posted 01-16-2003 12:50 PM            

There's a very practical reason to oppose it: it doesn't work and it leaves you vulnerable to anyone with the intelligence to use it against you. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that these profiles actually work.

During the 1990's the US Government was sued because the Customs Service used a racial profile that black women coming from certain Caribbean countries were likely to be drug smugglers and were subjected to strip searches at a much higher rate than others. Clinton ordered an end to the practice and the Custom Service used other criteria to decide who to stop. The result: fewer people were searched, MORE drugs were seized, more people arrested for smuggling. The reason? White men smuggle drugs, too! The use of race as a criteria had prevented the Customs Service from doing their jobs effectively.

Using racial profiling of Middle Eastern men at airports ignores the reality that Al Qaeda contains Asians, Europeans, and Americans, and that it is practically impossible to actually determine someone's race or identity with certainty at an airport check-in counter. It also leaves us vulnerable to the next terrorist group from somewhere else.

posted 01-16-2003 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by daved:
China has weapons of mass destruction. So does N Korea and Pakistan. Those are just 3 nations who have a love affair with The U.S. such good "friends" yet there is no call for an invasion of those countries. I think the reason for the inconsistency is that for this President, Iraq is not just business, it's personal. Or perhaps, "pick on someone your own size" is in order. Prediction: there will be no invasion of Iraq until late autumn 2003. Karl Rove won't have it

---

Interesting. That's consistent with what I've heard the war planners want (i.e., to avoid fighting in the summer), but not with what most folks are saying politically. You can't keep the troops we have there deployed that long without some justification; Dubya's chances of getting UN support for any action lesson as the weeks go by without the "smoking gun" everyone's talking about. It would also seem the longer things stretch on the lower the approval ratings are going to get.

posted 01-16-2003 05:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick:

Using racial profiling of Middle Eastern men at airports ignores the reality that Al Qaeda contains Asians, Europeans, and Americans, and that it is practically impossible to actually determine someone's race or identity with certainty at an airport check-in counter. It also leaves us vulnerable to the next terrorist group from somewhere else.

---

I'm no fan of racial profiling. But, I'm also a realist. Whatever the Israelis are doing at their airports seems to be working. Seems like everybody not Jewish or Christian wants to blow up the place or one of their aircraft. And yet, El Al has had few, if any incidents. From what I've read, they do quite a bit of profiling that explicitly deals with a traveler's ethnicity. When it's predictive, it's relevant. No need to be subtle about it. Terrorism changes things. It just does.

posted 01-16-2003 07:03 PM               

But I also think it's kind of silly to say under current circumstances that airport security folks ought to treat a Danish great-grandmother with the same degree of suspicion that they bring to a 25-year-old Saudi male.

The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. What's unreasonable depends on the circumstances. The circumstances changed on 9/11. Stopping motorists because they're members of minorities is unreasonable and intolerable. Looking more closely at the carry-on bag of the young Saudi male than at that of the Danish great-grandma doesn't strike me that way.

I understand that there are many Americans of middle-eastern descent who are loyal and patriotic and as American as I am, and that they pay the price for this. That's genuinely regrettable.

Some ACLU lawyers view me as a right-wing nut because of my views on this and other issues. So it goes.

posted 01-16-2003 11:17 PM            

I have a British friend who could make a similar list about the Irish. Seems the more radical elements of the Irish Republican Army shared resources with and trained Arab terrorists in real life as well as the Tom Clancy novel/movie. Shall we include everyone who looks Irish?

posted 01-17-2003 11:56 AM               

You have to remember that Islam is a religion of peace, and as the Egyptian government said when an Egypt Air pilot plunged 300 people to their deaths, it's impossible for a Muslim to commit suicide.

posted 01-17-2003 12:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Bill,

You have to remember that Islam is a religion of peace, and as the Egyptian government said when an Egypt Air pilot plunged 300 people to their deaths, it's impossible for a Muslim to commit suicide.

Rich

---

Hey - this is sarcasm, right?
If it's not though, Bill has the word 'exteremists' in there, so he singled out a special group of muslims.

Actually, I'd have to say that searching the bags of the young saudi male more than the old danish lady does make sense.
But when I first said that racial profiling is not such a good idea I meant the special registeration program currently going on in the US. If you're a citizen of some prescribed country, you'd have to go have an interview, get photographed and fingerprinted, report again after a year, if you're leaving the country on vacation or something you have to report to an INS office at the port from which you intend to leave ON THE SAME day that you're leaving, if you change your address you have to notify the ins within 10 days, etc.

This is done purely on the basis of your country of origin. Nobody even sees you to decide whether you look suspicious like in the airport situation. You have to go through these procedures b/c you're from country X, period.

posted 01-17-2003 12:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Hammond:
MP -- "Actually, I'd have to say that searching the bags of the young saudi male more than the old danish lady does make sense."

Hearing you say this is enough for me. The other measures you relate are not entirely known to me and I would need to learn more about them -- but on first blush they do seem unfair if applied only to certain nationalities.

---

Oh, if that was all you meant, then of course it makes sense. Actually, I'm Egyptian...I've travelled quite a lot in and out after 9/11 and have never been harrassed or over-searched. So I guess there's a more complicated mechanism going on..

But as I mentioned earlier, this is what i consider to be too harsh: http://www.ins.gov/graphics/lawenfor/specialreg/index.htm#what

posted 01-17-2003 12:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MediocrePlayer:
It just doesnt strike me as an American thing. I would understand it if they do something like this In Saudia Arabia or Iraq for instance, because human rights are not as well respected as in the US. So if this starts happening in the US, I'd say its a bad sign. Maybe I'm wrong but this at least shatters the romantic image I've always had about this place, maybe because I'm primarily affected.

---

As a born-and-raised yank, I agree with you. It's not a symbolically "American" thing to do. Nor does it evoke any of the romantic images any of us have about our country.

The tricky thing about terrorism is that some of the romance of a country can get lost in the shuffle of keeping a country. While this may be a bad example for many, I know there is a certain "romance" about Israel, at least for Israelis and many Jews (as well as many Christians) worldwide. Now, go ask any reasonable Israeli if there is anything remotely romantic about dealing with terrorism. No matter the angle, it's a bad situation.

I look at it this way: is the nationality of a person a relevant predictor of terrorism against the U.S.? If yes, then inconvenience, though regretable, is understandable. The point here is that the inconvenience because of the law is de facto not de juror. So, many will have TARGETED inconvenience, but the inconvenience is coincidental to the facts, not purposeful. In this case, the government (from what I can see, rightfully) has concluded that nationality is a predictor of something. And that something requires more scrutiny.

I'm sure that's not reassuring to those affected who have a romantic image (rightly I believe) of what America is supposed to be. Sign of the times.

posted 01-17-2003 01:00 PM               

Now we have intrusions of privacy and increased bureaucracy. Worse, all they have to do is label you "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and all your rights are vaporized. No legal representation. No due process. They can hold you in some brig or in a box at Guantanamo with no charges and you can rot there. Which applies to foreign nationals or US citizens.

In that case, some INS hassles would be the least of your worries.