According to Democratic pundit Mickey Kaus,
Ann Coulter, who has been properly blasted here from time to time, got this issue right.
It appears that Patrick Leahy, Richard Gephardt, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, David Bonior, Hillary Clinton, and Maureen Dowd are hypocrites.
It appears that neither you nor Coulter can tell the difference between profiling and genuine analysis.
Democrats are hypocrites? This is news? Where’s the debate?
december is using Ann Coulter as a yardstick for accuracy?
Oh, this ought to be good. Hold on while I get the popcorn…
December, you do yourself no favors by quoting a woman who is thisclose to being locked up in the Lester J. Maddox Institute for Terminally Paranoid Racists.
Should there have been greater scrutiny of the 9/11 hijackers? Sure. Should there be greater scrutiny of passengers who pay for one-way tickets in cash, and who arrive late and without any luggage? Absolutely. Should we single out ALL Muslim men for special profiling? HELL, no! One would think that you, as a Jew, would be especially sensitive to the scapegoating of an ethnic minority. We know where that road leads–Manzanar and Tule Lake.
Sounds like politics, not personal ethics.
Lots of things become politicized in an election year.
In that case, tomndebb, why don’t you explain the difference between genuine analysis and racial profiling? The world awaits with baited breath.
Since none of the hijackers were old women, children, or anything but young arab muslim males, only a fool would not give added scrutiny to arabs.
Granted, fools seem to be running rampant. N.Mineta seems set on making it as easy as possible for the next hijackers.
I am an immigrant from former Yugoslavia. If the terrorists were all Yugos, I would not object one bit to added scrutiny. Furthermore, I know that the Yugo community would cooperate 100% with the investigation. Unlike the Arab community, which seems more concerned about acting like victims.
Since none of the hijackers were old women, children, or anything but young arab muslim males, only a fool would not give added scrutiny to arabs.
Granted, fools seem to be running rampant. N.Mineta seems set on making it as easy as possible for the next hijackers.
I am an immigrant from former Yugoslavia. If the terrorists were all Yugos, I would not object one bit to added scrutiny. Furthermore, I know that the Yugo community would cooperate 100% with the investigation. Unlike the Arab community, which seems more concerned about acting like victims.
Civil liberties are not a death sentence. If all of the hijackers were arabs, then of course, we put added scrutiny on arabs. Anything else is mere P.C. garbage.
Look, man; if you’re gonna be snarky try and get your idiom right. That would be “with bated breath”, meaning we’re all holding our breath waiting for tom~'s usual brilliance.
While you’re so waiting, by the way, you might want to take a gander at gobear’s post a couple up from yours, TPC; he swings a pretty fair clue-by-four.
It’d have been nice to have a link to Coulter’s article here. With just the snibs and snabs provided, it is difficult to decide whether these politicians are hypocrites, or merely being taken out of context. Maybe the article itself would bring the topic of debate into better focus ?
I didn’t find the Coulter article, but here’s a link to an article that raises similar questions about unethical politicos. Does the context serve to provide ethical cover in this case ?
She’s a nut, all right, but even nuts can be right once in a while.
This article from the Christian Science Monitor gives the pro’s of profiling. Not just ethnic profiling, but psychological profiling. Several years ago, I was closely questioned before being allowed to board a flight to Israel. (This was routine for all passengers.) I believe that they were looking for some pattern of answers that would indicate that I might be a risk.
I think the US should follow Israel’s lead and look more for the terrorist than the weapon. I agree with gobear that we would prefer not to do so, but the risks of not doing so are just too high. It’s stupid for airport screeners to focus on old ladies and babies. It can also be dangerous to focus on old ladies, as this hilarious link demonstrates.
P.S. Sorry about omitting the Coulter link. See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20020523.shtml
you ** did** say didn’t you, that the AC link is the one that’s hilarious, eh?
Uh… “Ruth ‘Grammy’ Gordon”? “Bud Cort”??? Riiiiiight.
Are we overlooking the fact that the man who tried to blow up the flight from Paris with his explosive shoes was not an Arab. An analysis based on the meaningful criteria suggested by gobear would have fingered his as a suspicious character; racial profiling would not. Similarly, the second greatest terrorist attack carried out on US soil was not carried out by an Arab.
Of course the US should be trying to identify terrorists, but this is best done by looking for relevant characteristics. Sure, it’s much easier just to look for Arabs, but being an Arab is not particularly closely correlated with being a terrorist.
You say, “of course,” but this is not being done at US airports. Currently there is no effort to give greater scrutiny to passengers with relevant characteristics.
I agree that relevant characteristics should go beyond ethnicity. In fact, Richard Reid the shoe-bomber, was singled out in Paris because of his general appearance. As a result he missed his evening flight, and took a morning flight instead. If he had taken the evening flight, his bomb might have succeeded, since passengers might have been asleep when he lit it.
I think you misunderstood my post. I said that we should screen for the terrorist–but merely screening for ethnicity is racist, lazy, and counterproductive. We should be screening for behavior–did the passenger have luggage? Did he appear nervous? did he pay in cash? Did he arrive late? Did he book a one-way flight? Did he appear to be on a timetable (looking at his watch, fidgeting)?
I’d hate to waste time shaking down a harmless 45-year-old Syrian-American machine parts saleman while a white, 26-year-old Al Qaeda convert waltzed on board the plane with a gun in his underwear.
And what has the world eaten to bait its breath?
We have two specific instances of FBI field-level attempts to prevent terrorist attacks which were unsuccessful in preventing the WTC/Pentagon disasters. In each case, the people under surveillance were being tracked for their activities not their (apparent) ethnicity. I am sure that their ethnic backgrounds (and their actual countries of citizenship) played a part in the analysis by the FBI. However, those efforts were not thwarted by any appeal to Political Correctness (however much a few FBI bureaucrats may scramble to cover their asses by appealing to a purported fear of profiling protests). They were thwarted by standard inter- and intra-departmental barriers. The Minnesota office was told to share no information with the CIA and the Phoenix office was told that the manpower was not available.
(Note that the Phoenix office did not ask that every Mideastern male in the country be detained for questioning, they asked whether it was possible to check pilot training program names against known or suspected members of al-Qaeda–lists that could have been gathered from the CIA, Interpol, Scotland Yard, etc. Ethnic profiling was not part of either office’s actual actions or requests.)
Profiling is a waste of time and manpower. (The “shoe bomber” did not even fit the profile.)
We pulled this stupidity in WWII with Executive Order 9066. No person detained under that profiling scenario has ever been shown to have been a threat to the country–or even a serious opponent of the country. (EO 9066 did have one very noticeable effect: the 442d Regimental Combat Team, known as the most decrated outfit in WWII, was composed almost exclusively of Hawaiians. It seems that the guys locked up in the deserts of Wyoming and Arizona were not too excited about leaving their mothers, sisters, and wives alone in concentration camps while they went off to war. Profiling could have the same “happy” result, here. Rather than enlisting people from Dearborn, MI who know the customs and cultures “back home,” and who might be interested in defending their new country, we are liable to be alienating them to the point that some of them might decide to join the opposite side.
Actual analysis of events and actions and individuals led to the efforts of the Minnesota and Arizona offices of the FBI to try (unsuccessfully) to stop terrorist attacks. Profiling has done nothing but irritate people whom we should be recruiting to help us.
Coulter is an idiot chauvinist who is simply waving around more hatred. It is sad to see people join her in calls for mindless and counterproductive racism.
In Preview, I see that xenophon41 has addressed the bated breath of the world.
Thank you very much, tomndebb, but would you care to provide cites?
I now understand your POV, gobear, but I do not fully agree. I think the screening should include behavior AND ethnicity AND responses to appropriately designed questions, AND anything else that might help.
tomndebb, the fear of a racial profiling accusation could cause law-enforcement to give the least attention to Arabs. In fact, the allegation is that for the people for whom the FBI noticed suspicious activities, their ethnicity led to them not being followed up – a case of reverse racial profiling.
There may have been backwards racial profiling with Wen Ho Lee. His activities were highly suspicious, but the (unjustified) accusation of racial profiling helped him by portraying him as a victim.
Also, I have seen it claimed that when random airline passengers are selected for individula inspection, some security personnel bend over backwards to avoid Arab men, lest they be accused of racial profiling.