Racial Profiling Or Legitimate Grounds For Suspicion And Arrest?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The terrorists generally don't arrive with flowing robes, turbans, and wild beards, clutching the Koran in one hand and a bomb in the other.

I don't think screening for race should be the sole factor but can't it be one of them? You are correct, it's doubtful that future terrorists will arrive in their "dress blues." But we do know that thus far, airline bombers have INDISPUTABLY been mostly young, single Muslim men with ties to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Not a stereotype but a statistical fact.

Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty for law enforcement officials to disregard such information? Or do we waste effort, resources and everyone's time by pulling out of line children, grandparents and passengers with decades of airline usage?
 
INDY500 said:

Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty for law enforcement officials to disregard such information? Or do we waste effort, resources and everyone's time by pulling out of line children, grandparents and passengers with decades of airline usage?

I think Man Coulter has proposed the same thing.
Isn't this unconstitutional?
 
If I saw an Arab man on a plane who was acting somewhat fishy I'd naturallly kee an eye on him. It has nothng to do with racism etc.. It's pure logic that an Arab man is more likely to be a terrorist. I think most people who say they wouldn't be more weary of a Middle Eastern person on a plane is desperately trying to lie to himself or others.
 
shart1780 said:
If I saw an Arab man on a plane who was acting somewhat fishy I'd naturallly kee an eye on him. It has nothng to do with racism etc.. It's pure logic that an Arab man is more likely to be a terrorist. I think most people who say they wouldn't be more weary of a Middle Eastern person on a plane is desperately trying to lie to himself or others.

Your statement is disgusting, racist, and employs dangerous logic. :|

If you can't see that, let's change 'Arab' and 'Middle Eastern person' to 'black man' and change 'terrorist' to 'thief' and see what happens, eh?
 
Axver said:


Your statement is disgusting, racist, and employs dangerous logic. :|

If you can't see that, let's change 'Arab' and 'Middle Eastern person' to 'black man' and change 'terrorist' to 'thief' and see what happens, eh?
Change it to Muslim, since converts are overrepresented in terrorist plots I think that makes the racism argument a little bit flawed.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Change it to Muslim, since converts are overrepresented in terrorist plots I think that makes the racism argument a little bit flawed.

Then it's not racist, it's flat-out discriminatory and stupid.

The whole "Muslims are terrorists so let's profile them" argument just doesn't hold water. So few Muslims are terrorists that they are a statistically insignificant minority, so profiling Muslims is just a waste of time. And anyway, the "terrorists are Muslims" logic comes from a selective view of history. If you're from, say, Ireland, Muslims certainly aren't the first group you should be worried about when it comes to terrorism. And who launched the only terrorist attack to ever happen on New Zealand soil? The French government.
 
So few Muslims are terrorists that they are a statistically insignificant minority,
Not when it comes to todays terrorist attacks, the foiled plots with the intent to kill large numbers of civilians comes from Muslim extremists and the unifying factor is their faith and generally age and sex. It is willfull ignorance to make a case against profiling on the basis of religion because you claim it will be ineffective. Race, now that is a innefective marker - it wouldn't get people like David Hicks, Jack Roche or Jack Thomas ~ all white, male and Muslim converts.

I think that airlines should be able to set security limits; if people are willing to fly on a pork and booze airline where the hostesses are topless and you have to tounge a member of the same sex before entry or if you are opposed to such a thing in principle fly on a different airline.

Not all terrorist attacks are the same and we should distinguish between organisations of a nationalist or religio-political nature. The Palestinian terrorists in the 60's and 70's were not part of the death cult of the suicide bomber and when they hijacked a plane they would not just murder everybody on board, they are a step removed from the likes of Hamas or "Al Qaeda".

We live in the now, not all Muslims are terrorists but a solid majority of terrorists are Muslims. Given restricted security resources they should be used in the most effective manner; I think that a straight out Muslims only line is not the way to go about it but factoring religion into security assessment should be considered.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Not when it comes to todays terrorist attacks, the foiled plots with the intent to kill large numbers of civilians comes from Muslim extremists and the unifying factor is their faith and generally age and sex.

The part of my post you quoted referred not to the ratio of Muslim terrorists to non-Muslim terrorists, but the ratio of Muslims who are terrorists to Muslims who are not terrorists. How many hundreds of Muslims have undertaken terrorist attacks? How many millions of Muslims are in the world? Terrorists constitute a statistically insignificant minority of the total Muslim population, so any profiling of Muslims is going to be largely ineffective and will just identify the thousands of ordinary Muslims who haven't a damn clue how to make a bomb. I don't see how that constitutes wilfull ignorance at all.

Now, if religion is going to factor into security measures, whether it is "Muslim only" lines or just factored into assessments or anything in between, any terrorist worth their salt is going to not claim to be Muslim. You'd probably do a far better job finding terrorists if you tried to identify who's pretending to be a Christian. I'm sure any terrorist would be quite happy to exclaim "praise Jesus!" and eat a bit of pork served by a topless waitress if they got to send a thousand "infidels" to Allah ten minutes later.
 
but the ratio of Muslims who are terrorists to Muslims who are not terrorists
Is much higher than the ratio of non-Muslim fliers to non-Muslim terrorists in countries like Australia. Perhaps the name Mohammed should be; since coincidently most every terrorist plot either carried out or foiled has involved at least one man named Mohammed.
 
Ultimately I think that the concept of hijacking is moot, no passenger would allow it to happen post-September 11, the risk from portable explosive devices may one day be ameliorated by hi-tech scanners and chemical sniffers; I am much more at ease with those devices than bag checks or CCTV - especially on public transport.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Change it to Muslim, since converts are overrepresented in terrorist plots I think that makes the racism argument a little bit flawed.

The flaw in this argument is that you can't identify a person religion by profiling. You don't recognize a person's faith by their appearance. Lying about religion is easy, and so far no one has challenged as too movie like that future terrorists might travel with forged travel documents and assumed, Anglicized names.

You know I'm not totally opposed to profiling, as politically incorrect as that may be. I think it makes sense for security to take a little more time with young men coming out of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But the ideas of demagogues like Gallagher are just fearmongering and ill-disguised racial/religious prejudice.
 
Axver said:


Then it's not racist, it's flat-out discriminatory and stupid.

The whole "Muslims are terrorists so let's profile them" argument just doesn't hold water. So few Muslims are terrorists that they are a statistically insignificant minority, so profiling Muslims is just a waste of time. And anyway, the "terrorists are Muslims" logic comes from a selective view of history. If you're from, say, Ireland, Muslims certainly aren't the first group you should be worried about when it comes to terrorism. The French government.

Here's the difference.
1) SAVING lives (including Muslim lives) should be the goal of airline security, not sensitivity.
2) Ethnicity would be only one of many factors.
3) Screening would not be based on bigotry but on statistics, history and most of all COMMON SENSE. Statistics that may change over time but today tell us; not all Muslims are terrorists but all the terrorists are Muslim.

To use your example. If next week a plot to blowup jet airliners by Irish terrorists was uncovered--I'd hope we'd begin screening for red hair, freckles and an Irish brogue at our airports.
 
shart1780 said:
If I saw an Arab man on a plane who was acting somewhat fishy I'd naturallly kee an eye on him. It has nothng to do with racism etc.. It's pure logic that an Arab man is more likely to be a terrorist. I think most people who say they wouldn't be more weary of a Middle Eastern person on a plane is desperately trying to lie to himself or others.

Would you keep an eye on a white person acting fishy on a plane?
 
INDY500 said:


Here's the difference.
1) SAVING lives (including Muslim lives) should be the goal of airline security, not sensitivity.
2) Ethnicity would be only one of many factors.
3) Screening would not be based on bigotry but on statistics, history and most of all COMMON SENSE. Statistics that may change over time but today tell us; not all Muslims are terrorists but all the terrorists are Muslim.

To use your example. If next week a plot to blowup jet airliners by Irish terrorists was uncovered--I'd hope we'd begin screening for red hair, freckles and an Irish brogue at our airports.

Exactly what does a Muslim look like?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Exactly what does a Muslim look like?

What does an Italian look like? Yet somehow back in the 80's the Justice Dept managed to break apart the mafia crime families of the East Coast with the aid of the RICO Act, wiretaps (the horror!) and surveillance of...(drum role please)...males of Italian heritage.
 
INDY500 said:


What does an Italian look like? Yet somehow back in the 80's the Justice Dept managed to break apart the mafia crime families of the East Coast with the aid of the RICO Act, wiretaps (the horror!) and surveillance of...(drum role please)...males of Italian heritage.
Heritage and religion is completely different, surely you know this...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Heritage and religion is completely different, surely you know this...

Different but very often linked. For example Italians are (I admit I had to look the exact percentage up) 90% Roman Catholic. Most Muslim's have a North African, South Asia or Middle East origin.

On the other hand, there is a Jewish religion, ethnicity and nationality but not all Jews fall into all these catagories.

Who said humans aren't a diverse species?
 
INDY500 said:

Different but very often linked. For example Italians are (I admit I had to look the exact percentage up) 90% Roman Catholic. Most Muslim's have a North African, South Asia or Middle East origin.

On the other hand, there is a Jewish religion, ethnicity and nationality but not all Jews fall into all these catagories.

Who said humans aren't a diverse species?

But the converse is not true. The regions you mention also have very sizeable populations of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Shinto, etc.
 
INDY500 said:
Different but very often linked. For example Italians are (I admit I had to look the exact percentage up) 90% Roman Catholic. Most Muslim's have a North African, South Asia or Middle East origin.
I don't understand how this answers BVS' question?

Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment...I'll admit I don't know much about how the Justice Department identified "Italian heritage," but I'll bet they went mostly by last name. Italians come in all different skintones, hair and eye colors (as do Irish people, BTW--most of them do NOT have red hair, nor lots of freckles) and trying to pick them out that way would be pretty much a lost cause. Surnames are hardly foolproof as indicators of Italian-ness, but they would be more reliable than appearance, and you could probably apply this same principle to people of Arab heritage as well as those of North African heritage, who very often have "Arabized" surnames. Again, racial/ethnic profiling as conventionally understood would be a lost cause here, though--as anyone who's been to the Middle East can attest, a great many Arabs do not look distinctly different from other "Mediterraneans," and North Africans are a very diverse-looking lot as well.

Identifing "Pakistani heritage" on the other hand, that I can't imagine how you would do at all. "Pakistani" is merely a nationality, not a racial or ethnic category, and most Pakistanis do not have Arabized surnames, but rather "typically" Central/South Asian ones--as do, of course, hundreds of millions of Hindus, who do not "look different" from Pakistanis (whatever that means, since Central and South Asia are home to hundreds of different ethnic groups). Pakistani personal names are more likely to be distinctly Islamic-sounding, but only somewhat. On the other side of the border, many Afghans and Iranians also "look like" many Pakistanis, and again there is much surname overlap. Yes, there are a few surnames strongly enough associated with Pakistan that the likelihood of anyone with that surname being of "Pakistani heritage" would be quite high. But that's not the majority. So, the only reasonably effective way I could imagine for rooting out people of "Pakistani heritage" would be to cast the far, far broader net of simply scrutinizing all Central/South Asian -looking/-surnamed people, period.

Furthermore, the world's largest Muslim country is Indonesia, home to more than 300 ethnic groups...so what happens if/when the terrorists start recruiting from there?

Frankly, from a purely logistical standpoint (and again, setting aside the ethical issues), I think A_W's idea of religious profiling makes a lot more sense. But as maycocksean said...how would you verify something like that?
 
I'd also add that I would imagine the FBI investigators looking into the mob weren't casting a wide net looking for Mafia members because they had no idea was in the Mafia. I mean they had a pretty good idea of which individuals, families etc had connections to the mob, right? I'm not sure broad-based profiling was even necessary in that situation.

Or were the reported cases of people being pulled over for DWI (Driving While Italian)?
 
Clearly, all Muslims should be subject to automatic house arrest, and made to wear special badges indicating their allegiance.
 
Frankly, from a purely logistical standpoint (and again, setting aside the ethical issues), I think A_W's idea of religious profiling makes a lot more sense. But as maycocksean said...how would you verify something like that?
That is exactly the point I was going at; but in the absence of any or any want for a government profiling of people by religion it is also very difficult to achieve, and even if such profiling was attempted I would want it to be left up to the individual carriers - but that simply isn't how the airline industry works or will work so we are stuck with the innefective screening techniques that we use today - we can't get it done with those, the money needs to be invested in effective technologies that can be use uniformly and efficiently.
 
So--I'm a bit confused--do you conclude we're "stuck with" screening technologies because you don't think the political will exists to commence religious profiling, or because you don't think religious profiling could feasibly be implemented, period? (And if your answer is no, it could be effectively implemented if we wanted to...then how would we go about ensuring that it worked, and that there wouldn't be some fairly easy ways around the system?)
 
I don't think that it can be implemented and I don't think that it would be as effective as potential (but currently prohibitavely expensive or underdeveloped) screening technologies that can identify potentially harmful substances.

If ever a regime of religious profiling was introduced I would want that to be left up to individual airlines and not be madatory and enforced by the state; ID cards with religious affiliation and biometric data are thoroughly undesirable ends.
 
maycocksean said:
I'd also add that I would imagine the FBI investigators looking into the mob weren't casting a wide net looking for Mafia members ...
Well, that's profiling. You start by eliminating suspects until you get to 'most likely' or 'highly suspicious.' Can we do that at airports at least? Not start with 'who might blowup a plane', but start with 'who isn't going to blowup a plane' and work down the list the other way.

Two other points.
I'm not asking for any kind of search or attention that I haven't been through myself. Flying home from Germany 2 years ago I was asked to step out from the back of a line of close to 50 travelers. It was explained very professionally that if I allowed security to ask me some questions and search all my bags I would be placed at the front of the line. "Great", I had nothing to hide and it did indeed jump me to the head of a long line.
Whether it was because I was alone, looked nervous to someone or was purely random I'll never know. If there was a reward attached, would it be OK?

Also this related to the spoiled British terror plot.

"Ultimately the current plot, if proven to be true, was identified through profiling. Certain groups were kept under surveillance more than others," said Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International. "I do not believe that the British authorities are surveilling every person every day of their life monitoring every person's activities. They are targeting their resources at the areas of greatest concern. That is what we should be doing at the airport security checkpoint."

Aviation Security International Magazine. Some right-wing kook publication no doubt.
:wink:
 
shart1780 said:
If I saw an Arab man on a plane who was acting somewhat fishy I'd naturallly kee an eye on him. It has nothng to do with racism etc.. It's pure logic that an Arab man is more likely to be a terrorist. I think most people who say they wouldn't be more weary of a Middle Eastern person on a plane is desperately trying to lie to himself or others.
I guess this arab behaves fishy because everyone is watching him and don`t want to talk to him.
 
INDY500 said:

Aviation Security International Magazine. Some right-wing kook publication no doubt.
:wink:


Usually, non-random searches have been ruled unconstituional - e.g. in traffic stops and checkpoints.
The US - a country without a Constitution no doubt :wink: .
 
Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed

Passengers refuse to allow holiday jet to take off until two Asian men are thrown off plane


By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE and ANDREW CHAPMAN

12:08pm 20th August 2006

The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.

The incident fuels the row over airport security following the arrest of more than 20 people allegedly planning the suicide-bombing of transatlantic jets from the UK to America. It comes amid growing demands for passenger-profiling and selective security checks.

It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 'passenger profiles'.

The passenger revolt came as Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary was accused of using the terror crisis to make money. Government sources say he boasted to an official at the Transport Department: "Every time I appear on TV, I get a spike in sales."

The Tories said the Government's failure to reassure travellers had led the Malaga passengers to 'behave irrationally' and 'hand a victory to terrorists'.

Websites used by pilots and cabin crew were yesterday reporting further incidents. In one, two British women with young children on another flight from Spain complained about flying with a bearded Muslim even though he had been security-checked twice before boarding.

The trouble in Malaga flared last Wednesday as two British citizens in their 20s waited in the departure lounge to board the pre-dawn flight and were heard talking what passengers took to be Arabic. Worries spread after a female passenger said she had heard something that alarmed her.

Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly checking their watches.

Initially, six passengers refused to board the flight. On board the aircraft, word reached one family. To the astonishment of cabin crew, they stood up and walked off, followed quickly by others.

The Monarch pilot - a highly experienced captain - accompanied by armed Civil Guard police and airport security staff, approached the two men and took their passports.

Half an hour later, police returned and escorted the two Asian passengers off the jet.

'There was no fuss or panic'

Soon afterwards, the aircraft was cleared while police did a thorough security sweep. Nothing was found and the plane took off - three hours late and without the two men on board.

Monarch arranged for them to spend the rest of the night in an airport hotel and flew them back to Manchester later on Wednesday.

College lecturer Jo Schofield, her husband Heath and daughters Emily, 15, and Isabel, 12, were caught up in the passenger mutiny.

Mrs Schofield, 38, said: "The plane was not yet full and it became apparent that people were refusing to board. In the gate waiting area, people had been talking about these two, who looked really suspicious with their heavy clothing, scruffy, rough, appearance and long hair.

"Some of the older children, who had seen the terror alert on television, were starting to mutter things like, 'Those two look like they're bombers.'

"Then a family stood up and walked off the aircraft. They were joined by others, about eight in all. We learned later that six or seven people had refused to get on the plane.

"There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men.

"It was an eerie scene, very quiet. The children were starting to ask what was going on. We tried to play it down."

Mr Schofield, 40, an area sales manager, said: "When the men were taken off they didn't argue or say a word. They just picked up their coats and obeyed the police. They seemed resigned to the fact they were under suspicion.

"The captain and crew were very apologetic when we were asked to evacuate the plane for the security search. But there was no dissent.

"While we were waiting, everyone agreed the men looked dodgy. Some passengers were very panicky and in tears. There was a lot of talking about terrorists."

Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, said last night: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

"For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense."

Monarch said last night: "The captain was concerned about the security surrounding the two gentlemen on the aircraft and the decision was taken to remove them from the flight for further security checks.

"The two passengers offloaded from the flight were later cleared by airport security and rebooked to travel back to Manchester on a later flight."

A spokesman for the Civil Guard in Malaga said: "These men had aroused suspicion because of their appearance and the fact that they were speaking in a foreign language thought to be an Arabic language, and the pilot was refusing to take off until they were escorted off the plane."
 
This is a no win situation an no one will be happy no matter what the outcome is. Its beating a dead horse.

A year after 9/11 my family with 2 small children went to disney world. There were all cultures getting on the plane. We got stopped like everyone else did and they even took my son who was 4 1/2 sneakers to check the soles and made him get out of the umbrella stroller.

If that is what I have to do to protect my fellow americans then thats what I will do. There are way to many people fighting for the people here to be safe and free. No one should refuse to be checked. :|
 
Back
Top Bottom