绝望腌汁我们是在我们的“反恐怖战争中”，检查以下项目： 司法部是否研磨让FBI调查美国。 公民和没有不道德的行为的证据的法定居民。 反而，调查员会允许使用种族描出，瞄准，根据 美联社， “穆斯林、阿拉伯人或者其他种族和族群。 … 变动将允许联邦调查局特工询问无限制的问题穆斯林或阿拉伯美国人的活动，或者调查他们，如果他们的工作和背景匹配趋向分析员视为嫌疑”。 迈克尔Mukasey检察长 否认 这发生。 另外，正他不考虑waterboarding酷刑，或许Mukasey有一个新的期限为种族描出(”种族公认”将听起来完全赞美)。 并且，资深联邦调查局特工和执法官员与AP讲了话对潜在的新的指南，因此我们知道它被考虑的was/is。 对第二次世界大战天说你好，当 正义日语 是将被看见的足够作为威胁。 如此，我们被告诉种族描出也许允许作为一个合法的调查工具。 我猜测意味所有warrantless暗中侦察在数以万计美国人，调查通过我们的邮件和电子邮件和监视谁我们叫未产生用证据方式。 无论如何。

假设，这是道德上可接受的，并且它不违犯我们 公民自由. 并且在事实不我们居住，一旦这类事被运用于一个小组，它可以应用于其他小组。 在世界，没有对真正的证据的需要，我们将依靠威胁(至少一部分，权利？) 今天坏蛋、穆斯林或者阿拉伯人的特征或者什么。 除了，很好，什么那真正地卑鄙？

回教是宗教，不是种族。 如此这是宗教描出和别的一样多。 当我们在给犹太人的国家时皱眉， Baha’是，并且基督徒一种不愉快的经历，作为在某些情况下(核能)，我们考虑授予豁免。

并且， “阿拉伯人”不是种族。 它不国籍。 阿拉伯人是Semitic人。 That word, Semitic, is used to describe a family of languages (including Hebrew), a culture and perhaps a common ancestry between the speakers of those languages. So, ethnicity, language and religion can cross boundaries of race and nationality. For example, Iranians aren’t Semitic — they were originally considered to be Indo-European (again, a language group) or Aryan. Like other cultures, Iran’s is a bit of a mishmash. So, “Aryan” is also used to describe Persian language, culture and lineage. It’s a tribal, not racial, designation. And yet, though originally Zoroastrian, Iran is now an Islamic Republic. That’s not even taking into account what happens when we look to Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Southeast Asia or North Africa and beyond, where people can sure seem Muslimy, but might not be. And so what if they were? Well, if they move here, they might get profiled for just being who they are.

Now, back to the point: Who would we look for? Apparently someone who may or may not be involved in suspicious activity but who is perhaps vaguely associated with the culture, geography, language or religion of (as one friend calls me) The People of the Sand. I’m not trashing the idea of behavioral profiles, and I don’t think FBI agents are racist. But this notion of targeting a racial/ethnic/religious group for sweeping investigations, sans evidence, is a bad idea.

In a sane world, this thing would go about as far as being uttered in a morning meeting somewhere in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., before someone would kill it with a, “What the?!? Racial profiling?!? That’s your bright idea? Get out. No, really, just put down the muffin and leave.” However, we live in far dimmer times. Those who aren’t alarmed by racial profiling ought to consider what makes this country special and think about what will be left to protect in a fascistic society where the individual’s basic rights — and our ideal of equal rights — are meaningless.

Just how much of this nonsense are we supposed to suck up in the name of national security?