We all know about John Walker Lindh and then there's that Aussie in Gitmo. Now a seargent in the US Army. If anything this tells us that everyone should be a suspect at airports and such, not just the brown skinned folk. Lawyer: Wash. Soldier Aimed to Help Al Qaeda http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131264,00.html FORT LEWIS, Wash. — Sgt. Ryan Anderson (search) was clear about his intentions in cell-phone text messages, e-mails and meetings with undercover agents he believed to be members of the Al Qaeda (search) terrorist network, an Army prosecutor said Thursday. "It shows that he's trying to do all that he can, that the information he has, he's willing to share it with Al Qaeda," Maj. Melvin Jenks said in his closing argument at Anderson's court-martial. Anderson, a tank crewman whose 81st Armor Brigade unit is now in Iraq, is accused of trying to show terrorists how best to attack the M1A1 Abrams (search), the Army's primary battle tank, and kill the soldiers inside. "The overwhelming evidence has shown you that the accused betrayed our country," Jenks said. During his nearly hour-long closing, he showed segments of the secretly recorded videotape of Anderson's Feb. 9 meeting with undercover agents he believed to be terrorists. Jenks also displayed text messages and e-mails Anderson posted on extremist Web sites. "On behalf the United States Army, I ask you to find him guilty of all charges and specifications," Jenks concluded. The defense was scheduled to submit its closing arguments next.
That is exactly the case. I think when people want to profile, it's easy because then they can pretend it's an 'us' vs. 'them' situation. But if we look at the history of profiling it isn't effective. Palestinians have used blonde females to move bombs because of profiling, Latin American drug cartels have done the same. The two Russian planes brought down, were brought down by female Europeans. Profiling doesn't make us safer.
oops forgot the rest of the article: --- The 27-year-old Muslim convert is charged with five counts of trying to provide Al Qaeda with information about U.S. troop strength and tactics, as well as methods for killing American soldiers. A military spokesman has said the charges amount to attempted treason. Conviction requires agreement by two-thirds of the jury of nine commissioned officers. Anderson could face life in prison. On Wednesday, psychologists testifying for the defense said Anderson suffers from bipolar disorder and other mental conditions. "He has been an outsider, a social misfit, most of his life," said Jack Norris, a civilian psychologist at Madigan Army Medical Center (search). He said he diagnosed him with bipolar disorder, the condition formerly called manic depression. A second defense expert, Dr. Russell Hicks, a retired Army colonel and a staff psychiatrist at Madigan, said Anderson is afflicted with Asperger's syndrome (search), a high-functioning form of autism that impairs cognitive and social functioning. He said his diagnosis and Norris' assessment did not conflict. Under questioning by prosecutors, Hicks said Anderson still was able to tell the difference between right and wrong. --- weren't people here discussing Asperger's recently?
Profiling's not perfect, but to say there's no advantage to profiling...oh, i dunno....saudi men....does not really seem like a bad idea. JWL was not trying to slip through security with a bomb. And there is a whale of a difference between a terrorist trying to hijack a plane and a drug runner.
The last two terrorist suspects from the airline bombings in Russia were White European women. Smuggling drugs and terrorism related to planes both have to do with people getting banned items on board an airliner. Getting across borders may also be similar. I don't say that Saudi men or anyone should be exempt from checks and searches, just that profiling them doesn't make us safer.
but if he had been he would have had an easier time than others. and they don't even need bombs to hijack planes aparently. the point is that terrorists will adapt.
i had a full beard when leaving DC this summer (for saudi) and trust me i got a crapload of security checks. on the way back i had a goatee, and definately didnt get any of those checks,,, coincidence? maybe, but makes you wonder...
I couldn't agree more. Profiling only weakens our ability to fight terrorism because it creates a glaring hole in our defense. If the terrorist know that we are concentrating our resources on one narrow profile they will adapt. If I recall correctly there has been evidence that Al Qaeda and other groups have deliberately been recruiting non-Arabs to carry out missions. Anyway Al Qaeda is a diverse group with members and affiliates from as diverse locales as the Balkans to the Philipines.
How does it create a glaring hole? European women don't get to skirt through security because Saudis are more heavily scrutinized. Yes, they can adapt but it is more difficult for AQ, for instance, to get a white suburban housewife to commit suicide than it is for them to get a committed member of the group (ie Muslim male). AND, the more they are forced to go outside their starting cadre the better chance we have of infiltrating the organization.
One that looks like this? I'm with HayesStreet on this one. I feel bad for the 99,9 % of people fitting the "typical terrorist" profile who are no terrorists, and maybe even for the...what...80-90 % (I'm optimistic here...) of people fitting that profile who are no terrorists and who do not sympathize with terrorists. However, I prefer 1,000,000 too many people being searched more thoroughly and having to put up with more checks to 100 people being killed because checks were not thorough enough. And sorry...but there is a profile into which about 100 % of the people who flew planes in very tall building fit.
I would be willing to bet that they didn't look that. If you do concentrate on a certain group you create the perception that that group is a threat. As you've guestimated most of that group isn't a threat. Looking at the history and effectiveness of profiling, maybe we can do it for a year, but then we need to change. I'm guessing that's how long it will take Al Qaeda to stop using Arab looking men. It's questionable even now after the two Eurpean female terrorists and the Russian airlines, Richard Reed, Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh, this latest case, etc. IT most likely wouldn't help us catch the anthrax attacker, Tim McVeigh and his cohorts, Bombers of abortion clinics, and stem cell research labs, etc. BEfore too long it won't be helpful at all because they will use people who don't appear to be from the Middle east. In addition you create the perception that everyone of a certon nationality or ethnicity is a threat. I think that there are only so many hours in a day, and if you concetrate more heavily on a particularly group, even if you don't want to, you are still diverting time and resources from checking everyone.
Most of the threat is from that group. Again that increases the risk to AQ. The larger their group gets, the more chance of infiltration and destruction. That's not AQ, first of all. And profiling might not have stopped McVeigh et al, but profiling's not going to increase the risk from those types of threats. Well, almost all the 9/11 guys were Saudis. I believe that created the perception that Saudis are a threat. And a correct perception at that. What you're saying would be like telling Russians 'don't profile Chechnyans because your creating a bad perception about Chechnyans,' or telling the British 'not to profile Irish because you create a bad perception of Irish (when the IRA was full blown bombing). It simply isn't possible to pull every person out of line and search them etc. The option isn't 'be thorough with everyone' or 'be thorough with only middle eastern men.'
I think this one thing addresses most of the issues you brought up. But I will add more specific coments on that as well. The biggest threat of smuggled drugs from Latin American drug cartels come from Latin Americans, but the mules that trafic the stuff into the U.S. stopped being Latin American Males because when it wasn't effective(because of initial profiling) they changed who carried the drugs. They changed because other profiles had a BETTER chance of getting through. IMO profiling on specific group does increase the chance of others getting through. I may have misunderstood what you meant about it being justified to percieve Saudi men as a threat. But are you trying to say that most Saudi men are terrorists? Anyway intel gathering should be done at a roots level on Al Qaeda and other terrorists threats. That would include Saudi Men, and others folks from the ME. Then any specific known threats who might be on the way through U.S. borders, airports, checkpoints etc. should be on the lookout for people who fit the description of known threats. That is sound policy and concentrates on those most likely to pose a threat. While not ignoring the unknown threats.
these two statements seem a bit contradictory to me. ideally it wouldn't be an either/or situation but these screeners are human and humans are inherently lazy which leads to mistakes and that's where they get you. you tell them to be on the lookout for x then the enemy will send y and z instead. it's like playing man-to-man vs. zone defense. There are strengths and weaknesses to both but if you don't mix it up once in awhile then the other team is gonna catch on.
if anything its probably best to profile all males in america from 18 to 45. i'm just gonna guess that is the demographic that causes the most trouble for anything.
While women are doing some of the suicide bombing now? While women are getting escorted out of the RNC for confronting the president? I think every type of person is capable of any type of thing. That is what the equal rights movement is about right? It's just sad that we have to profile anyone. Its akin to the one kid not running the laps in gym, and getting everyone in the class in trouble so the entire class has to run an extra 2 laps. It stinks for everyone. But at what price do place security?
Drug running is just an incomparable action. Its one thing to find someone to run drugs for money. Its another to find someone to bring a bomb on a plane, or ram a plane into a building. Yes, there is adaptation to new strategies, but its point/counterpoint. They attack, we adjust. They adjust, we adjust. The FIRST step is to stop Saudis from walking into the country and blowing up buildings, for example. NOT groping old blue haired ladies because AQ MIGHT have convinced them to take a bomb on a plane and blow themselves up. FB, I would hope you'd know me better than that. I'm not saying that most Saudi men are terrorists, I'm saying that most terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were Saudis. So that's where you start. At a roots level? That is exactly the problem with AQ, its their advantage. While they have a tight group of operators, with various things that bind them together (religion, nationality), it is extremely difficult to get 'inside info.' But having that tight circle is also a disadvantage if we adapt. Screen ME men heavily and you remove part of their advantage because.....suprise, they have to go OUTSIDE their group for manpower. That both removes a large portion of their cadre AND increases the chances of infiltration by Western security agencies. NOBODY is saying we should ignore 'known threats' so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Not sure what's contradictory about it. I explain above why that's less advantageous to them than their A option, which is their own operatives that have been in the organization for a long time. Inherently lazy screeners make an inevitable problem, no matter what their task is. Well when you're the defense the first thing you try to do is take away THEIR first option. THEIR first option, as we've seen, is saudis flying planes into buildings. That's like their running game. If we can't stop that it doesn't matter if we can't stop their passing game.
