I believe it is wrong to punish all for something only a few do wrong.
I first experienced that common practice in elementary school at the start of 1st Grade about 50 years ago. The teacher punished the entire class for something one student did wrong. Did I do anything wrong that day? No, but like everyone else in that class I was punished anyway. Why? The apparent implied purpose was to cause innocent students to further punish the guilty student after school in ways that the teacher could not legally do, such as “beating up” the guilty student. That would almost be like taking law into your own hands to inflict punishment, but would in fact be breaking the law to engage in assault and battery. The teacher was the authority, not the students, but the teacher wanted the students to take responsibility for the behavior of each other in and during class. The teacher would further say something like, “It’s not me doing this to you. It’s the guilty student doing this to you, the one who has brought this punishment upon you. I’d never do anything to hurt you. It’s the guilty student who is hurting you by breaking my rule. When one breaks a rule, all suffer – all must suffer the consequences.”
During World War II, if just one person of a captured town were to fight back against the Germans, then the German soldiers would round up a hundred innocent citizens of that town to execute them as punishment for what the one did and as a warning to all others the consequences of going against them.
Should all Americans be spied on by the NSA in order to find a tiny fraction of people in the United States who pose a threat as potential terrorists? Must all give up certain rights because of the actions or potential actions of a few?
Must all travelers – or just those randomly selected – suffer at the hands of TSA agents because of political correctness and ant-discrimination laws to sacrifice common sense – profiling – targeting only those who could be threats? What if those who are a threat take advantage of those who are not a threat to do their work in order to cause an exception? TSA targets only obvious Muslims. What if a a person who is not an obvious Muslim converts to Islam and becomes a terrorist? TSA isn’t targeting children and little old ladies. But what if a terrorist uses a child or little old lady to carry a bomb aboard an aircraft? No doubt they would do so. Consider the case of the pizza delivery man who was abducted by criminals, then a bomb strapped to him to force him to rob a bank.
A criminal uses a gun in a crime. Liberal Democrats and others opposed to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution want to take guns away from all citizens except police and military, as if to punish all citizens for something one did wrong. It keeps the honest honest – preventing law abiding citizens from acquiring guns, but does nothing to prevent criminals from finding ways to acquire guns. Banning the guns does not prevent those same criminals from using some other weapon to murder people – such as getting into truck to run over pedestrians. Do we then ban all trucks? The driver of the truck is black, African-American. Do we then ban all of them? Kick out all of those already living in this country and prevent those in other countries from entering our country? At least one of the US Supreme Court judges is likely to make such a comparison when considering the case of Trump’s Travel Ban to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.
Previously, it was a ban on all Muslims…
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
…Then it was reduced to just Muslims from certain countries. The problem with that is it would do nothing to stop the terrorists from traveling from a country on the ban list to a country not on the ban list from which to travel to the United States. There is also the issue of falsified passports, other identification, and birth certificates for the country where the suspect was born. Because some people of a banned country are guilty, does that justify making all citizens of that country suspects?
If one law is to be applied – such as anti-discrimination, then what about other laws and rights extended to the same people? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There is a difference between murder, and killing people during an act of terrorism. Even so, the politically correct far left liberal Democrats are likely to claim such a murder is “work place violence” rather than a terrorist act when terrorism is an obvious conclusion – common sense.
A problem with Trump’s plan is the part “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” As if we don’t already know what is going on. Such willful ignorance given as an excuse. Then it was changed to needing 120 days to “study” the problem. Study what? To what end? How to prevent the problem? Isn’t banning all suspects the conclusion already stated in the original request? Then it was reduced to just 90 days to “study” the problem. Trump has been in office for 136 days (as of 6 June 20127). So they have already had more than 90 days, more than 120 days, to “study” the problem. Have they done so? No. Is the ban necessary in order to do such a “study” of the problem? No. In fact, it could make such a “study” more difficult. Past cases should be enough to complete a “study” of the problem.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has claimed: “The fact is that in those countries, we have very little ability to actually verify, vet the people that are coming out of those countries. So, what the president and it’s not a travel ban, remember. It’s a travel pause. What the president said, for 90 days, we were going to pause in terms of people from those countries coming to the United States that would give me time to look at additional vetting. The irony here is, had it stood, we would have had the 90 days to study. We’re not even studying what would be procedures, because we are enjoined and can’t do that … the irony again is we can’t study it, but I’m just guessing, and implementing. You referred to it, many refer to it as a travel ban, we’ve always looked at it as a pause from those seven nations, now six, until we can get our arms around exactly how good we can vet individuals from those countries. I’d like to clarify that the most recent executive order what it does and does not mean. This is not a travel ban; this is a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system. Over the next 30 days, we will analyze and assess the strengths and the weaknesses of our current immigration system, which is the most generous in the world. Furthermore, this is not — I repeat — not a ban on Muslims. The Homeland Security mission is to safeguard the American people, our homeland, our values and religious liberty is one of our most fundamental and treasured values.”
From LA Times: Trump administration lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to decide a major constitutional question on the president’s power to ban foreign travelers, but their late Thursday appeal came with a puzzling request. In a 356-page appeal petition, the lawyers asked the justices to review this fall a lower court’s ruling that President Trump’s order banning some travelers from six majority-Muslim countries reflects unconstitutional discrimination on religious grounds. The president has “broad authority to suspend” the entry of foreigners, they said. At the same time, in a separate brief the lawyers urged the high court to issue an emergency ruling that immediately revives Trump’s travel order, which, they said, “places a temporary 90-day pause” on new entrants from the six nations. Legal experts have been quick to point out an obvious problem. If the justices agree later this month to hear the case in the fall, and they allow Trump’s order to take effect, the 90-day “pause” would run out before October, when arguments could be scheduled. The case would be moot before it could be heard.
Fact is, we already know what the problem is. The question is how to solve it.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Verse 8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” It is not subject to interpretation. “Radicals” do not interpret hat part of it differently than other Muslims – Sunni or Shia, but it is the “radicals” and “extremists” who act on it differently. Those who are willing to engage in peaceful relations with all nonbelievers and those who want to kill all infidels.
Solving the problem requires common sense, not the extremes of political correctness to deny the truth, and not the extreme course of punishing all for the acts of a few.
What’s been worse is a blame the victim mentality, like police blaming a victim instead of a criminal, as if what the criminal did is the victim’s fault. This ties in with the so-called “apologists” who betray their own country by blaming the United States for the actions of terrorists – as well as the terrorists themselves blaming their victims.
Editorial Article by Jim Lantern in Norman Oklahoma USA
Sunday evening – 4 June 2017
+ + +