And I have no problem with your position. Thoroughly searching everyone works for El Al, but may not yet be practical for the whole North American/European/Asian system without bringing it to a halt.
Good luck with your profiles.
Ohhh, you told me… now I see. So I guess I’ll just have to tell you, go reread what I wrote. In case it hasn’t dawned on you, words are one way through which we communicate. Another is pictures. In fact, I think there’s an adage that points to how much more valuable pictures can be. Look it up.
Just so your clear, though, I would show the pictures I mentioned. I would convey to the officers that “we are most likely looking for men, Muslim, 20ish, of Middle Eastern descent. They are likely to have skin color and features much like the men in “these” pictures (hold up and pass around pictures of aforementioned terrorists). Although, we are not sure who will be responsible for the next terrorist attack, all indications thus far point to the perpetrators fitting this profile. So be extra vigilant of those fittiing this profile, especially if they exhibit suspicious behavior. For instance, wearing a long coat in August.”
But why do you insist on playing this childish game? I never said that words would be the best way to communicate who to profile. (I also never said that one factor would an effective profile make.) Scroll north, friend. Read what I wrote. And toward the end of my last post you will notice something I requested of you.
Please be so kind as to address the request. (You may prefer that I “tell” you to do this, but although you evidently weren’t taught this, that would be rude.)
In may not. In which case we would abandon it. But it seems like it would–again, with the stipulations I mentioned earlier. Law enforcement uses it all the time to catch criminals. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work as a crime prevention measure.
Maybe. But then we’ve already made it harder for him. And maybe his having to do somehting additional( buy a blonde wig would be helpful to authorities. It may be that the profile becomes meaningless, in which case we can then choose to revise it or abandon it.
I’ve made this very point earlier. Profiling only has a even a chance of workiing if the profile defines a small enough subset of the population. If you can’t focus on a small enough group, it’s useless. Again, please see the points I made earlier. (Posts 24, 28, 41, 55)
Even Rafi Ron, no friend of civil rights over security, and an expert in the area, thinks this is a stupid idea. Here’s what he has to say about it:
While I’m against the searches on principle, if you want them to be effective, you should listen to Rafi Ron (and Magiver). Otherwise, we’re going to be closing down Grand Central Station every time a group of three tanned guys with backpacks looks at someone wrong.
My initial question to you was “What race are we looking at and what does a Muslim look like?”, and your response was “Like the 19 terrorists responsible for 911. And WTC '93. And the Marine barracks in Beirut. And the Achille Lauro. And the U.S. embassy bombings. Etc.” Considering that none of the terrorists look alike, that’s a non-answer, and you (and everyone else who reads this) knows it. Since many of the other times I and others have attempted to get you to answer simple and direct questions have resulted in pages of non-answers, I’m now going to start using the tactic of just repeating them until you do.
I did, quite specifically. You asked "If you agree with these two statements, can we agree on NOT checking her? If not, why? " and I responded with “I can agree with not checking her. I also agree with not checking anyone at all.”
I responded directly to your question and I was in agreement. Not for the reasons you’d like, but I was still in agreement with you. How is this not an answer?
Which is why people like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and Mickey Cohen were never suspected of organised criminal activities.
As you pointed out, I did answer your question, and then I elaborated on it when you claimed I did not answer it. You may not like my answer, fine. But just because you made an assumption that the profile had to be communicated by words, or by words alone, does mean that reality is subject to the constraints and limitations you place on it.
You are correct. I was think I had asked you a question that I had asked someone else. My apologies.
I’m not dso sure about your specific statement (although I’m sure they all enjoyed a degree of “invisibiity” early on in their careers), but I take your point.
Although jews and those of Irish and other descents have played a role in organized crime, it was a predominantly Italian-American enterprise. I think you would agree that by focusing on places like Italian-American clubs and giving less or no scrutiny to people in medical school, or Quakers, or African-Americans, that they were able to fight organized crime more effectively than if they hadn’t. Is that right?
No, because what happened is that they allowed the smarter mobsters and therefor the more dangerous ones to “hide” their dealings in other avenues, such as using nice, WASPY bankers for money laundering or to “invest” in other business which appeared legimate, but were in reality criminal undertakings… “out the back door” so to speak.
I’m a New Yorker and in my circles, the Dapper Don, was a joke. You don’t call attention to yourself. You don’t sit around in “social clubs” making plans, UNLESS the real purpose was misdirection.
Real mobsters, not the mutts that you think of when you think of the Mob, WERE invisible, that’s the point. Any fool can “profile” a social club full of idiots and it you’re worried about low level crime, sure that’s the way to go; but the big fish, the really dangerous people weren’t sitting around eating a slice talking about how they whacked a guy.
They keep their mouths shut and blended into the background…just like smart terrorist will do.
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems that we are having addressing the terrorist threat in general – and the issue of profiling is just one of the symptoms – is that we haven’t been able to conceive of what the threat really is. A lot of the arguments are based on statements like “they’ve declared war on us” and behind those statements is a conception of organisation and enemy that doesn’t at all reflect reality.
It’s not a nation-state that we are fighting. It’s not an ethnic group. It’s not a religious group. It’s not even a group or an organization or a network of any kind. It’s a series of mostly unconnected radicals who have a vague loyalty to a certain extreme ideology. They’re willing to take ideas from each other and to credit a symbolic leader (Osama), but other than that, there’s really no connection between them.
Targetting Arabs or Muslims or men, or any intersection of those sets, doesn’t get us much closer to finding the potential perpetrators than searching completely randomly.
It’s very difficult to imagine that we’re not facing one enemy; we’re facing millions of potential enemies who are completely independent of each other all over the world. They are of different races and nationalities and, really, their common motive, if there is one, is too vague to be helpful in defining them (We hate America?). (And, I believe, things like the invasion of Iraq results primariliy in generating millions more of them.) Yes, they might sometimes come together to conspire. But, they are essentially independent actors.
I agree with much of what you state. But I think the conclusion you draw–that random searches wold be more effective–is not true. That is precisely what those who wish to do us arm want us to do. To spread the law enforceent scrutiny we have over all 300 million Americans, thereby taking (deserved) scrutiny away from them. Assuming you are correct in your belief that their is little organization and connection between these groups, it becomes, more important, not less, to attempt to create some typ of profile. IF we can, it would be a useful tool. Whatever the the investigative capacity of law enforcement is, wold you rather divide it by 300 million or 200 million or 20 million or one million or 50,000 or 500?
Fact is, we can make certain asumptions about who will be responsible for the next terrorist attack: Middle-Eastern male, Muslim, 20ish. That profile may or may not be tight enough to make it useful (actionable) in a place like NYC, but to not have those traits be part of profile that would allow us to identify a smaller and smaller subset of the population is throwing away a valuable tool. And it exactly what those who plan to harm us want us to do. It just makes their sick task easier.
Don’t many Arabs / Muslims look like some Hispanic people? And didn’t some of the London bombers look like light-skinned Blacks? The London police busted several caps into a Brazillian without any Arab / Muslim at all. I guess that the government could start making Arabs / Muslims sew a yellow Crescent on their clothes.
without any Arab / Muslim blood at all. :smack:
You might be interested in reading this.
I’m not arguing in favor of “racial profiling” per se, I’m mainly arguing that we shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand because it supposedly “doesn’t work”. We know something about those individuals that Al Qaeda has successfully recruited to perform terror attacks and we (presumably) know something about those individuals whom Al Qaeda is currently successful in recruiting. If it can be shown that the recruits are equally represented by all sectors of society, then I agree there is no reason to try and profile.
OTOH, if we are reasonably confident that the recruits are obtained from a certain subsector (or, conversly are not obtained from a certain subsector) then it night make sense to profile that sector and increase or decrease the surveillance* accordingly. One needn’t stop surveillance of all other groups in order to use profiling. For example, one could inspect the packages of 100% of the males between the ages of 16 and 40 and inspect the packages of 1 in 5 of all other groups.
And let me state once again that there very well could be civil liberty issues surrounding the use profiling by ethnic groups, or it could well be that the act of profiling so alienates that subsector that it significantly increases the likelihood that members of that subsector would want to commit acts of terror. Those issues in and of themselves might be reason not to use profiling.
*I’m using that term as a catch-all for inspections or other activities targeted at locating potential terrorists.
You skipped this particular part of my previous post, so I’ll mention it again. Rafi Ron completely disagrees with you. I’m not a fan of the man, as he’d happily have my civil liberties stomped on if it would give security, but even though he’s probably the world’s biggest fan of profiling, he is quite clear that ethnic profiling is a waste of time.
In case you want to stack up security credentials against his, and this is a guy who was invited by Congress to discuss profiling and security after 9/11, here are some of the various positions he’s held and various organizations he’s a part of:
Head of Security for the Israeli Airport Authority
Director of Security at Tel Aviv Airport
Hired as a security and training consultant by Logan International Airport
Hired to give New York transit workers training on how to spot suspicious behavior
Member of Airport Council International’s World Standing Security Committee
Member of Global Aviation Security Action Group
As much as this guy loves profiling, and as much as he’s dealt with terror, if he says ethnic profiling is a waste of time, I’m taking his word over your’s.
I did. It doesn’t apply in the least.
That last part may very well be true, but don’t try to make it sound like he is THE authority and one can not rationally disagree with him. For if that was the case, your stance against profiling in geneneral (non ethnic-based) would have to be discounted immediately–after all, “Rafi Ron says…” And I don’t think that should be the case.
Now, though Mr. Ron’s credentials seem very impressive, I’d be curious as to what, precisely, he means when you say “ethnic profiling”. And, precisely, what his reasons are for abandoning it as a tool. Maybe his reasons would be more convincing than yours. (Although your reason now seems to be “he said so”.)
I was confused about the posts/quotes you supplied from him. Are they posts from him? If so, who is he quoting?
For instance, to whom does the first "he " apply? Who is the the authority that your authority is quoting. Can you supply a link to the actual post?
[Sorry about the poor formating, but I didn’t know how to copy it exactly as it appeared in your post (post within a post).]
I have several problems with this. As I have already pointed out, one of the terrorists who attacked London on 7/7 was Jamaican, your profile would have missed him at least. Although the terrorist attacks so far have been carried out by males aged 18-30 it does not mean the next one will. I also have a problem as to how you define Middle-Eastern. The bombers on 7/7 were all British citizens. Of the people suspected of attempted bombings of 27/7 one was born in Somalia, one was born in Eritrea, and one was born in Ethiopia. We are straying a bit far from the middle east.
Admittedly they were all muslim, but that is not something you can tell by looking at someone.
There is also the question of whether you are only trying to stop al-Queada terrorists only. Unfortunately, terrorism cuts across any ethnic profile you can come up with.
Yes, the middle east was just an easy term to use. We could expand it into to north Africa, for instance. But it does to appear that the terrorists who want to do the the U.S. harm seem to come from a certain vacinity on the map. Would you agree with that? That if I gave you a map and said that citizens of a certain country have just blew up a shopping mall in Ohio and asked you to put a blue pin in the country that you think this person(s) was from and a green pin in every country that you think this person wasn’t from, wouldn’t your world be pretty much be orange pins, with a bunch of blue pins in the “middle east”? Make believe I was going to give you $1,00 for every correct pin.
And “profiling” as preventive tool does not (at least as I consider it) profess to be able to stop all terrorists. The question is, if a large poercentage of criminals responsible for a pattern of crime share certain charecteristics–whether behavioral, physical, or psychographic–should we attempt to use that information as a tool? I say “attempt” because, as I’ve stated earlier, if whatever factors or combinations of factors fail to define a small anought group, then it should not be used.
I’m not sure what you are asking here? Do you mean other Muslim extremists groups or non-Muslim, Timothy MacVeight types?