![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mr. Sam (esq)
Jun. 18th, 2003 05:31 amtakes on the eye-crossing work of figuring out what happened in the Supreme Court this past session and lays it out for you.
Jun. 18th, 2003
Oh, Grover Norquist must be _furious_
Jun. 18th, 2003 07:47 am President Bush issued the first broad ban on racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies yesterday, but included exceptions permitting use of race and ethnicity to combat potential terrorist attacks.
The new policy covers about 120,000 officers at 70 federal agencies with law enforcement powers. It prohibits the use of "generalized stereotypes" based on race or ethnicity, and allows officers to consider them only as part of a specific description or tip from an informant.
"Routine patrol duties must be carried out without consideration of race," the Justice Department policy states. "Stereotyping certain races as having a greater propensity to commit crimes is absolutely prohibited."
The administration said the ban is the broadest ever issued by the federal government, and in some cases prohibits the use of race in ways that are not otherwise illegal or unconstitutional.
...
"There are certain narrow sets of circumstances where race or ethnicity is a common-sense factor that you would consider along with other factors," Boyd said. "But federal law enforcement cannot simply use race with no other information that someone has committed a crime."
The administration billed the policy as a major step in fulfilling Bush's pledge in his first address to Congress -- in February 2001 -- that racial profiling is "wrong, and we will end it in America."
...
The document cites the hypothetical case of a report by intelligence sources "that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to use commercial jetliners as weapons by hijacking them at an airport in California during the next week."
"Before allowing men appearing to be of Middle Eastern origin to board commercial airplanes in California airports during the next week, Transportation Security Administration personnel, and other federal and state authorities, may subject them to heightened scrutiny," the document states.
Men appearing to be Saudis, presumably, won't be put to the inconvenience.
Even if their suitcases are ticking.
I wonder - is there a racial profile for United States citizens putting out feelers to the Taliban and selling arms to "America's greatest threat" Saddam Hussein?
Oh, yeah, right. That wasn't racial. That was a Republican thing.
You wouldn't understand.
Way to polarize a growing middle-class ethnic minority, kids. That's gonna do you a world of good in Michigan next year.
(Funny, how after just a few years my outrage at the avalanche of dreadful things these people are doing is being given a run for its money by my shock and awe at how really stupid they are.
Well, mostly).
The new policy covers about 120,000 officers at 70 federal agencies with law enforcement powers. It prohibits the use of "generalized stereotypes" based on race or ethnicity, and allows officers to consider them only as part of a specific description or tip from an informant.
"Routine patrol duties must be carried out without consideration of race," the Justice Department policy states. "Stereotyping certain races as having a greater propensity to commit crimes is absolutely prohibited."
The administration said the ban is the broadest ever issued by the federal government, and in some cases prohibits the use of race in ways that are not otherwise illegal or unconstitutional.
...
"There are certain narrow sets of circumstances where race or ethnicity is a common-sense factor that you would consider along with other factors," Boyd said. "But federal law enforcement cannot simply use race with no other information that someone has committed a crime."
The administration billed the policy as a major step in fulfilling Bush's pledge in his first address to Congress -- in February 2001 -- that racial profiling is "wrong, and we will end it in America."
...
The document cites the hypothetical case of a report by intelligence sources "that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to use commercial jetliners as weapons by hijacking them at an airport in California during the next week."
"Before allowing men appearing to be of Middle Eastern origin to board commercial airplanes in California airports during the next week, Transportation Security Administration personnel, and other federal and state authorities, may subject them to heightened scrutiny," the document states.
Men appearing to be Saudis, presumably, won't be put to the inconvenience.
Even if their suitcases are ticking.
I wonder - is there a racial profile for United States citizens putting out feelers to the Taliban and selling arms to "America's greatest threat" Saddam Hussein?
Oh, yeah, right. That wasn't racial. That was a Republican thing.
You wouldn't understand.
Way to polarize a growing middle-class ethnic minority, kids. That's gonna do you a world of good in Michigan next year.
(Funny, how after just a few years my outrage at the avalanche of dreadful things these people are doing is being given a run for its money by my shock and awe at how really stupid they are.
Well, mostly).
not soothing the Savage Weiner
Jun. 18th, 2003 05:16 pmActing in solidarity with its sister station KSFO in San Francisco, WABC (770 AM) has temporarily dropped Michael Savage's 7-9 p.m. talk show.
Savage was earlier taken off the air by KSFO - over his contractual status, apparently, not his aggressively conservative on-air views. Savage charges KSFO is "trying to pressure me into signing a contract extension."
In a posting on his Web site, Savage modestly writes, "They want me desperately" and adds the cryptic note: "Beginning July 1, I will be heard again in the San Francisco area. Very soon, the whole story will be told."
He does not explain whether, as his message suggests, he could jump to another station. But he adds that 300-plus stations in his syndication network are still carrying the show.
As of Monday night, that list doesn't include WABC...
edit: sigh.
As one of my anonymous dextral friends reminds me in comments (in words of rather fewer syllables), I did not explain why this is a big deal.
This situation is why this story is of note.
See also this..
The fauna behind the virtual baseboards do seem to be unusually active lately, don't you find?
Savage was earlier taken off the air by KSFO - over his contractual status, apparently, not his aggressively conservative on-air views. Savage charges KSFO is "trying to pressure me into signing a contract extension."
In a posting on his Web site, Savage modestly writes, "They want me desperately" and adds the cryptic note: "Beginning July 1, I will be heard again in the San Francisco area. Very soon, the whole story will be told."
He does not explain whether, as his message suggests, he could jump to another station. But he adds that 300-plus stations in his syndication network are still carrying the show.
As of Monday night, that list doesn't include WABC...
edit: sigh.
As one of my anonymous dextral friends reminds me in comments (in words of rather fewer syllables), I did not explain why this is a big deal.
This situation is why this story is of note.
See also this..
The fauna behind the virtual baseboards do seem to be unusually active lately, don't you find?