Friday, August 25: Thanks for the link and fair reading of the post, Will. 
Thursday, August 24: Julie Gorin writes: “If terrorism indeed has a distinct appeal to the average Muslim, and yet the religion is not the cause, then what is? Genetics? Is it time to start talking about the terror gene — and asking the uncomfortable question: Do they choose it, or are they born that way?
And if Islam isn’t the cause of murderous proclivities, have we considered that at the very least it must be a symptom?”
Wednesday, August 23: I agree with Daniel Pipes. It’s going to take thousands more dead Americans for the government to profile the way it knows it ought to. He writes:
“Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my ‘education by murder’ hypothesis — that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets — I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.”
I also agree with Walter Williams. I wish this country fought wars the way it used to.
Later…Can’t wait to find out who these fools are. Take a wild guess. Are they Christians or Muslims?
———————————————————————————————-
When I read that passengers on a British flight refused to fly with two Middle Eastern men on board, I knew we’d finally reached the point of no return. I’ve been waiting for something like this to happen.
Welcome to the age of terrorism.
A flight from Málaga, Spain, to Manchester, England, was held up for three hours after passengers became suspicious of two men of Middle Eastern appearance speaking what they believed was Arabic. The men were “escorted” off the airplane.
I’m as “tough on terrorism” as any red-blooded American, but I cringed when I read the story. It’s come to this. I want people to be free and happy and left alone to live their lives in peace, but that’s not the way the world works. The men likely were not terrorists, but people are fed up with this stuff. There is evil in the world, and that evil is intent on destroying as many people as it can.
It is unfortunate that Muslims with no terrorist intentions get singled out, too, but the fact is that mostly young, Middle Eastern, Muslim men are responsible for worldwide terrorism. (Including this latest attack?) That’s indisputable. So what are the rest of us supposed to do? Ignore it for the sake of political correctness?
People just don’t trust the government. Glenn Reynolds writes:
The two guys were likely entirely innocent, and didn’t deserve this, but this is the kind of thing that happens when people don’t trust the authorities to protect them. Over time, I fear that excessive political correctness on the part of governments will breed the reverse elsewhere.
Last night I watched CNN for the first time in years, and there was report about the lack of security at airport cargo holds. The CNN crew was able to drive up to cargo containers, which are loaded onto passenger planes, with no security personnel in sight. Even worse, a couple of disguised whistle-blowing employees said that most of the time, the cargo itself is not screened.
There aren’t enough resources, presumably, to watch everything all the time. Bureaucratic, soft-stepping government agencies are virtually hamstrung to do what really needs to be done. The problem is deep and cultural, and taking off our shoes at airports is as effective as trying to lift a boulder with a feather.
Muslims on a Plane: A Personal Account
Last year while on a flight back to D.C. after a road trip, I saw several men I suspected were up to no good. They were young men of Middle Eastern appearance, and one in particular was acting suspiciously. I was in an aisle seat on the right side, and he was a few seats in front of me on the left sitting with another Middle Eastern-looking man. I noticed that he kept looking back, smirking, and nodding his head at two other young men of Middle Eastern appearance several rows behind me.
It’s an understatement to say the guy was strange. He was too far away to actually talk to his companions, and I didn’t hear him speaking to the man he was sitting with. He just kept turning around, smirking, and nodding during the entire flight. My imagination kicked into overdrive. Was that a signal?
I remained alert, just in case…I don’t know. If I were mistaken, I had nothing to lose but the enjoyment of a good book. If I were right, I and everyone else on board had a lot to gain. But the flight was uneventful. I guess the man was remembering some inside joke or had forgotten to take his meds.
On a different flight, I sat a few seats behind two young men of Middle Eastern appearance. This time I wasn’t worried. Directly in front of them sat two men I believed with 90 percent certainty were air marshals. They had that look, know what I mean? Anyway, they were sitting right behind the bulkhead, and one got up to use the first class bathroom. Upon his return, he did a double-take at the men, eyeing them in a subtle but definitely alert manner. Again, the flight was uneventful, expect for a little turbulence.
I’m not sure that what happened with the Málaga-Manchester flight would happen here just yet, this being a neurotically politically correct, don’t-hurt-their-feelings kind of country, and all. People who aren’t raising a ruckus, or who merely speak in Arabic or look Middle Eastern typically don’t get thrown off planes in this country. But I’m certain I’m not the only passenger in America who’s ever suspected Middle Eastern-looking men on a plane. One day we’ll read about passenger revolts on American flights.
Do you have a “Muslims on a plane” story?
Related sources:
- Passengers explain pair’s removal
- “Islamofascism”: Beware of a religion without irony
- Islamic Fascists? What’s in a name?
- UK terror plot suspects charged with conspiracy to commit murder
(Photo source: Daily Mail)
Update: Blogger Toothpick Johnny comments:
There are over a billion Christians in the world, and only a few dozen have ever bombed and abortion clinic. More Muslims have bombed places than Christians. Again, when the IRA was very active, the British profiled people with Irish names and appearances. I have a Celtic name, so I was examined more thoroughly than most. So what? A few more minutes of my time were taken, but I wasn’t harmed. Being subjected to closer scrutiny is hardly a breach of the Constitution, and as I have already pointed out, this was a British flight, not an American one. We are not losing the “war†because we are more aware of our surroundings and more suspicious of people. As for Jose Padilla and John Lindh, they were practicing Muslims and dressed and acted in accordance with that belief.
Emphasis added.
Someone calling himself anonymous muslim writes in comments:
I sort of agree with the premise that some rational profiling should be done maybe using the acual passport information. The problem is most Westerners have no idea what a Middle easterner is. You guys keep using that word when the supects the last few months have be predominately Pakistani, which is a South Asian country.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I use the term “Middle Eastern” as a synonym for “Muslim.” Probably not the most precise term, but there are only a few choices, semantically speaking: 1) We can profile “Middle Eastern-looking” young men; 2) Young men of Middle Eastern descent; or 3) Young men who may be Muslims.
It doesn’t matter to me which one you pick, but in this age of terrorism, it has to be one of the three, combined with background checks and behavior pattern recognition. I didn’t start this fire and certainly can’t put it out, so don’t take out your frustration on me. 
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 117 comments }
I have enough trouble trying to sidestep gangbangers and beggers on public transportation and on the street. I think the problem, as many people have said before, is that the normal, relatively prosperous, free countries of the world don’t believe in themselves, so they’re letting losers of all kinds trample all over them. I didn’t think this until I lived in Japan and went to Singapore, where they don’t have much “tolerance”.
I nearly cried when this news broke. It basically means that the real bad guys have won – they’ve turned us into what they say we are. Those two men weren’t doing anything wrong and that really was racism at work there.
I understand it, too, in a way: I understand why the rest of the passengers were nervous and all, but the fact is that they wouldn’t have had the same reaction had it been two white guys speaking Arabic, or even two black guys speaking Arabic. Most ordinary people don’t really know what Arabic sounds like anyway, so they drew their conclusions from the appearance of the two men. And in any case, speaking a different language isn’t against the law.
I’m honest enough to admit to myself that I probably would have been scared, too, if I was on that plane and didn’t understand what the two men were saying. But it still makes me sad and angry (and it makes me despair) that ordinary people have been made so scared that they react like that to “the other”, you know?
We have little or no faith in the ability of our leaders to protect us, and that’s in no small part to their reluctance to confront the real issues at stake and acknowledge that this really is a battle between our way of life and an evil ideology. Sorry if that sounds over the top, but it is how I feel.
You are so right on! I remember after the Oklahoma City bombings there was huge suspicion cast on all young, white, ex-military males.
The passengers on that airplane were taking responsibility for their OWN safety – which is as it should be. Yes, the governments around the world should be doing all that they can to protect the traveling public BUT we have to take responsibility for our own safety as well.
As to those two “victimized” Muslims – maybe they should have given some serious thought to showing up for that flight dressed in a way that caused people to suspect them of being up to no good? Maybe THEY should take some responsibility for their own inconvenience?
I’m flying Vegas in early October and as a 64-year-old white woman, I fully expect to be searched and generally irritated by airport security. And because I believe that their intentions are good, I will not lose my cool with the idiotic TSA employees. BUT, if in fact I see someone behaving in a suspicious manner, you can bet your butts I will NOT just passively assume that TSA (minimum wage government employees? come on!) has done their jobs and I will ask someone to double check the suspicious looking person(s) because that is MY responsibility to myself and my fellow passengers.
In other words – to use a word I loathe – I will be proactive!
LaShawn,
A news report that I read said that the two men, despite the intense heat, were wearing heavy leather jackets, zipped up. They kept checking their watches, and acting nervously. To be honest, the heavy zipped-up leather jackets would be enough to make me suspicious of virtually anyone in this day and age, regardless of ethnic appearance. OK, maybe not a Swedish octagenarian.
My experiences with Muslims on a plane is that everyone goes out of their way not to offend them. My 74 year old, white-haired mother suffering from cancer would be searched and made to drink from her water bottle (this was in 2002), while middle eastern males were passed through airport security without a problem. This happened at least twice, once at Dulles and once at Reagan National airport.
Phoenix:
These two wearing heavy jackets are unlikely to be serious terrorists.
Serious terrorists would likely do everything they could so they did NOT stand out from the crowd.
One of the objects of TERRORism is to create an atmosphere of terror, and this story indicates that they have scored some successes. We are comicly frightened of our own shadows now. It doesn’t help, of course, that our media and politicians have added to the climate of fear. OBL must be laughing his a** off.
Very very regretable.
I say good for those passengers who decided to stop playing politically correct charades and made a stand against insanity. The fact is that no muslims anywhere can be trusted because the “peaceful” ones are making no efforts whatsoever to curb the radicals in their midst, and are even actively supporting them. Every muslim alive must be treated as a hostile enemy until they prove otherwise; after all, it’s how white Southerners have been treated for a century and a half now.
Would you feel similarly uncomfortable if you saw a Christian lurking around a planned parenthood office? What have you done to “curb radicalism” in christianity? True muslims do not have to apologize for the actions of deranged terrorists, just as true christians don’t have to answer for the deaths of abortion doctors.
What many seem to be saying here is this:
Assuming that every young muslim male is a terrorist is the right thing to do…but we don’t because it’s politically incorect. THAT IS IDIOTIC. We don’t do it because that sort of behaviour will further alienate moderate muslims and create more hate and fundamentalism. And because it’s just stupid to assume in the first place. Muslims should be able to appreciate the US for the land of freedom that it is…but as many have written about, things turned hateful towards them after 9/11, and they saw the ugly side of a country they loved so much.
Instead of giving them paranoid looks, why not talk to them…see what they’re about. Ask them how it feels to have everyone’s eyes on them. You’ll find you’ll be put to ease when you realize how silly your fears were. Out of 1 billion muslims, even if there are 1000 plane-bombing terrorists (which is an awfully high estimate), there’s only a 1 in a million chance that the young muslim guy is a terrorist.
I suppose you can live your lives in fear if you want. If you assume the worst about everything, you fear everything, and that’s no way to live your life.
Unless the “peaceful” Muslims stand up to the thugs in their midst, then they can expect the same thing to keep happening. Kman, the main goal of these nuts is to EXTERMINATE us and our way of life, not make us fearful. Better to give into fear now and then than to have more innocents murdered.
A classic fault in logic is to assert that if most ‘A’ are ‘B’, then most ‘B’ are ‘A.’ This error lies underneath “It is unfortunate that Muslims with no terrorist intentions get singled out, but the fact is that mostly young, Middle Eastern, Muslim men are responsible for worldwide terrorism.”
The fault in this logic is apparent if we think of some other crime, like drunk driving, that is dominated by some other demographic. If the large majority of fatal drunk-driving accidents are caused by white men, would we consider it a wise, effective policy to restrict the driving privileges of white men more than other people? Or would our public safety be better insured by devising better drunk-driving prevention and detection practices that catch drunk drivers regardless of their demographic?
And would many people stand behind, say, a group of people in a highway rest stop who decide to take the car keys from a young white man who was laughing too loud on the basis that they didn’t trust law enforcement to protect them from someone who looked, to them, as if he might be one of those white-male drunk drivers?
#4, Gayle…
I TOTALLY agree with you. I too would ask Airport Security to re-check a passenger if I felt uncomfortable or suspicious. Better to delay a flight and reach your destination alive than to be blown to bits.
Folks, always trust your instints…
“Instead of giving them paranoid looks, why not talk to them…see what they’re about.”
Nope. The ball is in their court. If Muslims want dialog, let them start. Let the peace-loving non-radical Muslim majority (the folks we keep hearing about but never hear FROM) condemn the violence of Islamofascists, and do so loudly and unequivocally. Crickets chirping won’t do it.
So much for the enlightened principles of personal liberty that our domestic legal and political system (OUR COUNTRY) is based on.
We abandon our principles, but the terrorists haven’t won, really.
If airport security put PC aside and made it common practice to put Middle Eastern men through more intensive security procedures, then this would never have happened. The passengers would be assured that those men had passed a rigorous inspection, and the men (who, as stated, were probably innocent) would’ve been inconvenienced but would otherwise have had a chance to travel in peace.
If 9/11 had been perpetrated by brown haired, blue-eyed men with thick Southern accents, then I would be fine with airport security profiling brown haired, blue-eyed, Southern men, even if that meant I would be inconvenienced. I’d probably be annoyed as all get out, but I’d be more annoyed at the perps, who had started it all, than the airport security, who would just be doing their jobs.
Pman, first off, this wasn’t in our country. And how is profiling a group who has members who are responsible for about 80-95% of all international terrorist incidents since 1972? WE are not stripping them of any rights, nor are we rounding them up and sending them to camps. We are looking at them more closely, and perhaps inconveniencing them for a short time. Yeah, big abandonment of principles.
A Pakistani woman and supposed resident of one of our local communities for the past year purchased a one-way ticket to Michigan the day before her scheduled flight. TSA inspectors detained her at the Tri-State Regional airport.
Toothpick Johnny,
it isn’t hard to understand. If we explicitly profile for Muslims, they will send a christian-looking woman on a plane with a bomb instead, and she will get through easier than if we just randomly searched everyone (any statistician can prove this).
Profiling in this way is impossible anyway, as muslims exist with all colors of skin, hair, eyes, etc… unless you want that group to have to wear a distinguishing mark. remind you of anything? just replace the star of david with a crescent! Sometimes I think the whole profiling argument comes about because ignorant people just assume that they can spot a muslim on sight. Sorry, but not every muslim fits into your preconceptions, and that’s where this whole thing breaks down. See Jose Padilla (obvious muslim name, right?) and John Walker Lindh for examples of white muslim terrorists.
Also, being singled out for special treatment based on one’s religious or ethnic background isn’t just not PC. It’s wrong, it’s stupid, it’s innefective. It’s also self-righteously satisfying to people who see the world in neatly divided ways, who beleive we’ll be safer by focusing on the brown people, who are the only ones who do wrong.
As to those two “victimized†Muslims – maybe they should have given some serious thought to showing up for that flight dressed in a way that caused people to suspect them of being up to no good? Maybe THEY should take some responsibility for their own inconvenience?
Wow, I completely disagree. Imagine, for a moment, that Christians were under suspicion. Would you feel comfortable dressing in a miniskirt and a baby t-shirt just to identify yourself as “not Christian enough to be a terrorist?” Probably not, and you shouldn’t have to. Even if those men were in robes and traditional Muslim clothing, they should not be held responsible for dressing in a way that their religion deems appropriate.
I am not hard-left on this issue. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give extra scrutiny to Muslim passengers, especially those who look suspicious. But it’s horrible to blame Muslims for choosing to visibly identify themselves as such, like if they could just suck it up and blend in with the rest of us at the expense of their beliefs then they deserve what they get, or something. I don’t think they deserve it AT ALL, but I think it is necessary, and that’s an important distinction to make.
My story: I was flying back from college, home to New York, two weeks after September 11. The flight was nearly empty, and we all had strict security measures and checks, and I was so upset about the whole thing, but the thing that made me feel better about it all was seeing two obviously Muslim men go through security and, once they had cleared, be treated politely and accepted by all the other passengers. No one gave them a hairy eyeball or anything, maybe because we had all been under such scrutiny that they couldn’t have had anything on them and gotten through, but it made me feel much better and proud to live in this country. That, on a plane of mostly New Yorkers returning home for funerals, we could still find the basic humanity in ourselves to understand that blind hatred and blame wasn’t going to make anything better.
On a different flight, I sat a few seats behind two young men of Middle Eastern appearance. This time I wasn’t worried. Directly in front of them sat two men I believed with 90 percent certainty were air marshals. They had that look, know what I mean?
Memo to easily offended, highly sensitive homosexual lurkers, LSB is not alluding to the police officer in the group Village People!
I sort of agree with the premise that some rational profiling should be done maybe using the acual passport information. The problem is most Westerners have no idea what a Middle easterner is. You guys keep using that word when the supects the last few months have be predominately Pakistani, which is a South Asian country. I havent read that those guys on the plane were actually Muslim. The problem with just profiling based on looks alone is that Westerners can’t tell the difference between an Pakistani Muslim, Indian Sikh, Indian Christian, Arab Muslim,etc. Actually , I doubt most Americans could tell the difference between Arabic and Hebrew. Basically you guys are advocating profiling all brown people who make you nervous no matter what religion.
Two years ago I was taking a tourist trip in downtown Chicago and noticed a Muslim man taking pictures of the top floors of one of the main entrances to the train station across the street from the Sears tower. There was nothing compelling about these floors over the train station. I wondered to myself if he was a terrorist, yet stupid me didn’t take a picture of him taking a picture. Recently we heard about the plot to blow up the Sears Tower. To this day I rue the day I didn’t photograph this guy and send it to the FBI.
I think we have a duty to be vigilant for our own safety and the safety of our countrymen. Call it racial profiling or whatever you want. Fact is, this world has changed and we are being forced to change with it. Obviously some people are so afraid they won’t even sit on a plane with Muslims. That may be extreme, but hey, it’s the way it is and it’ not going to get any better.
As an aside, last nite I was watching C-span book tv and listened to Vali Nasr describe his book, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future. To say the discussion was compelling is an understatement. The secular divide between the Shias and the Sunnis is going to intensify as the Shias gain more and more power with the support of Iran. We are in for a terrible ride in the months and years ahead with this secular war within Islam itself, with the terrorists monopolizing on it as Hezbollah recently did in Lebanon.
I enjoy the company of Muslims and would fully appreciate the opportunity to sit with them on a plane. In fact, I would rather sit with Muslims than with paranoid and bloodthirsty Americans, and I am an American.
And no, Muslims don’t hate us because of our so-called freedom. This is a simplistic and idiotic line of thought.
Reading through the responses and the original post, I had several thoughts inspired by the following passage from the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Given how some people seem to advocate profiling as a means to stop or prevent crimes, I wonder how these same people would react to other profilings…
Why aren’t we profiling corporate executives after ComCast, Adelphia, Enron, and every other corporate scandal? It seems that the executive officers in these heinous business failings, that destroyed the lives of thousands of pensioners, are the only ones to commit these crimes, so let’s put every executive in America on the rack to make sure they’re not trying to steal from their companies, eh? And why aren’t the executive officers from the companies that aren’t suffering from corporate officer abuse calling for draconian punishments of the other corporate officers?
Why aren’t we, in sports, drug testing every single athlete in America for steroid usage? Jeeze, with so many athletes admitting to drug use, why the heck aren’t we testing all of them?
And those darned Christians, and their doctor murdering, can’t let Christians near abortion clinics because they’ll bomb them if they get the chance.
[You're comparing abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by a few so-called Christians with world-wide terrorism perpetrated by mostly Muslim young men of Middle Eastern descent intent on destroying entire non-believing populations? It's obviously silly comments like this that cause me to consider, every now and then, to shut down public commenting. - Admin]
If it isn’t clear I abhor the idea of profiling. I apologize if some people think those examples go over the top, but I think they’re illustrative. I abhor profiling because to me it goes against the idea of our nation and its constitution. To me, profiling is denying someone their right to life and liberty. To embark upon the path that some claim is common sense is to abandon what our nation is. We can beat terrorism, and we can stop it without having to give in to the tyranny of a police state.
Your quote from Glenn Reynolds hits the nail on the head, I think.
Truthfully, I’m totally for profiling. But my heart still breaks for all the people who will be singled out, even though they are completely innocent themselves. Those guys may have been nervous because of the looks they probably get when they board a plane.
Still, at the end of the day, I blame the terrorists for causing this to happen.
Another battle the terrorists have won.
This is turning into a rout.
Hey La Shawn, I had a very similar experience yesterday. I was flying from Wichita to Atlanta. I was on the aisle in the Exit row. Next to me was a middle eastern looking man who was dressed in all black. Black Jeans, hiking boots, a black shirt/jacket thing that covered his neck down past his wrists.
He was reading flash cards on how to fly a Hawker BeachJet 400a and kept reaching down between his seat and the exit door. I am not making this up. I looked back and another Middle Eastern man was looking right at me smirking.
I asked the guy if he was learning to be a pilot but he said he already was one. He was nice but not talkative. We had awful turbulence but that was the only thing that happened.
I wasn’t going to post this on my blog but I think I will now.
A few “so called christians”.
You’re right. Its probably a very minute percentage.
BTW, there are over a billion Muslims in the world. How many want to blow up planes? 80%? 90%?
I’d say less than .01%.
How about that comparison Left-Coaster makes about corporate executives?
Do you think the % of corporate execs who have screwed their pensioneers is lower than the % of Muslims who would kill us for our freedoms?
Not hardly.
Pman–now you’ve got me paranoid about Christians. What do they look like? Have you talked with any of them like you advise us to do? What did they have to say? I’m sure you were open minded and tolerant, according their views the respect you expect for your own, right?
MB
anonymous Muslim wrote:
“I doubt most Americans could tell the difference between Arabic and Hebrew.”
Most Americans can’t point to Louisiana on a map, so I’d say you’re probably right.
There are over a billion Christians in the world, and only a few dozen have ever bombed and abortion clinic. More Muslims have bombed places than Christians. Again, when the IRA was very active, the British profiled people with Irish names and appearances. I have a Celtic name, so I was examined more thoroughly than most. So what? A few more minutes of my time were taken, but I wasn’t harmed. Being subjected to closer scrutiny is hardly a breach of the Constitution, and as I have already pointed out, this was a British flight, not an American one. We are not losing the “war” because we are more aware of our surroundings and more suspicious of people. As for Jose Padilla and John Lindh, they were practicing Muslims and dressed and acted in accordance with that belief.
#31- Only because standards have been slashed so that kid’s self-esteem isn’t hurt.
Hey LaShawn-
Should we apply your policy to black men walking in white neighborhoods? I’m just asking. I mean, you know how “informed” citizens in America always know who the perpetrators of crime are, and are thus qualified to prejudge who potential criminals are.
Child molesters and serial killers are almost always “creepy looking” white midde age class dudes. I never let my children near them. Most white middle class men are OK but can you blame me for not wanting to take a chance? There is evil in the world. Thousands of children fall prey to these people every year (far more than become victims of terrorism!) and we as non-white middle class male Americans have to stop it. I’m sorry if it makes them “uncomfortable” but if they are innocent they should have nothing to worry about.
Pang, people who aren’t familiar with my blog or my writings tend to ask questions like that. “What if it were a black man walking down the street minding his own business,” blah, blah, blah. I am not against racial or religious profiling. My own brother, who is a black man, has been profiled before. I don’t like it, but I understand the rationale behind it, my personal feelings notwithstanding.
Stick around, and you’ll learn a lot more surprising things about me. Assumptions are nothing to play with.
And those darned Christians, and their doctor murdering, can’t let Christians near abortion clinics because they’ll bomb them if they get the chance.
[You’re comparing abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by a few so-called Christians with world-wide terrorism perpetrated by mostly Muslim young men of Middle Eastern descent intent on destroying entire non-believing populations? It’s obviously silly comments like this that cause me to consider, every now and then, to shut down public commenting. - Admin]
I was hoping that the over-the-top wording would help inply hyperbole, but that aside:
Admin – Agreed.
There is no way to compare the damage, in human cost, of world-wide terrorism to the anti-abortion terrorism.
The real reason why I added that example isn’t to show the loss of life, but rather to show that such extremism is possible in any religion or any belief structure. And to single out a race because of radicals is not only unjust, but impractical. I did not clarify that.
In terms of clarification, please look at the comparison in this light: You note that it is young, so-called Muslim men that are intent on eradicating other beliefs through violence. I contend anti-abortion-terrorists are so-called Christians that are attempting to eradicate abortion through violence.
Also consider that the IRA is an Irish so-called patriotic organization, that until recently, sought violence as a way to eradicate Brittish “occupation” of Northern Ireland. Yet there are no calls for, nor any profiling of the Irish… why not?
In continuance of idealogical comparisons, I ask the admin and all readers to consider: with the existance of the KKK, and their purported Christian justification of their racism, why aren’t all Christians detained or profiled for racism?
I reiterate that to single out an entire race or group of believers because of radicals and extremists that claim that group or belief for justification is not only unjust, but impractical.
Oof… Toothpick, didn’t know about Irish profiling, hadn’t heard anything about it, I retract my comments about the Irish.
LOL. Was back in the day. I was flying into Glasgow from the US, but I was a young teenager and looked rather scruffy. It was before the peace in N. Ireland and the IRA was still very active, so they looked at my brother and I closely. No harm, no foul.
Fair enough. I disagree, but you’re philosophically consistent, I guess. I think the problem with profiling is that you have to trust the profilers to be operating within the law and fairly. I, personally, do not. We don’t even officially profile people, and at this moment some middle eastern guys are sitting in jail because somebody (white) thought that middle eastern guys shouldn’t be able to buy a certain number of cell phones… Is this fair? Is this what we want? Does this make us safer? I am going to say no, no and no. I am sure people will reply and say this is an extreme example, etc. But this is the example we know of. What about the ones we don’t know of? It is up to us to determine whether we live in a free spociety or a police state. When the authporities can be trusted to make extra-legal decisions, then we can allow profiling. Until then, we must fight to defend our freedom and liberty.
Addendum: I have no problem with profiling of Irishmen to this day. Irish terrorist committed many evil acts in the UK, and they deserve to be found out and punished. All terrorists are scum, no matter what race, religion or political affiliation.
Pang, how is profiling a threat to our liberty? Please explain in detail. How is it extra-legal?
One thing people are forgetting is that nobody has an absolute “right” to fly.
Air travel is not public transportation in the same way as subway and bus.
It’s publicly regulated, but the airlines are essentially private.
Maybe it’s because I’m a Pisces (fish don’t fly LOl).
But, I don’t see the particular urgency with air travel.
I can certainly understand it with subway and rail.
But I view air travel as a privilege, not an absolute entitlement, no matter what your race.
When you can see the President of CAIR on television nearly every night defending the latest outrageous action by some radical Islamofascist thug and you NEVER EVER hear moderate Muslims speaking out, one of two things is at work here: (1) there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or (2) moderate Muslims aren’t news. Despite that, I would definitely be reassured if I could hear from SOME moderate Muslims who are willing to be counted on the side of the Western World and can speak loudly enough to force the mainstream media to publicize their views.
Don’t look good in blue; not holding my breath!
Oh my goodness what a can of worms has been opened now. Some of the screeching at this site sounds like my roommates reaction when I told her about the stand taken by the other passengers.
Honestly, I expect that these 2 men were not terrorists, but they saw no problem with frightening other passengers with their antics. I really doubt after all that’s happened recently that they could not be aware of how their actions might look to bystanders. So I would refrain from calling them “innocent”. In a way they are more guilty than the terrorists themselves. The terrorists at least have the courage of their convictions, must as I despise the logic and religion that led them to theor choices. These “Asian-looking” men who act suspiciously and then derive pleasure from seeing others upset are merely trading on the nasty reputation of others and need to beware the potential retaliation.
And that is the problem with the “moderate peace-loving” muslim community. Too many of them probably do want to see peace, but are happy to accept the perceived increase in stature created every time another fanatic blows himself up and takes out innocent bystanders in the process.
In truth its nice to see that someone, even if it was panicky passengers, is willing to stand up and point out that the behavior of any other passenger is unacceptable. Remember the crazy lady who ended up caysing a flight to be diverted to Boston, and who supposedly used the aisle as a bathroom. I’m not one to advocate physically striking a woman, but someone should have forced her back into her seat and then tied her into it for the remainder of the flight. Instead she was allowed to distract the passengers for quite some time. Imagine if there had been one of these gel bombers on that plane. Would anyone have noticed him in time?
The truth is that being on a plane and travelling is a priviledge. We do pay for that priviledge, but the airlines do have the right to refuse service if they deem you a danger or feel that your travelling with them will hurt their sales in the long run. I would be very unsurprised to see some airlines start to pay closer attention to nationality of passengers as well as other factors and adjusting their pricing and services accordingly. If no one wants to fly with muslim-appearing men because of the history of terrorism associated, so no airline will want to allow them to fly, because others will seek to go on what they perceive to be “safer” flights.
Lots to think about, no right answers.
LaShawn…. You just did a 180 degree turn (giving me mental whiplash).
Just last week you argued in favor of profiling.
With this story we have two men profiled (this is a taste of how it would be in the world that you argued in favor of last week)….
Then you also stated that- If you’re Muslim…too bad.. that’s you’re problem.
FAST FORWARD TO THIS WEEK:
Now all of a sudden, this week, you appear to actually show concern or sympathy with the two Muslim men who were profiled in this story.
You stated: “I want people to be free and happy and left alone to live their lives in peace”
But it’s hard to reconcile the two positions… your statements are contradictory.
If you support profiling… this is how it is going to be EVERYDAY…for tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in the UK, if profiling became part of official policies and procedures. And this story represented only one aspect, one glimpse into how it would be…just a mere taste.
I don’t see how you can make the statements you made last week…and then turn right around this week and say that you want people to be left alone….etc..
Your position also goes against the great civil rights struggle & tradition in this country….(not talking about the Al Sharptons or the Jesse Jacksons who are riding the coat tails of the movement… i’m talking about the real Civil rights tradition in America). Your parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were profiled as a matter of official and unofficial policy in the United States. How can you then support the same methods for an entire religious group (in this case Muslims)? Just out of respect for your ancestors you should at least be a lot more skeptical about something such as racial profiling.
Has it come to this? Yes…. It’s come to the point of being a very complex matter….and it will take creative solutions and complex analysis to remedy the problem. The simple minded approach that a lot of Conservatives have- the “just kill them all” approach (I have this argument with my boss all the time… a white country guy) is too simplistic for the problem. The same goes for profiling…. it’s an old Conservative approach that is being rehashed/recycled.
What is your real position on the matter? You seem a little torn. Either you’re for it or you’re not.
I don’t think it would be very hard to go through this list of comments and make a list of those folks that seldom, if ever, have to fly. They’re the ones on the “If we profile, or if we refuse to fly with suspicious looking males, the terrorists win” side of the argument.
Controversy for controversy’s sake, eh Angry? Tedious, but not unusual.
That I sympathize with groups and individuals who are profiled does not mean I’m against profiling. I have no clue how you made that logical leap. As a human being, I can’t help but regret and even resent the pain of others. But pain is part of a fallen world. I can support profiling and — incredible as it may seem — feel bad that it has to be done.
My archives — blog and columns — attest to my consistency, so before you comment here again, perhaps you should peruse a few posts and columns to protect yourself from more whiplash.
By the way, I certainly don’t need or lecture from you or anyone else about what black Americans have dealt with in our history. Just because blacks are profiled, particularly in certain high-crime areas, doesn’t mean my support, as a black person, for Muslim profiling is somehow logically unsound.
This is definitely a sad story. First of all, I’m not sure passengers speaking Arabic counts as acting suspicious. Secondly, I don’t believe the kind of profiling advocated in this post is a good idea, simply because it isn’t very efficient. I believe that everyone needs to be vigilant, but people need to learn to recognize suspicious behavior, facial expressions, body language, not facial features or skin color. As others have pointed out, John Linde, Jose Padilla, and I’ll add Richard Reed, John Allan Muhammad, and Robert Anderson, (he was sentenced to five life sentences last year for offering to hand over information on the Abrams I tanks used in Iraq to Al Keida in order to help the cause), were/are all Muslims, but not Arabs. Profiling based on appearance and dress breeds complacency, and that’s dangerous. As regards Muslim moderates speaking out, I can see both sides of this issue. One one hand, we’re all screaming for more involvement on their part. On the other hand, whenever one does speak out, he or she isn’t believed. Read the Muslim blogosphere, and you’ll find them all over. Then there’s the issue of just how many do we expect to speak out before we’ll be satisfied that there’s an active opposition. One? Two? Six? Ten? No one has a right to fly, and if you’re acting suspicious then you should have every reason to expect to be put through the ringer. But Anonymous Muslim is right. Arabic sounds very similar to Hebrew, especially to untrained ears. The people on that plane mostly couldn’t have made the distinction between the two, to say nothing of the differences in appearance between Arabs and Pakistanis, who look very similar to Indians and other Southeast Asians. They weren’t being vigilant, they were being bigotted, and I can’t believe people are confusing this kind of bigotry with heroism.
bravo to the good folks on that plane who took responsibility for their safety into their own hands! when the government tells you obvious lies, and refuses to properly look at the group of people who are going around killing innocents in the name of their barbaric pseudo-religion, it’s up to the people themselves to look after themselves.
and since middle-eastern arabic-speaking islamic fascists are causing all the trouble, it seems only logical to refuse to fly with people like that on board. as an earlier poster noted, there is no “right to fly”. they can dress like everyone else and sit quietly in a non-suspicious manner if they want to fly, no? and if doing so hurts their feelings, tough.
the REAL question here is about the folks who’ve posted things like “why don’t you try and talk to them; get to know them as people?” and “hey! christians are mean, too!!” and “i’d rather sit with homicidal religious fanatics than with bucolic ignernt americans”. are responses like that indicative of A) pavlovian knee-jerk political responses programmed into them by their teachers? or B) gross idiocy?
Ed,
Your exposed bigotry lends no credit to your argument. I’m going to assume that you’ll give a blank check to the KKK and the Aryan Nation to fly where they please? They have killed, they terrorize, and yet you’ll allow them to fly but not the Muslims? Is it because of the religion or the actions, Ed. What is it you are trying to prevent? Violence? Destruction? Murder?
If anything I’ve read so far is knee-jerk, I’d say its your comments on the motivation of people that have posted rationally.
It’s not rational to refuse to acknowledge the religious and ethnic group responsible for almost all terrorism.
Once we do have the honesty and the fortitude to say, as Mr. Bush did, that we’re at war with Islamic Fascists (Islamofascists), we can begin to construct policies and safeguards that make sense, provide maximum protection, minimize social chaos and protect individual rights. But it must start with factually straight talk, something sorely lacking in the liberal/leftist world.
Make your own choices, folks – as for me personally, I’m profiling.
What neighborhood I would not take a stroll through, dine out at, or country I’d not visit directly correlates with “who” lives there. I consider that using good sense and discretion.
If I’m boarding a plane with someone that “looks” like who we are at WAR with, I’m taking another flight. If that gets me the “R” label, I don’t give a rat’s rectum.
My in-laws know that label won’t stick anyway and that does matter.
aww….i see where poor leftcoasty is upset at someone daring to point out that pretty much all the terrorism out there is being done by islamic fascists. responding with the classic ‘brainwashed-by-the-profs’ “defense” of cries of “KKK!” and “aryan nation!”, just as teacher instructed him/her to. oddly, he/she neglected to include the ‘earth first’ terror organization, who’ve killed more people in THEIR terror actions than the KKK/aryan nation has in quite some time now. (look it up)(then too, is leftcoaster suggesting that he/she would sit mildly by with no problems at all when her airline seatmate turns out to be a KKK kleagle decked out in full robes and hood? because objections based on that person’s dress and customs is “wrong”? SURE he/she is.)
leftcoaster’s righteous indignation aside – full of sound and fury and all that – the fact remains that, while not all moslems are terrorists bent on killing innocent (and conveniently unarmed) civilains, 99% of all terrorists ARE moslems. not klansmen, or aryan nationites, not even earth firsters. MOSLEMS.
so looking askance at, or refusing to fly with, moslems is “wrong”…..why, again? because it hurts their feelings? too bad! why are their tender sensibilities deemed more important than everyone else’s right to a worry-free flight? if it makes anyone feel better, i’m sure even the KKK or aryan nation would agree with that.
“Can’t speak for anyone else, but I use the term “Middle Eastern†as a synonym for “Muslim.—
So does that mean you know what someone’s religion is by looking at them?
Ed,
I can see how you make it easy on yourself to express so much vitriol. You tag people with names (Leftcoasty) to trivialize them in your eyes. Once trivialized, you then no longer need to see them as an equal, and you talk down to them, regardless of who they might be. Your arrogance and self-assured writing style give you up as a bigot trying to disguise himself.
–aww….i see where poor leftcoasty is upset at someone daring to point out that pretty much all the terrorism out there is being done by islamic fascists.–
Pretty much? Paint with as broad a brush as you need to Ed, but don’t forget the other terrorism going on. Africa, India, Nepal, South America.
–responding with the classic ‘brainwashed-by-the-profs’ “defense†of cries of “KKK!†and “aryan nation!â€, just as teacher instructed him/her to. oddly, he/she neglected to include the ‘earth first’ terror organization, who’ve killed more people in THEIR terror actions than the KKK/aryan nation has in quite some time now. (look it up)–(
I find it juvenile to attempt to denigrate my thoughts by attributing them to academia or some other demonized institution. Again an attempt to trivialize the poster by claiming the arguments aren’t mine, and they belong to someone else. And to be honest, even though you claim that Earth First killed more than the KKK or the Aryan Nation, I don’t see what body counts have to do with profiling. If anything, you’re adding to my argument by bringing them up. In fact, since you’re so kind to include them, they’re terrorists apparently, and they’re not espcially tied to Islam. Hmmm, a non-islamic terror organization. Definately seems to support my argument against racial profiling. How the hell are you supposed to profile for Earth First, KKK, and the Aryan nation? Sure, you might be able to pick out the extreme elements of the group, but I’m sure that there are memebers that don’t stand out immediately to a visual inspection. Hmmm, similar situation with the Muslims, Ed. You might tag a few with visual inspections, but you’re delusional if you think that anyone can eyeball every single terrorist. And, since you can’t tell the difference, you’re being lazy and branding them all as dangerous. Don’t forget to keep all white folk off the plane as well. Espically them dangerous Earth Firsters!
–(then too, is leftcoaster suggesting that he/she would sit mildly by with no problems at all when her airline seatmate turns out to be a KKK kleagle decked out in full robes and hood? because objections based on that person’s dress and customs is “wrongâ€? SURE he/she is.)–
If you believe that I implied anything like that in my last comment, you strech concepts better than plastic-man. I simply asked if you would accept racial profiling to keep the KKK or the Aryan Nation from flying. And you somehow turned that around to me inviting a KKK Kleagle to sit next to me? Heh. If the KKK kiddie was decked out, as you say, he’d be sitting by himself. I would move to be away from him. But I wouldn’t say he couldn’t fly. That call is up to the Pilot.
– leftcoaster’s righteous indignation aside – full of sound and fury and all that – the fact remains that, while not all moslems are terrorists bent on killing innocent (and conveniently unarmed) civilains, 99% of all terrorists ARE moslems. not klansmen, or aryan nationites, not even earth firsters. MOSLEMS.
so looking askance at, or refusing to fly with, moslems is “wrongâ€â€¦..why, again? because it hurts their feelings? too bad! why are their tender sensibilities deemed more important than everyone else’s right to a worry-free flight? if it makes anyone feel better, i’m sure even the KKK or aryan nation would agree with that. –
So how do you tell if someone is Islamic, Ed? Unless you’re saying you don’t want to fly with any brown people, that you want your airplane lily white?
Muslims aren’t all one color. How do suppose the airline personnel are going to tell if someone is Islamic or not? Are you proposing that all Muslims need to register their religious affiliation? Are they going to have to wear a Red Cresent on their clothes if they want to travel? Are you saying that the government now has the right to spy on every person in the world, in order to ferret out their religious affiliation in order to better protect your white vision? Is that what you’re saying? If so, they you are absolutely right. Any KKK or Aryan nation memeber would support your vision.
Profiling is racist. Support for it, no matter in what way is still racist. It is making a decision based on someone’s race or in this case Religious belief. Profile all you want, just don’t shy from the racist label, wear it proudly.
A disproportionate percentage of crimes in some areas are committed by young black men.
Do you see where this is going?
Another reader unfamiliar with LBC. I believe profiling young black men in certain areas is a permissible and rational response, as they do commit crimes, particularly violent crimes against other black men, at a disproportionate rate. I, unlike certain other blacks, try not to let my skin color and emotions get in the way of my reasoning ability. Welcome to LBC. – Admin
It seems like LaShawn asked for “Muslims on a plane” stories and didn’t get too many. But I do have one. Last fall my husband and I were in San Diego for my son’s graduation from Marine boot camp. Our return flight flew into Chicago quite late at night where we were met by my daughter. She said “everyone off that plane was either obviously military with their families or Muslim.” I HAD noticed a fair number of Muslim men on board (some of whom looked very surly) and I was nervous about it. I comforted myself that our seatmate had seen combat (and was preparing to return for another tour) and that every newly graduated Marine on-board was itching for combat so I figured “they could take ‘em” and I’d be safe.
In light of world events since then I wonder just how many dry runs the terrorists make every day and if that’s the reason they were on board. San Diego Marines have certainly done some damage to the terrorists’ cause.
“Hey LaShawn-
Should we apply your policy to black men walking in white neighborhoods? I’m just asking. I mean, you know how “informed†citizens in America always know who the perpetrators of crime are, and are thus qualified to prejudge who potential criminals are.”
~That happens all over America already. Officially and unofficially.
“Can’t speak for anyone else, but I use the term “Middle Eastern†as a synonym for “Muslim.†Probably not the most precise term, but there are only a few choices, semantically speaking: 1) We can profile “Middle Eastern-looking†young men; 2) Young men of Middle Eastern descent; or 3) Young men who may be Muslims”
~”Middle Eastern” and “Muslim” are not interchangeable descriptors. Middle Eastern describes your or your ancestors area of birth, while Muslim is the way of life one follows.
There are a lot more Middle-Eastern Christians all the time.
Look, many innocent, non-Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent will be subjected to profiling, even Christians. This is not ideal, but as long as terrorists fit a certain profile, similar men will be profiled. That’s a permissible and practical intelligence technique.
LaShawn,
Used properly, profiling, even racial profiling, is nothing more than a simple, reasoned process, necessary for efficient law enforcement.
The irony is that most of the so called “victims” of racial profiling are not even offended. The only people who are offended are liberals. Even the terrorists and criminals themselves are only pretending to be offended; they know they’re terrorists and criminals. Sometimes I wonder if everyone who seems offended by racial profiling is only pretending. Victimhood can be fun.
Maybe it’s because of where I live. In the area from Detroit and Dearborn down to Toledo, there is a sizeable population of people from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and surrounding areas. It would be an odd day for not to interact with someone from the Middle East. My favorite pediatrician in my kids’ ped group is from Syria. My favorite restaurant is run by Lebanese. I have art on my wall created by a Palestinian friend. I watch sports at the house of a guy from Egypt. My neighborhood grocery carries several kinds of hummous, baba ghanouj, pita, etc.
The idea of profiling in this area is almost laughable. Almost. But the point really is that with a little familiarity, you realize the absurdity of changing your view of ALL THESE ordinary harmless people because of some tiny percentage of fundamentalist nutcases, however horrible that tiny percentage can be.
The real reason not to profile is that it doesn’t work, and is counterproductive. David Harris has shown that it’s LOUSY POLICING, and takes resources from better places.
I think bringing up the KKK, or Arian Nation, or whacky sudo-Christians is missing the point. I think we can all agree that some sort of profiling needs to take place, the disagreement is over which type. As I’ve said before, I’m in favor of profiling people based on their actions, not their facial features, simply because I believe it to be a more efficient way of doing things. I don’t care whose feelings get hurt. Terrorists, at least those of the Muslim variety, are a lot like the Borg. They adapt to whatever situation or group they happen to be in or trying to infiltrate. I hope this isn’t seen as some sort of “leftist” dribble, because I’m definitely not a liberal. I just happen to believe that profiling people’s behavior, as well as their answers to certain questions if the suspicions of security personel are raised, is the best way to handle the situation, pretty much like the Israelis handle terrorists.
Phoenix:
These two wearing heavy jackets are unlikely to be serious terrorists.
Serious terrorists would likely do everything they could so they did NOT stand out from the crowd.
Comment by Frank Zavisca
Frank unless you are one of the premiere counter-terrorist investigators in America it is best to assume you are utterly ignorant of what a “serious terrorist” is.
As of now, the public has been instructed to either let others be aware of what their instincts scream is a person or situation amiss or conversely: (Don’t worry! Shop! Travel!) “trust your Hero Protectors from Norm Mineta right down to the min wage Fed TSA worker fresh out of McDonalds. Part of the limited advice people are supposed to “BOLO” even under Mineta’s idiotic rules – on – are sweaty, nervous, heavily overdressed young men. Heavy leather jackets in August apply.
Glenn Reynold’s caution on “Over PC” applies. Muslims are not masters of stealth in all counts. And a big, rarely mentioned part of 9/11 was ticket agents in Portland Maine that said Mohammed Atta scared them and both had decided THAT is how a terrorist looks, has death in their eyes, how a terrorist behaves…but both were cowed into silence by PC rules. And worry liberal Jewish lawyers from the ACLU would show up to sue the company and demand the Portland agents be sued, arrested for hate crimes – if they were wrong about their Mohammed Atta concerns and had taken action to have police detain and question him.
La Shawn’s own example reflects a different problem. There have been many incidents where young toughs can Smell Fear and decide to f____with and terrorize a women, frequently of a different race or culture. I have no doubt the Muslims sensed La Shawn’s reaction and revelled in their power over infidel pig passengers like her, and felt their imaginary might over others. It is the real fear of Muslim violence that gives others Islamics not inclined to terror or crime the belief that they can gain dominance and “mess with people’s heads” through association with the real threat. This behavior is seen by white, black, and hispanic thugs as well – who feel that they can intimidate and terrorize – even if no violence is planned – because people will not instantly assemble a mob of law-abiding to say “No!!! – or else!!” In Europe, reports of thugs crossing the line and others too fearful of intervening lest they are sued or arrested are commonplace.
In other times, and as other posters accurately note, in nations like China, Singapore, Germany, India, America until the late 60s…the behavior of La Shawn’s Muslim passengers deliberately messing with others minds and intimidating is not tolerated – and they know it.
*********************************
My own Muslim stories are two…one dealing with airplanes, one not.
In the first case, a Newark to Detroit flight had 5 Marines returning from Iraq and 3 ME looking men and their families of 12 or so. 4 of the 5 Marines were subjected to extra search (not with family, time in a nation sponsoring terror (Iraq), one way ticket. shrapnel in one set off metal detector). I was extra-searched as well ( along with a white haired granny and two young black kids) and threatened with more when I said it was royally stupid to screw with Marines serving the nation. None of the Muslims, coming back from “Palestine” were searched, except a 8-10 year old who her parents demanded be patted down through her hajib. Brilliantly disusting.
The second time was a little ugly and right after we went into Iraq in 2003. At a music club, two Muslims became belligerant with the staff over a credit card they had being rejected. The argument went on until the Muslims stormed out…but one stupidly turned and said “All you…you people…BOOOM!” motioning with his hands. A bunch, inc security from the club and patrons like me bolted after them, caught them…and figured they weren’t terrorists when both started crying and shivering at the sight of a nightstick and 2-3 holstered guns. One had 8 Mastercards on him. Security turned them over to the cops for making terroristic threats and about the credit cars. They were released after an hour and charged they were singled out as Muslims and death threats were made (they were in fact made, saying that if either came back, the assumption would be they were back to blow the place up, and they might be shot on sight.) Nothing came of it, as two of the clubs security were minorities who had been racially slurred by the Muslims as soon as the cops arrived and the two thought it was safe to spout off. (Are there any filthy black Jewish apes in Boston??)
*********************
Anyhow, a bit long-winded, but trust your instincts. If you think there is a danger from ME persons in your midst, alert authority and tell others. If you feel menaced, tell them to desist, if they persist or become actual threats, try for authorities to handle it. If they can’t, won’t, or are nowhere around….you and others can react rather than be sheep. Flight 93 resisted without the saction of a single “Bush Hero officer kinda guy”, without a single ACLU lawyer explaining why the passengers couldn’t resist without running afoul of due process rights, enemy civil liberties, or hate crime law, without a single lawyer in robes as the plane headed for DC saying it was OK to fight back.
If only the Portland ticket agents on 9/11 weren’t in such well-warranted fear of their jobs!!
You need terms and labels to define the situation. How is Islamofascist? There are a lot of arguments above wishing to avoid the unpleasant facts by comparison to other situations in the world like racism or your neighbors or abortion clinics. The comparisons don’t hold water. Offer solutions instead of whimsy. A national ID card would be a good start, one that details ones religious affiliation. We will have to give up some rights to set Islamofacists back. The wisdom in that activity will measure how strong our democracy is.
1 billion Muslims. Reports say 10 percent of them are radicalized. That is 100 million people isn’t it? You can’t kill them all, but you do need to educate them on the proper way to live in the world. There is no avoiding it. They wish to visit you.
If an airline offered Muslim free flying, I would pay extra for the flight. It would decrease my risk. The less Muslims in my life the safer i am. That being impractical then you have to reach them through education of a secular and spiritual nature. A war can be a form of education on both sides.
The much publicized “frisking of old ladies” may all be a front, thrown up for public consumption to neutralize the lovers of political correctness in political, academic and media establishments. Behind the scenes, a lot of serious profiling is most likely going on. At least this is what we HOPE is happening, but still people are suspicious of the gubment and its PC pandering..
On Lashawn’s incident, Middle eastern looking men looking back and smirking doesn’t suggest terrorism to me, just some lame hijink or joke passing between the groups of men. Lashawn sez she was comforted by would-be “air marshals” who “glared” at the men. I don’t know if this will help others, but would-be terrorists must know by now that there will be passengers on most American flights who will “take matters into their own hands”. A sophiscated bomb in the checked baggage of course (like the kind that brought down the Lockerbie flight) makes all that irrelevant.
Hysteria over profiling some Middle Eastern looking suckas is the least of our worries. One of the British bombers on 7/7 was of black West Indian descent- a Muslim convert, but he looked like a typical Jamaican, not “Middle Eastern”. “Shoe bomber” Richard Reid was a mixed thug- black father- white mother- another Muslim convert. Look for more such “helpers” too in time to come.
Rather than get upset about profiling, the sloppy cargo handling is the real scary part of LaShawn’s article. Another area is foreign airlines that may not have as stringent security or have security loopholes or willing collaborators terrorists can exploit. Hundreds of such carriers are landing in the US every day. It is only a matter of time.
Another area that doesnt get much press is the threat from the ocean lanes, with its vast number of ships under bogus names and registrations, and the ease with which ships can be hijacked. The book “The Outlaw Sea” offers a grim portrait of what is possible. Smart terrorists will be exploiting that area too in the years ahead.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865477221/sr=8-1/qid=1156216453/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3033564-4085653?ie=UTF8
ah, dear dear leftcoasty! (oh, my. is the diminutive use of your handle somehow demeaning? pity.) what a pompous, sanctimonious, and quite LONG load you’ve dumped onto poor LaShawn’s ‘comments’ section. in order to save time and bandwidth, i’m not going to do a 20 paragraph screed, rebutting each and every word you’ve posted – you know, like you just did – but will cut right to the chase.
which is, pretty much every point you’ve made is A)wrong and B)a lie. contrary to the racist dogma fed you by your teachers and profs, using one’s common sense to….say…..observe that 99% of terror acts are committed by middle-eastern arabic-speaking males, and then act on that observation is just COMMON SENSE. not pure evil. people have the right to defend themselves, and the right to not wish to fly with suspected homicidal maniacs, sunshine. and should the possible maniacs in question not like it; or them crying “racism!” is really too “darn” bad.
of course, you already know and practice this, which is where the ‘lie’ comes in. despite your mendacious posting to the contrary, were a KKK’er in full robe-n-hood regalia to sit next to you on a plane, and then speak in his preferred and customary manner about the relative merits of african-americans, you’d not only refuse to fly with him…you’d demand he be removed. and arrested. and silenced.
and any worry about HIS feelings; or respect for HIS culture; or concern for HIS free-speech rights would enter into your mind…..not at all. you know it; i know it. i see it every day at the university where i work – where the tolerant leftwing robots try to silence mere republicans, never mind KKK’ers – and no matter how loudly or longly you screech to the contrary, that’s the truth.
so why is it ok for you and your ilk to profile what YOU consider to be “bad people” and not the good folks who quite sensibly refused to fly with people they didn’t trust?
SOme comments:
- The person writing in regarding who is a Middle Easterner is correct. Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan are Southwest Asian countries. For some reason, when people say “Middle East” they forget that Israel is in the region and an Israeli would be a “Middle Easterner.
- The majority of Muslims are in Indonesia, not the Middle East.
- While many Arabs are “swarthy,” I was married to a Palestinian Arab (Muslim) and most of his friends were light haired and light eyed. You will find this among Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese. A good friend of my is Egyptian. He is dark – almost African (of course Egypt is in North Africa). His mother is blonde and blue eyed!
- There is a large population of Muslims in the Balkans. These people have more a Slavic look than Middle Eastern.
The point is, it’s difficult to generalize.
- The majority of Muslims are in Indonesia, not the Middle East.. There is a large population of Muslims in the Balkans. These people have more a Slavic look than Middle Eastern.
Correct. Those going by “Middle Eastern appearance” will be sadly mistaken in the future. There is for example a large bloc of Black Muslims in the Britian. One blew himself up on 7/7, and another tried to blow up a plane by lighting plastic explosives in his shoe. In the US, black Muslim sniper Malvo killed a number of people during his weeks of drive by shooting terror. Also some of the deadliest terrorist acts in the world today are not committed by “Middle Eastern appearance” people, but by South Asians, notably the Tamil Tigers of Ceylon. And id the majorit of Muslims are in Indonesia, expect more Asian looking folk to join the bandwagon.
Getting mad at “Middle eastern” looking people is understandable but besides the point. The real culprits are Caucasians with white skins- notably members of the US white political and media establishment that still continue to excuse and subsidize terrorists today, from “ceasefires” arranged for terror groups responsible for the murder of Americans, to continual butt-kissing of “our friends the Saudis”, to the continual flow of our tax dollars to establishment yet another Arab terrorist “state” in the Middle East, to failures to mobilize and communicate vigorously with the American people as to what this war will require, to the spineless PC pandering, disinformation and outright media lies. This has been a pattern for several decades. Our main enemy may be the white skins, not some Arab looking guy going about his legitimate business in Row 22.
“You’re comparing abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by a few so-called Christians with world-wide terrorism perpetrated by mostly Muslim young men of Middle Eastern descent intent on destroying entire non-believing populations?” – posted by Admin.
Because we all know that muslim terrorists are much more representative of muslims as a whole than intolerant right-wing christian terrorists are representative of intolerant right-wing “christians”. How do we know this? We just do. Just like we know that muslim terrorists are intent not on achieving some political end, but on DESTROYING US ENTIRELY! Talk about hyperbole! The terrorists COULDN’T destroy us and most don’t want to – they just want America to stop conducting poly-sci experiments on the middle-east. Face it the only way terrorists are going to “destroy us” is by tricking us into destroying ourselves. Maybe they are not doing such a bad job.
Phoenix: These two wearing heavy jackets are unlikely to be serious terrorists.Serious terrorists would likely do everything they could so they did NOT stand out from the crowd.
Comment by Frank Zavisca
Not quite. In Israel, one of the suspicious items that mark “suicide” bombers for Israeli security forces is people wearing bulky jackets or clothing. Such attire is often used to conceal the bomber’s deadly payload. Suicide or rather homicide bombers only need to get close- they don’t need to actually enter a specific room or building to do their dirty work. And no doubt in due time, they will be “Coming to America.” In such a case we can only hope assorted security forces are profiling hard for clues rather than “celebrating diversity.”
If an airline offered Muslim free flying, I would pay extra for the flight. It would decrease my risk. The less Muslims in my life the safer i am. That being impractical then you have to reach them through education of a secular and spiritual nature. A war can be a form of education on both sides. Comment by Jd
Maybe as to war, but separate flights for Muslims would not appreciably decrease your risk. All the separate flights in the world mean little when the gubment is arranging “ceasefires” for Muslim terror groups, sending tax money to subsidize terrorist groups in Palestine, and pandering to assorted “friends” in the Muslim world. Nor will they mean much when political and media elites and leftist/liberal sympathizers continually spin a web of disinformation and falsehoods as to this war, not to mention stubbornly refusing to take steps to break our dependence on oil procured from said “friends.” Separate flights do not cover ground transportation like the subway bombings by the “martyrs” of 7/7. It may feel good to glare down assorted Muslim travelers, but the enemy that is almost as dangerous Muslim terrorists has white skins primarily.
Way to go Enrique!! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Because we all know that muslim terrorists are much more representative of muslims as a whole than intolerant right-wing christian terrorists are representative
of intolerant right-wing “christiansâ€. How do we know this? We just do. Just like we know that muslim terrorists are intent not on achieving some political
end, but on DESTROYING US ENTIRELY! Talk about hyperbole! The terrorists COULDN’T destroy us and most don’t want to – they just want America to stop conducting
poly-sci experiments on the middle-east. Face it the only way terrorists are going to “destroy us†is by tricking us into destroying ourselves. Maybe they
are not doing such a bad job.
Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with our foreign policy toward the ME. That’s just an excuse. They try to blow us up because they want to destroy the west, since they can’t dominate it and turn it into some sort of extention of the Muslim empire that stopped existing in 1919. The above is a better example of hyperbole than anything said in LaShawn’s post, or anything in the comments. And it’s definitely pointless.
“Frank unless you are one of the premiere counter-terrorist investigators in America it is best to assume you are utterly ignorant of what a “serious terrorist†is”
However, if your comment is in FAVOR of profiling, then you are a premiere counter-terrorist investigator.
Actus is back! – Admin
Sorry, Ed. Can’t let you make up stories and put them in my mouth.
– ah, dear dear leftcoasty! (oh, my. is the diminutive use of your handle somehow demeaning? pity.) what a pompous, sanctimonious, and quite LONG load you’ve dumped onto poor LaShawn’s ‘comments’ section. in order to save time and bandwidth, i’m not going to do a 20 paragraph screed, rebutting each and every word you’ve posted – you know, like you just did – but will cut right to the chase. –
Too lazy to read or write, ed? Maybe there’s the beginning of the understanding of where your point of view comes from. My turn: pity. There, now that we pity each other, let’s move on to the rest of your argument.
– which is, pretty much every point you’ve made is A)wrong and B)a lie. –
Man that must have taken all of… um… 2 seconds to formulate? It seems you have fallen into the lazy trap of misunderstanding exactly what I said. So here’s the short version for Eds everywhere:
Just for you ed 
1. Ed demeans people to argue
2. Ed ignores terrorism in other parts of the world, so he can keep hating Muslims.
3. Ed pretends people can’t think for themselves (attributes ideas to “profs” and “teachers”).
4. I say that if people want to argue for profiling young men of middle-eastern descent, then they must also accept profiling of white males, or young white males, or southern white males. One cannot claim it is OK to profile poeple of Arabic descent because of Islamic terrorists without doing the same to white people because of the existance of the KKK, the Aryan Nation, and a whole slew of groups like Earth First. It seems as if the prevailing notion is it’s ok to profile someone who isn’t white, but its uncomfortable when you have to start profiling whites.
5. I’m not against people flying that hold inflammatory views. I am against people flying that act on those inflammatory views. I’ll touch on this in rebuttals below.
6. You can’t visually tell who’s Muslim or not. It simply doesn’t work that way. To think otherwise is plain ignorance. Now, profiling based on behavior isn’t a cracked out idea. It will take some effort to train people to recognize the right behaviors, and I think it will take more effort to program a tool to pick out these behaviors through video surveillance. It can be done, but I wonder if it is being done.
– contrary to the racist dogma fed you by your teachers and profs, using one’s common sense to….say…..observe that 99% of terror acts are committed by middle-eastern arabic-speaking males, and then act on that observation is just COMMON SENSE. not pure evil. people have the right to defend themselves, and the right to not wish to fly with suspected homicidal maniacs, sunshine. and should the possible maniacs in question not like it; or them crying “racism!†is really too “darn†bad. –
Again attributing my thoughts to proffesors and teachers… and on top of that calling it racist as well? Just calling it a name (racist) doesn’t make it so, Ed. Please explain how any of what I’ve said racist.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but have you read anything about the terrorism in South East Asia? India? South America? Not everyone involved there speaks Arabic or is of Middle-eastern descent. You might consider that when you make your example about “99% of terror acts are committed by middle-eastern arabic-speaking males”. Not to mention, acting on that assumption is the easy choice, not the right one. The right one, if you believe in the ideals of the United States, is to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty.
– of course, you already know and practice this, which is where the ‘lie’ comes in. despite your mendacious posting to the contrary, were a KKK’er in full robe-n-hood regalia to sit next to you on a plane, and then speak in his preferred and customary manner about the relative merits of african-americans, you’d not only refuse to fly with him…you’d demand he be removed. and arrested. and silenced. –
Telling me how I’d act? Without ever having met me? This is just silly, ed. Judging by the terms you’ve used in that little gem, I’m guessing that I have a better grasp on what the Freedom of Speech means. I’d most likely be disgusted by his remarks as to (your words here:) “the relative merits of african-americans”; in fact, I know I’d be disgusted if he compared African-Americans to apes, monkeys, or any other derrogtory name. But here’s the crux: If all he did was talk about his views, and not refer to anyone in particular, then he’s welcome to keep his views. The minute he acted on, or incited someone else to act upon his views, however, I’d call the cops. Freedom of Speech means you’re allowed to hold whatever idea you want. But that does not mean you are allowed to voice it at all times, and, it most certainly does not give you license to act upon your views at all times.
– and any worry about HIS feelings; or respect for HIS culture; or concern for HIS free-speech rights would enter into your mind…..not at all. you know it; i know it. i see it every day at the university where i work – where the tolerant leftwing robots try to silence mere republicans, never mind KKK’ers – and no matter how loudly or longly you screech to the contrary, that’s the truth. –
So now we see where Ed’s hatred of academia comes from. I have to wonder if, given the above example, you are equating KKK views with Republicans? I mean, that’s the leap your asking readers to make. That somehow, if liberals talk down republicans on a college campus, that also means that liberals would talk down a member of the KKK?
– so why is it ok for you and your ilk to profile what YOU consider to be “bad people†and not the good folks who quite sensibly refused to fly with people they didn’t trust? –
What? Huh? Where did this drivel come from? Where did I say anything about profiling? In fact, I mentioned that I’m against profiling in any case. So this is certainly a misplaced comment… not to mention the chilling thought of subjecting flight restrictions to the subjective “trust”. It seems as if you’ve already passed sentance on anyone who isn’t like you, ed. Where I live, we still try to believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I’ll leave you with two quotes from Ben Franklin:
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
Benjamin Franklin
and
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
I see a lot of bold statements by folks who don’t know much about terrorism.
They should know that most terrorist attacks in the United States over the past 25 years have actually been committed by Non-Arab/Muslims. Most terrorist attacks in this country have actually been committed by white men.
The same goes for the UK. Most Terrorist attacks there over the past 25 years have actually been committed by white men (Christians)…. not Muslims.
So do we profile white males?
why aren’t we profiling corporate executives after ComCast, Adelphia, Enron, and every other corporate scandal? so let’s put every executive in America on the rack to make sure they’re not trying to steal from their companies, eh?
Actually before such CEOs are hired, they are ALREADY being profiled. It’s called background checks. If they do something AFTER they are hired, that’s hardly a case against not doing background checks. As for “racks,” profiling is not convicting people as guilty, but giving them extra scrutiny because of certain patterns in their background. There is no need for “the rack” when a background check reveals a prospective hire has been involved in fraud before.
And why aren’t the executive officers from the companies that aren’t suffering from corporate officer abuse calling for draconian punishments of the other corporate officers?
Actually they have. Just Google it. You will not find Bill gates or any other CEO cheering on Enron style practices.
Why aren’t we, in sports, drug testing every single athlete in America for steroid usage? Jeeze, with so many athletes admitting to drug use, why the heck aren’t we testing all of them?
Actually atheletes in sports where drug enhancements are corrupting the integrity of performances are ALREADY doing drug testing. Your rhetorical questions are really falling flat. Somewhat ludricriously however, your “lets do everybody” approach would involve drug testing for elementary school athletes. Now that really makes sense…
And those darned Christians, and their doctor murdering, can’t let Christians near abortion clinics because they’ll bomb them if they get the chance.
Actually those who have threatened violence against said clinics before, where “profiled”, are kept away from the clinics by restraining orders and use of statutes such as racketeering laws. As for murdering medical personnel, that seems to be a Islamist speciality, to judge from terrorist use of dual bombs in Israel – one to attract emergency workers to the scene, the other to detonate when said emergency workers arrive.
If it isn’t clear I abhor the idea of profiling. I apologize if some people think those examples go over the top, but I think they’re illustrative. I abhor profiling because to me it goes against the idea of our nation and its constitution. To me, profiling is denying someone their right to life and liberty. To embark upon the path that some claim is common sense is to abandon what our nation is. We can beat terrorism, and we can stop it without having to give in to the tyranny of a police state..
Actually the examples don’t go over the top at all. They merely crumble into incoherence when common sense is applied. It is unclear how “life and liberty” is “denied” by scrutinizing a passport or background screening form closely. What a crock of BS.
Profiling is a legitimate law enforcement tool, when applied in a specific, reasonable way and backed with evidence. The penchant of young, Muslim males, some Arab, some not, for engaging in terrorism is well known and is thus a legitimate pattern to profile for. Lest any think this is somehow too broad, authorities seldom worry about elderly Muslim women.
If a particular area is being heavily harmed by robberies and rapes being committed by young black men (like Washington DC) then use of race and age is a perfectly legitimate tool of law enforcement. Who do you think elderly black victims of robbery and assault want law enforcement time spent on? White mommas going to the mall, or the thugs down the street? Duh.. Heart-warming pronouncements about “innocent before guilty” and “stopping police states” sound nice and enable liberals to preen nobly, but back in the real world, public safety authorities have real work to do.
Wow, I’m not exactly sure why my post was singled out. Pretty cool, though, for my first time posting here.
The point of my comment was that profiling based on what you think the ethnicity is, just probably won’t work and will just annoy a bunch of Non Muslims. I agree with the other measures that you mentioned , they seem more rational.
I dont know why I posted, I actually enjoy reading your blog and other conservatives. I agree on many issues but when it comes to Muslims, you guys go off the deep end. Its like all the rational thinking is thrown out the door. Very strange, given as Angry Independant notes, most terrorism has been commited by non-Muslims. Not making excuses for Muslim terrorism because its awful and they have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims. But actual facts indicate we should be scared of our fellow Americans next door then the boogyman terrorist.
And I’m actually a woman, African American, born Muslim.
“Very strange, given as Angry Independant notes, most terrorism has been commited by non-Muslims”.
I just want to clarify… that’s not what I stated.
I carefully stated that most terrorist attacks in the UK and the U.S. over the past 25 years have been committed by caucasians.
And welcome to the site.
Enrique:
“Profiling is a legitimate law enforcement tool”
Enrique…
Profiling- YES
Racial Profiling- NO
I don’t think many people understand that there is a difference in Law Enforcement between those two concepts.
Profiling- Looking at a combination of factors that when put together= “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion”. That is perfectly legal and legitimate.
However, racial profiling- Looking solely or predominantly at the race of an individual and using that as a determination to stop, frisk, question, detain, harass, etc… IS NOT a legitimate law enforcement tool and is not ethical and in most cases is not legal. It’s unconstitutional and could never hold up to legal scrutiny. It violates the 14th Amendment (section 1 under Equal Protection).
So you Conservatives can talk about it all you want… It can never be made into “official” policy here. Although it has been in practice (unofficially) for years.
If you want the law changed, it would require an amendment to the Constitution. (which won’t happen).
I have a feeling that if it were not for the Constitution & the Judicial System in this country (the only branch of government that the people have left)… we would still be swinging by our necks from tree branches.
Muslims wouldn’t be the only people being persecuted.
“Profiling- Looking at a combination of factors that when put together= “probable cause†or “reasonable suspicionâ€. That is perfectly legal and legitimate.
However, racial profiling- Looking solely or predominantly at the race of an individual and using that as a determination to stop, frisk, question, detain, harass, etc… IS NOT a legitimate law enforcement tool and is not ethical and in most cases is not legal. It’s unconstitutional and could never hold up to legal scrutiny. It violates the 14th Amendment (section 1 under Equal Protection).”
A beautiful summation of the issue at hand. The average American’s obvious paranoia of Muslims is not reason enough to institute racial profiling.
#71.
“The point is, it’s difficult to generalize”
You really must read the ‘blogosphere’ more, a rampantly partisan beast that is consistently proving how EASY it actually is to generalize.
Just today I (mentally) handed over to the authorities 3 Seikhs, a mixed-race Brazilian of indeterminate religiosity and a couple of suspicious Polynesians and one that was definitely a muslim arab. Mostly, when I glared at them they ’smirked’. They later claimed that it was a ‘nervous smile’, but this wasn’t in English so I assume that the interpeter was liberal. Makes me sick.
Better safe than sorry. I would actually estimate that any male between 13 and 40 who is more than 30% un-white and at large in the Western World should be taken in for questioning. It’s not bigotry or ‘racism’ as some claim. It’s the sensible prejudice of self-preservation. And of freedom.
Angry Independent:
Sorry didn’t mean to mis-quote you.
anonymous muslim:
“Sorry didn’t mean to mis-quote you.”
Oh… I know you didn’t. No apology necessary.
I mentioned something so that the neo-cons wouldn’t attack me…. I just wanted to be clear.
Wasn’t directed at you.
Enrique,
Thank you for taking the time to read the examples and rebutting them.
Actually before such CEOs are hired, they are ALREADY being profiled. It’s called background checks. If they do something AFTER they are hired, that’s hardly a case against not doing background checks. As for “racks,†profiling is not convicting people as guilty, but giving them extra scrutiny because of certain patterns in their background. There is no need for “the rack†when a background check reveals a prospective hire has been involved in fraud before –
So these background checks called out Ken Lay and his conspirators, and they caught the corporate executives of the other disasters I mentioned, right? They didn’t catch Ken Lay ahead of time and they didn’t catch the others as well. I’m using this example as a situation where profiling all corporate executives would not prevent these crimes from happening. Additionally, by detailing the profiling methods in place, and noting the situations where the background checks failed, the situations presented actually hurt profiling credibility.
And also, on your… um… very simple assumption that if someone acts after they’ve been hired than this is no case against background checks… then what the hell are background checks for? Are they not attempting to screen out or prevent these individuals from being hired in the first place? Nice try slipping that one by, but under scrutiny, what a laugh… heh.
I want to note here that the comments made in post #84 about the differences between profiling and racial profiling clarify my position exactly. I realize that I wasn’t clear in previous examples, and I made the rhetorical mistake of conflating profiling (based on behaviors and previous actions) with racial profiling (profiling based on one’s race [and for the sake of this blog, religion as well]). I can accept profiling based on previous actions, behaviors, or patterns. I patently reject profiling based on race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.
– Actually they have. Just Google it. You will not find Bill gates or any other CEO cheering on Enron style practices. –
Not cheering on is different from speaking out against. I made this argument to challenge the reasoning that people use to demand that members of the moderate Islamic community speak out against members of their religion that act violently. We aren’t demanding that other CEO’s speak out against Ken Lay et. al., why should we demand the same of the Islamic community?
– Actually atheletes in sports where drug enhancements are corrupting the integrity of performances are ALREADY doing drug testing. Your rhetorical questions are really falling flat. Somewhat ludricriously however, your “lets do everybody†approach would involve drug testing for elementary school athletes. Now that really makes sense… –
Racial profiling involves anyone who fits that racial category. Ergo, anyone with that racial (or religious) affiliation would be under suspicion and thus profiled. My declaration about athletes mirrors this arrangement. Yes, as you assert, drug testing is going on, random drug testing in most but not all cases. This year’s Tour De France lost a number of highly capable competitors based on the suspicion of drug use. Terrible… and even after that sort of discrimination the winner was still tainted. Drug profiling here didn’t catch the offender until after the race. In Major League Baseball there have been high-level hearings in congress on steroid usage. Players have testified. My argument is that if people want to justify racial profiling, then there should be mandatory drug testing of every football and baseball and basketball and soccer athlete in America. After that, then you have all the other sports. Here, the absurdity I am trying to highlight is if you are an athlete, you are under suspicion of drug use.
– Actually those who have threatened violence against said clinics before, where “profiledâ€, are kept away from the clinics by restraining orders and use of statutes such as racketeering laws. As for murdering medical personnel, that seems to be a Islamist speciality, to judge from terrorist use of dual bombs in Israel – one to attract emergency workers to the scene, the other to detonate when said emergency workers arrive. –
This example was meant as hyperbole, but since you supplied credibility in your rebuttal… If the racketeering laws and non-racial profiling worked for Christian terrorists, why do we need racial profiling to catch Islamic terrorists? Christian terrorists murdered doctors and set off shrapnel bombs outside abortion clinics. Murder is not necessarily any religions’ specialty. But we aren’t stopping nor restricting every Christian. We’re profiling people that act in a certain way.
– Actually the examples don’t go over the top at all. They merely crumble into incoherence when common sense is applied. It is unclear how “life and liberty†is “denied†by scrutinizing a passport or background screening form closely. What a crock of BS. –
Your common sense takes the easy route in each case, ignoring the underlying argument.
– Profiling is a legitimate law enforcement tool, when applied in a specific, reasonable way and backed with evidence. The penchant of young, Muslim males, some Arab, some not, for engaging in terrorism is well known and is thus a legitimate pattern to profile for. Lest any think this is somehow too broad, authorities seldom worry about elderly Muslim women. –
Profiling based on race or religion is simply bigotry. What of the penchant for young, caucasion males for drinking and driving? Why do we permit liquor sales to young white males when statistics show they have a “penchant†for drinking, driving, and killing? Arguing or justifying racial profiling for a specific target is simply opening the door for institutionalized bigotry.
– If a particular area is being heavily harmed by robberies and rapes being committed by young black men (like Washington DC) then use of race and age is a perfectly legitimate tool of law enforcement. Who do you think elderly black victims of robbery and assault want law enforcement time spent on? White mommas going to the mall, or the thugs down the street? Duh.. Heart-warming pronouncements about “innocent before guilty†and “stopping police states†sound nice and enable liberals to preen nobly, but back in the real world, public safety authorities have real work to do. –
If you are implying that specific individuals with histories of violence and crime be profiled in that situation, sure, then persons with histories of robberies and rapes are suspects. How do you ensure that the manner in which someone is profiled does not violate that person’s right against unreasonable search and seizure? Mind you, the unreasonable element has time and time again been ruled to require a search warrant and/or probable cause. The flimsy justification that young, Arabic-speaking, Islamic males have a “penchant†for violence does not equate to probable cause; that, if no other factors are involved, is racism. Given that reasoning, police can justify profiling anyone for any reason. Giving the police that power may make us a great deal safer, but we’d be poorer for the loss of liberty.
one of the really fascinating things about a thread like this is the window into the mind of our little friends on the left side of the political spectrum. reasonable questions posed – “why shouldn’t members of the racial/religious group responsible for 99% of terrorism be looked at closer than others?” and “why should people NOT refuse to get on an airplane with folks like that aboard?” – are met with the most stunning (and long-winded) diatribes imaginable. accusations and wildly irrelevant factoids are tossed out higgledy-piggledy (”KKK!” “enron!”) in a frantic attempt to stifle the question; or more properly, the questioner.
there’s a book out in which the author has analyzed the left’s classic response to ideological confrontation, and it turns out the accusations and irrelevant factoids AREN’T just “random words strung together in amusing and ridiculous configurations” by hysterical leftwing statists. it’s all part of the playbook!
which is why a sensible “why shouldn’t we profile?” thread gets hijacked into never-never land, full of breathless sagas of the klan, and the aryan nation, and ken lay, and big-league ballplayers: the hysterical leftwing statist is trying to derail the question.
but hey, don’t take MY word for it. scroll up and peruse the 20-paragraph wordstorms for yourself. for additional fun, you can also ask a kneejerk leftwing automaton the following question: “since you and your ilk are so very much against any common-sense precautions to protect the flying public from homicidal islamic maniacs, what would you do about it if – god forbid – you were in charge?”
then sit back and enjoy the tales of peace and love and KKK-bashing. just don’t expect a cogent answer to the question.
I’m not a left wing automaton, though I can answer why I am against profiling. It’s insulting to Muslim-Americans and an infringement on their constitutional right to equal protection, it’s coercive, it sets a terrible precedent, and it would likely be ineffective. Moreover, it represents a vast departure from the America I grew up in.
America or Israel has a greater chance of nuking a Muslim country than the other way around, so stop pretending we’re the only ones facing imminent danger. This drug-addled, silver spoon disgrace of a President is more of a danger to world peace than anybody in the Middle East, including Ahmadinejad.
And there, in the second paragraph of post #91, we have finally gotten to the core of the leftist problem, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Real cute, RedBeard, but you’re wrong. Your unwavering support of a President that has run up the national debt, invaded a country based on false pretexts, bungled the Katrina rescue, destroyed the country’s standing worldwide and inflamed an entire people against us is the ultimate sign of derangement.
Why exactly do you support this president?
John, you seem to be one who mindlessly supported a President who lied to a grand jury, who allowed terrorist to strike with impunity, who initiated programs that have greatly inflated our budget, et cetera ad naseum.
I will not address your childish criticisms of the present administration, because this thread had been hijacked enough. I will address what you said about profiling: The majority of those being profiled aren’t AMERICANS you dolt! They have no constitutional protections. It IS likely to be effective, because ARAB males between 19-44 are 99% responsible for all international terrorist attacks since 1972. Coercive, most definitely. Set a dangerous precedent? I seriously doubt it, unless you still see Japanese rounded up and sent to camps. Insulting? Only if you decide it is. No one can take away your dignity or insult you unless you let them. I refer again to my comment above about the IRA and profiling Irishmen.
John – Okay, calling you a dolt went too far. Please accept my apologies.
When did I ever say I supported Bill Clinton? Never. Stop living in this black and white world where either somebody is a Democrat/liberal or Republican/conservative. I have nothing but contempt for both parties. Your party just happens to control all branches of government, so my ire is directed towards them.
What are you even talking about? I was responding to the question of whether a profiling program should be instituted in America, which, obviously, would include the profiling of a large number of Muslim Americans. I was ansering “no” to the hypothetical question being asked.
Your stats about terrorism are absurd. Israel just committed acts of terrorism against the Lebanese people, killing 750, but I’m sure those numbers aren’t baked into this analysis you cite. Not to mention the ongoing murder of Palestinians and the US’s ongoing murder of Iraqis.
Childish criticisms of this president? Why don’t you go see if the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast who saw their family members abandoned by FEMA think my criticisms are childish?
John,
Bush didn’t inflame an entire people against us. They were already inflamed against us, and they can provide enough excuses by themselves without you helping them out. Secondly, Bush didn’t screw up the Catrina rescue. He’s not in charge of FEMA, and you’re leaving out the part played by Loisiana’s state government and New Orleans’ mayor. If you’re worried about America’s standing throughout the world, that was screwed up way before Bush too. The screw-up of our public image has been handled by multiple administrations, with a good dose of (a) the Soviet Union controlling huge parts of the world, (b) the “inflamed people” controlling another huge part, and (c) Europe tripping over its own feet to try to prove to the “inflamed people” and itself that it’s not an evil imperialistic empire. About the only thing you have right is Bush’s record on national spending, but when the Democrats were in power, they didn’t do much better, along with the fact that there’s the rest of the Republican party to consider. You can’t lay everything at Bush’s feet. He is, after all, only a human, not some sort of weird demi-god capable of massive mind control.
OK John, I retract my apology to you. Prove what you claim about the Israeli’s murdering Lebanese and Palestinians and the US murdering Iraqis. Iraqis are killing far more of their own than have been killed by US forces.
I hate to brake it to you, but quite a lot of the world is black and white, right or wrong. I would rather live in that world than in the state of delusion you live in.
As for Katrina, the first responsibility in a natural disaster is the STATE government, not the feds. Again, hijacking the thread, so I won’t go there.
If a large number of American Muslims are profiled, I am sorry they are inconvenienced, but inconvenience is all it is. They are not being jailed, not being tortured and not being executed for being Islamic. No constitutional rights are being violated, nor are any human rights.
I particularly liked John’s comment about my “unwavering support” for Mr. Bush. Talk about wildly inaccurate assumptions. [insert rolling eyes here]
Well Left Coaster on some of these arguments you raise:
So these background checks .. They didn’t catch Ken Lay ahead of time and they didn’t catch the others as well. I’m using this example as a situation where profiling all corporate executives would not prevent these crimes from happening. Additionally, by detailing the profiling methods in place, and noting the situations where the background checks failed, the situations presented actually hurt profiling credibility. And also, on your… um… very simple assumption that if someone acts after they’ve been hired than this is no case against background checks… then what the hell are background checks for? Are they not attempting to screen out or prevent these individuals from being hired in the first place?..
Can’t agree that background checks hurt profiling credibility at all. Such checks, like profiling, can’t cover all eventualities and contingencies such as employee theft after hire, nor do they attempt to prophesy the future perfectly. However they do screen out the most obvious cases up front as a precaution. Unlike the future, past history can be at least looked at with some verification. Any business that neglects such elementary precautions will suffer painful losses. That is why even schools screen teachers for prior criminal histories particularly offences against children. Would you as a parent throw background screening overboard because a few teachers will behave inappropriately with children after hire? This lacks common sense. Screening is a form of profiling takes care of certain key factors first, and the general pattern of those who pass successful screening is that they behave appropriately.
I want to note here that the comments made in post #84 about the differences between profiling and racial profiling clarify my position exactly. I realize that I wasn’t clear in previous examples, and I made the rhetorical mistake of conflating profiling (based on behaviors and previous actions) with racial profiling (profiling based on one’s race [and for the sake of this blog, religion as well]). I can accept profiling based on previous actions, behaviors, or patterns. I patently reject profiling based on race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.
No professional agency profiles solely on one factor. If a profile is based solely on race it is obviously unreasonable and also ineffective because then you would have to profile sub populations like infants and elderly women who are not at all likely to be involved in crime or terrorism. The fact is that no agency profiles solely on race. It would be a waste of time. Instead race is one factor that is often important. Policemen watching out for muggers in Washington DC would obviously consider race as one factor, along with age, time of day, area etc.. In similar manner, security personnel on airlines do not merely scrutinize people based on “Middle Eastern appearance.” If they did, they might be pulling in a number of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans or white Eastern Europeans. Profiling uses ethnicity, nationality, religion, places traveled, etc as a legitimate package of factors to consider. Courts have upheld that approach against the argument to get rid of profiling altogether. As for the other factors you mention they may indeed be relevant. If for example a series of young homosexual men report being raped by other men, who are police gonna start investigating first- pregnant women in the hood? or other gays frequenting bars, clubs or bathhouses where said young homosexuals may have been? Apply some common sense…
Not cheering on is different from speaking out against. I made this argument to challenge the reasoning that people use to demand that members of the moderate Islamic community speak out against members of their religion that act violently. We aren’t demanding that other CEO’s speak out against Ken Lay et. al., why should we demand the same of the Islamic community?
There need not be heavy demand that other CEOs condemn the Ken Lays because they obviously do, and indeed several have dammed the practices at Enron unequivocally. The same is not the case with numerous Muslim leaders, religious and secular, who to the contrary, frequently praise and support terrorists and their actions. They may do it openly or covertly. That is the key difference. Numerous madrasses, schools and mosques openly propagate violence from “Londonistan” to Calcutta. Fronts in the form of assorted Muslim charities also perform the same functions plus terrorist financing less openly. Regardless of the approach, such places receive generous funding from the chief custodians of Islam’s holy places, “our friends the Saudis”, who for decades have been promoting the radical Wahabi brand of Islamism. As regards so-called “moderate” Muslim organizations, one of the most prominent, CAIR, has had three of its former leaders convicted of links to terrorist organizations. There is a vast world of difference between your example and the realities of radical Islam.
My argument is that if people want to justify racial profiling, then there should be mandatory drug testing of every football and baseball and basketball and soccer athlete in America. After that, then you have all the other sports. Here, the absurdity I am trying to highlight is if you are an athlete, you are under suspicion of drug use.
Your analogy is flawed because not every American is under suspicion as a terrorist, nor is every athlete under suspicion for drug use. Most elementary, junior high or high school athletes are not under clouds of drug suspicion, and they make up the bulk of the sports playing population. Testing several million of such youths under your “let’s do everybody” approach borders on the insane. Even college athletes do not undergo widespread drug testing- mostly Div I & 2 football and Div I track and field participants- less than 15,000 athletes out of tens of thousands playing in other schools and other sports, and their numbers far exceed those playing professionally. A limited number of athletes are thus under suspicion, but that doesn’t make profiling less credible. To the contrary, testing of those under suspicion is itself a form of profiling that STRENGTHENS the credibility of the sport, ensuring that performances are based primarily on effort, skill and training, not chemical enhancement.
But even going with your “let’s do everybody” comparison, even if everyone in a population was suspect, it would call for MORE profiling not less, if only as a way to manage the workload of those who have to process that population. So for example, since every passenger boarding a plane can theoretically be considered a terrorists, running background checks and attempting to question them all for 30 minutes would be totally inefficient and ineffective. Profiling also STRENGTHENS the credibility of the security process, ensuring that 2 year old children or elderly black women don’t chew up scarce personnel time. Effort and energy can be concentrated on more likely targets like young male Muslims or young male Britons who have traveled to Pakistan within the last 2 years. Far from profiling being an absurdity, it is a demonstrably efficient use of resources, and a relatively effective way of targeting. The Israelis profile all the time. They have to, and you can bet they are not spending much time on elderly Palestinian women.
If the racketeering laws and non-racial profiling worked for Christian terrorists, why do we need racial profiling to catch Islamic terrorists? Christian terrorists murdered doctors and set off shrapnel bombs outside abortion clinics. Murder is not necessarily any religions’ specialty. But we aren’t stopping nor restricting every Christian. We’re profiling people that act in a certain way.
Neither are we stopping or restricting every Muslim from boarding planes. As stated previously, a package of factors is usually used. Travel to Pakistan or a number of countries known as heavy terrorist recruitment centers is one of those red flags. So is age, religion, family background etc. A profile is a package. The Israelis have had to become proficient in the use of such packages. It’s literally a matter of life and death. One does not have to wait until the bomber murders a dozen people to start the profiling process. That is madness. Law enforcement has not waited for assorted “Christian” terrorists to act. They have put those profiled under surveillance and moved in on them when the time was right, preventing even worse tragedies. Also in the real world, claimed Christianity is not the only profiling factor. A package of factors is used- like individuals or organizations’ websites showing how to make anti-clinic bombs. As for non-racial profiling of supposed Christian terrorists, who says such profiling has not taken place? To the contrary, such people tend to be white males, and authorities have rightly concentrated on that, rather than say rounding up elderly black men or white teen girls, as your absurd “let’s do everybody” approach would have it.
Profiling based on race or religion is simply bigotry. What of the penchant for young, caucasion males for drinking and driving? Why do we permit liquor sales to young white males when statistics show they have a “penchant†for drinking, driving, and killing? Arguing or justifying racial profiling for a specific target is simply opening the door for institutionalized bigotry.
Not really. If race or religion are clear data points in the crimes or offences committed, and they are combined with other valid, specific factors, it is an efficient use of law enforcement resources. By the way, it is not only young caucasian males that have a penchant for drinking, driving and killing. Young males of every race are disproportionately involved in drinking and driving. As for killing, young black males lead all other races, with murder being one of their main causes of death. I would argue that to allow such a high murder rate and not use one of the most efficient means of stopping it is the height of “bigotry”. In fact, such murder rates are a racist’s dream- since they produce more dead Negroes. Police authorities whose “profiling” reduces the number of young black men dying from murders are actually sterling examples of ANTI-BIGOTRY and ANTI-RACISM.
How do you ensure that the manner in which someone is profiled does not violate that person’s right against unreasonable search and seizure? Mind you, the unreasonable element has time and time again been ruled to require a search warrant and/or probable cause. The flimsy justification that young, Arabic-speaking, Islamic males have a “penchant†for violence does not equate to probable cause; that, if no other factors are involved, is racism. Given that reasoning, police can justify profiling anyone for any reason. Giving the police that power may make us a great deal safer, but we’d be poorer for the loss of liberty.
If profiling was a race or religion only deal I would agree- but as shown above, it is not. It is a package deal, even in Israel. For example, while female homicide bombers have been used, they are a miniscule proportion. Its mostly young men doing the “heroes” work, and most of the security effort is concentrated on such men, as it should be. They like the women, fit certain demographic and psychological profiles. As for unreasonable search and seizure, that is well covered by probably cause and reasonable suspicion. Few police officers would bother pulling over an elderly black woman pushing a cart of groceries home from the supermarket. They will however tend to take action if they see young black males hanging out on a street corner known for drug sales. And that’s a good thing because such drug sales and the fallout in crime and wasted lives they bring are a plague on the black community. Law enforcement actions that hurt and discourage such sales and fallout are not racism. To the contrary such actions represent commendable ANTI-RACISM.
I’m not a left wing automaton, though I can answer why I am against profiling. It’s insulting to Muslim-Americans and an infringement on their constitutional right to equal protection, it’s coercive, it sets a terrible precedent, and it would likely be ineffective. Moreover, it represents a vast departure from the America I grew up in.
Wrong on all counts. How is profiling an infringement on equal protection? If you made a number of trips to Pakistan in recent years, and I scrutinize your documents and passport more closely, all of a sudden we are in Nazi Germany? Can’t you come up with anything more concrete than this “Zeig Heil” BS? As for coercion, that is part of the package with any police stop, and it applies to all citizens. Elderly white men suspected of drunk driving for example, are not simply free to drive away just because they feel the police stop is “unfair”. They have to do a number of things. Its called life in a civilized society.
As for “precedents” what “precedents”? Profiling has been around for decades. Mostly white female school teachers for example have had to undergo criminal background checks prior to hire for decades. Why is such profiling “unfair”? Police battling mobsters in urban NY during the 1930s “profiled” a good deal of the opposition as white men, in varying proportions of Irish, Italian or Jewish descent. Why is this “unfair”? Would you feel better if they had started rounding up pregnant black women in the name of “fairness”?
As for profiling being “ineffective” it is not, however your loony “lets do everybody” approach certainly is. The America you grew up as you conceive it is a fantasy land. In the real world, profiling as a package of documented factors is an effective police tool. In the real world the black victims of crime want police to go after the thugs that terrorize their neighborhoods, not elderly white women out grocery shopping as the “lets do everybody” brigade advocates. Racial profiling charges are failed with myths and bogus arguments. See Heather MacDonald’s article “The Myth of Racial Profiling”.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth.html
Consider for example this typical DEA data:
“The DEA taught state troopers some common identifying signs of drug couriers: nervousness; conflicting information about origin and destination cities among vehicle occupants; no luggage for a long trip; lots of cash; lack of a driver’s license or insurance; the spare tire in the back seat; rental license plates or plates from key source states like Arizona and New Mexico; loose screws or scratches near a vehicle’s hollow spaces, which can be converted to hiding places for drugs and guns.
The agency also shared intelligence about the types of cars that couriers favored on certain routes, as well as about the ethnic makeup of drug-trafficking organizations. A typical DEA report from the early 1990s noted that “large-scale interstate trafficking networks controlled by Jamaicans, Haitians, and black street gangs dominate the manufacture and distribution of crack.”
The 1999 “Heroin Trends” report out of Newark declared that “predominant wholesale traffickers are Colombian, followed by Dominicans, Chinese, West African/Nigerian, Pakistani, Hispanic and Indian. Mid-levels are dominated by Dominicans, Colombians, Puerto Ricans, African-Americans and Nigerians.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth.html
But according to the “let’s do everybody” advocates, we should be rounding up pregnant black women and infants in our search for drug traffickers so we appear “even-handed” and “unbiased”.
“why should people NOT refuse to get on an airplane with folks like that aboard?â€
Here’s an answer: do what you want. Refuse to get on an airplane for whatever reason you wish. But don’t expect your refusal to get on a plane with them be taken as an order for them to be forced off.
say, while we’re on the topic of ‘why it’s not nice to refuse to fly with people you suspect of being homicidal killers’, here’s a little story from the ap, just up on the wire.
AMSTERDAM – “dutch police arrested 12 passengers who were allegedly (”allegedly”. LOL) behaving suspiciously on a US airline flight to india that returned to amsterdam shortly after takeoff wednesday, an offical said.”
(a) “police spokesman said he could not disclose the nationalities of the 12 people removed from the plane after it was diverted over german airspace.” (now this is interesting….WHY can’t the cops tell us this? hmmm? when they arrest a jonbenet-killer-wannabe, they’ll gladly tell us all we might EVER want to know about the creepy little loser. but THIS? “sorry. can’t tell ya.” gee, that’s odd…..)
“a passenger said she saw about a dozen people taken off the plane in handcuffs and they appeared to be of south asian origin.” (hint: ’south asian’ is ap’s code phrase for ‘pakistanis’. moslem pakistanis.)
what’ll you bet that the when those 12 dirtbags started up with their “suspicious activities” that the other, NON-south-asian,passengers were all wishing mightily – with all their pleasant, wouldn’t-want-to-offend-the-possible-homicidal-maniacs-on-this-plane hearts – that they had shown some spine and refused to board that plane back when it was stil safely on the ground? any bets? anyone? anyone at all?
just wondering….
we now return to our regularly scheduled discussion of “why using common-sense measures to protect the flying public is racist and wrong and just plain mean.”
When the Big … In Charge detonates a nuke in Kansas City and kills everyone’s families, you’ll all quit debating the subtle points of Leftist/ACLU dogma, pick up a rifle and start profiling right away.
attn “mr vigilant” admin: the “genuine story” referenced in comment #103 can be found at MSN; MSNBC; and is now posted on drudge’s front page. assuming a posted story is not “genuine” without bothering to do a cursory 10-second search for it is most effete, man. so is taking personally comments directed at other commenters arguments.
i love lashawn’s blog to death, and respect what she has to say about pretty much everything. but, since she signs her posts as “lashawn”, not some ‘phony name’, i figure you must not be her. and i see no reason to take any guff from you. man.
if you’re really the ‘admin’, as you claim, that is.
I (La Shawn) am the Admin, ed. That’s how I sign comments I edit. Mr. Vigilant left a silly comment I didn’t like, so I replaced it with a personal message to him. In fact, I just deleted my message, too. Both comments were silly.
– Admin
well, that’s a relief, lashawn. i just clicked on here with quite some trepidation, wondering if my impatience with ol’ mr. vigilant (and, it must be said, shooting off my big fat mouth) had gotten me kicked out/banned.
yours is one of the most gracious and intelligent blogs i’ve ever read – qualities it seems i am sometimes in short supply of – and i’d hate to miss out on it. (tips hat)
If this is getting to be too long, or too much, Admin, let me know and I’ll stop – Left-Coaster
Enrique,
I am getting the sense that we are arguing for a similar position, from separate directions. As I understand it, you’re arguing profiling as an efficient means to ensure police resources are directed at the most-likely suspects. I don’t want to appear to be re-stating my position over and over, but I am strictly against race and religion as being the sole or even dominant factors in profiling suspects. My comment to the difference between profiling and racial profiling was an attempt to state this. Even so, I note that you seem content to simplify my arguments to the “Let’s do everybody†mantra. That said, I believe you are mischaracterizing my arguments to create straw men to attack. I’ll elaborate example by example.
– Can’t agree that background checks hurt profiling credibility at all. Such checks, like profiling, can’t cover all eventualities and contingencies such as employee theft after hire, nor do they attempt to prophesy the future perfectly. However they do screen out the most obvious cases up front as a precaution. Unlike the future, past history can be at least looked at with some verification. Any business that neglects such elementary precautions will suffer painful losses. That is why even schools screen teachers for prior criminal histories particularly offences against children. Would you as a parent throw background screening overboard because a few teachers will behave inappropriately with children after hire? This lacks common sense. Screening is a form of profiling takes care of certain key factors first, and the general pattern of those who pass successful screening is that they behave appropriately. –
Two points here, first off: you are saying that background checks screen the most likely suspects, but aren’t 100% effective, right? In business and private concerns, fallibility can be tolerated. In matters of law high probability usually doesn’t cut it. Secondly, given the use of background checks in attempting to weed out risky individuals: since the corporate officers that have committed fraud against their corporation are 99% of the time older white men, you would have no objections to adding age and ethnicity to background checks, and screen out older white men that apply in all cases, correct? Of course previous behavior comes in to play, but I’m nearly certain that if you check the histories of the corporate officers that committed the most damaging corporate frauds, going back to the S&L scandals, I don’t think you’ll find much in their backgrounds to implicate them. Similarly, background screening (racial profiling) for young, Arab, Muslims won’t catch the persons most likely to commit the acts we’ve had to bear witness to.
I do not dispute the effectiveness in background checks in weeding out probable risks. However, I do contend that adding race or religion to the host of factors checks does not increase the likelihood of capturing terrorists. In fact, I believe that adding either of those elements to a profile unfairly casts the eye of suspicion on that race and that religion as a whole.
– No professional agency profiles solely on one factor. If a profile is based solely on race it is obviously unreasonable and also ineffective because then you would have to profile sub populations like infants and elderly women who are not at all likely to be involved in crime or terrorism. The fact is that no agency profiles solely on race. It would be a waste of time. Instead race is one factor that is often important. Policemen watching out for muggers in Washington DC would obviously consider race as one factor, along with age, time of day, area etc.. In similar manner, security personnel on airlines do not merely scrutinize people based on “Middle Eastern appearance.†If they did, they might be pulling in a number of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans or white Eastern Europeans. Profiling uses ethnicity, nationality, religion, places traveled, etc as a legitimate package of factors to consider. Courts have upheld that approach against the argument to get rid of profiling altogether. As for the other factors you mention they may indeed be relevant. –
Certainly no profiling attempt can be based on single factors. That said, your mugger example applies in a criminal sense, but is irrelevant to a discussion on terrorism. Let’s examine your example, and I’ll demonstrate why it is inapplicable:
Muggers in D.C.
Muggers, first implies that a crime was committed. Someone was mugged, yes? Yes. The crime is reported, and in that criminal report, the witness mentions a race. There, the race becomes important. The race is absolutely a factor, if the victim of the crime reports a race. And here, we can catch the criminal before they have a chance to commit more crimes. This is a valid use of race in an attempt to apprehend a criminal. This example is not congruent with the idea of using race and religion to catch suicide bombers and terrorists.
Bombers on a plane.
The terrorist bomber has already made peace with himself that he will not outlive his act. There is no one to apprehend afterward. This is where racial profiling doesn’t work. In order to stop terrorist bombers, you must catch them before they act. You cannot prosecute them afterward. The action of using race or religion as a guide to process people, searching for bombers, implies that all persons of those sub-groups are potential bombers, and are bombers until proven otherwise. Even after you weed out the “most-likely nots†(like grandmothers and children), you still are telling a very large sub-group of Arab-looking people that they are bombers until proven otherwise. This thought countermands the ideals of the United States and is impermissible to me.
– If for example a series of young homosexual men report being raped by other men, who are police gonna start investigating first- pregnant women in the hood? or other gays frequenting bars, clubs or bathhouses where said young homosexuals may have been? Apply some common sense… –
Your example fails when you consider that police will not canvass an area and simply ask “Are you gay?†Especially when all someone has to say is “Noâ€. “No? Thanks, bye.†Police WILL look for men that match the description, but they won’t ask people if they are gay. They’ll look at people who frequent “gay barsâ€, but again, won’t ask if they’re gay. Similarly, we can inspect people that have traveled to certain regions, but I believe we are not allowed to ask, “Are you Muslim, sir?†Or, “Are you a Muslim Arab that’s within this age-group, sir?†These sorts of questions, and the implied thoughts behind them, however they might manifest, are simply illegal. They violate our right to equal protection and our right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
– There need not be heavy demand that other CEOs condemn the Ken Lays because they obviously do, and indeed several have dammed the practices at Enron unequivocally. The same is not the case with numerous Muslim leaders, religious and secular, who to the contrary, frequently praise and support terrorists and their actions. They may do it openly or covertly. That is the key difference. Numerous madrasses, schools and mosques openly propagate violence from “Londonistan†to Calcutta. Fronts in the form of assorted Muslim charities also perform the same functions plus terrorist financing less openly. Regardless of the approach, such places receive generous funding from the chief custodians of Islam’s holy places, “our friends the Saudisâ€, who for decades have been promoting the radical Wahabi brand of Islamism. As regards so-called “moderate†Muslim organizations, one of the most prominent, CAIR, has had three of its former leaders convicted of links to terrorist organizations. There is a vast world of difference between your example and the realities of radical Islam. –
So CEO’s can be assumed to be against corporate fraud, but the Muslim community cannot? You cite numerous schools, mosques and fatwas issued in favor of terrorism. You also mention Saudi Arabia, and the funding that directly or indirectly supports terrorism. But what of the Muslim clerics in England, Jerusalem, Jordan, and in Asia that spoke out against the acts? I see a debate in the Islamic community, based on articles, scholarly works and press conferences. The loud and violent faction does not seem to be the dominant faction… only the one heard from most. You conclude that Secular and Religious members “ may do it openly or covertly â€. That begs the question if Islamic community members may practice their support covertly, then corporate officers may support corporate fraud covertly. The arguments you make to cast all members of Islam as suspicious is the same reasoning that anyone with an axe to grind can indict any group in America. This sort of reasoning can put anyone under suspicion, and that isn’t acceptable.
What about the Mormon faith? Do we judge/ discriminate/ profile all Mormons based on the acts of the Polygamist sect? The actions of few should never condemn the group as a whole. We take that approach with transgressions in the military (the accused are just bad apples), American tourists abroad face this sort of discrimination now (because of the acts of our government) and we resent it. What ethical grounds do we have to indict the Muslim faith based on the actions of Radicals?
– Your analogy is flawed because not every American is under suspicion as a terrorist, nor is every athlete under suspicion for drug use. Most elementary, junior high or high school athletes are not under clouds of drug suspicion, and they make up the bulk of the sports playing population. –
I’ll refine the sports analogy in the same way you refined the justification for profiling a race or a religion. As not every Muslim is under suspicion, not every athlete is under suspicion. Just as you say we need not profile Grandmothers and children, we need not profile children, and adult leagues for the elderly. That leaves Professional and Collegiate sports (and you’ll note, in my previous example, that I referred to Major League Baseball and the Tour de France… a professional league and a professional event). And now, concurrent to the idea of racial and religious profiling, is it ethical to accuse every professional athlete of drug use (by subjecting every one of them to a drug test before a professional event), because a sizable minority resort to drug enhancements? I say no to that for the same reason I say no to racial and religious profiling. It presumes the subject is guilty, until proven innocent.
– Testing several million of such youths under your “let’s do everybody†approach borders on the insane. –
I find your “let’s do everybody†attachment is misleading. It may be convenient to lump it in that category, but the more I read that, the more incorrect it sounds to me. I never advocated testing everybody. I have advocated that if we blanket profile a race or religion, and justify it, then we must be prepared to debate the cause to profile any group. You cannot single out one race or one religion for scrutiny on the basis that the race or religion justifies that scrutiny. That’s just plain bigotry.
– Even college athletes do not undergo widespread drug testing- mostly Div I & 2 football and Div I track and field participants- less than 15,000 athletes out of tens of thousands playing in other schools and other sports, and their numbers far exceed those playing professionally. A limited number of athletes are thus under suspicion, but that doesn’t make profiling less credible. To the contrary, testing of those under suspicion is itself a form of profiling that STRENGTHENS the credibility of the sport, ensuring that performances are based primarily on effort, skill and training, not chemical enhancement. –
And yet, in the eyes of the world, no one who participates is considered permanently clean. No matter how often you test clean, there is always another test. It may strengthen the credibility of the sport, but it ruins the credibility of the participants. They’re no longer like the rest of us. They’re constantly under suspicion. And this is how you propose that Muslims live?
– But even going with your “let’s do everybody†comparison, even if everyone in a population was suspect, it would call for MORE profiling not less, if only as a way to manage the workload of those who have to process that population. So for example, since every passenger boarding a plane can theoretically be considered a terrorists, running background checks and attempting to question them all for 30 minutes would be totally inefficient and ineffective. –
This one of the reasons why racial and religious profiling won’t work. Thank you for explaining. Profiling on the scale that religious profiling would require is prohibitive. Racial profiling may be accomplished more easily, but the workload, as you mention would also be prohibitive.
–Profiling also STRENGTHENS the credibility of the security process, ensuring that 2 year old children or elderly black women don’t chew up scarce personnel time. Effort and energy can be concentrated on more likely targets like young male Muslims or young male Britons who have traveled to Pakistan within the last 2 years. Far from profiling being an absurdity, it is a demonstrably efficient use of resources, and a relatively effective way of targeting. The Israelis profile all the time. They have to, and you can bet they are not spending much time on elderly Palestinian women. –
That isn’t strengthening the credibility of the security process, however I concede that it would make the process more efficient in catching targeted ethnic or religious groups… and ignore other groups that commit terror.
Strengthening the credibility would mean preventing more terrorist actions. Increased scrutiny, as with our corporate background check example, won’t catch everyone. Ergo, if it isn’t 100% effective, why is the loss of liberty justified? Also, how do you tell if someone is a Muslim? Do they fill out some card? Do we spy on them to see where they go? Unless you know of some super-perceptive people that can see Muslim faith on sight? The example of profiling for someone having visited a certain place for a specific amount of time does not involve race nor religion. For the sake of argument I’ll say that seems like a valid profile. Authorities can still profile effectively without having to base profiles on race or religion. Your examples don’t disprove that statement.
– Neither are we stopping or restricting every Muslim from boarding planes. –
No, but you would be stopping and restricting them in airports and from going about their lives as any other citizen may.
– As stated previously, a package of factors is usually used. Travel to Pakistan or a number of countries known as heavy terrorist recruitment centers is one of those red flags. So is age, religion, family background etc. A profile is a package. The Israelis have had to become proficient in the use of such packages. It’s literally a matter of life and death. One does not have to wait until the bomber murders a dozen people to start the profiling process. That is madness. Law enforcement has not waited for assorted “Christian†terrorists to act. They have put those profiled under surveillance and moved in on them when the time was right, preventing even worse tragedies. Also in the real world, claimed Christianity is not the only profiling factor. A package of factors is used- like individuals or organizations’ websites showing how to make anti-clinic bombs. As for non-racial profiling of supposed Christian terrorists, who says such profiling has not taken place? To the contrary, such people tend to be white males, and authorities have rightly concentrated on that, rather than say rounding up elderly black men or white teen girls, as your absurd “let’s do everybody†approach would have it. –
I’m not an anti-terrorism expert, and I have only heard of Israeli in circumstantial terms, I do not know what factors they profile for. In fact, the few articles I’ve read indicate that Israeli profile parameters are a well kept secret. Apparently the guards themselves are well trained in asking questions and judging responses. And yet, any Arabs, and some other foreigners, are singled out and grilled. The Israelis can do this because their laws allow them to. We do not have their laws. We are allowed to profile for names, for occupations, for living arrangements, for previous visits, for criminal records. In the case of the Christian terrorists, we had more than circumstantial evidence that allowed us to find them. The police didn’t have to resort to simply profiling every white Christian out there because they had other evidence to go on. And even when you denigrate the suspect by typing “claimed Chritianity†you support my premise by identifying that blanket profiling of Christians may not have worked if in fact the person was claiming to be Christianity solely to act on their convictions. Maybe the terrorist wasn’t Christian and only claimed to be. The police could not have relied upon a religious profile to have caught him.
– Not really. If race or religion are clear data points in the crimes or offences committed, and they are combined with other valid, specific factors, it is an efficient use of law enforcement resources. –
Hypothetically, sure, they would contribute to an efficient use of law enforcement resources. However, in the real world that you alluded to above, 100% of all terrorists are not Arab. 100% of all terrorists are not Muslim. 100% of all terrorists are not male. 100% of all terrorists are not between the ages of 18 and 45.
National Geographic (Female Suicide Bombers: Dying to Kill) informs us that in 2004 at least 11 female Chechen bombers struck Russia downing 2 aircraft and killing over 330 hostages. Your profile would miss these terrorists. Profiling on race or religion won’t work, and will miss high risk agents.
– By the way, it is not only young caucasian males that have a penchant for drinking, driving and killing. Young males of every race are disproportionately involved in drinking and driving. As for killing, young black males lead all other races, with murder being one of their main causes of death. I would argue that to allow such a high murder rate and not use one of the most efficient means of stopping it is the height of “bigotryâ€. In fact, such murder rates are a racist’s dream- since they produce more dead Negroes. Police authorities whose “profiling†reduces the number of young black men dying from murders are actually sterling examples of ANTI-BIGOTRY and ANTI-RACISM. –
Oh, so you are saying that by profiling for Caucasian males, we wouldn’t catch all the drunk drivers that kill? What a marvelous parallel to the race and terrorism quandary we have. This is my point. Wholesale profiling of a particular race or religion won’t work, and will miss targets. And to me, the misses and the racist nature of the profile aren’t outweighed by the potential successes of the program.
– If profiling was a race or religion only deal I would agree- but as shown above, it is not. It is a package deal, even in Israel. For example, while female homicide bombers have been used, they are a miniscule proportion. Its mostly young men doing the “heroes†work, and most of the security effort is concentrated on such men, as it should be. They like the women, fit certain demographic and psychological profiles. As for unreasonable search and seizure, that is well covered by probably cause and reasonable suspicion. Few police officers would bother pulling over an elderly black woman pushing a cart of groceries home from the supermarket. They will however tend to take action if they see young black males hanging out on a street corner known for drug sales. And that’s a good thing because such drug sales and the fallout in crime and wasted lives they bring are a plague on the black community. Law enforcement actions that hurt and discourage such sales and fallout are not racism. To the contrary such actions represent commendable ANTI-RACISM. –
And you are saying that if young Hispanic or young Caucasians were standing on that corner they wouldn’t get picked up? That isn’t racial profiling. Racial profiling is standing in a supermarket entrance and stopping every young black man leaving the store and having them empty all their pockets, purses, and bags, and proving they’ve paid for everything, while letting the elderly white lady walk out unmolested. Racial profiling is having every Hispanic male prove he is in the country legally to work, while allowing the Koreans to go unchecked. In this case, Racial profiling is having a check-in line for Arabs, and a line for non-Arabs. Racial profiling is asking every person if they are practicing Muslims, and then setting them aside for additional questioning while letting every non-Muslim through. If you cannot see the inherent racism here, or conflate that somehow to Anti-racism, or explain how rises to probable cause, I’ll stop discussing this issue.
Cheers! Have fun with that, I’ll check in tomorrow.
Ed.
Ed, ed, ed here we go.
– reasonable questions posed – why shouldnt members of the racial/religious group responsible for 99% of terrorism be looked at closer than others? and why should people NOT refuse to get on an airplane with folks like that aboard? –
Because singling out one race or religion over any other is against the laws of the United States. And, you toss the 99% around like you read it somewhere, care to share, or too lazy to post? Ive noticed others have used it as well and I cant google for it and get a straight answer.
– – are met with the most stunning (and long-winded) diatribes imaginable. accusations and wildly irrelevant factoids are tossed out higgledy-piggledy (KKK! enron!) in a frantic attempt to stifle the question; or more properly, the questioner. –
Irrelevant because you dont want to take time to understand the analogies being presented? It is kind of silly when you claim the examples comparing singling out one group for their beliefs compared to singling out another group for their beliefs is beyond your comprehension. The minute you can logically explain how singling out a Muslims is any different then singling out a member of the KKK, Ill leave you in peace.
– theres a book out in which the author has analyzed the lefts classic response to ideological confrontation, and it turns out the accusations and irrelevant factoids ARENT just random words strung together in amusing and ridiculous configurations by hysterical leftwing statists. its all part of the playbook! –
Right nice pronouns. Which book? Which author? Im curious to hear what one person says about a political movement, and then tries to lump everyone in that movement into one category.
– which is why a sensible why shouldnt we profile? thread gets hijacked into never-never land, full of breathless sagas of the klan, and the aryan nation, and ken lay, and big-league ballplayers: the hysterical leftwing statist is trying to derail the question. –
Hijacked? Im sorry, did you want this space all to yourself so you can spout racist bigotry about Arabs or Muslims? Dissenters on this thread have come out to explain why they feel that profiling is against the law, and unethical. We provide examples, you refuse to read. What else can we do? You attempt to demean sign-on names, we argue with facts. We debate, you post complaints about having to read too much. Thats about what I get from people against profiling and your posts. Feel free to offer a real debate. Thanks.
– but hey, dont take MY word for it. scroll up and peruse the 20-paragraph wordstorms for yourself. –
again, I wonder if you just scrolled past it, without bothering to weigh the merits of the examples and arguments people have laid out on both sides of the aisle? Enrique offers some pretty solid pro-profiling work, and his examples are logical. There have been others, I just cant think of them right now. Heh.
– for additional fun, you can also ask a kneejerk leftwing automaton the following question: since you and your ilk are so very much against any common-sense precautions to protect the flying public from homicidal islamic maniacs, what would you do about it if – god forbid – you were in charge? –
Ooooo, let me knee-jerk into this one The first line of defense at El Al counters is the people that work there. Theyre trained to ask questions that have been designed to provoke behavior patterns. Training along these lines will help us ferret out terrorists before they can get on planes, and it can be done without profiling. Just take anyone who acts in the behavior patterns mentioned above in for additional questioning and searches. (this is off the cuff but: ) Increased law enforcement awareness and training would also help. Id send police trainers and chiefs to countries beset by terrorists in a way that we are. Id promote tactic and training comparison and cooperation between England, Russia, Israel, Jordan, and India. Perhaps even Pakistan or Sri Lanka. We need to learn how the terrorists assemble their cells and get their support. Increased intelligence overseas is needed. SigInt can only glean so much. We need a metric F###ton more HumInt to really handle the terrorist problem.
There you go, Ed, off the cuff, but solutions that dont require profiling that hones in on Arabs or Muslims.
– then sit back and enjoy the tales of peace and love and KKK-bashing. just dont expect a cogent answer to the question. –
Is this where I post the kumbaya lyrics for your amusement? Nice. Talking down to the opposition again. I bet that works great with the professors, teachers, and students that you get to work with.
I do not dispute the effectiveness in background checks in weeding out probable risks. However, I do contend that adding race or religion to the host of factors checks does not increase the likelihood of capturing terrorists. In fact, I believe that adding either of those elements to a profile unfairly casts the eye of suspicion on that race and that religion as a whole.
Can’t agree there. Factors used in profiling depend on the threat you are trying to guard against. All factors are not equal at all times. Race is not a very helpful factor in screening for institutional fraud because such fraud cuts across all races in a broad way, as the cases of the Rev Henry Lyon and former NAACP leader Ben Chavis demonstrate. Much more useful in a background screening are things like the comments of former employers (such as whether they would rehire the prospect) and the existence of criminal charges or arrests. In the case of terrorism by contrast, race, age, sex and religion are much more relevant. In Israel for example 99% of the suspects looking to kill Jews via suicide bombing are young males of Arab/Palestinian background who are Muslim. In the real world of terrorism, failure to “profile” for these factors can literally mean life or death.
The race is absolutely a factor, if the victim of the crime reports a race. And here, we can catch the criminal before they have a chance to commit more crimes. This is a valid use of race in an attempt to apprehend a criminal. This example is not congruent with the idea of using race and religion to catch suicide bombers and terrorists.
Well in the case of terrorism, the incident is always investigated afterwards. Most surviving or peripheral witnesses will note that most of the terrorists carrying out most acts of terror are young Arab Muslim males. There are terrorists elsewhere, but in terms of volume and scope (international airlines and embassies), cross border raids, etc, Arab Muslims have been reported overwhelmingly by witnesses. That factor can be further refined by sub-divisions of age, sex etc, but the bottom line is that race and religion become extremely relevant.
You cannot prosecute them afterward. The action of using race or religion as a guide to process people, searching for bombers, implies that all persons of those sub-groups are potential bombers, and are bombers until proven otherwise. Even after you weed out the “most-likely nots†(like grandmothers and children), you still are telling a very large sub-group of Arab-looking people that they are bombers until proven otherwise. This thought countermands the ideals of the United States and is impermissible to me.
I can appreciate what you are saying, but as mentioned above in the case of Israel, ethnicity, age and religion are very relevant factors. The same thing applied Sept 11, 2001. Their race or ethnicity is relevant for another reason as well. For one thing, many terrorists articulate ethnic grievances (evil Jews must die). Second, religion is important because they articulate a mission to cleanse the “holy lands” of “infidels.” By the words and teachings of many of the terrorists themsleves, ethnicity/race and religion are important factors to their cause. If they consider these factors important, why shouldn’t their potential victims? Why should we wait around hoping they will “clarify” their meaning?
Your example fails when you consider that police will not canvass an area and simply ask “Are you gay?†Especially when all someone has to say is “Noâ€. “No? Thanks, bye.†Police WILL look for men that match the description, but they won’t ask people if they are gay. They’ll look at people who frequent “gay barsâ€, but again, won’t ask if they’re gay. Similarly, we can inspect people that have traveled to certain regions, but I believe we are not allowed to ask, “Are you Muslim, sir?†Or, “Are you a Muslim Arab that’s within this age-group, sir?†These sorts of questions, and the implied thoughts behind them, however they might manifest, are simply illegal. They violate our right to equal protection and our right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The questions you mention aren’t illegal in criminal investigations. Are you gay would not be asked at random on the street. Questioning would focus on likely suspects or witnesses known to hang around the same venues the gay victims did. Either way, the police start with a “profile” of known associates, behaviors and venues. In the case of a suspect, asking if they did the crime is certainly legit police work. Asking others if they know of similar sex attacks against young homosexuals is also legit. Again, the police are focusing on reasonable factors. Homosexual behavior would certainly be one in this scenario.
So CEO’s can be assumed to be against corporate fraud, but the Muslim community cannot?
Absolutely, for the simple fact that any CEO that openly advocates and carries out such fraud will not be a CEO for very long. In the case of mostly Arab Muslims however such open advocacy may be cause for admiration, prestige and fiscal support. Both leaders and followers of Hamas and Hezebollah for example revel in open advocacy of murder, as do millions of ordinary Muslims elsewhere. Does this mean 100% of ALL Muslims? Of course not, but unlike the case of the CEOs, there is enough support and sympathy for terror among Arab Muslims to legitimately raise the question.
But what of the Muslim clerics in England, Jerusalem, Jordan, and in Asia that spoke out against the acts? I see a debate in the Islamic community, based on articles, scholarly works and press conferences. The loud and violent faction does not seem to be the dominant faction…
Actually it is, and the proof is in millions of dollars that flow to them every year from people like the Saudis. Are they shrewd enough at times to tone the rhetoric and hide their moves at strategic times and places? Of course. As for “moderate” Muslim clerics, no one knows the exact percentage of such, but their condemnation of terrorist acts is often drowned by more radical voices, or muted with an assortment of “qualifications” that signal less than unequivocal opposition. See the writings of Frank Gaffney for example on such moderate voices, which even when they exist are suppressed not just by terror organizations, but by governing Arab regimes as well.
What about the Mormon faith? Do we judge/ discriminate/ profile all Mormons based on the acts of the Polygamist sect? The actions of few should never condemn the group as a whole. We take that approach with transgressions in the military (the accused are just bad apples), American tourists abroad face this sort of discrimination now (because of the acts of our government) and we resent it. What ethical grounds do we have to indict the Muslim faith based on the actions of Radicals?
Most of the Mormons at one time were polygamists, and they were accordingly “profiled” as such at various times and places in the past. The actions of a few should not condemn everyone as a whole, but it is a fact of real life that the actions of a few often poison perceptions of the whole. This of course is always unfair, but it is a fact of life. In the case of mostly Arab Muslims however, it is more than a matter of “the actions of a few” and the “unfair perceptions” involved. Such few have received widespread support and sympathy from the whole, as histories of Israel’s war against Arab terrorists demostrate. It is a fact that large majorities in the Arab world supported and still support the murder of Jews, and increasingly Americans. And cash is put on the line in support of that opinion, courtesy of Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is no case of a few “bad apples.” And it is not merely “the man on the street” but at the highest levels of Arab Muslim governments, from Saudi and Iranian cash, to the gubment controlled media of these countries.
And now, concurrent to the idea of racial and religious profiling, is it ethical to accuse every professional athlete of drug use (by subjecting every one of them to a drug test before a professional event), because a sizable minority resort to drug enhancements? I say no to that for the same reason I say no to racial and religious profiling. It presumes the subject is guilty, until proven innocent.
Not really. It could just as well be argued that the athletes are clean and the drug tests are a mere formality to confirm that. But even if not, a drug test is not an “accusation.” It is a simple measure to preserve the integrity of the sport, just as coaches check the ages of their players to ensure that no underage atheletes are playing, or check academic and admission records to ensure no bogus students or ineligibile athletes are participating. How are such common sense measures an “accusation of guilt”?
Profiling on the scale that religious profiling would require is prohibitive. Racial profiling may be accomplished more easily, but the workload, as you mention would also be prohibitive.
Not really. As pointed out before profiling is a package of factors. Depending on the threat faced, religion may be weighted significantly in that package, but it is always balanced with other things to cut the workload and focus energy, such as age and sex. Thus the Israelis spend comparatively little time in elderly Muslim women or young children. Profiling actually helps REDUCE costs and workload.
Increased scrutiny, as with our corporate background check example, won’t catch everyone. Ergo, if it isn’t 100% effective, why is the loss of liberty justified? Also, how do you tell if someone is a Muslim? Do they fill out some card? Do we spy on them to see where they go?
Just because something isnt 100% effective doesnt justify getting rid of it. Police have not abandoned fingerprinting because it is not 100% effective. As for detecting Muslims, a skilled interrogator need not even ask the question outright. Remember he is working with a package of factors, of which religion is one, and he has other documentation on tap to verify (or not verify) certain things. Direct questions don’t always reveal information. Indirect queries, asking the same thing different ways, and noting inconsistencies and evasions are common techniques to gain information. Cards or spying are hardly necessary.
I’m not an anti-terrorism expert, and I have only heard of Israeli in circumstantial terms, I do not know what factors they profile for. In fact, the few articles I’ve read indicate that Israeli profile parameters are a well kept secret. Apparently the guards themselves are well trained in asking questions and judging responses. And yet, any Arabs, and some other foreigners, are singled out and grilled.
Actually the reason Arabs are singled out and grilled is that 99% of all terror attacks against Israelis are carried out by said Arabs. But remember that other factors like age, sex, family background enter into the picture. Comparatively little time is spent on elderly Arab women. It’s that simple. Would you have them wait around baking bagels while assorted “heroes” murder their people?
National Geographic (Female Suicide Bombers: Dying to Kill) informs us that in 2004 at least 11 female Chechen bombers struck Russia downing 2 aircraft and killing over 330 hostages. Your profile would miss these terrorists. Profiling on race or religion won’t work, and will miss high risk agents.
That may be sometimes true, but such high risk agents are comparatively rare. Of homicide bombers in Israel the figure may be less than 2%. In any case, if high risk agents are on the rise, the solution is simple- refine your profile to accomodate such and take extra precautions. Thus the Israelis now deploy an increased number of female security agents to search Arab females.
Oh, so you are saying that by profiling for Caucasian males, we wouldn’t catch all the drunk drivers that kill? What a marvelous parallel to the race and terrorism quandary we have. This is my point. Wholesale profiling of a particular race or religion won’t work, and will miss targets. And to me, the misses and the racist nature of the profile aren’t outweighed by the potential successes of the program.
Uh, actually I said such drunk driving is a problem for many OTHER races. Thus profiling only Caucasians for drunk driving is inefficient, because race is not a demonstrably clear factor in drunk driving offenders.
Racial profiling is standing in a supermarket entrance and stopping every young black man leaving the store and having them empty all their pockets, purses, and bags, and proving they’ve paid for everything, while letting the elderly white lady walk out unmolested. Racial profiling is having every Hispanic male prove he is in the country legally to work, while allowing the Koreans to go unchecked. In this case, Racial profiling is having a check-in line for Arabs, and a line for non-Arabs.
Actually all the scenarios you cite above are rare or non existent. It is a fact that supermarkets DO NOT stop every young black male leaving the store. It is a fact that every Hispanic male is NOT stopped for ID checks. In fact the opposite is the case. State and local authorities that conduct the vast majority of police stops seldom ask people to prove citizenship. It is a fact that at airports, there are NOT separate lines for Arabs and non-Arabs. Little in your scenario is credible. It’s fantasy. Let’s get back to the real world shall we?
Some folks sure do use a lot of words to say that it’s more important to avoid offending people than it is to keep terrorists off airliners. And that’s all we’re talking about here, the possibility of offending someone. Last time I looked, there was no guarantee of a right to not be offended, either in the Constitution or within the catalog of natural rights.
ah, L-C, L-C, L-C. what are we gonna do with you? you know, i’ve never been accused of A)using 2 words when i could use 50; or B)responding quietly and graciously when someone disagrees with me, but you’re getting out of hand here. your last 3 posts consist of…what? 75 paragraphs? in a format designed for quick-n-dirty comments? ay yi YI!
but, to my credit, i slogged through them, hoping to find a reasoned argument as to why you’re so against a common-sense program that will save lives at only the cost of wounded pride & hurt feelings by the individuals profiled. didn’t find ‘em. your arguments – best as i can tell – seem to be:
1) profiling is very very Mean and Hurtful To The Self-Esteem of the person being profiled. this is obviously no better than the nazis and their death camps.
2)profiling will not catch a bad guy who’s not a member of the profiled target group. (this is where you toss in the amusing-but-irrelevant questions about the KKK, aryan nation, steroid-using-major-leaguers, enron executives, aaaaaand mormons)(mormons??)despite none of these groups currently being involved in terrorism.
3)since profiling is Harsh & Insensitive, and cannot be proven to be 100% effective 100% of the time, your position is that we just not do it at all.
how can you expect those positions to be taken seriously? ok, i’ll even grant that profiling WON’T STOP those heinous KKK mormon baseball players. (LOL) but it WILL stop or slow down greatly a lot of the group who ARE trying to kill innocent air travelers: young middle-eastern arabic-speaking males.
and since profiling WILL result in at least 50% of that nonsense being stopped; at the cost of just a few moslem Tears and Scarred Psyches…..i think it’s a fine first step. because, after all, there is no guaranteed “right to fly”. partial success in stopping air terrorism before the plane is airborne is certainly better than no success at all. just ask the folks on that flight out of amsterdam: the ones who had to turn back today.
There is nothing peaceful about Islam. It is about submission and subjugation, forceable if necessary.
You can not reinterpret the words of the Koran. It tells them it is ok to rape and kill non-muslims, regardless of society. It is becoming less possible for non-muslims and muslims to reside in the same country/society, possibly the same planet, let alone the same airplane.
Thank you to Mr. Cardova for his careful, point-by-point disassembly of the usual lefty logic. I would ask those who advocate zero security profiling, or the elimination of key attributes like race, ethnicity, or sex in suspect profiling, to please state your idea that will successfully replace this primary law enforcement technique.
The idea(s) should be good ones. An example of a bad idea is to make every airline passenger remove his shoes, because this Norman Mineta brainstorm hasn’t caught a single suspect, while it has caused economic losses in the form of countless time wasted doing nothing productive.
Although I will hold an open mind to alternative ideas for proactive law enforcement, I suspect that perhaps, as in the Iraq conflict, the Left is in favor of strong security as a concept, except they are against taking any real actions or deploying any real techniques that would actually strengthen security. One can easily see this illogic in Howard Dean’s latest statement about how “The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror.”
Kind of like how the fight against bathroom mold is hampering our ability to fight bathroom mold.
As for my friends on the Left who are in favor of some security measures, bravo. I get several lefty-friend converts a year who wake up to the phony arguments being advanced over “privacy ‘rights’” and other words yet-to-be-discovered in our US Constitution. So there is hope for mankind.
Thanks Enrique.
(For ed’s benefit, short responses…)
Redbeard:
1. Too complicated for you to understand, is that what you’re saying?
2. This issue isn’t about “offending” someone, as you may wish it to be. This issue is about treating someone differently, just because they are of a different race or religion. We don’t treat all white people different because of the way some white people act, why should we do the same against Arabs or Muslims? Because it’s against the law.
(for ed’s benefit, short responses…)
Ed…
You complain about the length, but I’m not the only heavy poster on this comments section… apparently, other people enjoy reasoned and thoughtful debate.
matching your numbering:
1. Profiling is fine, and it happens today. Racial Profiling or Religious profiling is treating someone different based on their race or religion. This is the heart of the matter.
2. The point isn’t whether or not profiling will be effective. The issue is if it is right to use race and religion as key issues when profiling. I’m saying it isn’t right, and This is where you display a complete misunderstanding of my analogies:
We don’t treat all white people like they are members of the KKK until proved otherwise. We don’t treat all white people like they are members of the Aryan Nation until proved otherwise. We don’t treat all professional athletes like they all use banned substances until proved otherwise. We don’t treat all Mormons like polygamists until proved otherwise.
3. I’ve stated on numerous occasions that I am not against profiling, as long as it remains race and religion neutral.
You are right about the right to fly. And airlines and airport security have the right to turn back or arrest people they don’t think should fly. Also, if you’re too scared to fly because there might be Arabs or Muslims on the plane, then you have the right to not fly as well.
Side note on the Amsterdam flight for you. Your profile would have missed them. It is reported that the 12 suspects are Muslims; but they’re Indian Muslims not Arabic Muslims.
I’m in favor of the Israeli model when it comes to security measures. It seems to work very well.
You keep talking about “treating” people certain ways, LC. Please explain what “treating” is in your mind, and then explain what about it is against the law.
L-C, L-C, L-C.
so you’re “not against profiling, just against profiling via race/religion”. i see. so you’re not against profiling in….you know…..theory, just against it when it would be useful in fighting air terrorism.
that’s interesting. and what is it that makes race/religion so sacrosanct that it/they are untouchable and unmentionable and unprofilable? why is it ok with you to look at everything BUT race/religion? what’s so sacred about race? why is religion a ‘diplomatic pouch’ of sorts?
bottom line: it’s common-sense; it’s cheap; it would reduce a large percentage of air terrror incidents and worries; it would cause no grievous injury or lasting harm to those being profiled; (the 2 idiots yanked off the british ‘walkout’ flight told the press they were “in shock and despair”, but other than that, they seem to be ok), and it would make for safer, more worry-free air travel.
and you’re against it. loudly and at great length.
another side note on the amsterdam flight: had those 12 idiots been profiled and prevented from boarding that plane, it would have gone on its merry way on schedule. much more importantly, the other 200 people on that plane wouldn’t have had to go thorugh the fear/worry/nightmare of possible islamic air terror action; and they’d have arrived happy & on time.
i gather you don’t really care much about them, them being mere non-profilable proles. the feelings and pride of the 10 south-asian moslems outweighing entirely the needs/rights/expectations of those 200+ other folks. that about it?
I would ask those who advocate zero security profiling, or the elimination of key attributes like race, ethnicity, or sex in suspect profiling, to please state your idea that will successfully replace this primary law enforcement technique.
Yeah, but I think we would be waiting a long time. Our friends on the Left will not be convinced. All that can be done is put the info out there. What is sad, as Lashawn often points out, is the failure of the Bush Admin to resolutely confront the forces of political correctness and appeasement, and aggressively make its case to the American people rather than pandering all the time. The whole Admin appears really incoherent at times. Just look at how well they have communicated to the American people about the War in Iraq. One longs for a blunt Harry Truman to tell it like it is, rather than this mush-mouthed Admin. That is one of the main complaints of conservatives, even those sympathetic to Bush- failure to communicate clearly and aggressively.
Given the state of mind of the average polled Muslim in the world today religious profiling is fine. There shouldn’t be any ojections to it.
As a new reader here, I had to insert that this is hands down the best open debate regarding profiling I’ve ever witnessed. To find a truly intellectual forum where honestly and fact are not just promoted but provided is RARE and thus has provided me the best education I could have ever hoped for. For those who think it’s useless and grow weary of having to often repeat yourselves, trust, it’s not in vain.
A 1000’s thank yous to each of you who contribute valuable logic and insight and especially more for La Shawn Barber.
I love this blog.
Comments on this entry are closed.