Agreed. I guess I may be giving our "protectors" too much credit. I'd really hope at this point in our history, with our technology and resources, that we wouldn't need to resort to just picking out somebody because of what they look like.
In 2002, suicide bombings were carried out by: Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? BUZZZZZ! Wrong! Pretty major hole in the logic here. While I’m not strictly against profiling in extreme circumstances, it simply won’t work here. Have you ever seen a blond haired blue eyed Lebanese person? There are lots of them. Have you ever seen a fair skinned Palestinian? Lots of them too. Spare the old people from being searched? If terrorists would send their children, why wouldn’t they send their elderly, whose lives are almost over anyway? To assume that all people sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists look like the stereotype you suggest is dangerous misinformation that only serves to open holes that may allow terrorists to in. It would be easier if there was a clear enemy to point to, and the general public in the west has certainly been trained to think in these simplistic terms for many decades, (“evil communists,” “the evil of drug users and drugs” “axis of evil” etc.), but this just isn’t reality. I like to think the general public is capable of more sophisticated analysis than this now, but even it they aren’t the old technique of simplistically demonising the enemy is simply not going to work in this instance. Targeting all the Arabic looking men between 17 and 40 won’t stop the threat, and may blind us to recognising some of the real enemies.
Define Minor Inconvience? How much of it before it becomes Harrassment? Inconvient to search ever Arab before a flight? Strip searching them? Body Cavity Searches? Taking them in a room for a round of questioning? Requiring only Arabs show up 3 hours before a flight? Require Arabs have a special pass to be out past 7 pm? Let me know where it goes from profiling and preventative actions to being WRONG! Rocket River
I was thinking more along the lines of giving them respect. They have a very tough job and, as we can see here, no nearly unanimous proclamation about how they should go about doing it. Some of us want tol handcuff them and then even still criticize them on reading the death toll at the next tragedy. That's why we all need to put ourselves in their shoes and see how we would deal with the pressure of having the responsibility to save innocent lives on a very large scale.
Fair analysis but we can't ignore the reality that all of the 20 terrorists were 17-40 YO males of Muslim/Arab descent. The enemy is wily for sure. It's a tough situation which overwhelms all of us.
Good point. I think they've received way too much unfair criticism about their actions, or lack thereof, before September 11. They have a very hard job, but that doesn't mean I think they should racially profile without any other evidence.
One thing to be careful of... If they do profile for the people who are likely to commit terrorists acts based purely on actions (groups you affiliate with, patterns of behavior, etc...) I bet you they 99% of them will be Middle Eastern men between the ages of 17 and 40. Not all, maybe, but most. So, they round these people up based on reasonable suspicion but when people look at the prisoners they are sure to scream "racial profiling!" because they all look similar. The government is in a lose/lose position. (Changing Subjects!) Personally I wish that the opposition party would criticize Mr. Bush publicly about the economy, trade, tariffs, abortion, the environment, etc... because that is healthy for our country. However, when it comes to the war, I would prefer that our leaders not do their laundry in public. Instead, argue their opinions behind closed doors, come to a consensus and show a strong and united face.
So, all of you profiling people....how do you think the Rocket's new star center would like it if he, as a person of Asian descent, were stopped every single time he tried to board a flight, or was driving a car, or when he walked into the grocery store? Think it'd get annoying, invasive, and cause him to rethink leaving? Perhaps. Profiling of groups has led to all of the major problems in economic society. From blacks (slavery-era, ex: Scottosboro trials; civil rights-era, ex: Rodney King) to Asians (WWII-era, ex: internment) to Indians (pre-Civil War-era, ex: Trail of Tears, Jackson's removal of the Indians in Florida) to foreign immigrants (Industrial-era, ex: Sanco & Vanzetti), the dominant group has always unleashed their will unnecessarily and with great force to take the spotlight off of themselves. And the main thing? Many of these people were upstanding citizens of the United States of a America, a nation that values freedom and equal rights for ALL, not a select few. Many times the dominant white social group has been at fault for misdeeds or has created circumstances to put the other groups at such a disadvantage to keep them down. Someone in this thread - Baqui, I think - said that the only people in favor of profiling are whites. That's true, and there are some whites against it, myself included. It boils down to this....are we going to strip the basic rights from a few select groups and set American society back 100 years, or are we going to commit ourselves to upholding basic rights for all members of society? Finding the culprits can be done without profiling. Do I have faith that profiling won't be used? Not really. It's probably what the terrorists want us to do, anyway - rip the nation apart from the inside through racial and ethnic conflict, something profiling has brought about before and very well could once again. And to giddyup - I'm using my education very well, thank you.
My personal opinion: If white people age 17-40 were going around blowing up and killing people in the middle east on a weekly basis or threated to do it and I was AGAINST it, I would not mind the least bit in being searched everytime I boarded a plane. I would encourage it. To sum it up, regardless of race, color, age, sex or religion, if there is a pattern, THEN FOLLOW IT! You don't become a good detective by following bull**** leads.
I try to stay out of participating in the political threads as much as possible, but I just wanted to bring two other things to mind as we're discussing this. As far as terrorism goes, and the notion that Terrorist == Arab: Ever heard of the IRA? Second, has anyone hastened to look at the fourth amendment? The "Patriot Act" pretty much circumvents this entirely, but it would be nice if perhaps we looked to America's history, and the most important documents in America for guidance. And I have a feeling that merely being Arab or of Middle Eastern descent does not constitute a reasonable search. Remember, this is a country for all people. It's no more MY country (european descent) than it is another citizen's country (arab descent, african descent, etc.). "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson -- there is debate on this
There are profiles that authorities can utilize that are not only based on what a paanger looks like. One-way tickets bought the day of the flight, cash purchases, dispartities between credit cards and passport identities, long flights without luggage, etc. I don't mind more thorough and even grossly inconvenient security. We live in a different world now. I would just hope that security, generally, improves in the US and doesn't limit itself to race. We have to realize that terrorist groups will branch out and recruit even little old ladies who look harmless, at some point.
Well, right now all I'm talking about is airport security, nothing more. I'm not talking about using profiling to go searching in people's homes. So, my question is: don't you believe it would be smarter and more efficient for security workers to search people who fit the profile of a terrorist, rather than search a 21 year old caucasian girl? Do you not think that would increase the chances that some of these terrorists might be caught before they get on a plane? I'm not saying do you think it would catch every terrorist trying to board a plane, I'm asking do you think it would <b>increase the chances</b> that a terrorist could be caught before boarding a plane. Is that so illogical? A lot of you are acting like getting searched is some huge inconvenience. All I can say to you is "calm down." I had to go through one, and boy let me tell you it was tough. They padded me down and then examined me with a metal detector. Next, they made me take off my shoes!!! Then they went through my carry-on bag! It was so horrific I don't know if I'll ever recover! I had to actually kneel down and retie my shoe! How I yearn for those sixty seconds of my life back. I already mentioned Robert Reid, but maybe some of you missed what happened. He was stopped and questioned in the airport in France because he looked suspicious. Eventually he was cleared, but he had already missed his flight, so they put him in a hotel and got him a plane ticket for the next day. The next day he came into the airport, and the same thing happened. They started questioning him again because he looked suspicious, but he explained that he had already been cleared the previous day, so they eventually let him on. They had him!!! But they didn't do a thorough search and didn't know to closely check his shoes. Just think if he had blown up that plane. If the security at the airport had been a little more competent, it could have all been prevented because profiling was used. If security had caught him before he got on that plane, could you still actually bring yourself to argue against profiling in airports, knowing that if profiling wasn't used every passenger aboard that plane could have very well died?
Just think if he had blown up that plane. If the security at the airport had been a little more competent, it could have all been prevented because profiling was used. How do you know they used racial profiling to ID him? Especially if, as others have said, he wasn't even Arab (I am not sure on this)? Perhaps he bought a one-way ticket, or had passport issues or something completely different. I still don't see why pro-racial-profilers are against strict searches of EVERYBODY. It certainly is possible -- it would just take longer. It would up your chances of IDing terrorists by like 90%. Is the extra 7 or 8 hour delays not worth saving the lives of hundreds of people? I still want to know where to draw the line. How many people should be reasonably searched? And why? Do we just target people who look suspicious? What exactly is suspicious? How about all Arabs? Or all Arabs 17-40? What about someone who's 41? What about Arab women -- we know they now are willing to suicide bomb, so couldn't they be terrorists?
Well, I am Persian, and while I was going through airport security it was like the ol' days cause it took no time to get through to the terminal. I think I saw 3 or 4 Indians behind me, but still no search. The only searchs were for this 20yearold with "Death to all" on his Tee-Shirt, and some Fat dude with a big jacket. So I don't think the airport security people are looking for Middle Eastern Men, just suspicious ones.
Do we? This is just the point. Apparently he was stopped for all kinds of erratic behavior. Race may or may not have been part of it, but the race baiters are reducing it to the singular racial factor in every instance. You can't deny that race is a signficant part of the profile in many of these instances. When it is, it's not racism... it's smart profiling regardless of the attribute. That's why we should squash it now FLAT before they start recruiting California surfer dudes who want to rope in their 72 virgins. It is just a matter of time, isn't it?
Then can you see the difference between misdemeanors/felonies and terroristic acts? There's Crime and there's War... and actually there are War Crimes too.
Yes, I can. And it still remains that 99% of the people mentioned as terrorists/targets for profiling are upstanding citizens of American society and have done nothing to warrant being searched needlessly. Not to mention that there are many other sources of terrorism throughout the world so that if one group should be profiled, why not them all? That takes care of, oh, 99% of the world's population. I don't mind the extra wait on searches - I don't fly, so it doesn't affect me that much. But profiling in a witch hunt to find potential terrorists? No thanks. We have better intelligence to weed those people out. It hasn't worked in the past and really isn't needed now - even in this time of war.
1. 99%: Fact or opinion 2. Priorities. Of course there are other terrorists, but the IRA is not our problem right now. 3. Profiling as Witch Hunt: Isn't profiling really just the last resort. There is lots of high-tech espionage going on. C'mon.
SEARCH EVERY PERSON, EVERY BAG, EVERY TIME. Inconvenience everyone, everytime......then no one can b**** about profiling. But then we can b**** about having to be at the airport 3 hours before flights. Only then will the threat be truly diminished. Besides, if our airport security personnel are "missing" 26% of the weapons and explosives in baggage screening tests anyway, then searching the people becomes somewhat less crucial.
