In defense of Profiling
Why a key tool in our quest for security should no longer be ignored.
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Featured Stories | National Security — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Another terrorist attack on the United States was narrowly averted earlier this month when British authorities, acting on their own, Pakistani, and US-provided information (including “chatter” monitored by the NSA), arrested nearly thirty conspirators who were plotting to take down up to ten airliners with liquid-gel bombs which could be detonated by remote electronic device.
The most obvious commonality between this and the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 is that both involved airliners which were fueled up for long-distance flights. The less obvious commonality (due more to selective reporting than to a dearth of available information) is that, once again, Muslim men of middle-eastern origin or descent were the prime culprits in an international terrorist plot.
The response to this by such organizations as the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and others was, as usual, a hasty warning not to fall into the trap of “racially profiling” young Middle Eastern or Muslim men, as well as an issuance of the well-worn admonishment that “Not all Muslims are terrorists.”
Despite the truth of these words, the frequency with which they must be publicly spoken -- seemingly every day -- should be a matter of some concern, and should lead a vigilant public (and government) to do more than a bit of thinking about its methods of preventing future terrorist attacks.
Read on...
Although pointing it out violates the standards of political correctness, it is an inarguable fact that, while most Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are, in fact, Muslim, and of Middle Eastern descent. According to the National Counterterrorism Center’s “Report on Incidents of Terrorism, 2005 (warning: PDF file),” 58.3% of terrorist attacks worldwide were carried out by strictly-defined “Islamic extremists” – and that is just the number that was verifiable. Many more were suspected to have been carried out by radical Islamists, but proof of their culpability did not rise to the level necessary for inclusion in the report.
While America and the majority of the Western world continue to follow the advice of CAIR, et al, and look the other way, rather than address this demonstrable demographic fact and use it to our advantage in the quest to protect against future attacks, the British, after this recent brush with what Deputy Commissioner of police Paul Stephenson called “mass murder on an unimaginable scale,” have finally decided to stop ignoring this reality, and are working to implement new airport security methods which take it into account.
Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens, in an interview with the UK Guardian, said that these protocols include focusing on “people that behave suspiciously, have unusual travel plans or are of a certain religion or ethnicity.”
In short, the British have decided to begin racially profiling the demographic which produces the preponderance of terrorists.
The instinctive recoiling on the part of the politically correct notwithstanding, this decision on the part of the British authorities makes perfect sense. Israel has used this method for years; its national airline, El Al, has a policy of singling out young Arabs for extensive search procedures. As a result, they have gone nearly thirty years without a hijacking. Likewise, profiling middle eastern men would have gained all nineteen 9/11 hijackers special attention – attention which may very well have ended up making all the difference in the world.
When there is a demonstrable threat from a particular demographic, then it is only logical that people who fit that profile should receive closer scrutiny. For example, if I rob a bank or convenience store, it would make perfect sense for the police, in their search for the culprit – in this case, a white male – to be suspicious of other white males, and to target them more closely for possible investigation. It would not make sense, though, for those police to also shake down African-American males, white females, etc., for the sole purpose of not hurting my, or other white males’, feelings. Likewise, the airport security practice of randomly searching elderly women, young children, and other people who do not even remotely fit the profile of a possible terrorist, for the sole purpose of not offending the Middle Eastern/Muslim population, is similarly illogical.
The highest-ranking Muslim in British law enforcement, Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, spoke out against the initiative, telling the Guardian that, in his opinion, passenger screening “becomes hugely problematic when it's based on ethnicity, religion and country of origin…I don't think there's a stereotypical image of a terrorist."
The problem, though Mr. Dizaei, CAIR, and others refuse to acknowledge it, is that there is, in fact, a “stereotypical image of a terrorist” – and to ignore that truth, simply out of fear of offending people, is to leave ourselves open to greater danger.
Profiling is certainly not the be-all, end-all of national security and counter-terror protocol; after all, it is easy to list terrorists who have either been non-Muslim or non-Middle Eastern. However, for every individual like Richard Reid, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Jose Padilla who commits (or plans to commit) an act of terror, there are exponentially more terrorists of Middle Eastern descent, such as the 27 now captured in the London bombing plot, the 19 hijackers from 9/11, the 17 arrested in the plot to blow up Canada’s parliament and to behead the Prime Minister, the Madrid bombers, the Bali nightclub bombers, the “Fantastic 4” of the 7/7 bombings in London, and countless others.
While profiling in and of itself cannot ensure the safety of our skies, our motorways, or other aspects of our lives any more than any other individual tactic, it can – and should – be yet another tool in the figurative tool kit of law enforcement, the TSA, and the general public. It is true that all terrorists are not young Muslim males of Middle Eastern descent. However, until it is no longer the case that far more terrorists fit that description than not, profiling is a tactic which must not only be allowed, but encouraged.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Harold Ford Pretends To Be A Republican — Comments (25) »
In defense of Profiling 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
because I am literally the only person posting right now.
I'm talking to myself on Redstate. Good times. I guess it's time to hit the hay.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Since I started getting up every day at 5:45 am for a brisk walk at 6, my late night and early morning posts will be limited to when I can't sleep very well on a given night.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Airports and airlines DO use profiling. The points system they use is not public or terrorists would simply game the system. For the same reason I would guess it is changed fairly frequently. But I would be surprised if it ignores national origin altogether. There is probably also a random element.
I can shed light on one part of the system. This is now so well known that I doubt I am enabling terrorists to game the system at all. People with one way tickets (especially, I think, men travelling alone) are frequently (perhaps always) "selected". Being "selected" means that at every stage you are removed from the normal lines for extra special searching. It is extremely annoying and happens to me almost every time I fly separately from my wife within the US. A friend who works in DC gets this regularly when flying on business, so the fact that I am not a citizen is probably not decisive, though it perhaps is another element in the points system.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Or is this a recent development in your career/life?
I am pretty sure they shuffle the criteria fairly regularly. It would be mad not to. I wasn't selected last time I was in the US, but travelled everywhere with my wife. If this is no longer a criterion, yipppeee. :)
Routes may be a factor too. Usually when I am travelling without my wife it is to or from DC. That is also the experience of my friend on K Street.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
this is definitely one issue on which 9/11 changed everything.
Lucky you.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Re: People with one way tickets (especially, I think, men travelling alone) are frequently (perhaps always) "selected".
Probably not always. I've done several one ways and never been hauled out just for that. One other red flag though is when (apparently) one way arrangements are made at the last minute. I had a flight cancelled due to weather once, and was rebooked on a different airline the next day (which made it look as if I were flying one way) and that earned me the treatment.
Both going to Virginia in a puddle-jumper, and out to California in a 727 or 737, I got "selected" and got nearly strip-searched and wanded and all that jive. At Logan, the security people told my group and me to come to a seperate line since our flight to VA was leaving soon and we needed to board. I got thoroughly searched, shoes checked, etc, and so did my friend, who's a white female (I look more Greek than Middle Eastern, but I digress). Noone else in her family got searched, and we ended up missing the flight by about 60.4574 seconds.
It made no sense to me, seeing as that I look like I'm 15 and would pass for an Italian or Greek before an Arab (I'm Armenian/British). I mean I probably stood out since her whole family is white, but yeah. And the same thing happened out to California, except this time I was the only one who got searched. I figured the first time I just got the ticket that says to be searched, but after the second time, I was even confused and just annoyed.
I can't remember the airline it happened on, but whenever I fly to Kansas City alone on Midwest to visit family, this never happens. Not only does it not happen, I get free cookies and plush leather chairs ^_^
My problem with 'racial' profiling is simple: Races don't exist. They are an imaginary construct that has been the invented justification for the greatest evils in American history.
I don't think we can afford to institutionalize racism in any possible way, for any reason.
And fortunately I don't think we need to. When we can get the same effect as you're hoping to get by profiling based on countries (being from certain countries or having travelled to them), religious sects (ahem), and things like that.
So as for Republicans, I think we need to be principled here, and continue to oppose all forms of institutional racism in America. Despite the terrible mistake the Supreme Court made in the Michigan cases, in the public we have the momentum with the California Civil Rights Initative, and the fight against the establishment with the Michigan equivalent.
The War on Terror isn't going to last forever. Let's not fight it in a way that will set us back 50 years once it's over.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...but that doesn't make it a figment of the imagination. People self-identify culturally, and convey a lot of information about themselves by their demeanor, how they dress, how they act. All of these things are observable and to the extent we can use them to increase our odds of stopping a potential perpetrator, we should.
Race may not exist, but if you choose 10 al Qaeda suicide bombers and put them in a room with 90 typical domestic airline passengers, I'll bet I can pretty accurately sort the people into two groups.
Will I miss potential terrorists? Maybe. Will I wrongly place some innocent people under suspicion? Probably so. Have I greatly increased my odds of catching at least one bad guy, compared to sampling all the passengers at random? Without a doubt.
The problem is that you're assuming our enemy won't adapt to your strategy.
Hasn't the lawsuit over the unnamed Terrorist Surveillance Program proven otherwise?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The London would be bombers included a married couple with an infant, normally a subset you would exclude from profiling (undoubtedly that was their strategy). And they will be able to recruit outside of their target demographic - we can't do anything about that - but we must force them to worry about the effectiveness of our methods.
But random hassling of passengers is a waste of resources. And as comparatively lax as security was pre-9/11, the hijackers still had to plan to carry box cutters (which anyone could have done at the time), not Uzis.
Let's say we have a method that is only 80% effective - it lets 20% of potential hijackers slip through. A 5 man squad ( a la 9/11) would escape detection only 3 times in 10,000 attempts -- thereby forcing the bad guys to work alone or in smaller, less effective groups to have a chance of succeeding.
My point being, given the choice between random sampling to avoid offending certain groups, and some sort of profiling/observational strategy that is more selective but still less than 100%, give me profiling any day.
While race may or may not be a construct, we have a fuzzy logic understanding of race. It is not hard for me to pick out someone that appears to be middle eastern, and only a few more steps to confirm this. Don't call it race, if you don't want to. How about profiling based on appearance?
There are two questions that have to be answered.
How does such profiling set us back or qualify as racism?
How can national origin account for natural born citizens of other countries who are nevertheless of middle eastern muslim descent?
Thanks,
absentee
Profiling based on apperance would be much less corrosive than introducing 'race into it I think. Go for it, because then at least there's no illusions that we're working based on the prejudices of the observers, for better or for worse.
Note when I say 'prejudice' I don't say it like a lefty does, full of bitter contempt. I mean it matter of factly, in a way that most people say 'common sense.'
As for your questions
1. How does the institutionalization of 'race' NOT qualify as 'racism?' That is, unless you've been fully indoctrinated in modern lefty multiculturalist thought, in which only the 'bad' things count as 'racism,' but the 'good things are just normal?
2. It can't. But I thought we wanted to profile based on the patterns of past attacks, in which the attackers were immigrants from select middle eastern countries?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As for number two, I believe the specification was middle eastern descent, not necessarily birth.
For number one, profiling is not institutionalization of race. For that matter, what does institutionalization of race even mean? Our race is specified by the social security administration. Is racism therefore institutional? Our race is specified on our drivers licenses. Our passports. To say that using race as a means of identification is racism is to stretch the definition all the way to utterly useless.
In order to accept the premise that profiling is racism, one must first accept the premise that there is something inherently unsavory about identifying people by their race. Personally, I don't see how it can be avoided. Every time I look at someone, I assume a race. After all, I have vision.
I'm not being dismissive, and I'm certainly not associating your position with that of the left. I simply can't find any moral objection to identifying race. It's there, we all see it. Furthermore, we can and DO draw conclusions about behavior based on race every day. Call it stereotyping, that's fine with me. But it is effective. Averages and patterns will make themselves apparent to you whether you find them distasteful or not. As grown-ups we are able to recognize them without falling prey to the ridiculous idea that it applies to every single person of that race.
I don't feel bad about generalizations. Not in casual conversation, not in debates, and certainly not at airport checkpoints. I'm not interested in fair. Life isn't fair.
If you're interested, I have several times in the past, both here at redstate and at my own blog, pointed out that I think race and associated patterns are really a reflection of a culture. And in as much as a culture is specific to a race, it's a result of societal influence.
But I don't think that's material to racial profiling at airports. The causes of group behavior don't matter to the person looking for a bomb.
If someone looks like they may be from a muslim country, I want them and their luggage selected and searched. I could care less about "profiling". If 4 young males with shaved heads and tattoos are driving around my neighborhood, I want their car stopped and searched and warrants run. You call it profiling, I call it common sense.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I'm arguing against the "racial" part of "racial profiling."
Whatever guys, I'm sick of having to explain that over and over again.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Until 80 year old grandmothers who attend church every Sunday start blowing up planes or themselves in crowded malls, it is a waste of time and money to "select" them for extra screening.
I do think we have to be careful not to overly rely on how a person "looks" or even where their citizenship is (after all some of the muslims arrested in the UK had UK citizenship), but it is a good place to start. I actually agree with Neil, and I suspect that the type of profiling done is probably more along the lines anyway, other than a straight "he looke arab."
As for extra screening, my mother in law has been selected three times for extra screening.
A friend of mine-30ish year old white woman, with a baby was selected for extra screening.
I am not sure that either was a good use of time.
...it sure has spawned some profitable new businesses. Yes, "Race" is a sociological construct, but "tribes" and "ethnicities" are not. They are the result of hundreds upon hundreds of generations of differentiating histories, customs, natural selections and handed-down stories; and, with each generation there are subtle differentiations that make each tribe and clan more "different" from other tribes and clans. In the age of tribes and clans, the Y chromosome was shared amongst all males in a tribe. Neighboring tribes shared partial traits. Tribes separated by great distances were more differentiated from each other than neighbors, unless of course a tribe had the misfortune of being visited by Ghengis Khan. In the grand scheme of things, we are not far removed from our tribal origins.
Today, a simple blood test can discern a person's ancestral ethnicity, sometimes to the surname level. To deny that there are legitimate differentiating bases in which profiling is the most prudent course of action for the greater safety and preservation of people is absurd.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
-Theodore Roosevelt
It's more scientifically sound to talk about populations than the older categories of "race." For example, East Africans and West Africans, though looking similar, tend to be pretty different as far as genetics go. Or so I remember from my single semester of physical anthropology lo these many years ago.
All of which isn't really germane to issues of law enforcement since in the end Islam is a religion with plenty of white converts. Indeed, the converts are on the whole more likely to be useful because they've already proven enough commitment to turn their back on everything they've believed to join the faith.
Nobody was aruging against profiling that I can tell. Are you implying that without 'race' there can be no profiling?
ARe some people here treating 'racial profiling' as an indivisible phrase that refers to all categorizations of people into groups of varying suspicion levels?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The greatest irony in all this hubub about "profiling" is that the economic engine of our society, commerce, is based more and more on "profiling" every day. Both Madison Avenue and Hollywood slice and dice our demographics every single day; and not only do they seek to find audiences/customer bases, they seek to make and keep them more discernable and differentiated.
Many of those who discuss how to better make each of us "fit" better into different demographics are the same ones who are making the most noise against profiling of any sort. They manipulate pop culture, morality, sexual behavior and a host of other human traits every day, but God forbid that sane people wish to use the same statistical tools and models to protect themselves.
If there were any sort of market opportunity that arose from the practice of profiling at airports, I'd be willing to wager that most of us would be getting on planes a lot faster and keeping our shoes on in the process. The likely "bad guys" would be inconvenienced. Big deal: I suffer the effects of Madison Avenue profiling every day. For instance, boom boxes "inconvenience" me all the time, thanks to the creation and solidification of an artificial demographic.
This whole discussion is not only ironic, it's absurd. The very fact that we do not profile is indicative of a disfunctional society.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
-Theodore Roosevelt
Whether or not to profile isn't the question here. The question is whether to profile based on 'race' or not.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Let's ask our Congresscritters whether or not they have behind the scenes discussions of segmenting the electorate by demographics that always include and often focus solely on race. They do. I've participated in so many of these planning meetings I could not possibly count them all.
Every demographic tool used in each and every Congressional campaign to determine "likely persuadable voters" should be available, free from poltically correct condemnation, in every aspect of our society. Every sort of discussion regarding voter targeting that goes on behind closed doors in every Congressional campaign should be on the table for use wherever and whenever our security is at stake. NTSB employees should be profiling in every way conceivable and able to utilize every factor available, including artificial constructs like "race."
There is nothing more bothersome to me than those who would have us be hypocritical to the death. For as long as grannies in wheelchairs are being inconvenienced in the name of political correctness, then I think that Congressional redistricting should be done by elementary school children on the basis of their favorite shapes and political campaigns should be forced to use Zagat Restaurant Guides rather than demographic statistics for use in planning their campaigns.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
-Theodore Roosevelt
There is a large difference between an advertising firm making guesswork from data trying to sell you something and the government choosing when to search you. What a private firm does to increase its market share is its choice, and it can affect you or not, you can choose to buy or not. When the man with the gun, with the weight of the government behind him, asks you to step out of line and open your briefcase, it's a tad different than freely deciding which demographically-motivated toothpaste to buy.
That said, I do marvel at the irony that only in America can a man say in the same breath that a) racial profiling works and b) we promise never to do it. (I remember a statement like this from a few years ago from Congressional hearings after 9/11 on airline security)
I look at El Al's success and history and think that the concept of "points" or whatever is used to select passengers for extra screening should and must include race. It's foolish not to, and if affirmative action can allow for "recognition" of race, I don't see why security can't.
I think you may have missed this in the original (emphasis added):
Both Madison Avenue and Hollywood slice and dice our demographics every single day; and not only do they seek to find audiences/customer bases, they seek to make and keep them more discernable and differentiated.
Using demographic data in marketing is far from "guesswork," it's manipulating the statistically possible toward the statistically probable using known past and current behavior. There is not one bit of difference between the conversations at advertising agencies and those in political campaign planning sessions as far as the open discussion of influencing behavior by manipulating race and racial cues.
No, they don't call it "profiling" on Madison Avenue, but they do use the term "demographic segment" or "demographic profile." They seek to reinforce them to promote brand loyalty, and even do create them from time to time. So, we have different unofficial brands of cigarettes and beer for white folks and black folks.
The only difference is that when law enforcement uses identical methodologies, it's politically incorrect. Were there were "new product launch" sized dollars involved in profiling at our airports, someone would coin a new term for it that would be deemed unoffensive.
We live in a society that is based on profiles. It's a bit harder to distinguish than say, the caste system, but it is a fact of life. And there really is no justification for not using it to save lives and property, aside from the culturally Marxist ones falling under the ever broadening banner that is poltical correctness.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
-Theodore Roosevelt
Certainly it's reasonable to assume the contrary point of view I replied to was meant as an argument against the utitlity of racial profiling, and certainly it is reasonable to assume that I was replying to that with a shorthand comment that I could reasonable assume would be taken in the context of the debate.
But if I must spell it out, then no, I'm not saying there is no profiling outside of race. I'm addressing the topic at hand, which is clearly racial profiling.
absentee
...actually TALK TO PEOPLE and see if what they're saying makes any sense. If someone is nervous, and says they have reservations at a certain hotel, that the interviewer knows costs $500 per day, minimum, but everything this person's wearing looks like it came from a Goodwill thrift store, then something's wrong. Maybe this person doesn't think they'll be around to need a hotel room, and just came up with a hotel name off the cuff. The interviewer then might ask how much money the person has with them. Any credit cards? Can we see them? Bottom line, this person is going to be climbing a lot of new hurtles before they ever get on any plane--if they get on.
Instead of trying to dummy up categories for things, why not just let investigators use their judgement?
I mean, if you're worried about ACLU and CAIR lawsuits, you're not going to do any profiling to begin with, so just let people use their instincts without writing any specific categories down.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As long as we're not writing 'race' into the system, I'm fine with it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I am all for profiling, but even with confidential and ever changing profiles, people can learn to game the system. It is better to have a random element as well.
Don't forget the failures of profiling. Psychological profilers have always believed that serial killers invariably kill within their own racial group. Thus the DC shooters were able to evade capture because the police had a profile which said the killer would be white.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Someone - I do not remember who, said: Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
We can't afford to rely solely on a profile, nor can we afford to be totally random. We must concentrate more, but not all assets, on the most likely profile and keep everyone guessing. Consistent inconsistency sounds right!
Seminole 6, out
Proper at times, horrid at others. So run the vagaries of the English language in the hands, or mouths, of liberals.
Redefine a word thru usage and it saves then the trouble of argument, a sort of verbal bomb meant to terminate disagreement. Profile is a little tricky for them, the US Census Bureau has a habit of doing it and it's quite alright to use in pursuit of criminals other than Muslim terrorists, some crimes being more equal than others.
In the meantime we get to observe liberals doing with words what the do with morality and politics, run around like hungry squirrels looking for a lost nut while they use the word and practice what it entails and then condemm it.
Maybe we could borrow the liberal who changed "reverse discrimmination" into "affirmative action". Change terms and throw them off the scent for a little while.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The US has a long history of racial profiling for national security ends. During my time in the USAF and as a holder of an SCI clearance, I had to report any contact with any national of a certain list - many of which were South Asian countries.
I served at a different time and had to report contacts with anyone from an Eastern Bloc country, the fact that my fencing coach was Polish didn't help much. What you're talking about really isn't racial profiling
Profiling by Race - Not happening now and a bad idea. There is a very weak correlation between race and terrorism. It is a total waste of time. There are Muslims of every race.
Profiling by National Orgin - Something we currently do and a good idea. There are many threats out there this will not protect us against though. If someone is a citizen of the UK, that does not mean they aren't a terrorist threat. Even if someone is a citizen of the US, it doesn't mean they aren't a threat. There is a stronger correlation here than by race, but there are far too many threats with EU citizenship for this to be that effective.
Profiling by Religion - Something we don't do now but should do. There is a direct relationship here between religion and terrorist activity. Nearly everyone involved in terrorism is Muslim.
Now, it is not easy to identify Muslims, unless you operate off a list. This is a list we should be maintaining, just as we maintained lists of members of the SDS, Black Panthers, and other radical organizations in the 60s and 70s. Now, not everybody who was a member of those groups were going to be committing acts of domestic terrorism, but nearly everyone who was going to be out committing acts of domestic terrorism was a member of one of those groups. It is irresponsible to not be maintaining such a list in the name of Political Correctness.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
...of profiling, I would, in this case, largely group together "Race" and "National origin." Middle-eastern descent, while not an absolute indicator, is common enough in perpetrators and planners of terrorist acts that Race and National Origin should both be taken into account.
Religious profiling is a slightly different animal; however, while profession of faith in Islam is a commonality shared by the majority of terrorists, this (or national origin) cannot be treated as mutually exclusive indicators.
Like it or not, racially profiling middle eastern men would have gained all 19 9/11 hijackers special attention -- attention which may have ended up making all the difference in the world.
Middle-eastern descent, while not an absolute indicator, is common enough in perpetrators and planners of terrorist acts that Race and National Origin should both be taken into account.
There are a whole lot of different races in the Middle East, and many people belonging to those races are not Muslims. If we want to catch terrorists, we also have to watch out for Asians and Africans (again, of the Muslim variety). There have also been enough Westerners that have converted to Islam and pose a threat.
Religious profiling is a slightly different animal; however, while profession of faith in Islam is a commonality shared by the majority of terrorists, this (or national origin) cannot be treated as mutually exclusive indicators.
Majority? It goes way past that. Islam provides the motivation for almost every one of terrorists and supporters of terrorism. They can recruit Europeans and Americans Muslims easily enough, but they would have an extremely difficult task in recruiting nonbelievers. If you aren't killing the infidels and aren't going to get your 72 virgins, why would you want to accept a martyrdom mission?
Like it or not, racially profiling middle eastern men would have gained all 19 9/11 hijackers special attention -- attention which may have ended up making all the difference in the world.
Unlikely. In order to cast a wide enough net to catch the Indonesians, Pakistanis, Somalians, Saudi Arabians, Palestinians, Turks, and Iranians that might be involved in terrorist activity, you would end up with a profile that basically consists of: anyone who isn't white gets stopped. That would render the profile useless. That is not a good strategy IMO. Not only is it highly offensive, it is also very ineffective.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
It is a negative... But I certainly agree inasmuch as it isn't my highest priority either.
My biggest problem with it is that there is no racial profile for Islamofascist terrorists. Certainly not one that could be applied to a security screening checkpoint without pulling a large portion of the passengers out of the line.
There is also no cause/effect relationship with race, as there is with religion, so it is harder to justify and inherently much less fair than screening on religion. You'll certainly be pulling out Hindus and Christians and Jews and everybody else... people who pose no threat.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Could have saved me a bit of time this morning by using that title to begin with, Jeff.
Oh that's funny, the difference one word makes.
Have fun,
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
And are you supposed to be awake this early? I haven't even gone to bed yet!
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"