由 D. PARVAZ | 如果您想知道多麼绝望醃汁我們是在我們的「反恐怖戰爭中」，檢查以下項目： 司法部是否研磨讓FBI調查美國。 公民和沒有不道德的行為的證據的法定居民。 反而，調查員會允許使用種族描出，瞄準，根據 美聯社， 「穆斯林、阿拉伯人或者其他種族和族群。 … 變動將允許聯邦調查局特工詢問無限制的問題穆斯林或阿拉伯美國人的活動，或者調查他們，如果他們的工作和背景匹配趨向分析員視為嫌疑」。 邁克爾Mukasey檢察長 否認 這發生。 另外，正他不考慮waterboarding酷刑，或許Mukasey有一個新的期限為種族描出(」種族公認」將聽起來完全讚美)。 並且，資深聯邦調查局特工和執法官員與AP講了話對潛在的新的指南，因此我們知道它被考慮的was/is。 對第二次世界大戰天說你好，當 正義日語 是將被看見的足够作為威脅。 如此，我們被告訴種族描出也許允許作為一個合法的調查工具。 我猜測意味所有warrantless暗中偵察在數以萬計美國人，調查通過我們的郵件和電子郵件和監視誰我們叫未產生用證據方式。 無論如何。

假設，這是道德上可接受的，并且它不違犯我們 公民自由. 并且在事實不我們居住，一旦這類事被運用於一個小組，它可以應用於其他小組。 在世界，沒有對真正的證據的需要，我們将依靠威脅(至少一部分，權利？) 今天壞蛋、穆斯林或者阿拉伯人的特徵或者什麼。 除了，很好，什麼那真正地卑鄙？

回教是宗教，不是種族。 如此這是宗教描出和別的一樣多。 當我們在給猶太人的國家時皺眉， Baha』是，并且基督徒一種不愉快的經歷，作為在某些情況下(核能)，我們考慮授予豁免。

並且， 「阿拉伯人」不是種族。 它不國籍。 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?