This discussion reminds me of the age we live in. As soon as someone brings up a topic remotely related to racism, it becomes a discussion only about racism. Where I grew up, in Perth Western Australia, we have a huge water shortage. A prominent politician lobbied for immigration restrictions, based on an Environmental Protection Agency) report predicting irreperable environmental damage as a likely outcome if population growth continued. He was branded a racist and run out of office, since most immigration into Western Australia is from South East Asia. No one dares touch the issue now. I am not disputing that profiling has racial implications, but focus on the key issues and look at the facts. It scares me that so many people have already forgotten how serious the threat is that faces this country. Thankfully, the FBI does not think twice about using profiling to hunt down suspects.
I am all for racial profiling. I mean seriously, woud you rather not offend any Arabs and let another group of terrorists blow up anohter building or would you rather maybe annoy some Arabs and save the lives of a couple thousand people? If I was a law-abiding Arab that wasn't a terrorist, I would be happy to be searched. I am half Italian, and if Italian people were blowing up people in the US, I would want Italian people including myself checked. If I was singled out because of my race, I would be happy knowing that they are protecting law abiding citizens by not wasting their time on 100 year old women. I'd even thank the person checking me for doing a good job.
Well, you have a point, but I imagine it would be impossible to check EVERY single person that fits the profile. Besides, what I'm talking about is simply increasing the probability of catching a terrorist. Even if it only increases it by .01%, I would say that's worth it. Randomly checking kids, women, or men who do not look of middle-eastern origin while letting a man pass who looks like Robert Reid does not increase the probability of catching a terrorist before getting on a plane. How can you deny that? I don't know...maybe this: and just so you know, I'm not the only one who thinks he looks suspicious. Apparently the security at the airport in France interrogated him twice in two days before finally letting him on the plane. He fit the profile! The only problem was they either didn't give him a thorough search, or they didn't know to search his shoes. Let's say they did manage to find the C-4 in his shoes and prevented him from even attempting to kill all the passengers on that plane, could you still argue against profiling?
You would need several more examples of behavior that fits a pattern for your initial post to have made sense comparable to the first post in this thread. Not scattershot, unrelated examples of bad things white people have done, but repeated examples of patterned behavior. I think that if you're not interested in being disingenuous, you can see the logical link between the cases cited in the initial post and the concept of profiling. There is a pattern there which provides authorities a starting point in trying to prevent further bombings. There's no pattern to Timothy McVeigh. There haven't been repeated bombings by white, 30-year-old ex-military men. There's no pattern to Hitler. It's intellectually dishonest to the point of Bill Maher idiocy to pretend that those situations are comparable. No one is saying that every time anyone does something bad, everyone of that person's race should automatically be thought capable of the same behavior. We're saying that when it happens repeatedly, and when a subset of a racial/ethnic group declares publically "We're going to continue making attacks on America", it makes sense to use race as a component of profiling. In the case of church bombings, you're making my point. Do you think the authorities are out looking for elderly black women or young East Coast Jewish males? Or do you think that they've identified middle-aged white men as the culprits in church bombings and as such, started with that profile in mind...?
What do you mean by "most people stupid enough to follow suicide missions and terrorist are Arabs?" You make it sound like Arabs are a stupid race. First of all, not all Muslims are Arabs. Not every one of those 9/11 terrorists were Arabian, they were from other Muslim countries. These so called 'Muslims' are not all Arabian, but your little comment makes it sound like Arabs are a stupid race.
So are you saying that we should profile all Arabs just because they're Arab? Maybe they should have their own checkpoint at the airport that says: "Arabs here." Better yet, we should make them all wear armbands like the Nazis did to the Jews. Screw it, let's just throw them into internment camps like we did to the Japanese in WWII. Wouldn't that piss off some Arabs though? No, because according to you they should "be happy knowing that they are protecting law abiding citizens." In short, profiling Arab citizens is not going to make the problem go away. Instead it shows that we are quick to abandon our freedom.
Got it, thanks, and am getting it everyday. Why don't you try it. These effete pot-shots are not flattering to you!
We are in a war for heavens sake. If there is a suspicious Arab in an airport, check them. I mean you seem to only care about affending people. If we can stop just 1 hijacking or any terrorist attack by racial profiling, wouldn't that be a good thing? Oh, I forgot, we can't offend anyone, so we can't save 3,000+ lives. In a war extreme measures must be taken. You don't see 80 year old ladies, Jewish people, Italian people, or French people blowing up building. We are in a war against terrorism, and it seems like basically all of the terrorists are Arabs. If you see this guy <img src="http://www.kenkemp.com/LeaderFocus/images/RichardReidShoebomber.jpg"> and this woman <img src="http://www.townononhist.org/images/p8.JPG">, who should you check? The old lady? Heck no.
I believe that there was profiling there. It resulted in infiltration of the Klan if I'm not mistaken. If I had been living in that area in that era, I wouldn't have minded being interviewed as a result of profiling by race (because as DaDakota said) it would have taken just a few minutes to eliminate me of suspicion. I don't get what "difference" you are observing because the crime has already been committed in every single scenario offered here. It's not that red-heads were more prone to commit crimes, it is important that one of them <b>did commit a crime</b>. That's what generated the profile. As ever, your <b>Occidental</b> friend, giddyup
Few and far between, but it happens. Once I go to law school, I'll find myself aruging the same way...RM95's Girl does the same thing. I knew my examples were unrelated, and that you'd pick apart my argument as always...good points Kagy. However, IMO, just because they were all related, 12 examples of mostly unrelated terrorism (the only constant seeming to be a hatred for a group of people, Americans or Israelis) does not neccessitate the need for picking on a certain group of people. What number of related events to you need to support racial profiling of white men? Two Timothy McVeighs? Three, four, five? Is 12 the magical number? I still don't think Arabs or anyone else should be picked just because of their skin color or religious beliefs. If the government as some sort of specific reason to pull them aside, I'm all for that. But searching a dark skinned guy because dark skinned guys have performed terrorist acts in history is, in my opinion, not right.
OK, I think the opposing sides are starting to argue to different definitions of profiling. Anti-racial profilers on this thread seem to be against targetting someone because of what they look like, what religion they are, etc. Speaking for myself only, I have no problem with the government infiltrating groups that preach hate or have a history of committing terrorist acts. Infiltrating the KKK because of the church bombings is not the same thing as pulling over every single middle aged white guy just because there's a good chance the bombers were white middle aged men.
It's obvious you're not in police work. The purpose of the profile is to reduce policework not to create busywork. If race or nationality is an important component of the identity, it is part of the profile. If being one-eyed or left-handed is part of the identity it, too, becomes part of the profile. I know you're just kidding but I don't know why. If there were a reportedly Caucasian rapist operating out of The Heights, I doubt you would be chortling over the inconvenience suffered by men of all races as they were "inconvenienced" enough to clear themselves. They weren't suspects in the first place... Wouldn't you want the police to really get to work and stop wasting time?
i'm sure you'll be an excellent lawyer...just don't let it consume your identity...that is my pet peeve among lawyers!!! i'm a lot of things before I'm a lawyer...being a lawyer is just how i earn my living.
But it is the same in some ways: proactive policework. They do what they can. Sometimes the data is skimpy; sometimes it is fully developed. Regardless, the police have to go out and do their job to the best of their ability to protect you and me and everyone here. Bottomline: we are talking about saving lives. I wonder how you would feel about it were it <b>your</b> responsibility to protect the citizenry.
If it were my responsibility to protect the citizenry, my ideals and views about this situation would not change. Are you saying that all FBI agents, policemen, etc. are for racial profiling? Would you be OK if everytime a white man in his 40s committed a crime in your area you had to be pulled over, searched and checked?
In most profiling, race is only a component of the profile, <b>but in fact it is a desirable component of just about every profile because it is one of the best ways to include or exclude people as suspects</b>! That's why I used the image of the red-headed oriental--oops Asian--, so that not all orientals-- oops Asians-- would not be involved in the investigation. If race is the only known identifier, then you go with what you have. Doesn't public safety prevail over the individual convenience? The police are interested in solving the crime not harassing people or creating busy work for themselves as the crime goes unsolved or another one gets committed.
Cracker, To me, it makes a world of difference if it's pre-crime, or post-crime. It's simply not right to kick someone off a plane because they're Arab or to pull over someone driving a car just because they are African-American. At this point, those looking for terrorists should have enough information not to have to pick people just because of the color of their skin. If we're still at that point, I should be more scared than I am.
I thought that incident happened post 9/11.... Yes, if we are still at that point, we should all be scared because we are nowhere near finding the perpetrators.
