should arabs in america be put in detention centers to ensure that further terrorist acts will not occur?
155431
No. Just because the Democrats did it to the Japanese in WWII doesn't mean it is right. \n\nThe right thing to do is to conduct wire-tapping where there is a credible reason to suspect a terrorist threat. This way we can minimize and hopefully eliminate the threat of terrorism in the US without taking away the freedom of any innocent person. \n\nOf course the Democrats who had no problem in WWII corralling thousands of Japanese men, women and little children in make-shift prisons, want to tie the president's hands so he can not nip terrorism in the US in the bud.
334747
I feel you should leave a person's custom alone if you don't believe in it. Why not ask an Arab friend how it feels to walk into an airport and if you can't because you have none, leave it alone. An Arab and Muslims hold their customs sacred and it should not be belittled as an "experiment".
963483
You probably won't get outright hostility, unless you do something of that sort yourself.  I would just say try to blend in, because wearing a turban and white outfit won't bring about a good reaction probably.  Most Americans aren't hostile as soon as they see an Arab (at least I've never met any like that), but after the World Trade Center attack, people might get a little freaked out if you start praying towards Mecca all of a sudden. So just don't do anything to provoke anyone.
50956
Unfortunatly/fortunatly the US has been so sheltered geographicly and culturaly that the bulk of the population doesn't understand the situation we're in. Consider the level of terrorist activity that exists in Europe, Asia, or Israel. Bombings in England, 3 weeks of COORDINATED rioting in France, rioting in Denmark by muslim extremists too, multiple bombings in Idonesia, Abu sayaf group in phillipines regularly beheading christian missionaries, etc etc etc. Americans being 'sheltered' haven't found the balance between national safety and freedom.\n\n"domestic" spying in this case was on groups and individuals specificly communicating with or tied to acknowledged terrorits organizations. In addition there was a documented authorization process in order to get the 'taps' in the first place. The controvesy is entirely domestic politics. The same people who are outraged by the "spying" will be the same people outraged that the gov't didn't do enough WHEN the next attack occurs on US soil.\n\nTheres a cliche saying "don't confuse the argument with facts". It's all too true. The issue is only debatable when you think with your heart instead of your head. I guess 9/11 wasn't enough to wake them up.
338030
Over the past 10 years, a series of laws have been passed which allow for automatic deportation without review for a large number of crimes. At this point, almost any drug-related crime, or any violent felony, are groups for automatic deportation. These laws are intended to get at terrorists and suspected terrorists. \n\nBasically, the terrorists have started winning -- the US has become so terrified and paranoid (which was the goal) that they/we are ignoring basic civil liberties, and ignoring the rule of law, all in the name of security. That's what the terrorists wanted -- the country to abandon the protections and the freedoms that we've held so dear.\n\nJust a few examples: Warrantless wiretapping (violation of the 4th Amendment); refusal to allow prisoners to have access to attorneys (violation of the 6th Amendment); refusal to charge prisoners after years of detention, even US citizens captured on US soil (again, 6th Amendment); no speedy trial (again, 6th); violation of due process (5th); refusal for bail hearings (violation of 8th Amendment, torture (again, 8th); government establishment and promotion of specific religions (1st); refusal to allow prisoners to petition the government for redress of grievances (1st); even effective suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Art I, section 9).\n\nThe US has given in to fear. The terrorists have already won.
43472
Okay, Torture is never right, and American should not support it or "contract out" the torture with another state.  That said, we should be open to information passed to us by other countries.  MOST middle eastern countries allow and encourage torture, so do we have no allies at all?  Tough ethical question, no real answer.
987018
Absolutely NOT! Libs want terrorists to have rights...just like they want to give rights to criminals. \nYou are a good American for pointing out another blemish in liberalism!
479608
It is probably not likely. I say this because of the countries it surrounds, but it still is possible. They have been to the UAE before, which is near some dangerous countries for Americans.
1041857
Understand that the American government decides what a terrorist is....the rest of us are no allowed to have such opinions...I am pretty sure under the definitions established by the current administration our forefathers were all terrorist.
873683
I don't think a defense against terrorists, that is based on protection alone, would work, and the other option, that of only attacking the terrorists overseas, is not very effective either. a mixture of aggressive and protective measures is the optimal approach.
39244
I think we should track down the perpertators and bring them to justice. Definitely we should not negotiate, that will only cause an increase in terror attacks and kidnappings.
273009
Secure, not close.  Allow sane intelligent immigration and punish and deport offenders.  Do not allow children of foriegn parents to instantly become Americans.
653680
No.  Remember, most terrorists in democratic countries are second generation immigrants, like London's four subway bombers.  Also, most people who turn to terrorism while living in the Middle East are middle class - the poor are too busy trying to scrape by and the rich have no reason to upset the status quo.  The problem involves mostly how well immigrants assimilate into new environments and how easy those environments are to integrate into - some nations are easier than others - and the overall employment (not average income) rate of the country in question.
108630
Well, it's not like evrey single guard is going to be an arab.  There will still have to be American citizens.  It's just that the company that will oversee those guards will be owned by the Saudi government.  Just the same, I'm against it, too.  I'd be just as much against it if I had known that the company was previously owned by a British company.  Yes, they are both our allies.  So what.  They're not US.  Not only should Americans be the guards, the company in charge should be American as well.
1117593
Well, considering how secure many Americans are in their smaill-mindedness and exclusionary behaviour, I guess so. The greatest risk that an increase of Muslims presents to the USA is the risk that you might be forced to open your minds and accept Muslims as people just the same as you instead of live bombs...
538207
It doesn't.  President Bush just claims it does, to get a reason to get suspicious about Iraqis and Arabs.  Any wrong word, even though it's a free country, the president will get suspicious.  And, there's no way of knowing if the system will be abused, the president has already lied to us enough.
195509
I think we are wary of muslams, it is a normal reaction to and action the way I see it. If 9/11 never happened it might be a differant story. But it did. I think to err on the side of caution is probably the right thing to do. Even though it probably doesn't matter who runs the ports.