Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government Privacy Republicans United States Politics Your Rights Online

Donald Trump Obliquely Backs a Federal Database To Track Muslims 608

HughPickens.com writes: Philip Bump reports at the Washington Post that Donald Trump confirmed to NBC on Thursday evening that he supports a database to track Muslims in the United States. The database of Muslims arose after an interview Yahoo News's Hunter Walker conducted with Trump earlier this week, during which he asked the Republican front-runner to weigh in on the current debate over refugees from Syria. "We're going to have to do things that we never did before," Trump told Walker. "Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule." When pressed on whether these measures might include tracking Muslim Americans in a database or noting their religious affiliations on identification cards, Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options. Trump's reply? "We're going to have to — we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," he said. "We're going to have to look at the mosques. We're going to have to look very, very carefully." After an event on in Newton, Iowa, on Thursday night, NBC's Vaughn Hillyard pressed the point. "Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims here in this country?," Hillyard asked. "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" Trump said. "We should have a lot of systems." Hillyard asked about implementation, including the process of adding people to the system. "Good management procedures," Trump said. Sign people up at mosques, Hillyard asked? "Different places," Trump replied. "You sign them up at different places. But it's all about management."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Donald Trump Obliquely Backs a Federal Database To Track Muslims

Comments Filter:
  • Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2015 @09:44PM (#50973173)

    The cataloging, rounding up, and internment of the Japanese is one of the darkest and frankly most embarrassing chapters in America's history. I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.

    • Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @09:58PM (#50973251)
      To me it sounds more like having them wear something to single them out... maybe a yellow Star of David, as it worked so well in the past for the last group of fascists.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by davester666 ( 731373 )

      But they look kinda similar to people we don't like. And the people we don't like also claim to belong to the same religion as these people.

      Why wouldn't we round them all up, catalog them, maybe we could tattoo an id number on their arm [or forehead!], and then make them all live in the middle of nowhere, far away from us. And then once the threat is over [ie, the war on terror has been won], they can resume their place in society. Of course, they will have to start from scratch, because any property the

    • Don't worry, with the average attention span of the average American, it will all be forgotten within a week.

      • Don't worry, with the average attention span of the average American, it will all be forgotten within a week.

        That's not true, in fact, I belie...Oh look, Jessica Jones is on Netflix!

    • Re: Unbelievable (Score:2, Informative)

      by pollarda ( 632730 )
      I'm no fan of Donald Trump but, the discussion where this took place was part of a larger discussion regarding immigration. The reporter asked if he would be interested in some sort of registry. Trump went off on what he wants to do to stem illegal immigration (including building a wall). The reporter said something akin to "you want to do this?" To which Trump said "yes". The reporter didn't ask for clarification as to whether he was talking about a registry or not. (If I were the reporter, I certainly wo
      • Re: Unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Toth ( 36602 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:49PM (#50973523)

        No dog in this hunt. I don't live in the USA.
        I agree with you. I've listened to several of the in-context interviews and read some transcripts. The interpenetration of his comments is political.
        He didn't say what folks are saying he said and I don't think he meant the things that folks are saying he meant.

        I am close enough to death to be immune to any economic damage to me regardless of who becomes President of the USA. My federal pensions will not go down because I am a baby boomer and if you screw with our federal pensions, you probably won't get re-elected. I have some non-government income sources which allows for trips and toys but I can have a warm dry place to sleep and sufficient food, Internet, etc, on a governemt pension.

        The wrong guy might get me killed earlier than I would have died of natural causes but I think that is remote.

        From my own, watching from (somewhat) afar, I would like to see, Trump, Carson or Sanders become president. Not just for entertainment value (although that would be abundant) , but because it would mean the American Citizens authorized this President.

        My Dad, WWII vet, once said to me, "I love Britain but I hate the British. I hate America but I love the Americans.

      • Re: Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)

        by AnontheDestroyer ( 3500983 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @11:03PM (#50973591)

        Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up in the database:
        "It's good management."

        When asked whether he'd go to a mosque, or what:
          "You sign them up in different places."

        Video link:
        http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t... [nbcnews.com]

        But you seem like the type who is more likely to blame the media than attempt to understand facts, so hopefully others will read this, and catch onto your party's stupid little anti-media ruse.

    • Don't worry, this is just bullshit. Everyone knows it is against the Constitution and will never become a law.

      Even those in favor of such an idea are more than often the same that invoke the exactly same Constitution to protect their rights of practicing the religion of their choice.

      • Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:46PM (#50973507)

        It was against the Constitution to place American citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps without being convicted on any crime back in the second world war. That didn't stop it happening. The Supreme Court even said it was OK back in 1944, in possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.

        The people who were held were unable to earn a living and were unable to pay outstanding income taxes or the taxes on their property. Even if they had the money they had no access to it. Their property was seized and sold as a result. Those that survived the camps with a minimum of food and no heath care had lost everything they had worked for by the time they were released after the war. Only a few suggested putting people of German or Italian descent in camps, and they were ignored.

        It's a short step from identifying those of a particular religion to government discrimination in travel, jobs, housing or freedom.

        • USA was officially at war and the civil rights were the suspended. In the context, there was no possible decision from the court. In today's context, this won't happen.
          • Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)

            by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @11:06PM (#50973597)

            USA was officially at war

            Habeas Corpus may only be suspended during times of invasion or rebellion, and WWII was neither. And even if Japan had invaded, suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power given to Congress, not the Executive.

            • Tell that to Captain Merryman of the Maryland State Militia.

              The Commander-in-Chief has extreme powers to do almost anything he can justify in times of trouble, which are de facto defined as whenever Congress refuses to tell him to cut his tyranny the fuck out.

              The plight of the Japanese is a pretty good example of why that happens in the real world, regardless of all theories about the Constitutions ability to protect freedom in the real world. Roosevelt's man on the scene had a not-totally-implausible line

      • Everyone knows it is against the Constitution and will never become a law.

        Warrentless surveillance is also unconstitutional, and yet the Patriot Act is a law. 14 years later we are still living with this abomination.

        Bad laws can and do get implemented, and until they are struck down we all suffer the consequences.

    • Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:16PM (#50973349)

      I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.

      You mean, the reporter who suggested it? Yeah, pretty awful. Watch the entire sequence, and listen to the questions the OTHER reporter is asking at the same time, which he's answering at the same time. I don't like Trump. But this characterization is BS, and you either know it or should. He's said he wants to keep track of recent immigrants so we don't have what the French just put up with, and he said "I'd definitely do that" to the second reporter (in a loud room) who asked him about the border wall/fence, not some mythical "muslim database" that was present only in the mouth of the reporter who dreamt it up. You don't have to like Trump to dislike out of context spin.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by JoeyRox ( 2711699 )
        The MSNBC reporter is the one who presented the idea but there is no second reporter in the grassy knoll as you suggest. The MSNBC reporter has Trump's full attention and repeatedly answers in the affirmative about the Muslim database to the reporter's follow-up questions. Here is the full interview including a transcript:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
        • Sorry to said so, but it is not as clear as you said. There is a whole context about ILLEGAL immigration and Trump was talking about systems, a lot of systems and a wall. I believe he was framed on this one, dot period.
          • He was asked specifically about a Muslim database and answered those questions directly. The fact that Trump also mentions other measures don't detract from what he said specifically about the database questions. Not sure how it can be interpreted any differently. Nevertheless the full interview is there for everyone to decide for themselves.
            • Explicit question
              MSNBC Reporter: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?

              Multiple subject answer. (Yeah, he's a politician)

              Donald Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.

              Non-explicit question. Trump gave a weasel paragraph, repor

      • by jrumney ( 197329 )
        So he's going to skip the whole pinning stars on peoples' chests and go straight to building the Berlin wall, and this somehow makes what he is saying OK?
        • So he's going to skip the whole pinning stars on peoples' chests and go straight to building the Berlin wall, and this somehow makes what he is saying OK?

          Really? Please point to a single quote where is he advocating the building of a wall to keep people from fleeing the country. You're confused. That's a leftist thing. The socialists are the ones that, given enough power, do things like wall up Berlin to prevent people from leaving their collectivist paradise, or jail people from attempting to leave the socialist paradise that is Cuba. If you can't muster the energy necessary to understand the difference between keeping people from illegally walking INTO yo

      • Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @11:16PM (#50973635) Journal

        http://www.nbcnews.com/politic... [nbcnews.com]

        He is explicitly asked should there be a Muslim-tracking database system to which he replies the whole nonsense about "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" and "signing up at different places" when asked about signing people up at mosques.

        Nobody is putting words in his mouth.
        He IS an idiot that does not think or listen to other people and talks in thought-terminating cliches but he clearly understood those questions and replied to them in his poorly thought through manner.

    • So, why do we think there's not a database on EVERYONE that includes a religious affiliation field, already, starting with the first US census in 1790?

      • According to the US census bureau, there is one.

        https://ask.census.gov/faq.php... [census.gov]

        I guess it is voluntary now. But I keep getting asked my race or ethnicity every time I deal with the federal government (even in person) like when I recently applied for a replacement SS card.

        BTW, there is answers from so called voluntary questions here.

        http://www.census.gov/library/... [census.gov]

        They are not considered accurate because of the law but they include the questions with the mandatory questions so I'm not sure a lot of people

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fche ( 36607 )

      Indeed unbelievable. What you're reading about is not what the man said, it's what hacks think he might have meant by not saying something PC, woo woo!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

      That's scary in itself. But seeing the actual words from The Donald is hilarious. He's clearly has no plan, he's improvising on the fly, trying to project the image that he has a secret plan but he can't go into details yet. He sounds like that angry drunk guy you meet at a bar who wants to rant about things but has no real idea of what he's talking about.

    • Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:46PM (#50973509)

      Oh please. The Trail of Tears, generations of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, etc. all are much worse than rounding some people up in camps for a relatively short time during a huge war. Not that it wasn't a stain on our history, but to imply it's worse than the things above is just ridiculous. Even Guantanamo seems worse, given how long those guys have been imprisoned there without due process (10+ years), whereas the Japanese were released when the war was over, which was no longer than 4 years.

    • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

      We record more detailed information about people (secretly) already. Shit-all has been done about it.
      I can't believe you think it's not suggested routinely and then enacted routinely. Oh, you couched it in a triple assertion of catagloging, rounding, and internment which have nothing to do with the question or answer.

      The mods must be joking.

  • I think they've done this project before.

  • Checklist (Score:2, Insightful)

    • Require registration
    • Require some kind of identifying mark on clothing
    • Withdraw certain legal rights to make it easier to target them
    • To make it easier to control them, insist they live in designated areas
    • Think about a final solution

    No ... I am not proposing this. I am just terrified this is the direction things are headed. The current hysteria over a few mentally unbalanced fanatics really has me worried. The worst thing that can happen is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who are as horrified at th

  • by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @09:56PM (#50973237)
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/... [cnn.com]

    Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?
    • by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:50PM (#50973527)

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/... [cnn.com] Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?

      Simple. Americans don't learn history anymore. Especially Republicans. They call history "revisionism" and, if you are well-versed in history, you are called an "elitist".

  • even /. can't ignore it. every other media is Trumped-up since that gets the attention. Ventura/Swartzenager were governors and Reagan got the brass ring.
    • Trump is definitely on path to win the Republican nomination. His chances in the general election are decidedly less clear, esp. after he continues to alienate the entire Spanish electorate.
  • by flashgordo ( 3646765 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:03PM (#50973281)
    "Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options" apparently Not saying "NO" = "YES"
  • Hmmm interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:07PM (#50973299)

    How would the posters that are upset about this feel about applying this to the

    Scientologists ?
    Aum Shinrikyo ?
    Golden Dawn ?
    The KKK ?
    Neo Nazis ?
    Pegida ?
    Republicans ?
    Libertarians ?
    People that have more money than you do ?

    Just how do you feel about freedom of speech ? Woodrow Wilson at Princeton ? The Halloween costume of your choice ? Operation Rescue publicizing abortion practices ?

    It seems that a lot of people have remembered the first amendment today and will probably forget about it by next week.

    • So, basic census data goes pretty far already - do you not think that certain agencies haven't augmented the census database to include resident aliens, and even tourists, including whatever fields may be of interest - up to and beyond security camera images of the individuals at places of interest?

    • People who violate the rights of other people should be watched to prevent them from doing harm. People who have not done any harm and do not threaten others with harm should not be watched, if only because doing so would violate their privacy. This isn't complicated, and I'll thank you not to muddy the waters with this strawman you've constructed

      • "People who violate the rights of other people should be watched to prevent them from doing harm. "

        Quo vadis vadim? Who decides the rights? Who decides they're being violated?

        Yes, the ideas are simple and reasonable. Once humans get a hold of 'em, not so much.

  • by kbonin ( 58917 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:15PM (#50973343) Homepage

    Does anyone here not believe that every citizen and resident's religious, political, and social associations aren't already sitting in federal databases? This is part of what TIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], Prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], and many of the related programs were really created for...

  • Who is this guy and what has he done with Trump? Trump doesn't waffle. Trump doesn't dodge the question. Trump is balls to the wall, 'Murica! Fuck Yeah! in every interview. So who is this guy who won't just say it?

    Wait, wait wait. Does Mr. Donald Trump think he's a viable candidate?? Ahahahahahaha

    That's funny.

    • I keep hoping he'll interrupt a debate by throwing his toupee into the air and crying "Culture Jam!!!", but I don't give him that much credit.

  • by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @10:46PM (#50973511) Homepage Journal

    Lately I've been feeling like I'm in a Philip K Dick novel.

  • Good move. Republicans are largely temporarily embarrassed millionaires living in their own fantasy world, and bigots. This should give him the bump in the polls that he'll need to win the whole thing.

  • by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @11:14PM (#50973629)

    That word "obliquely" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

    sPh

  • by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Friday November 20, 2015 @11:28PM (#50973685)

    In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament [wikipedia.org]. Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?

    • In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament [wikipedia.org].

      Your description (and the linked Wikipedia article) are misleading. The Iranian constitution grants 5 seats (out of 270) to four groups: two for the Armenian community (mostly Christian), one for the Assyrian community (mostly Catholic), and one each for the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. This indirectly gives three seats to Christians, but not because they are Christian, so technically Christians are not guaranteed representation in the parliament, it just works out that way.

      Further, some of your o

  • by Mr.CRC ( 2330444 ) on Saturday November 21, 2015 @12:13AM (#50973849)

    It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:

    When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.

    But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.

    WTF?

    Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A.H. Weiler

Working...