" now you know what it was like to be a black man in the 60's."

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
SAN FRANCISCO, May 31 — Azhar Usman, a burly American-born Muslim with a heavy black beard, says he elicits an almost universal reaction when he boards an airplane at any United States airport: conversations stop in midsentence and the look in the eyes of his fellow passengers says, "We're all going to die!"

For Ahmed Ahmed, a comedian, it is even worse. His double-barreled name matches an occasional alias used by a henchman of Osama bin Laden. "It's a bad time to be named Ahmed right now," he riffs in his stand-up routine, before describing being hauled through the Las Vegas airport in handcuffs.

Taleb Salhab and his wife say they too were dragged away in handcuffs at the border crossing in Port Huron, Mich., as their two preschool daughters wailed in the back seat of their car. The Salhabs were discharged after four hours of questioning, with no explanation from customs officers.

Getting through United States airports and border crossings has grown more difficult for everyone since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But Muslim Americans say they are having a harder time than most, sometimes facing an intimidating maze of barriers, if not outright discrimination. Advocacy groups have taken to labeling their predicament "traveling while Muslim," and accuse the government of ignoring a serious erosion of civil rights. Next month, the American Civil Liberties Union will go back to court to broaden a suit on behalf of Muslims and Arab-Americans who are demanding the United States government come up with a better system for screening travelers.

The delays, humiliation and periodic roughing up have prompted some American Muslims to avoid traveling as much as possible. Some even skip meeting anyone at the airport for fear of a nasty encounter with a law-enforcement officer. Those who do venture forth say they are always nervous.

"I find myself enunciating English like never before, totally over-enunciating just because I want the guy to know that I am an American," says Maz Jobrani, an Iranian-born, Berkeley-educated actor. "Middle Easterners are just as scared of Al Qaeda as everybody else, but we also have to be worried about being profiled as Al Qaeda. It's a double whammy."

Many Muslim Americans fault the Department of Homeland Security and its various agencies, chiefly the Transportation Security Administration, as failing to develop an efficient system to screen travelers. In particular, they deplore the lack of a workable means for those on the federal watch list by mistake — or those whose names match that of someone on the list — to get themselves off.

Mr. Salhab, 36, says his family remains shaken by their treatment at the border. Officers, their hands on their guns, swarmed around his vehicle, barking at him to get out as alarm bells clanged, he said.

"If I had sneezed or looked the wrong way, who knows what would have happened," Mr. Salhab said in a telephone interview. "I feared for my life."

Now, he said, every time his daughter, 4, sees uniformed officers, she asks if they are going to take him away.

"What happened to me at the border is inexcusable," Mr. Salhab said.

A complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security in January got Mr. Salhab a form letter saying the government was looking into the situation. There has been no further response.

A number of American Muslims similarly upset by how federal agents treated them and their families are seeking relief through the courts. About eight men with Muslim or Arab roots are joining a suit already filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union branch in Illinois demanding that the government improve its treatment of returning American citizens.

But similar suits have made little headway. In general, the Constitution protects all Americans against unreasonable search and seizure. But much more aggressive searches have been deemed reasonable at airports and at the border than elsewhere. Just how elastic that standard can be is what the lawsuits are addressing.

The Department of Homeland Security denies engaging in racial profiling. Agents should not base their decisions on a face or a name, said Dan Sutherland, head of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. "They should look at behavior, concrete action, observable activities," he said.

Mr. Sutherland said the department was aware of some problems with the watch list, but he argued that many Muslim Americans traveled without encountering difficulties.

Still, traveling makes many Muslim Americans feel like second-class citizens. Mr. Ahmed, the comedian, often travels wearing a T-shirt that says "Got rights?"

"That's the whole question of my existence right now," he said. "Do we have rights? I'm a taxpayer and I'm an American, and I want to be treated like one."

The problem has become such a part of being a Muslim American that some comedians have built routines around it. Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Jobrani both perform on The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour. Mr. Jobrani jokes about his heightened state of anxiety as he passes through security.

He says, "If anything beeps in the metal detector, I think, 'Dammit, I'm a terrorist! I knew it!"

But underneath the one-liners, the treatment grates. Mr. Ahmed, 35, now avoids flying on the day of a show lest he be barred from his flight. The stress reached a level that the whiskers in his beard started to fall out, he says. ("Your body is trying to de-Muslimize," Mr. Jobrani said jokingly, sitting next to him in a Los Angeles coffee shop. "Next, your skin will get lighter.")

Mr. Ahmed was handcuffed in the Las Vegas airport in November 2004, and, he said, a young black police officer leaned over and said, "Yo man, now you know what it was like to be a black man in the 60's."

It is an apt comparison, Mr. Ahmed feels, noting that after the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing by a white former soldier, Timothy J. McVeigh, not every blond with a buzz cut was pulled over.

"I know I have to be demure and humble when I approach a ticket agent," Mr. Ahmed said. "If you show any ounce of negativity or righteousness, they'll deny you, they'll say, 'You're not getting on this flight, I don't like your attitude."'

When he called a phone line for those with travel problems like his, he said, he got no response. "I understand the need for security, but they go overboard, they always have to put on this public display," he said. Mr. Usman, 30, and part of a different comedy act called Allah Made Me Funny, draws big laughs when joking about his obviously Muslim appearance. "If I was a crazy Muslim fundamentalist, this is not the disguise I would go with," he cracks.

He refuses to shave his beard. "I have a problem that people associate a certain look with Muslim terrorists," he said by telephone from his native Chicago. "The look of someone trying to live a religious life, having a long beard, has been around a lot longer than Osama bin Laden and will be around a lot longer than Osama bin Laden."

Most of those wrongly placed on the watch list seethe with frustration and anger, finding it unbelievable that a technologically advanced country like the United States has been unable to develop a list that can distinguish between a lurking terrorist and a harmless citizen with a Muslim name.

Khurrum Wahid, a lawyer, said that the Transportation Security Administration had made empty promises for years about making improvements. "If the name John Smith was on the designated list," Mr. Wahid said, "I guarantee they would have come up with some way to check that list."

Dr. Sam Hamade, 33, was born in Lebanon and carries a Canadian passport but is a permanent United States resident and is seeking citizenship. A senior resident at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, Dr. Hamade legally changed his name from Osama to Sam to make his patients more comfortable.

In the last two years, driving back from Canada after visiting relatives or his fiancée, Dr. Hamade said, he has been detained at least six times. He has found himself weeping with frustration, he said, because the same thing happens every time — he is photographed, fingerprinted and his body groped — and every time the border police say that they are just following procedures.

Dr. Hamade was handed a "Fact Sheet" instructing him to write to the Border Patrol's "Customer Satisfaction Unit" in Washington. He wrote, but has received no answer. A complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security in April has also elicited no response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/us/nationalspecial3/01traveler.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=96e5b29b4cc0053f&hp&ex=1149134400&partner=homepage
 
Sometimes, you just have to wonder if this stuff is made up to elicit a rise out of normal people that understand common sense.

I mean, such nonsense as:

Most of those wrongly placed on the watch list seethe with frustration and anger, finding it unbelievable that a technologically advanced country like the United States has been unable to develop a list that can distinguish between a lurking terrorist and a harmless citizen with a Muslim name.

Totally. How can't the U.S. - so technologically advanced as we are, NOT be able to read people's minds? How do we NOT possess the ability to separate the criminals from innocent folks via mind-reading?

It's almost like we just don't want to do it bad enough... it's as if we are satisfied to do what the entire history of mankind has done and use profiling as the most effective means (of which there are NO perfect means) for protecting ourselves against potentially dangerous situations.

Just where do we get off being suspicious that any arab looking person might be a remorseless murderer hell bent on killing as many innocent americans (or any other nationality tbh) as possible, when nearly every single terrorist attack against the U.S. at home or abroad has been perpetrated by arab looking persons?

We need to waste more time at airports hassling 88 year old white folks or 10 year old girls, treating them as potential terrorists meanwhile not looking askance at that arab boarding the plane so we can be politically correct and not hurt some one's feelings (unless they are white people, they don't count).

...Beam me up, Scotty.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Sometimes, you just have to wonder if this stuff is made up to elicit a rise out of normal people that understand common sense.

I mean, such nonsense as:



Totally. How can't the U.S. - so technologically advanced as we are, NOT be able to read people's minds? How do we NOT possess the ability to separate the criminals from innocent folks via mind-reading?

It's almost like we just don't want to do it bad enough... it's as if we are satisfied to do what the entire history of mankind has done and use profiling as the most effective means (of which there are NO perfect means) for protecting ourselves against potentially dangerous situations.

Just where do we get off being suspicious that any arab looking person might be a remorseless murderer hell bent on killing as many innocent americans (or any other nationality tbh) as possible, when nearly every single terrorist attack against the U.S. at home or abroad has been perpetrated by arab looking persons?

We need to waste more time at airports hassling 88 year old white folks or 10 year old girls, treating them as potential terrorists meanwhile not looking askance at that arab boarding the plane so we can be politically correct and not hurt some one's feelings (unless they are white people, they don't count).

...Beam me up, Scotty.[/QUOTE]

mcveighmugcrop.GIF


Don't wanna keep your eye on him or people like him, do ya? No, of course not.
 
In response to your 10 year old girl comment, I was with my friend dropping off his 11 year old cousin who was going back home to chicago. She went through without setting off any alarms, and then they pulled her aside and spent about 10 minutes searching, asking questions etc. I'd know more of the specifics, if they didn't kick me and my friend out of a public area because we were looking at what they were doing. Though it was kind of funny, watching how the guy refused to even look in my friends eyes, preferring to stare at the ground whenever he tried to make eye contact.

Oh, they're hindu. They could pass for muslim, so I guess that explains it.

Just where do we get off being suspicious that any arab looking person might be a remorseless murderer hell bent on killing as many innocent americans (or any other nationality tbh) as possible, when nearly every single terrorist attack against the U.S. at home or abroad has been perpetrated by arab looking persons?

I guess you'd also be ok if Israeli and/or palestinian police profiled and searched any jew approaching a muslim area. After all, there's plenty of cases of them being involved in attacks on muslims and muslim places.

Besides, if you get suspicious because of terrorist acts committed by under 50 people in a population of 7 million american muslims, then I think something else is at work.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] if you get suspicious because of terrorist acts committed by under 50 people in a population of 7 million american muslims, then I think something else is at work.[/QUOTE]

You're right, if the world's catholic bishops started saying it was the duty of all catholics to kill American citizens anywhere and everywhere, I say we start cavity searching everyone who wears a cross and genuflects themselves.

It's not racism, Alonzo, as you so uncleverly allude, it's common sense, rational probability. Those "rights" you think everyone has not to be bothered by security scruitiny are the same "rights" we have to demand that our government protects us from people who may choose to do us harm. Can't a few people be inconvenienced to protect the overwhelming majority ? You use the same argument for taxing the rich to help the poor, why shouldn't it work for other areas of societal incongruity?
 
It's common sense to assume 7 million people are dangerous because a miniscule minority is?

And I'd be interested to see you present such widespread and mainstream urging to kill among imams, as you seem to suggest.

I'm also not sure why you think wealth is the same as things such as race and gender.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You're right, if the world's catholic bishops started saying it was the duty of all catholics to kill American citizens anywhere and everywhere, I say we start cavity searching everyone who wears a cross and genuflects themselves.

It's not racism, Alonzo, as you so uncleverly allude, it's common sense, rational probability. Those "rights" you think everyone has not to be bothered by security scruitiny are the same "rights" we have to demand that our government protects us from people who may choose to do us harm. Can't a few people be inconvenienced to protect the overwhelming majority ? You use the same argument for taxing the rich to help the poor, why shouldn't it work for other areas of societal incongruity?[/QUOTE]
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course" - Ronald Reagan

Yes, a small minority of extremist Muslims have called for death tp America, Israel, and what have you. Ann Coulter has called for the same thing to happen to Muslims. Fred Phelps has called for and applauded the murder of US troops. Many Christian extremists have advocated the murder of abortion doctors. Randall Terry has advocated the violent overthrow of the US Government. Christian groups advocate murder all the time. Thats not what Christianity is about, and its a small percentage, but the same applies to the Muslims. What exactly is the difference here?

Its not as if the extreme right wing in America has undertaken any terrorist attacks lately, not since the Klan anyway. There was never anyone like Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and Ted Kaczynski. For that matter, the left wing doesn't have anyone like ALF/PETA, or ELF, and its not as if the Irish have been masters of terrorism for the last 140 years. No, Muslims and foreigners are all we need to fear. Groups like the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, the Westboro Baptists, Christian Identity, and World Church of the Creator, are just good, pacifist, Christian organizations who preach nothing but love and peace.
 
The difference between Muslim terrorists and our homegrown terrorists:

People that believe in killing innocent people for their agenda are few and far between.

Mcveigh, the unabomber, and others like them are aberrations in our society.

With these Muslim terrorists, killing everyone non-Muslim is their world view.

Nearly every conflict around the globe involves Muslims in some way or another. The religion of peace is more violent than any other. They don't proselytize by preaching the good word and letting god work on their hearts. They do it by violence.

We have far more to fear from this religion than we ever will from hiccups of civilization like Mcveigh, Kaczynski or their ilk.

So if some airport security guy wants to give you the once over for being an arab- get over it. He's trying to protect innocent people, including the same arab he is searching (if he's just another innocent person like the rest of us).

Being checked for weapons, etc or a bit inconvenienced when getting on an airplane is not a violation of anyone's "freedom". When you are riding on someone else's plane (the airline owns it, not you), you are subject to their rules.


Just as a side note- my personal looks are akin to a biker. Long hair, goatee (when I don't shave I look quite rough), tall and somewhat imposing. I often get treated as a potential criminal. I've had police stop me while walking down the street and "hassle" me. I've been the victim of people treating me like I'm about to steal their wallet or purse, etc. I don't take offence to it. I know it's a natural reaction to be more wary when you see some person that matches physical characteristics of predatory types. Once they get to know me, it all seems a bit silly. But I completely understand that when their security is on the line-- when they don't know me, they aren't interested in taking any chances that I just might be a good guy that looks tough. It's a risk they don't want to take and that's just a natural human reaction.

I don't let other people's opinions offend me. That would give them power over my life and I am not going to allow that.
 
[quote name='penmyst']The difference between Muslim terrorists and our homegrown terrorists:

People that believe in killing innocent people for their agenda are few and far between.[/QUOTE]

Not really, you voted for them and plenty of others voted for W as well.
 
Nearly every conflict around the globe involves christians in some way or another.

That's also true.

Being checked for weapons, etc or a bit inconvenienced when getting on an airplane is not a violation of anyone's "freedom". When you are riding on someone else's plane (the airline owns it, not you), you are subject to their rules.

I think it's more than an inconvenience:

Officers, their hands on their guns, swarmed around his vehicle, barking at him to get out as alarm bells clanged, he said.

"If I had sneezed or looked the wrong way, who knows what would have happened," Mr. Salhab said in a telephone interview. "I feared for my life."

Now, he said, every time his daughter, 4, sees uniformed officers, she asks if they are going to take him away.
 
Mr. Ahmed was handcuffed in the Las Vegas airport in November 2004, and, he said, a young black police officer leaned over and said, "Yo man, now you know what it was like to be a black man in the 60's."


Not to turn this into one-up contest, because Arab-Americans are being treated poorly quite a bit, however it isn't even close to pre-Civil Rights incidents and Jim Crow laws. I'm not sure that officer realized the gravity of his statement.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Nearly every conflict around the globe involves christians in some way or another.

That's also true.[/QUOTE]

Nope, can't go with you on this one. Just to name a few: Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Xinjang, East Timor, Aceh...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Nope, can't go with you on this one. Just to name a few: Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Xinjang, East Timor, Aceh...[/quote]

Columbia, Ireland, Spain (eta), Peru, Chiapas etc. don't involve muslims. Though Nepal only has a 3% muslim population (http://sg.travel.yahoo.com/guide/asia/nepal/), and they're not very visible. I'm not sure how they're involved there.

Also, while it's over, Rwanda didn't involve muslims either. In that conflict muslims became famous (in Rwanda anyway) for nonviolence and hiding tutsi's from hutu's. Islam has grown rapidly among the population due to this. And hutu's who participated in the genocide have even tried to pass themselves off as muslim in hope of avoiding punishment, as muslims were not caught up in the hutu-tutsi conflict.

But, in the end, most conflicts don't boil down to religion. It provides an easy, albeit incorrect, answer to blame religion in most cases.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Nope, can't go with you on this one. Just to name a few: Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Xinjang, East Timor, Aceh...[/quote]

I'm sure christians are just trying to find a way to get in on the action. Don't worry, I have faith y'all will be every bit as successful as your history indicates. ;) ;)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Columbia, Ireland, Spain (eta), Peru, Chiapas etc. don't involve muslims. Though Nepal only has a 3% muslim population (http://sg.travel.yahoo.com/guide/asia/nepal/), and they're not very visible. I'm not sure how they're involved there.

Also, while it's over, Rwanda didn't involve muslims either. In that conflict muslims became famous (in Rwanda anyway) for nonviolence and hiding tutsi's from hutu's. Islam has grown rapidly among the population due to this. And hutu's who participated in the genocide have even tried to pass themselves off as muslim in hope of avoiding punishment, as muslims were not caught up in the hutu-tutsi conflict.

But, in the end, most conflicts don't boil down to religion. It provides an easy, albeit incorrect, answer to blame religion in most cases.[/QUOTE]

You're trying to change what you said. You said almost every conflict around the world involved Christians. That is as dumb as saying almost every conflict around the world involves Muslims.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You're trying to change what you said. You said almost every conflict around the world involved Christians. That is as dumb as saying almost every conflict around the world involves Muslims.[/quote]

I meant more along the lines of "this is just as true" instead of "this is also true", basically meaning that they are equally accurate or inaccurate.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Not to turn this into one-up contest, because Arab-Americans are being treated poorly quite a bit, however it isn't even close to pre-Civil Rights incidents and Jim Crow laws. I'm not sure that officer realized the gravity of his statement.[/QUOTE]

QFT
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's common sense to assume 7 million people are dangerous because a miniscule minority is?

And I'd be interested to see you present such widespread and mainstream urging to kill among imams, as you seem to suggest.

I'm also not sure why you think wealth is the same as things such as race and gender.[/QUOTE]

The small minority that holds the majority of wealth is discriminated against and raped by the majority of left thinkers, like you, who believe they can discriminate against them simply for the fact that they have more money that you and the majority. Bigotry knows no boundries of race and gender.

Yes, it's common sense to actively give greater scrutiny to a group of people overwhelmingly determined to have a greater probability of committing an act of terrorism for the same reason you believe all poor people are in need of some form of government assistance. It's called probability.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The small minority that holds the majority of wealth is discriminated against and raped by the majority of left thinkers, like you, who believe they can discriminate against them simply for the fact that they have more money that you and the majority. Bigotry knows no boundries of race and gender.[/QUOTE]

Those poor poor discriminated plutocrats.

Why doesnt anyone think of the insanely wealthy?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Those poor poor discriminated plutocrats.

Why doesnt anyone think of the insanely wealthy?[/QUOTE]

But isn't wealth something that you aquire, and could, in theory, get rid of instantly? Not exactly the same thing as race, so the comparison is completely pointless.
 
The small minority that holds the majority of wealth is discriminated against and raped by the majority of left thinkers, like you, who believe they can discriminate against them simply for the fact that they have more money that you and the majority. Bigotry knows no boundries of race and gender.

Oh yes, those rich huddles masses who barely survive day to day life. How unfortunate they are.
 
I just want to underscore the fact that we, as Americans, do not have a "right" to fly, or a "right" to not be searched/screened. Flying is a privilege, and if we want to enjoy that privilege, we must abide by and adhere to the strictures placed on that mode of transportation.

Is profiling wrong? Sure. But when you are charged with the safety and well-being of a plane full of innocent people, you'd rather be sure than be wrong. I'd wager that the passengers of those ill-fated flights on 9/11/01 would gladly trade a few inconvenient moments of additional screening to still be alive today.

It's easy to stand in the line at the airport, or in the hand-wanding corral, and be angry, or impatient, or even indignant. To you, the passenger, this is an annoyance and an interruption. To TSA, you are a life that we are responsible for, and we're more than willing to sacrifice your temporary comfort level to see you live another day.
 
[quote name='the ender']I just want to underscore the fact that we, as Americans, do not have a "right" to fly, or a "right" to not be searched/screened. Flying is a privilege, and if we want to enjoy that privilege, we must abide by and adhere to the strictures placed on that mode of transportation.

Is profiling wrong? Sure. But when you are charged with the safety and well-being of a plane full of innocent people, you'd rather be sure than be wrong. I'd wager that the passengers of those ill-fated flights on 9/11/01 would gladly trade a few inconvenient moments of additional screening to still be alive today.

It's easy to stand in the line at the airport, or in the hand-wanding corral, and be angry, or impatient, or even indignant. To you, the passenger, this is an annoyance and an interruption. To TSA, you are a life that we are responsible for, and we're more than willing to sacrifice your temporary comfort level to see you live another day.[/QUOTE]

Not to sound like a broken record, but issues of ethics aside, profiling is probably the single easiest way to make sure we have gaping holes in our security.

"Let's profile the Arabs" is really another way of saying, "Let's not look at the rest of the folks as closely as we could." And frankly, it doesn't take a James Bond villain to think of enlisting one of the 20 million Chinese Muslims or a pale Chechnyan or someone from the Caribbean (like one of the bombers who hit London), or an American-born Padilla-style terrorist for hire.

So fine: you're all about doing whatever we have to to stay safe. Then we should be as rigorous as possible with absolutely everybody, from the turbaned Sikh to the little old lady with the walker.

If there's such a thing as proof that racism is stupid and counter-productive, this is it.
 
[quote name='trq']Not to sound like a broken record, but issues of ethics aside, profiling is probably the single easiest way to make sure we have gaping holes in our security.

"Let's profile the Arabs" is really another way of saying, "Let's not look at the rest of the folks as closely as we could." And frankly, it doesn't take a James Bond villain to think of enlisting one of the 20 million Chinese Muslims or a pale Chechnyan or someone from the Caribbean (like one of the bombers who hit London), or an American-born Padilla-style terrorist for hire.

So fine: you're all about doing whatever we have to to stay safe. Then we should be as rigorous as possible with absolutely everybody, from the turbaned Sikh to the little old lady with the walker.

If there's such a thing as proof that racism is stupid and counter-productive, this is it.[/quote]

Has anyone ever compiled a pie chart of the people involved in terrorist acts by race? I'd be interested in seeing that. I bet factors such as the IRA and anti-choice protest pipe-bombers would surprise most people.
 
[quote name='trq']Not to sound like a broken record, but issues of ethics aside, profiling is probably the single easiest way to make sure we have gaping holes in our security.

"Let's profile the Arabs" is really another way of saying, "Let's not look at the rest of the folks as closely as we could." And frankly, it doesn't take a James Bond villain to think of enlisting one of the 20 million Chinese Muslims or a pale Chechnyan or someone from the Caribbean (like one of the bombers who hit London), or an American-born Padilla-style terrorist for hire.

So fine: you're all about doing whatever we have to to stay safe. Then we should be as rigorous as possible with absolutely everybody, from the turbaned Sikh to the little old lady with the walker.

If there's such a thing as proof that racism is stupid and counter-productive, this is it.[/QUOTE]


Profiling and racism are not synonymous.

While it's not perfect (nothing is), it provides an efficient way to work on safety.


Think of it as a cost : benefit ratio. While you could say that hand searching each and every single passenger is the surest way to be safest, imagine the cost in time and money to do that. So, what profiling affords you is a way to target the most likely perpetrators. That doesn't guarantee anything. It's more a safety via the most productive cost:benefit ratio.

I simply don't see malice in it.

Some people do, and I believe that is more a product of their personal world view. Some folks walk around as perpetual victims looking for any opportunity to be offended and exercise their victimhood.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't think profiling is the only required tactic. You are right that it will leave holes if you only focus on a couple of areas. But it is an effective tactic in itself, and that should warrant it's inclusion as part of an overall safety plan. One where you also have other strategies to compensate for it's weak points.
 
[quote name='camoor']Has anyone ever compiled a pie chart of the people involved in terrorist acts by race? I'd be interested in seeing that. I bet factors such as the IRA and anti-choice protest pipe-bombers would surprise most people.[/QUOTE]

It would be intersting, considering the widely diverging faces of terrorism across the globe and over the decades, but considering we (the general "we") can't even precisely define terrorism and then stick to that definition, I doubt any sort of impartial attempt is really possible.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Profiling and racism are not synonymous.[/QUOTE]

Well, sure, but only in that profiling is a subcategory of racism. Otherwise, presuming someone's likelyhood of guilt based on their race is ... well ... racist by definition.

[quote name='penmyst']While it's not perfect (nothing is), it provides an efficient way to work on safety.

Think of it as a cost : benefit ratio. While you could say that hand searching each and every single passenger is the surest way to be safest, imagine the cost in time and money to do that. So, what profiling affords you is a way to target the most likely perpetrators. That doesn't guarantee anything. It's more a safety via the most productive cost:benefit ratio.[/QUOTE]

I can imagine the time and money involved, no problem. Sure, it's expensive, but we seem capable of dropping a couple of trillion on all kinds of foreign actions these days, so why not implement an all-encompassing security plan that would actually get us the results we say we want? Perhaps because it's easier to create the appearance of safety, rather than the thing itself.

[quote name='penmyst']I simply don't see malice in it.[/QUOTE]

There doesn't have to be malice involved for it to be unethical, misguided, or just counter-productive.

[quote name='penmyst']Some people do, and I believe that is more a product of their personal world view. Some folks walk around as perpetual victims looking for any opportunity to be offended and exercise their victimhood.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree in general, but I will say that I don't think dressing like a biker -- an affectation you can change any time you want -- is comparable to what we're talking about here, so I'm not sure how you're qualified to dismiss claims from those who have experienced these things first-hand.

[quote name='penmyst']Don't misunderstand me. I don't think profiling is the only required tactic. You are right that it will leave holes if you only focus on a couple of areas. But it is an effective tactic in itself, and that should warrant it's inclusion as part of an overall safety plan. One where you also have other strategies to compensate for it's weak points.[/QUOTE]

I take your point, but there's just no way around it: profiling, by its very nature, is holding one group to a higher level of scrutiny than others. But if that higher level can be reached, then why not hold everybody to it? You can say that there would be other measures taken, but it's not like Arabs then get a free pass with, say, domestic wiretapping, in order to "make up for" the profiling. So in the end, you're left with Arabs recieving one level of scrutiny, while everyone else gets another, and that's an exploitable gap. There's no justifiable way to defend profiling as the smartest way to do things.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's common sense to assume 7 million people are dangerous because a miniscule minority is?
[/QUOTE]
Of course not. However, when you are trying to find a needle in a haystack (terrorist amongst innocent travelers) it makes sense to focus on the most likely source of the threat. The fact is that the people who most want to kill us right now are young Arab men. Note: this does not mean there are not other people that want to blow up airplanes, nor that EVERY young Arab male wishes to do so.

To say that a tool, such as profiling, shouldn't be used because it offends someones delicate sensibilities is foolish. The odds af a particular young Arab man being a terrorist are small, but the odds of an old Asian lady being a terrorist are smaller still. When you can't cover everyone, covered the most likely targets. No one complains when the most likely target for every serial killer in recent years is a young white male. Remember in the early days of the Malvo sniping case what every news report said? "We're probably looking for a young white male." Sure, in this case it was wrong, but that doesn't invalidate the method since we're talking statistics, not individual cases.
 
bread's done
Back
Top