# Legislation to allow racial profiling of Arabs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314 "2005-08-02T16:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/121 "2005-08-10T04:00:23Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, I did not interrupt your discussion with **DMC**. I chimed in when **MadSam** made the claimI certainly did not distort his position. You then, rather than distinguishing between any nuanced position you may hold and **MadSam** ’s position, simply went back to asserting that ethnic appearance was a valid tool, even if among others. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, and as **DMC** has further elaborated, using some vague notion of ethnic perception gives both too many false positives and too many false negatives. It actually distracts from the effort. Maybe my posts to you were unclear. My point was that I feel you misrepresented the “pro-profiling” position in this thread twice. Once in post #107 when you said: “Hauling every Eastern Sephardic or Mizrahim Jew or Costa Rican out of line to be grilled is not going to make us safer.” And again in post #113, where you said: “but if you handed out that photo at LAX, you’d have half the guys deboarding from Mexico and Central and South America getting stopped.” These are certainly not ideas I’ve advocated. (I don’t think anyone else on the thread has either.) Please review my responses in thread #s 110, 114, and 117. I do not think you are doing this intentionally or maliciously, but I think it gives readers a mistaken impression. My position on what you proposed above as examples is in complete agreement with yours. I’ve said all along that if a proposed “profile” didn’t result in a small enough pool as to be actionable and useful that it should NOT be done. If you disagree, please show me where I have indicated otherwise and am thus deserving of being associated with the ridiculous examples you give. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/122 "2005-08-10T04:07:28Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > The proposed legislation would simply change racial profiling from illegal to legal. That is all. We have demonstrated why that’s stupid. You have shown no such thing. You have shared why you think it would be a bad idea. In case you didn’t know, there is a difference. But, for the record, I should point out that your post above was a response to this exchange. (The first one was a post to **tomndebb**.) > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by magellan01 > …It has been opined, repeatedly on this thread, that racial profiling should be on the table as A factor, not necessarily THE factor. That it should be a weapon in the arsenal, to be used, or not, as circumstance dictates. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by DMC > The proposed legislation from the OP put racial profiling alone on the table. Not as one tool of many… > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by magellan01 > I don’t see tha OP as doing that. I read it as allowing racial profiling to be used as a factor in narrowing down a suspect pool. I guess it is possible that one factor (racial or otherwise) might narrow down the pool effectively, but, as you well know having been an active participant in the thread, it has not been the point of the debate. So, aside from that fact the OP asked no specific questions to frame the debate (feel free to reread), the only logical conclusion I can draw from your posts (above) is that you assumed that racial profiling would be the ONLY tool available to law enforcement; that the OP, and the article cited, was NOT merely considering ADDING profiling to the tools they already have, BUT TO THROW THEM ALL OUT and REPLACE them with profiling? Jeez, don’t you thiink it would be safer, more logical to think that neither the OP or the experts cited in the article were talking about ADDING “profiling” to law enforcement aresenal? If not, please indicate from where you draw that inference. > [@DMC](#): > > Nope, but feel free to elaborate. If you’d like to improve your analogy, you might want to state: “It would be like profiling _Texan TV stars_, and when I ask you what they look like, you say ‘The cast of Dallas’”. Example 1: (A )All people: (B) Middle Eastern males 20-40: (C) Islamic terrorists: (D) perpetrators of 911, WTC '93, USS Cole, etc. Example 2: (A) All people: (B) Texans: (C) Texan TV stars: (D) cast of Dallas See? (A) set \> (B) subset \> (C) subsequent subset \> (D) subsequent subset Your analogy was that profiling (B-2) Texans by looking at the cast of Dallas (D-2) is similar to profiling Islamic terrorists (C-1) by looking at the cast of Dallas (D-1). When presenting an analogy it’s helpful if the analogy is accurate. The more accurate, the better. That is why I categorized it as “ham-handed”. > [@DMC](#): > > No, it isn’t. In fact, I’ll repeat it again, as you still haven’t answered it. **What does an “Islamic Extremist terrorist” look like?** > [@DMC](#): > > …you have thus far refused to answer the question, and asking a question is not a semantic game, cute or otherwise. > [@DMC](#): > > What is it exactly in a picture that tells you that this is a potential terrorist? > [@DMC](#): > > I’ll keep repeating it until you actually answer it, as opposed to just figuratively waving various photographs of people, none of whom look like one another. > [@DMC](#): > > When you actually provide an answer, I’ll happily paste it after my question. Please see bottom of page for response to the above five posts. > [@DMC](#): > > No, actually I don’t. It’s not that we’re on opposite sides of this, as my stance is the polar opposite of several people in this thread, none of whom I have an issue with. On the other hand, you have stated that racial profiling would bring “enormous benefits”, and when asked how you’d even outline the profiling procedures, you want to wave photos of a bunch of people around and not actually answer the question. I have touched on this. Evidently, not with the detail you would prefer. So be it. Please review. I have also explained that I am NOT a law enforcement expert, never mind one on profiling. To attempt to have a position discounted because someone cannot offer the detail that would be required and expected of true experts is a cheap debating trick. It’s like having an abortion debate with someone (from either side) and attempting to invalidate their position because they do not know the technical science surrounding the moment of conception. Or like attempting to discount a position on how to help end poverty because someone is not an economist. Cheap. Continue if you like. I expect that you will. > [@DMC](#): > > Half of the people in this thread have shown you the problem with choosing profiling targets based on photographs of known terrorists, and you’ve thus far ignored them all. Actually, I’m sure it’s more than half. And I have not ignored them all. Check my posts, Sherlock. I have not even ignored you. I answered you. And then I expanded on my answer when you asked. You don’t like my answer because it doesn’t fit into your little game, too bad. Your statement is a lie. Note: the honorable thing for you to do now would be to apologize. > [@DMC](#): > > Let’s work with your photographs, so that the less educated amongst us can finally reach your level of enlightenment. I’m sorry, maybe I assumed to much of you. Most humans have the ability to look at particular instances and make reasonable generalizations. Who knows, maybe some of the people involved in law enforcement suffer from the same deficiency. So I now–and God knows, not a moment too late–propose an Official Test for those wishing to serve in ANY law enforcement capacity, so they’ll be up to the task in those cases where “profiling” might be used. _The Official Test_: If, after studying this page [Poodle Photos Pictures Poodles](http://www.puppydogweb.com/gallery/poodles/e.htm) for ten minutes, and then studyiing this page [Golden Retriever Photos Pictures Golden Retrievers](http://www.puppydogweb.com/gallery/goldenretrievers/e.htm) for another ten minutes, the testee cannot discern Poodles from Golden Retrievers with an accuracy of 99%, they should not–repeat, should NOT–be allowed to participate in any profiling activities. > [@DMC](#): > > So, what is it in those pictures I should be looking for? After you test yourself with the Official Test above, and repeat it until you pass with a 99% success rate, I think you’ll have no difficulty rereading my answer _again_ and feeling more comfortable with it. I am relieved that you pointed out this potential problem I will forward to DHS immediately. Your country thanks you for this valuable service in the fight against Islamic terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/123 "2005-08-10T05:29:08Z")
> [@](#): > > My point was that I feel you misrepresented the “pro-profiling” position in this thread twice. I don’t think I mischaracterized it; I pointed out its fatal flaw. I realize you have put in the disclaimer that it should only be used if it is effective, holding only that we should not deny the security forces a tool if they need it. However, to me that seems to be about the same as saying we should not prevent carpenters from using marshmallow hammers if they can find a use for them. If we are not going to pull out of line every young male Mizrahim Jew, Greek, Sicilian, Latin American, and swarthy (or deeply tanned) European or North American, just what are we supposed to be doing with this great aid to detection? How does it work? (And if we are spending the effort to pull all those people out of line for more thorough checks, how many girlfriends, blondes, blacks, and East Asians are going to pass through security because the security people are wasting their time looking at skin color and nose shape rather than activity?) Just what are security people supposed to do when they “profile” by apparent (and misleading) ethnicity? > [@](#): > > If you disagree, please show me where I have indicated otherwise and am thus deserving of being associated with the ridiculous examples you give. What examples have I given that were ridiculous? Can you tell me the difference (or find a photo to help me distinguish between) the people I used in my examples and the people you think might be identified by profiling? OTOH, you _have_ provided a ridiculous example (I hope in jest) with your comparison of retrievers and poodles. A better example would be to ask for a test between [staffies](http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/americanstaffordshireterriers/e.htm) and [pit bulls](http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/americanpitbullterrier/e.htm) (taking into consideration that I have had my brindle Boxer identified as a pit bull on several occasions and that in the real world not every dog’s ears get clipped). > [@](#): > > So, aside from that fact the OP asked no specific questions to frame the debate (feel free to reread), the only logical conclusion I can draw from your posts (above) is that you assumed that racial profiling would be the ONLY tool available to law enforcement; that the OP, and the article cited, was NOT merely considering ADDING profiling to the tools they already have, BUT TO THROW THEM ALL OUT and REPLACE them with profiling? Actually, that is pretty much what was proposed: > [@](#): > > A State Assemblyman says he plans to introduce legislation allowing cops to use racial profiling to target Middle Easterners when searching bags. > > Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat, says the NYPD’s new policy of randomly checking bags at subway entrances may be politically correct, but it won’t make passengers safer. > > Hikind said police should focus on young Middle Easterners called and called it - insane - to look for bombs in the bags of 75-year-old grandmothers. In other words, the assemblyman was going to substitute racial profiling for random. No mention of a suite of tools. No suggestion that they actually attempt to identify persons likely to take a bomb into a subway, simply limiting the people who would be randomly searched to a perceived ethnic group. This means that they would have to stop _every_ perceived Middle Easterner, thus requiring massive police hiring to handle the number of men they would need to stop, or limiting their random searches to perceived Middle Eastern men, thus telling the bombers in advance to hand their bombs to their fair-haired or female accomplices. In other words, the proposal made no suggestion to increase the quality or effectiveness of the searches, but did target some vaguely identified group of people who could not easily be _correctly_ identified. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/124 "2005-08-10T06:16:19Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] You are ignoring the two very specific problems I had with your posts. You are just going into a rehash of some of the positions stated. I can only assume now that you are doing it intentionally. And while I wouldn’t be surprised to see such tactics from some posters, I am surprised and disappointed to get it from a Moderator. I simply–three times now–politely pointed out that you mischaracterized my position. I pointed out the specific offending sentences and provided my rationale. This will be my final attempt: Do you think that my position is accurately portrayed by the following two statements? > [@](#): > > From your post #107: > “Hauling every Eastern Sephardic or Mizrahim Jew or Costa Rican out of line…” > > From your post #113: > “…but if you handed out that photo at LAX, you’d have half the guys deboarding from Mexico and Central and South America getting stopped.” If so, please show where I advocated profiling even if it didn’t result in a small pool of suspects. By the way, these were the two “ridiculous” examples I was referriing to. Maybe I should have said something to the effect “…the examples you offered to show how ridiculous profiling can be”. > [@](#): > > …(taking into consideration that I have had my brindle Boxer identified as a pit bull on several occasions and that in the real world not every dog’s ears get clipped). Then again, I haven’t seen your test score. Maybe you actually have a Pit Bull. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/125 "2005-08-10T07:21:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you think that my position is accurately portrayed by the following two statements? I’m not sure what your position is. I don’t think you are weaseling, but you jumped in after I responded to **MadSam** ’s rather silly claim and I don’t see why you are so intent on defending his position (even if he did borrow his example from one of your posts). My only contention is that ethnic profiling is worthless. I await any post describing a way in which it would work. If we stop _everyone_ who fits the “profile,” we wind up including large numbers of people who are not even part of the group we claim to be seeking and the time and effort spent detracts from our ability to look for people who are actual evildoers but do not meet our preconceived ideas. If we are only stopping _some_ of the people who meet that profile, we still are including people whom we claim to not be targeting while letting others go by: why waste our time on a hit-and-miss process that simply eliminates everyone else who might actually be planning to do evil deeds. Emma was definitely a Boxer, neither a Staffie nor a Pit Bull. Her successor is not mistaken for the other breeds, but she is not brindle. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/126 "2005-08-10T14:00:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If so, please show where I advocated profiling even if it didn’t result in a small pool of suspects. I’ll concede this, if you like: I agree, you do not seem to advocate profiling except under impossible conditions. **tomndebb** ’s point with the photo is well made. Just one single photo, a profile with a target pool of 1, will result in thousands of false positives if handed out to transport networks nationwide. How much broader a profile is required to match “male Islamic terrorists between the ages of 17 and 40”? Can you suggest some criteria that will result in a small group of search candidates, can be easily applied by security staff to a travelling crowd of thousands upon thousands of people, and yet will still accurately select terrorists? I strongly doubt it. You appear to be saying “I support profiling if we can pick out more or less only the terrorists and very few others.” Well, that’s fine as far as it goes, but no-one on earth has demonstrated how such a magical feat is supposed to be performed. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/127 "2005-08-11T01:51:21Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > I’ll concede this, if you like: I agree, you do not seem to advocate profiling except under impossible conditions. > > **tomndebb** ’s point with the photo is well made. Just one single photo, a profile with a target pool of 1, will result in thousands of false positives if handed out to transport networks nationwide. How much broader a profile is required to match “male Islamic terrorists between the ages of 17 and 40”? Can you suggest some criteria that will result in a small group of search candidates, can be easily applied by security staff to a travelling crowd of thousands upon thousands of people, and yet will still accurately select terrorists? I strongly doubt it. > > You appear to be saying “I support profiling if we can pick out more or less only the terrorists and very few others.” Well, that’s fine as far as it goes, but no-one on earth has demonstrated how such a magical feat is supposed to be performed. Can you? Walk down the aisle of an airplane from one end to another. Your job would be to select 10 people who you think would be more probably than not Middle Easteners, Indian/Pakstani/Indonesian/Afghans. You may be wrong on a few and you may have missed a few…but there are at least 200 or more passengers on board who do not fit the bill. Do you, tomndebb, DNC believe that this would be a totally random selection? If you believe you would not be able to do this with some success, I would totally disagree with you. I certainly am not saying that any of the ten would be terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/128 "2005-08-11T03:37:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Your job would be to select 10 people who you think would be more probably than not Middle Easteners, Indian/Pakstani/Indonesian/Afghans. You may be wrong on a few and you may have missed a few…but there are at least 200 or more passengers on board who do not fit the bill. Well, we _might_ pick 10, successfully, on a plane originating in Boston or Cleveland. Of course, a flight originating in Detroit will produce 30 or 40 “possibles” rather than 10–all of whom are probably nice American folks on business or pleasure trips. And in LA or Houston or Miami, the error rate is going to be much higher. Regardless, what do you propose to do with that information? Anyone you missed has a green light to go ahead and commit an atrocity. Meanwhile, you have wasted time looking at complexion and facial features when you should have been looking at behavior, documentation, or possessions. The Irish girlfriend who _actually carried a bomb_ was just missed among your 200 people that you are ignoring. The guys with Jamaican or Puerto Rican ancestry who have been linked to various activities in the US and the UK have just been placed among the 200 people that you are not bothering to check. It is a meaningless waste of time that distracts from relevant activities. ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/129 "2005-08-11T06:26:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, we _might_ pick 10, successfully, on a plane originating in Boston or Cleveland. Of course, a flight originating in Detroit will produce 30 or 40 “possibles” rather than 10–all of whom are probably nice American folks on business or pleasure trips. And in LA or Houston or Miami, the error rate is going to be much higher. > > Regardless, what do you propose to do with that information? Anyone you missed has a green light to go ahead and commit an atrocity. Meanwhile, you have wasted time looking at complexion and facial features when you should have been looking at behavior, documentation, or possessions. > > The Irish girlfriend who _actually carried a bomb_ was just missed among your 200 people that you are ignoring. The guys with Jamaican or Puerto Rican ancestry who have been linked to various activities in the US and the UK have just been placed among the 200 people that you are not bothering to check. > > It is a meaningless waste of time that distracts from relevant activities. What are you going to do with this information?, you ask. When bomb materials or weapons are located that would be a clue as to terrorists preparing to commit an atrocity, racial profiling of the people mentioned above to investigate would IMO provide more information than any random selection of people…You mentioned an exception to racial profiling with the Irish girlfriend. If you can demonstrate that as many people like her vis a vis the cultures I mentioned above who have been terrorists associated with the destruction of the US, UK, and Israel…I will do an immediate 180 degree alteration of my opinion. If security checks the ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/130 "2005-08-11T06:50:52Z")
> [@](#): > > When bomb materials or weapons are located that would be a clue as to terrorists preparing to commit an atrocity, racial profiling of the people mentioned above to investigate would IMO provide more information than any random selection of people… Wait a minute. You have already _found_ the bomb materials, and your only choices are randomly asking people if they know anything about them or picking up a smaller group of people (but still randomly selected) to ask whether _they_ know something about it? Why not skip the step of wandering around looking for suspicious people to investigate and actually use normal detective methods to track down who had access to the location where the materials were found? If you find bomb materials in Del Ray Michigan, are you going to search Del Ray and Dearborn and drive up and down the streets picking up every male who “looks” Arab? All several thousands of them? Between the outraged innocents and the stonewalling guilty (if they _happen_ to be caught in the sweep), what are the odds that you will actually gain anything by this process? (And, of course, the Middle Eastern immigrant community in Dearborn is over 20 years old, so you really need to expand your sweep to western Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Wayne, Oakwood, and surrounding communities, meaning that you are really stretching your security forces.) And while you have dozens (hundreds?) of personnel devoted to this sweep, how many people have you diverted from good police work? You have still failed to demonstrate an actual scenario where looking at faces does anything more than distract from necessary efforts. Please provide a realistic scenario that demonstrates a legitimate use of ethnic profiling that would not be better handled by behavioral profiling or standard police investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/131 "2005-08-11T10:18:19Z")
> [@MadSam](#): > > …If you can demonstrate that as many people like her vis a vis the cultures I mentioned above who have been terrorists associated with the destruction of the US, UK, and Israel…I will do an immediate 180 degree alteration of my opinion. Ah, and there you make your mistake! Terrorism in the UK, you left in terrorism in the UK. You were supposed to limit it to the US, so that all the Irish terrorists wouldn’t fit into your profile. Do you think an entreprising doper with time on his hands won’t be able to produce ample evidence of white, Irish terrorists perpetrating terror in the UK? Somebody certainly will. I can’t wait to come back to this thread tomorrow and read about it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314/132 "2005-08-11T14:45:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you think an entreprising doper with time on his hands won’t be able to produce ample evidence of white, Irish terrorists perpetrating terror in the UK? Actually, as long as the current process in Northern Ireland continues, even in fits and starts, and the IRA, UDF, UDA, LVF, UFF, Irish-TLA-of-your-choice does not decide to destroy the whole process, I think we are moving away from the likelihood of more inter-island terrorism and I would not want to get sidetracked with that issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legislation-to-allow-racial-profiling-of-arabs/315314.md?page=6)