<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Exhuming Manzanar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.contentgoeshere.com/2004/08/07/exhuming-manzanar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.contentgoeshere.com/2004/08/07/exhuming-manzanar/</link>
	<description>I am a camera.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:26:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: darkuncle</title>
		<link>http://www.contentgoeshere.com/2004/08/07/exhuming-manzanar/comment-page-1/#comment-282</link>
		<dc:creator>darkuncle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentgoeshere.com/?p=23#comment-282</guid>
		<description>I think the important question is, how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to achieve a greater margin of security? And who&#039;s giving up the freedom, who&#039;s gaining the security, who&#039;s making the decisions, and how do we define &quot;freedom&quot; and &quot;security&quot;?

For myself, I&#039;m not sure I&#039;m comfortable giving up the spirit of the equal protection clause in order to increase security, even if that increase is irrefutable.

On the other hand, one question that continues to bother me is this: of the terrorist attacks against American interests in the past decade, what percentage were perpetrated in the name of Allah, and what percentage were carried out by those of Arab background? If these numbers are as close to 100% as my admittedly cursory research indicates, this raises a troubling point: that profiling of Arabs and Muslims, while unquestionably violating the rights of some innocents, would nonetheless undoubtedly decrease future attacks.

By how much, in what locations, and whether that trade-off is worth it (or even morally justifiable at all) are questions I&#039;m not qualified to answer. And frankly, it disturbs me very much that the answers, on both sides, seem so unsatisfactory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the important question is, how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to achieve a greater margin of security? And who&#8217;s giving up the freedom, who&#8217;s gaining the security, who&#8217;s making the decisions, and how do we define &#8220;freedom&#8221; and &#8220;security&#8221;?</p>
<p>For myself, I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;m comfortable giving up the spirit of the equal protection clause in order to increase security, even if that increase is irrefutable.</p>
<p>On the other hand, one question that continues to bother me is this: of the terrorist attacks against American interests in the past decade, what percentage were perpetrated in the name of Allah, and what percentage were carried out by those of Arab background? If these numbers are as close to 100% as my admittedly cursory research indicates, this raises a troubling point: that profiling of Arabs and Muslims, while unquestionably violating the rights of some innocents, would nonetheless undoubtedly decrease future attacks.</p>
<p>By how much, in what locations, and whether that trade-off is worth it (or even morally justifiable at all) are questions I&#8217;m not qualified to answer. And frankly, it disturbs me very much that the answers, on both sides, seem so unsatisfactory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

