Racial profiling at airports

[SezMe]

Brainster, there's an old saying about the military always planning for and fighting the last war, not the next one. The same bromide applies to security. Your post is so yesterday.

 

[Brainster]

Brainster, there's an old saying about the military always planning for and fighting the last war, not the next one. The same bromide applies to security. Your post is so yesterday.

Richard Reid may not sound Islamic, but he sure looked the part.

Anyway, my argument is not that you focus exclusively on Islamic-looking faces or names. But the idea that you completely treat them the same as anybody else may be politically correct, but otherwise risible.

 

[Corsair 115]

Names often don't, actually.

Case in point: Richard Reid. (Or, if we are talking about terrorism more generally, Timothy McVeigh.)

 

[varwoche]

I'm for nationality profiling.

 

[12AX7]

Yeah, and it's not like their names would give us any kind of clue.

I served in the Army with a guy who practiced the Islamic faith (OH NOES!!!1!). His name was Tom Sullivan. I'm sure he was the only one, though.

But whatever fits your Fox "News" mentality; you go with that.

 

[Unabogie]

Nice link. To a 9-11 Truther site.



It's a total kook site; in that particular post they dredge up Kennedy assassination theories (giving nutbar Jim Garrison lots of props) and believe it or not, the ancient Dag Hammerskjold crap.

But even if you didn't know that the site was kook central, how credulous do you have to be to believe that more terrorist attacks on US soil have been carried out by Jews than Muslims? Did you have even a modest inkling that maybe, just maybe the scale might be a little off, even if somehow the number of events was comparable?

Sheesh, what a great example of non-critical thinking.

You're right in that I was not aware that the site would be considered a 9/11 truth site. However, in that post they link to such non truther sites as CNN, Wired, and the FBI statistics. For instance, US News and World Report says:

Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Muslim-American suspects or perpetrators in these or other attempted attacks fit no demographic profile—only 51 of more than 200 are of Arabic ethnicity. In 2012, all but one of the nine Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered were halted in early stages. That one, an attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, caused no casualties.

So point taken, the source I used may be a crank site. But my point still stands, there's no basis to target Muslim Americans with special screening while leaving the Christian and Jewish terrorists alone. That's just stupid.

 

[12AX7]

But my point still stands, there's no basis to target Muslim Americans with special screening while leaving the Christian and Jewish terrorists alone. That's just stupid.

You, sir, need to watch more Fox "News".

 

[Brainster]

You're right in that I was not aware that the site would be considered a 9/11 truth site. However, in that post they link to such non truther sites as CNN, Wired, and the FBI statistics. For instance, US News and World Report says:

Yeah, let's just throw in the mass shootings to make it seem like Islamo-fascists are not killing many people compared to "ordinary" Americans like Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza. But even if we accept the figures used by US News & World Report as valid, you have Muslim Americans responsible for 11% of the deaths (33/300). What percentage of Americans are Islamic? Estimates range from about 0.6% to 2.1%.

So point taken, the source I used may be a crank site. But my point still stands, there's no basis to target Muslim Americans with special screening while leaving the Christian and Jewish terrorists alone. That's just stupid.

First, we are talking about airports where Christian and Jewish and atheist terrorists have not been active. Second, I am not suggesting that we leave them alone. If they are known terrorists, certainly they should get the full treatment. And on a random basis, all types of passengers should occasionally be singled out. But to say that everybody should be treated exactly the same is political correctness run amok.

 

[Lensman]

How would you treat someone with the name Mohamed Farah?



AKA Mo Farah British Olympic medal winner.

Or a bit closer to home (in the USA) Mohammed Ali?

A little bit further north:- Mohammed AHMED, Canadian 10,000 metre runner.

 

[Ziggurat]

So point taken, the source I used may be a crank site. But my point still stands, there's no basis to target Muslim Americans with special screening while leaving the Christian and Jewish terrorists alone. That's just stupid.

Yes, there is a basis to target Muslims with special screening. Remember, what we're discussing is TSA screening, not random screening of people on the streets. So most of the violence your source refers to really has no relevance. Airports in the US have not been a significant target of non-political violence, and mass shootings overwhelmingly take place in locations with no armed security. The threat to all Americans everywhere is markedly different from the threat to Americans on or because of a plane. And there's no legitimate statistics reason to simply exclude the most significant such incident either when trying to evaluate the risk.

Now, there are all sorts of questions regarding the details of how you might do such targeted screening, how effective it might be, whether you're fighting the last battle rather than the next one, and even whether such efforts are not worth it because they violate some important principle. But to deny that there's even any basis for considering such actions is, well, stupid. And the statistics you use to support that position are wothless. It's like saying you don't have to worry about snow in Alaska because the average temperature of the US is above freezing.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, there is a basis to target Muslims with special screening. Remember, what we're discussing is TSA screening, not random screening of people on the streets. So most of the violence your source refers to really has no relevance. Airports in the US have not been a significant target of non-political violence, and mass shootings overwhelmingly take place in locations with no armed security. The threat to all Americans everywhere is markedly different from the threat to Americans on or because of a plane. And there's no legitimate statistics reason to simply exclude the most significant such incident either when trying to evaluate the risk.

Now, there are all sorts of questions regarding the details of how you might do such targeted screening, how effective it might be, whether you're fighting the last battle rather than the next one, and even whether such efforts are not worth it because they violate some important principle. But to deny that there's even any basis for considering such actions is, well, stupid. And the statistics you use to support that position are wothless. It's like saying you don't have to worry about snow in Alaska because the average temperature of the US is above freezing.

I'm shocked that you'd come out in favor or racial profiling. Seriously. Just shocked.

This is my shocked face.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I didn't vote, since you didn't include a "no, because it's a stupid idea" option. If we focus on one one set of characteristics, then would-be terrorists would know exactly how to avoid detection. "They're looking for dark-skinned males with a 'Muslim' name. Let's find a light-skinned female volunteer."

 

[tyr_13]

I'm shocked that you'd come out in favor or racial profiling. Seriously. Just shocked.

This is my shocked face.

I'm shocked that you haven't learned to read Zigs posts carefully over the years. They are often carefully worded. He did not in fact come out in favor of racial profiling. In fact he pointed out many potential issues with the practice.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm shocked that you haven't learned to read Zigs posts carefully over the years. They are often carefully worded. He did not in fact come out in favor of racial profiling. In fact he pointed out many potential issues with the practice.

I admit it. His posts are so full of sophistry and ugliness that I sometimes lose sight of his carefully hedged weasel words.

How did I get this way? Was it when he openly wondered if shackling prisoners to the ceiling was actually even torture? Or when he opined that buggy software was behind the flawed climate models which cast doubt on climate science, except hey, he wasn't actually saying he disbelieved global warming, just that reasonable people should agree that skepticism was warranted by the "climategate" that only existed in the right wing fever swamps. So here he is, not really endorsing racial profiling, just saying hey, it's not so crazy. Just like torture? Just like global warming denialism? I really need to read his posts more carefully to get the nuance, I guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm shocked that you'd come out in favor or racial profiling. Seriously. Just shocked.

This is my shocked face.

I'm shocked that you would resort to accusations of racism in order to avoid addressing the substance of an argument. Seriously. Just shocked.

This is my shocked face.

I didn't come out in favor of racial profiling. All I did is point out that your reasoning was flat-out wrong. That doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons not to do it, a point I made rather explicitly in my previous post by giving some of those other reasons (in other words, I just told you how to make a better case for your own position), but the reason you gave is not a valid one. Your combination straw man/ad hominem response was pathetic.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm shocked that you would resort to accusations of racism in order to avoid addressing the substance of an argument. Seriously. Just shocked.

This is my shocked face.

I didn't come out in favor of racial profiling. All I did is point out that your reasoning was flat-out wrong. That doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons not to do it, a point I made rather explicitly in my previous post by giving some of those other reasons (in other words, I just told you how to make a better case for your own position), but the reason you gave is not a valid one. Your combination straw man/ad hominem response was pathetic.

I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of supporting racial profiling, which is what you did when you attempted to give intellectual cover to the abhorrent idea while proclaiming that you personally don't support that idea. It's not an ad hominem, it's an observation of how you attempt to argue in favor things with a thin veneer of plausible deniability. It's transparent and I don't believe your denials.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of supporting racial profiling, which is what you did when you attempted to give intellectual cover to the abhorrent idea while proclaiming that you personally don't support that idea.

Your argument against it was flat-out wrong. Pointing out that it was wrong (and you haven't even tried to defend it as being right) is not "providing cover". If I just wanted to provide cover for racial profiling, I wouldn't have explicitly pointed out other arguments one could use against it.

It's not an ad hominem, it's an observation of how you attempt to argue in favor things with a thin veneer of plausible deniability.

It's not an ad hominem, I simply attacked you personally.

It's transparent and I don't believe your denials.

I don't really care about what you believe. Your argument was wrong, I demonstrated why it was wrong, and you have done nothing to show otherwise. All you have done is attack me personally, you haven't even tried to defend your own position.

 

[Mumbles]

Should we allow the TSA to use racial or ethnic profiling when deciding who to search more at airports?

Frankly, the TSA is a huge waste of time and money in general. Racial/Ethnic profiling, as we already know, would be a complete waste of time, since that simply means that it'd be easier for any terrorist group to recruit some idiot who doesn't fit the profile. And as other people have said, the "use an airplane as a weapon" gambit is dead anyway - although I don't agree that terrorists are smart enough to avoid such measures. Commercial airliners have reinforced doors now, and nobody is going to just let someone hijack a plane. Hell, on the very few semi-successful attempts, the people flying immediately attacked and subdued the bomber.

Frankly, at this point, a smart group of terrorists would just shoot up a mall or something.

 

[Dcdrac]

I didn't vote, since you didn't include a "no, because it's a stupid idea" option. If we focus on one one set of characteristics, then would-be terrorists would know exactly how to avoid detection. "They're looking for dark-skinned males with a 'Muslim' name. Let's find a light-skinned female volunteer."

I did vote no but as a non American can someone enlighten me to what is "American" these days it seems to shift as much as sand does.

 

[Cylinder]

Most of this is so much straw.

The TSA policy isn't racial/ethnic/religious profiling per se. They develop what I'll call indicators for scrutiny.

A Muslim Arab-American from Des Moines who attends his daily prayers and strictly observes hadiths on things like consumption, dress, prayer and relationships isn't going to rank high (or really at all) on the indicator list. If the guy is wealthy enough to observe the Hajj every year, he may start showing up on the indicator list -- even though our hypothetical is a perfectly loyal citizen -- by virtue of his history of travel. Likewise, he may attend mosque -- unbeknownst to him -- controlled or attended by people with a peculiar history of financial transactions. Maybe a bit more scrutiny. If you call that racial profiling, I'm all for it.

Forgetting my history. I'm a white guy from south Arkansas. If I start getting money transfers from Yemen, then start taking trips -- I'm guessing I'll be flagged. Does anyone here really doubt that?

As it turns out, I have an SIF with the feds by virtue of my past work in the air force. I'm guessing any travel by me to certain locations would raise some scrutiny. If I decided to spend this summer in Moscow, for instance, I'd probably check in with the local FBI office first to see what travel restrictions are in place. Likewise Tehran, I'd expect full-on a cavity search by US officials the moment I stepped into the terminal. From the guy they call Fingers...and not in the good way.