Racial Profiling

[quote]vroom wrote:
Instincts? Hahahahahaha![/quote]

Something funny, Vroom?

Do I not at least get a hackneyed Vroom piece weighed down with unoriginal conventional wisdom all dolled up as profound thoughts, topped off with a “life is full of gray areas and not so simple” pronouncement at the end? I am sadly disappointed.

Stopping black drivers for no reason is racial profiling. Preferentially checking Muslims, especially those in fundamentalist garb, and those of all races/ethniciites who look suspicious at airports is called security. Random checks should still be instituted. There was a thread awhile back. Most everyone that profiling measures at airports were appropriate.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
This is a load of crap. Of course those who of you who fit the “non-profiled” profile would support such endeavors. Don’t hit me with the “if you’ve got nothing to hide” or the “I wouldn’t mind if my race/social class/whatever were being profiled, it’s in the name of national security.” This is very close to becoming racist, in a world where racial tensions have never been good.
Take it however you want, as I’m under no illusion that a lot of you won’t disagree, but this is from someone who gets security checked everytime I go to the airport, and I’m white. I was actually made to go through a security check on my way home for leave from Iraq, while in uniform, with a military ID, and a duffel bag.[/quote]

I’ve been pulled aside for random security checks several times. Particularly when I’ve had to buy a one-way ticket for whatever reason. It’s annoying, but I’ve always been ECSTATIC. I’m extremely glad that we take what security measures we can.

[quote]BookerT wrote:
On what ZEB wrote:
Only 3 of the 13 had anything to do with airport screenings. So I am not sure what type of profiling your are talking about for the other 10. Sure it makes sense to let the 80 year old grandmother through without much hassle, or even senators and war hero’s.

Profiling would make perfect sense in a black and white world. The problem is that while profiling someone because they “appear” to be muslim and may or may not be a terrorist, you let through the guy who doesn’t “appear” to be muslim because you are concentrating on the other guys.

I said it in another thread, improved training and technology are probably better options.

Whether we allow the available technology to be used on us is another issue.[/quote]

Yes, improved training and technology are a must. But who are we supposed to concentrate on? We work with what we have. There are terrorists who got through security very easily who fit certain racial profiles or were otherwise suspicious that should have thrown up hundreds of red flags. There have been tons of stories on it. If they have any sense, terrorist groups will make the attempt to blend in better. This is why random checks and improved training and technology to spot anything out of the ordinary or suspicious is a must IN ADDITION to profiling.

In 1995 Rodney King was videotaped being beaten by 6:

During the 1800’s the slave trade was used, promoted, and instituted in the Americas by:

During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s Jewish people were accosted by:

1979-1995 17 bombs are mailed or left at various universities by:

april 19,1995 168 people are killed in oklahoma. Bomb set by:

The Ku Klux Klan…do I really need to give examples here? Run by:

Thunder,

Yes, I much prefer statements of complete ignorance that show no depth of thought or perception, borne out of “instinct”, such as yours.

They make my day.

Actually, to be honest, unless I have you mistaken with someone else, you do often show thought and analysis in your posts.

Thanks for the insults, but something was funny. Instincts don’t always serve us very well in the modern world…

[quote]slimjim wrote:
In 1995 Rodney King was videotaped being beaten by 6:

During the 1800’s the slave trade was used, promoted, and instituted in the Americas by:

During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s Jewish people were accosted by:

1979-1995 17 bombs are mailed or left at various universities by:

april 19,1995 168 people are killed in oklahoma. Bomb set by:

The Ku Klux Klan…do I really need to give examples here? Run by:[/quote]

Your point is that because the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist group itself, targeted and terrorized specific groups, we should not take extra precautions with members of groups that have increased likelihood of being terrorists? We’re not talking about abuse here in any way. We’re talking about stepping out of line and being patted down at the airport.

That’s completely loaded and relies on the ridiculous to make its point. It says ‘Male Muslim Extremists’, but nothing about their reasons, their nationality, etc. Not every Muslim is male or extremist.

Brits could easily do the same thing with the IRA bombing campaign, and the uproar for searching ‘all the irish’ would have been immense.

Having said this, I can see the logic behind a limited amount profiling. A BBC report the other day indicated that some Muslims supported it too.

What about white Muslims?

That’s part of my point: racial/ethnic profiling is limited. I have numerous muslim friends that were born overseas and in America that would pass for your average “white” person. The terrorist are not stupid, they will just recruit more members that blend in better racially/ethnically.

I think the whole profiling issue may also just be a big distraction that is being put out there to prevent people from realizing all the problems at TSA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6718644

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040927/27aviation.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-09-22-weapons_x.htm

http://www.aemca.org/news/2005/Appr_Cmte_Report.html

http://subscript.bna.com/samples/hsd.nsf/0/d97290f95a203d8a85256fba0002b7b9?OpenDocument

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Your point is that because the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist group itself, targeted and terrorized specific groups, we should not take extra precautions with members of groups that have increased likelihood of being terrorists? We’re not talking about abuse here in any way. We’re talking about stepping out of line and being patted down at the airport.

[/quote]

I’m merely offering a different version of what was posted at the beginning of this thread which was highly biased, using anecdotal evidence as a basis for racial profiling, when there are countless examples of shit EVERY race has done to one another. Using such examples to justify racial profiling is faulty logic. Just because you don’t mind having your civil liberties violated does not make it okay for the rest of us. Whats next? Blackballing anti-American rhetoric, the authors of said rhetoric, and the readers? My problem is not with doing everything possible to stop these attacks, but with the redrawing the lines of our liberties. But that’s just my opinion.

Yes - that’s why I chided you for “Hahahahahaha”. There is no ‘thought’ or ‘analysis’ in “Hahahaha” - just a smug, weak reply.

instinct (2)a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

Nor does reason.

Thunder,

I tend to notice that trying to apply reason, perhaps to discuss the pro’s and con’s of issues, is actually discouraged in these parts…

People prefer decisions to made based on party lines and talking points instead. I think that would mainly be “instinct” still. The instinct to belong to a group and cluster around its values.

[quote]BookerT wrote:

Yes, improved training and technology are a must. But who are we supposed to concentrate on? We work with what we have. There are terrorists who got through security very easily who fit certain racial profiles or were otherwise suspicious that should have thrown up hundreds of red flags. There have been tons of stories on it. If they have any sense, terrorist groups will make the attempt to blend in better. This is why random checks and improved training and technology to spot anything out of the ordinary or suspicious is a must IN ADDITION to profiling.

That’s part of my point: racial/ethnic profiling is limited. I have numerous muslim friends that were born overseas and in America that would pass for your average “white” person. The terrorist are not stupid, they will just recruit more members that blend in better racially/ethnically.

I think the whole profiling issue may also just be a big distraction that is being put out there to prevent people from realizing all the problems at TSA.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040927/27aviation.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-09-22-weapons_x.htm

http://www.aemca.org/news/2005/Appr_Cmte_Report.html

http://subscript.bna.com/samples/hsd.nsf/0/d97290f95a203d8a85256fba0002b7b9?OpenDocument

[/quote]

I admit I don’t have all the answers. But I don’t view more rigorous security checks as a violation of liberties. The effectiveness point is a valid one. I don’t think we could say for sure that ‘racial profiling’ will make us safer. But we shouldn’t exactly run a study and forgo it and see what happens, in my opinion. We have enough evidence to believe that it will make us safer as a country. So it’s worth it.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Your point is that because the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist group itself, targeted and terrorized specific groups, we should not take extra precautions with members of groups that have increased likelihood of being terrorists? We’re not talking about abuse here in any way. We’re talking about stepping out of line and being patted down at the airport.

I’m merely offering a different version of what was posted at the beginning of this thread which was highly biased, using anecdotal evidence as a basis for racial profiling, when there are countless examples of shit EVERY race has done to one another. Using such examples to justify racial profiling is faulty logic. Just because you don’t mind having your civil liberties violated does not make it okay for the rest of us. Whats next? Blackballing anti-American rhetoric, the authors of said rhetoric, and the readers? My problem is not with doing everything possible to stop these attacks, but with the redrawing the lines of our liberties. But that’s just my opinion. [/quote]

I mind having my civil liberties violated. I just don’t see more rigorous security checks as a violation of my civil liberties. In so many things, we must strike a balance between private interests and liberties and public interests and safety. This is why I support an individual’s right to own a gun but also support regulations. I should be allowed to own a gun for protection or hunting if I wish, I shouldn’t be able to own any type of gun I want and get it immediately if it creates a greater threat to public safety. If there’s significant reason to believe that removing a particular gun from the market and requiring background checks will help save lives, then to bad for me if I want that gun ASAP. I don’t support blackballing American rhetoric. I believe that everybody should be free to speak their mind, however supposedly ‘un-American’ their thoughts may be. Who decides what constitutes a civil liberty. At least in my mind, walking through the airport unharrased by airport security is not one.

JS,

I’m not actually disagreeing with you, but I think it is an interesting discussion point.

You’ve just said that it does make sense to trade liberties for security. Above and beyond using metal scanners, checking ID, x-raying luggage and so on, we also will have our security improved by impinging on the rights of citizens, so we should do it.

Doesn’t that sound like slippery slope to you? Do you decide these issues on a case by case basis, such as whether or not it appears to make the nation safer? Why not apply this thinking in all cases where lives can be saved?

Heck, maybe less lives would be lost every year if guns were collected and destroyed. I mean, yes, criminals will still have them, but over time it would slowly be harder to get them. Young criminals would have to kill the old ones to get them. So, if it saves lives, shouldn’t it be done?

Maybe we should ban steroids, since that could save a few lives. Also, ephedrine was obviously a huge killer (not), so lets ban that. Is there anything we should not do in the effort to save lives, especially when it isn’t all that difficult to do?

So, questions, questions, I know. As I said, I don’t think I actually disagree, but it is a conundrum that I find hard to answer. What makes the airport scenario okay, while others not? Is it the level of risk? The amount of fear in the populace? The amount of distrust or hatred towards muslims by some?

What is it, really?

What types of security should the government focus on, only those caused by terrorists? If so, why is it different? A lot of people die due to drunk drivers, but we don’t simply pull everyone over driving around closing time – even though there are often (non-profiled) spot check programs.

Oh well, I guess nobody really gives a shit about the points I make anyway. That’s what I keep hearing around here.

These are very hard questions. I don’t think there are cut and dry answers. I think there is legitmacy to some degree to this slippery slope argument that both parties use. But I think that it is overblown and to a large extent an excuse for the more extreme members on both sides to justify their causes. Isn’t possible that society is on a continuum and not a slippery slope? I think there are countervailing forces pulling in all directions at all times on every issue. I do think that we need to evaluate things on a case by case basis. I don’t think something done based on a rational, legitimate concern for security should be discarded because it could lead the erosion of all civil liberties 50 years from now and a fascist, police state.

I don’t buy it. And I think again, it largely comes down to balancing public and private interests and the impact it has on the salient parties. Let’s take some examples. Pornography. I’m thinking back to Larry Flint. It could be argued that it’s indecent and a threat to society. But who decideds the standards of decency? There are no uniform guidelines. What’s the tangible threat to society? No one is forcing anyone to look at porn. It’s a choice. In terms of protecting kids, I say the parents need to be responsible. In my mind, the private interest of those in the porn industry to make a living and the greater universal interest of freedom of expression outweighs the tenuous public threat to impressionable children or society as a whole. But the right to not get checked more rigorously at the airport (is that even a right-it’s not in the bill of rights) does not outweigh my right to not get blown up. I can choose not to look at porn and shielf my children from it. I can’t choose to not get blown up if airport security lets someone through that they shouldn’t.

The minimal annoyance of being checked at the airport shouldn’t outweigh the potential of stopping an attack. It’s not affecting the right of these people to earn a livelihood or protest or anything. I’m not denying that it’s extremely difficult to be a Muslim in this country in this day and age. But this would not be made any easier by avoiding profiling at the airport.

In respect to saving lives, there are things that we should not do. Using your ephedra example, people make the conscious choice to take it. Especially now with all the press and the warnings, it should be enough. I respect people enough to allow them to make their own decisions on such issues. They’re not hurting anyone else. I don’t see their being a private vs. public interest regarding this issue. I don’t believe in protecting people from themselves. What else? Guns-I think banning them outright may save more lives, but I don’t support it. Why? People should have the right to own guns for protection or perceived protection. And surely there are lives that have been saved because of this. So, what should we do? We strike a balance between the right of private individuals and the public interest in minimizing death by regulating this right in ways we believe will decrease the amount of death caused by guns.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But the right to not get checked more rigorously at the airport (is that even a right-it’s not in the bill of rights) …
[/quote]

ECACTLY. Let’s not confuse rights with privilages. There is no “right to fly” or a “right to avoid security checks”. If you don’t want to submit to the required security checks, drive.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But the right to not get checked more rigorously at the airport (is that even a right-it’s not in the bill of rights) …

ECACTLY. Let’s not confuse rights with privilages. There is no “right to fly” or a “right to avoid security checks”. If you don’t want to submit to the required security checks, drive. [/quote]

Alrighty. How about this example of racial profiling. A friend of mine, a captain in the Army, is in Walmart when the power goes out. Everyone is told to leave the store. As he’s walking out he is stopped by the security guard at the door and asked to empty his pockets. He looks around and notices that only he and another black guy have been stopped while there are plenty of white people leaving the store, not one of them are challenged.

So he refuses. The security guard then calls the cops who show up and tell him it would make things easier for everyone if he would just comply. His lawsuit against Walmart was settled out of court and he didn’t have shit in his pockets. Was it his privilege to be searched, or is he just lucky to be here in America when he could be starving in Africa?

Pulling someone over for being black is taking it too far.

Doing a security check on a muslim guy wearing a trenchcoat is not.

I don’t think any issues (or at least, most) are black and white, the right answer is always somewhere in the middle.