Featured Stop-n-Frisk ICE style

aljazeera Really?

 

Why? Are your children illegal aliens with violent criminal histories?

From the link (yes I know, aljazeera)

The subject of the story, Erlin San Martin, is an illegal with a prior deportation order. His only redeeming factor, he fathered a child that was born here. How does that give him the right to break the law?

Even documented immigrants should be sent home once they break the law. As it is Mr San Martin is living with his family while waiting for a court decision. How does coming into our country illegally and procreating give someone the right of residency?

I am not anti immigrant. We should increase the number of immigrants and we should make the process as easy as possible for educated and skilled workers from other nations. But if they have no respect for our laws how can I believe they will be contributing citizens?

 

Some will go to great lengths -- like reading Al-Jezeerah America -- to have their preconceived notions confirmed. Even if they have to deliberately overlook the article's bias and untruthfulness in order to achieve that confirmation.

 

While I agree with you TND there are posters on BB that have stated the source of the material doesn't matter, so long as it supports your position.

 

I knew you would post that. No surprise here. Except when it is a new organization for world wide terrorism.

 

You're kidding, right??

Please tell us you're kidding. For the lovah ...

 

You mean like Saudi Faux Snews perhaps?

Is this a conundrum?

The news that Al Gore chose to sell his Current TV to Al Jazeera, which some think of as Muslim Brotherhood TV, recently has raised eyebrows. But what few people realize is that Fox chief Rupert Murdoch already co-owns what amounts to a Muslim Brotherhood channel in the Middle East.

The channel is Al Risala, which translates into “the (Islamic) message.” It was launched in 2006 by Saudi prince Talal bin Alwaleed, the nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia and a Murdoch business associate who also owns a 7 percent stake in Murdoch’s News Corp., the parent company of Fox News and other U.S. media outlets.

Murdoch co-owns Al Risala through his acquisition of an 18.97 percent stake in Rotana, Al Risala’s Arabic media parent group, which is owned by Alwaleed.

Based in Kuwait, Al Risala is run by general director Tareq Al-Suwaidan, a popular “tele-Islamist,” who rails against Jews, Danish cartoonists and hosts a weekly “motivational” show – urging jihad against Israel (within 1948 borders), calling for a global Islamic caliphate, and other jihadist aims.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/gore-deal-follows-murdoch-into-arab-tv/

Or is it just another example of a neoconservative speaking out of both sides of his mouth? "Al Jazeera has Islamic connections therefore it's not credible, Fox News has Islamic connections therefore it is credible".

 

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

The sentiments espoused in the proposition of this thread exemplifies this old saw.

 

If "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," what is "absolutely none whatsoever" as the OP and the OP's support exemplify?

 

Are you being honest with this question? I am sorry, I just can't believe you dont know.

Al Jazeera is a news company owned by the governmnt of Qatar. It presents news primarily in the Arabic language to an arabic audience. In January of 2013 they purchased Current TV, the television network owned by former vice president Al Gore and used it to launch their American network.

Al Jazerra has been accused of manipulating the news for political gain, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and censoring Christian or Western political messages. Leaked (Snowden) U.S. Department of State internal memos show that the Qatar government manipulates the content and emphasis of thier news.

From the US invasion of Iraq to the Syrian civil war Al Jazerra has consistently offered a viewpoint of defending and promoting radical Islam in their quest to convert the world by violence.

This is a biased news source. Yes, much more biased than fox news or msnbc. And no Pancho, the fact that Robert Murdock owns 19% of a different station that broadcasts in Arabic is not the same as a news station being 100% owned and controled by an Islamic government.

 

I do understand and respect your fears here Gina. The idea that they can pick people up randomly and hold them is scary and it is too much power in the hand of our government.

But

In this case they were able to use protable fingerprint scanners and ensure they did have the right person. In the case mentioned in the article they positively identified the individual as one having both prior deportation and prior criminal convictions. And, after a hearing he was released to live with his family pending a court date. I think that is more than fair. He is a criminal, he did get caught, there was no mistaken identity or anything like that. And he is free, without bail even, pending his court decision.

 

Nothing on that website represents the average nonAmerican.

 

In this case.

Here are a few other cases.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stop%20and%20frisk%20new%20york&sm=1

Stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional.

"But we need it to keep us safe".

 

The big advantage I see of the CARI program is the technology, the portable fingerprint scanners. That allows fast identification of the criminals and allows the innocents who get caught up in the system to be released faster. If there is not a match to a fingerprint of someone in the system the individual is released immediatley.

Your links, Poncho, are both relating to the NYC “Stop and Frisk” program so I don’t see the connection.

I understand the fourth amendment and am glad we have constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But who is it that is upset about “Stop and Frisk” or any kind of “Profiling?” For the most part it is the criminals.

The question of course goes back to what is reasonable search and what constitutes probable cause. To me being asked for identification, or a fingerprint if I don’t have proper identification is not unreasonable.

I have been stopped and frisked. I have been searched, handcuffed, and put in the back of a police car. I have had them search my car. All because I was mistaken for someone else or was suspected of something I did not do. In each case, although I was inconvenienced for a short time, I was released and in each case the law enforcement officers apologized to me and explained why they had done what they did. Also in each case I was cooperative and did as the officers requested. When they say lay down on the ground or put your hands on the car and you don’t . . . that is when you get tazed!

Now none of that is to say I am willing to give law enforcement officers a blank check to do whatever they want. I have also been harassed above the point that I thought was necessary for them to do their job, and while I was respectful and compliant up to a point that case did result in a formal complaint on my part to the county sheriff later, and the deputy involved is no longer a law enforcement officer. There is a nice story there for another day.

 

It does make sense Gina. I would add this though; you need to be aware of what the biases are. When I watch Fox News, I know what their bias is, and it pretty much matches mine, but I realize that I may not get both sides of the story equally. Likewise when I watch MSNBC or CNN, I know what their bias is, I don’t expect to get both sides. That is one reason I prefer internet or print over television news. You can’t just trust the headline, it is there to hook viewers, and you have to dig into the story if you want the real truth.

If you want to read or watch Al Jazerra there is nothing wrong with that, but be aware of the bias.