DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Jerwittdergut** · 02-03-2007, 06:44 PM

Well, if Gore and all of his entourage were pre-screened (something liberals opposed by the way because it makes life easier when some poor people are ill-equiped to afford such treatment) then I will take back what I have said vis-a-vis his special treatment.

Generalizations probably aren't such a good idea. I don't have an objection to pre-screening. I think buying that privilege isn't particularly different from being able to afford to sit in first class instead of coach. (And I do suspect you'd consider many of my views "liberal").

No, but I was making the point that those who treat PROFILING as something inherently wrong are engaged in it themselves when they question (as samantha did) the utility of searching people like Gore (where as those of us who openly support profiling make the same point about a 80 year old native-born grandmother of 5 being as likely to be patted down by security as a muslim national of Syria are somehow racist or discriminatory). I also don't have a problem with a degree of profiling. On the other hand, I heard about someone who would very much NOT have been profiled, but her boyfriend put an explosive in her bag. But as a general rule, I think people can make certain risk assessments. The problem arises if they miss the dangerous person/people by doing it or whether profiling becomes a de facto means of harassment.

None. Security clearance requirements are statutorally created. As a Constitutional Officer, neither the President or Vice-President (nor any member of Congress for that matter) need to get security clearances for their jobs. In fact, it was pointed out when Clinton was elected and sworn in the irony of someone with his background being President when it was an open question whether he would have gotten the required security clearances for many of those in the Executive Branch he was the head of. Now *that's* interesting. I didn't realize that, but I suppose it makes a degree of sense given the election can't be undone due to any security issues and our representatives can't do their jobs without information. Thanks for pointing that out. Went right past me. (On the other hand, I just had saki with my lunch. heh!)

I would agree if and ONLY if Al Gore was completely unaware that he was receiveing special treatment. Something that I would find highly unlikely given the media coverage of what people have to go through these days unless he is utterly and completely out of touch. The only information I have with regard to the situation is what was contained in the OP. There is nothing there to suggest that any request was made for special treatment beyond the norm. Did he know he was receiving special treatment? I'm not really sure it matters because if the group was told to follow the employee, it would have been easy to make the assumption that this is how it had been decided to deal with his entourage at this particular airport.

02-03-2007, 06:44 PM	#37
Jerwittdergut Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	Well, if Gore and all of his entourage were pre-screened (something liberals opposed by the way because it makes life easier when some poor people are ill-equiped to afford such treatment) then I will take back what I have said vis-a-vis his special treatment. Generalizations probably aren't such a good idea. I don't have an objection to pre-screening. I think buying that privilege isn't particularly different from being able to afford to sit in first class instead of coach. (And I do suspect you'd consider many of my views "liberal"). No, but I was making the point that those who treat PROFILING as something inherently wrong are engaged in it themselves when they question (as samantha did) the utility of searching people like Gore (where as those of us who openly support profiling make the same point about a 80 year old native-born grandmother of 5 being as likely to be patted down by security as a muslim national of Syria are somehow racist or discriminatory). I also don't have a problem with a degree of profiling. On the other hand, I heard about someone who would very much NOT have been profiled, but her boyfriend put an explosive in her bag. But as a general rule, I think people can make certain risk assessments. The problem arises if they miss the dangerous person/people by doing it or whether profiling becomes a de facto means of harassment. None. Security clearance requirements are statutorally created. As a Constitutional Officer, neither the President or Vice-President (nor any member of Congress for that matter) need to get security clearances for their jobs. In fact, it was pointed out when Clinton was elected and sworn in the irony of someone with his background being President when it was an open question whether he would have gotten the required security clearances for many of those in the Executive Branch he was the head of. Now that's interesting. I didn't realize that, but I suppose it makes a degree of sense given the election can't be undone due to any security issues and our representatives can't do their jobs without information. Thanks for pointing that out. Went right past me. (On the other hand, I just had saki with my lunch. heh!) I would agree if and ONLY if Al Gore was completely unaware that he was receiveing special treatment. Something that I would find highly unlikely given the media coverage of what people have to go through these days unless he is utterly and completely out of touch. The only information I have with regard to the situation is what was contained in the OP. There is nothing there to suggest that any request was made for special treatment beyond the norm. Did he know he was receiving special treatment? I'm not really sure it matters because if the group was told to follow the employee, it would have been easy to make the assumption that this is how it had been decided to deal with his entourage at this particular airport.
	Quote