muslims-only airport line
By azizhp Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have borne the increased scrutiny that I receive at airports willingly. Not without resentment, at times, but willingly all the same.
If this comes to pass, however:
A Fox News guest proposed having a "Muslims only" line for airport travelers, an idea that "Dayside" co-host Mike Jerrick called attention to it so that viewers did not overlook the proposal.
Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher suggested the idea during a segment Tuesday (August 15, 2006) with constitutional lawyer Michael Gross discussing racial profiling.
"Dayside" co-host Juliet Huddy set up the debate by noting that all terrorists have been Muslim extremists, and Jerrick claimed that some people oppose racial profiling as "politically incorrect."
"It’s not just a matter of political correctness, please," responded Gross. "It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn’t be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, country of national origin and it’s wrong to do so and it addition it’s not effective. It doesn’t work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us."
Gallagher responded that Gross's statements were "absolutely absurd" and claimed that the Traffic Safety Administration is aggressively targeting uniformed members of the military. "Let's have a Muslim-only line," Gallagher said, as Gross started to talk.
Jerrick asked Gallagher to repeat what he said.
"It’s time to have a Muslims check-point line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it’s time," Gallagher said, garnering tepid audience applause.
then the terrorists really have won. So, how shall we identify the muslims? I think history gives us some helpful tips.
Think this is a fringe view? You're wrong. (via eteraz).
No need for this at all. You need two lines.
#1 "I Want Free Pork Ribs Line"
#2 "Not Hungry Line"
You have to scarf down a small rack of pork ribs while sitting in the "I Want Free Pork Ribs Line". The Vegetarians and Women trying to stay on a diet may complain but this eliminates a lot of profiling. The only other problem will be guys getting out of line and going back for seconds*. But the plane will be a lot safer than any other solution!
*You can fix that and mark peoples tickets that they've gotten their ribs already.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
There are many faithful Muslims who have no desire to blow themselves up on a plane. I also don’t think that a suicide bomber would have any trouble breaking that part of their faith to get their guaranteed place in heaven.
"Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves"-C.S. Lewis
You mean as opposed to all the 75 year old grandmothers from Iowa that desire to blow themselves up on a plane? What we are doing now is spreading the harassment around for no other reason than so we can pat ourselves on the back. If we end up allowing explosives on a plane as a result, it's a small price to pay.
No, what we're doing is spreading it around because the goal is to increase safety from terrorist attacks, not to increase safety from terrorist attacks that happen to be perpetrated by swarthy men named Ali.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
From those who are extremely unlikely to committ these acts does not increase security... it decreases security.
We have a fixed amount of resources we can throw at the problem, in terms of personnel and time. Allocating those resources by spreading them around randomly or through some other illogical method that doesn't take into account all the facts available and everything we know about terrorism reduces the resources we spend on the real threats. But hey, as long as it makes the ACLU happy.
What you say is true if we assume an enemy that never adapts. But I thought we established during the various New York Times discussions, that the last thing we want to do is rub in the enemy's faces what we are doing to stop them.
Treating Abu, Osama, and Abdul superfically the same as Tom, Dick, and Harry is just the kind of thing that will make the terrorists let their guard down. We all know that behind the scenes there are databases at work alerting people, but we don't announce that before every flight.
However if we start rubbing it in their faces that Arab Muslims are being watched by Big Brother, then they'll start recruiting less obvious terrorists. Perhaps start finding some second-generation Moroccans in Europe named Jan, Jacques, and Michel. Then where will we be? Worse off than before, that's where.
And nowhere did I say anything about the ACLU kinds of arguments. That's just a straw man, sorry.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
It would be foolish to exclude certain people from screening... what I'm saying is we need to be applying additional scruitiny to those that fit the profile.
The argument that we ignore the profile so we can continue to use it is ridiculous. Using the same logic, why not loosen security screening proceedures? We might as well allow anything on the plane including firearms... then at least we'll know what to watch for. Otherwise they'll just adapt, and who knows what form the next threat might take? Why spend all this effort trying to secure aviation at all? They'll just adapt and move on to other targets.
The terrorists can certainly recruit Americans to blow themselves up, but it makes their job many times harder. The terrorists can even try to recruit non-Muslims to blow themselves up, but that makes their job nearly impossible. They can't adapt on that count. Their motivations are rooted in Islam. They have a limited pool of people they can recruit from. If we make that pool many magnitudes smaller, that is a win, not a loss.
Ignore the profile? I explictly said we would be doing the opposite of what you portray my argument as:
We all know that behind the scenes there are databases at work alerting people, but we don't announce that before every flight.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
We are extremely careful to not profile, behind the scenes and otherwise. That is why we have the TSA SPOT program, which uses set point values for specific suspicious behavior. They wouldn't want anyone to take rest of the profile into account. You can be certain that religion isn't on the list.
As far as the "behind the scenes databases go"... we have lists with specific names that we have received some intel on. That has nothing to do with profiling. We don't profile on religion or ethnicity at all. We pretend its a non-factor.
Look up CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening) sometime.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Doesn't have anything to do with profiling on religion. It takes into account things like paying cash for a ticket the day of the flight or buying a one way ticket. We absolutely do not, ever, profile on religion in aviation security. We are extremely careful about that. We don't even have a database of Muslims to go off of if we wanted to. We're very much pretending Islam has nothing to do with it.
No your mistaking the point you don't let all firearms on you just don't ignore things that don’t traditionally look like fire arms. i.e. shaving cream might be a bomb. Maybe Grandma June is really packing in her stockings.
As I pointed out there is no real test you can give to tell if someone is Muslim vs. Hindu. These people will even deny Allah to get their murdering done.
"Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves"-C.S. Lewis
We just need to maintain a database. This is information the FBI should be collecting... just as they collected information on who were members of radical anti-war organizations in the 60s and 70s... that was the right thing to do.
Especially the "helpful tip" part, lest any of us forget.
a few rather notable differences in the underlying causes, no?
As far as I know, Jews were not required to wear yellow Magen David, and homosexuals pink triangles, because they were running around blowing up German restaurants and trains. So I'm not sure that we can draw many conclusions here.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Until you can conclusively prove all Muslims are terrorists and in need of indentification, you can't prove to me a need for a "Muslims only" line at the airport.
take a pass at this point. azizhp has raised a question for which all potential answers are "unacceptable."
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Can you prove that everybody who travels by plane in the US is a terrorist? Everybody that buys a one way ticket with cash on the day of the flight? Everybody that shows signs of stress? No? Using that standard we would have no security at all.
Yes, there is a fringe on the right that is riling up anti-Muslim sentiment, declaring their religion to be an international conspiracy that must be eradicated.
We saw a little of it in Ann Coulter's little remark that after we invade the countries harboring terrorists, that we need to 'convert them to Christianity.'
We see it in some people who just won't let it go that President Bush called Islam a 'religion of peace', that somehow he was wrong not to denounce the religion.
Yeah, it's a fringe, but apparently Fox News scraped the bottom of the barrel to find one of those guys. This Gallagher is apparently an evilcon, to use Ben Domenech's word.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Have Christians been in the majority so long in the US that we have forgotten what it is like to be singled out? Have we forgotten the lions in Rome? Have we forgotten how the reformers were treated or why many people left England for the new world? Are our memories that short?
Now I’m not totally against profiling but I don’t think it’s our strongest tool in this battle and it is a mistake to create again a second class of citizens or people.
Neil your right this is not a war on Islam just on terrorists and Islamic radicals.
"Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves"-C.S. Lewis
I won't "let it go" that President Bush delivered himself of a particularly controversial pronouncement on the nature of a religion to which the citizens of this country had hardly given a moment’s thought before the Year of our Lord, two thousand and one? Yes, I must be some sort of obsessive because the President of the United States, not two days after we were attacked in a cruel and treacherous way by men who laid claim the very ancient and perduring tradition of jihad, set down this precedent:
It is allowed that a man may pronounce on the very nature of the religion of Mohammad, so long as he pronounces it peaceful.
In point of fact it is no less presumptuous for non-Muslims to call Islam by nature pacific as it is for them to call it warlike.
Almost no one is asking the President to denounce the relgion Islam; some of us are only asking him to denounce the wicked doctrine, in obedience to which our enemies make war upon us.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
stop beating about the bush and state plainly your position. Would you support a muslim-only line at an airport, or not?
My reply was to Neil's remark, and really owed nothing to your post, but perhaps I ought to give my position.
No. I don't believe I would support such a policy. I am prepared to endorse, without apology, some significant discrimination against Muslims, but in my view it is absolutely crucial that in doing so we maintain the imperative distinction between citizen and non-citizen. Thus Muslim immigrants (more precisely: immigrants from majority Muslim countries) will be subjected to significantly more intense scrutiny than American citizens. Also: the discrimination would be directed, to whatever extent is possible, at the doctrine of jihad, not the Islamic religion.
Indeed, I would propose that any non-citizen Muslim, before coming to this country for any reason, be asked to repudiate, under oath, the doctrine of jihad. No immigrant as a right to be here, and if this requirement is too onerous, they do not have to come.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
we agree then on more than I suspect you realize. There is very little I would take significant issue with in what you wrote. There is a great deal I would take minor issue with.
I really am.
I have all sorts of other recommendations, which I present only as recommandations -- that is open criticism and adjustment -- in my forthcoming book. It will be some months before it appears, but I hope you will take the time to give it a serious read.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I wrote that bit poorly. I should have written something like this:
We see it in some, but certainly not all, of the people who won't let it go..."
I did not mean to put you or even hint that you are in this fringe I was referring to. I'm sorry.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
And I am happy to note, of course, that Bush has not repeated the platitude in question for some time now.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
and kill tens of thousands overseas in some insane, quixotic campaign to impose Leninist-style revolution by force of arms, than to inconvenience a relative few on the basis that they fit a profile of age, sex, and adherence to religious doctrines that are strongly correlated with attacks on our country. Yes, it all makes perfect sense.
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism... - Austin Bramwell
Well, if you don't want to inconvenience millions, let's just end all special security checks at airports?
How are we going to measure who adheres to the doctrines that correlate with the attackers, though? Not all Muslims are of the radical type being pushed by Iran and Saudi Arabia, as far as I know.
Are we going to have airline employees ask another silly yes or no question? "Do you support jihad in the form of violent attacks against non-Muslim civilians?"
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
right now we are treating everyone as if they are a criminal. What's your proposed solution to Islamic terrorism?
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
As I'm sure you're aware, this is not the only such proposal on the table. For the first time, we are hearing Respectable People™ openly broaching the subject of racial profiling. Such proposals are being actively discussed by the government in the UK, and a majority of the public there supports such measures.
This is happening because human beings are not frogs. They are not going to wait until the water is boiling before complaining that it's getting awfully hot.
With this latest round of travel restrictions, we are already seeing magazine articles asking, "What's next, Speedos?"
Registered left one of his fine photo collages here on RedState.
These are signs that the public is getting up-to-here with the invasive, demeaning "security" measures, and they are starting to ask the obvious question. "What's next?"
Surely someone is going to invent a way to make exploding clothes, at which point neither the Forbes article nor Registered's cartoon will seem funny.
This is not to say that racial profiling is around the corner, or will ever be adopted in the U.S. It is to say that the public is starting to think outside the box on the subject of what to do about people who want to blow up airplanes. Once that starts, there is no telling what direction it will take. Rationality may not be high on the list of requirements for a solution. At some level of public displeasure, politics takes over and making sense goes out the window. People who expect everything to remain the same while the public is exposed to ever more onerous prodding and poking may be disappointed. Some expectations are not realistic.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Funny, just a couple days ago my brother was telling me I really need to watch the episode of Mythbusters where they made exploding pants...
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
It's kind of cool, but uses too many replays. You could probably say that for any other episode. Got DVR?
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
to consider Racial profiling in addition to the regular "random" checks going on right now.
Making our country safer should be the desire of all American muslims, even if it includes a little bit of inconvenience.
So far I've been singled out on more than half of the flights I've been on. I am white but with dark hair and unshaved I could possibly pass for a very light skinned middle eastern guy... I am always ready to submit to whatever if it makes our travel safer.
Everyone should feel that way. If you fit the profile for a certain crime, there should be some extra attention to you. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If it works like most such racism institutionalizations in this country, we would just be going to require that people declare a 'race' when they buy a ticket, so what would prevent terrorists from just declaring a non-suspect 'race'?
To prevent that, others would have to assign a category. So to set that up, how do we define the 'races'? How do we test who is in what 'race'? How do we train each and every screener or ticket-seller to make such determinations on the fly?
I'd much rather we give up this silly notion of 'race' and stick to objective measures like origin from select countries, donations to suspicious groups, prior travel to select countries, overstayed visas, etc.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
about disregarding all those objective measures you listed. What I am talking about does not have anything to do with assigning a race or a category. If you have a name that is Islamic in origin, or you look arab/persian/pakistani etc - then there can be some extra attention paid to you. It's not racism - just appropriate caution.
Paying more attention to people who fit a profile for most of the terrorist acts committed in the world is not racism... Nor should it be handled in a discriminatory manner. There is no need for a muslims only line. Make it dignified. Current completely random measures are idiotic.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well you did say "Racial profiling," so I think I was reasonable to assume you meant categorizing people into 'races' and singling out certain 'races' for special treatment.
But again, how do you determine who "looks Arab/Persian/Pakistani" and then train everyone to make those determinations? If I'm an American don't I look American, regardless of where my grandparents are from?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
slightly obtuse for whatever reason...
I shouldn't have to point out that various ethnicities generally look differently.
A little training to spot the few ethnic backgrounds that fit the profile, while being exceedingly polite and respectful of all American's rights would go a long way.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No doubt they'd be passed through with no checking to demonstrate how we don't discriminate against the Religion of Peace and don't want to offend their religious beliefs.
I have to tell you that most of the commentators at eteraz do not evoke empathy from me. Quite to the contrary most of the commentators just seem hateful and self-absorbed. There is a public sentiment developing that impacts them and it deserves to be addressed more thoughtfully than by such cynical sarcasm.
May I suggest to you that the question should not be "So, how shall we identify the Muslims?" But rather, How do we identify Muslim terrorists, Islamist fascists, al Qaeda sympathizers?
The uncomfortable reality is expressed in the Venn diagram. Those who advocate a conception that elides the Islamic component and those who over-generalize the Islamic component, both mislead us regarding the steps we must take for our security.
I should think that concerned Muslims who reject the political ideology which motivates this conflict could provide the most sensitive and yet effective answer to this difficult question. Is that too much to hope for? CAIR, in its elision, is quite disappointing and frankly, counterproductive.
The uncomfortable fact is that there is a present violent conflict in which some Muslims are against us and we are against some Muslims. This poses a big problem for Muslim identity. IMO, the response is mostly dysfunctional.
There is plenty of dysfunction on the "us" side too, as you try to point out. Personally, I would prefer a constructive dialogue that is committed to dealing with the realities.
John E.
Your right. It would be like making all Christians walk on the other side of the street of abortion clinics. Racial profiling also makes you lazy and complacent.
If a terrorist has to shave his beard and make himself look different that is easy. Or what happens when native Americans are recruited to terrorism. I have a friend who is Iraqi and he looks like he could have been born in Ohio. Racial profiling is a weak tool.
"Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves"-C.S. Lewis