> If that were the case - and the government position is that they do not discriminate on religion - then how did he get his airport job, security badge, and global entry card in the first place?
The government does not discriminate based on religion. That's why he got his security badge and job. This is not about discrimination at all. It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred.
> As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
That term is meaningless here. As I said, there is no religious persecution. It's just investigative agencies doing their job. I think they are being over-cautious in a lot of cases to the point of harassment of a significant number of innocent individuals. But I'd rule out any "bigotry" or discrimination.
> You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims
Not relevant. The vast majority of international terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's what I meant. Other terrorist attacks exist and must be protected against, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this particular method.
> What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
There are many ways. Even though it's irrelevant here, I'll try to mention something. There are few patterns in a lot of mass shootings in the US. All of these can be used to initiate pre emptive investigations on a suspected individual, even though she hasn't done anything yet. Similar to the case mentioned in the article, this can also lead to harassment of a large number of innocents.
"It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred."
You write "checks" but checks need balances. Where is the balance here, and is it effective? Was he denied his due process rights? I think so.
"No discrimination has occurred."
How would you know if discrimination has or hasn't occurred? None of this information is public and there's very little oversight.
The State of Texas said that its voter ID laws were not discriminatory. A judge, after receiving far more information than we know about the various US watch lists, disagreed, and granted a permanent injunction against it.
The government does not discriminate based on religion. That's why he got his security badge and job. This is not about discrimination at all. It's about anti-terrorist investigations and checks. It's a bit like you searching how to make bombs and then buying explosive chemicals in bulk will put you in a list. No discrimination has occurred.
> As written, your statement comes across as simple bigotry, and US laws make that sort of simple bigotry too hard to carry out on an institutional scale. (Complex and subtle bigotry is a different issue.)
That term is meaningless here. As I said, there is no religious persecution. It's just investigative agencies doing their job. I think they are being over-cautious in a lot of cases to the point of harassment of a significant number of innocent individuals. But I'd rule out any "bigotry" or discrimination.
> You wrote "prevent terror attacks". Some of the terror attacks in the US which are not caused by Muslims
Not relevant. The vast majority of international terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. That's what I meant. Other terrorist attacks exist and must be protected against, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this particular method.
> What should we do to prevent future terror attacks like these?
There are many ways. Even though it's irrelevant here, I'll try to mention something. There are few patterns in a lot of mass shootings in the US. All of these can be used to initiate pre emptive investigations on a suspected individual, even though she hasn't done anything yet. Similar to the case mentioned in the article, this can also lead to harassment of a large number of innocents.