Any objection to:
Putting more air marshals on flights that have above-normal number of Arab/Muslim passengers registered?
More stringent background checks on Arab/Muslim males applying for jobs at airports, nuclear plants, etc…
Surveillance of (American) mosques known to have been visited by specific individuals of interest?
If a Brazilian can be mistaken for an Middle Eastern terrorist then the only way racial/ethnic profiling can work is for all non-scandinavian-looking-white people (too bad for southern Europeans) to be investigated. How will they be able to tell a Hispanic mulato from a Sicilian from a Middle Eastern person?
Good luck with that.
The last one actually addresses the issue of known individuals engaged in a specific activity. I have no problem with that.
Your second point implies that we can have less stringent checks of job applicants based on some vague notion that there are people who we can assume are “safe.” I am opposed to letting the next Tim McVeigh get a job at an airport just because we want to pretend that he is “safe.”
Your first point implies that more air marshalls per plane has some bearing on how well a trained and armed marshall would be able to hold off unarmed terrorists. (I do hope you are intending to disarm all the terrorists who get on a plane.) It also implies that we can actually know in advance of boarding what an “above normal” number of Arabs or Muslims would be for each flight. I suppose we could pay the airlines for taking up 20% of their paying passenger space with marshalls for every flight to Detroit, but I suspect that we would be spending a lot of money uselessly.
Tell that to El Al
That was 20 years ago and the plot was foiled by El Al.
Why am I refering to **El Al **?
See http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/01/elal-usat.htm#more
Looks to me as though El Al agrees with me. Instead of going after some limited number of people based on vague physical charcateristics, if a person cannot be identified as a known Jew, everyone gets the full inspection. (The article is pretty vague about what exactly happens to the medium-risk passengers. It also offers no indication that the high-risk passengers have ever turned up an actual terrorist.)
By employing thorough searches (such as I have suggested) against medium-risk passengers.
You identify five commonalities:
[ol]
[li]black hair[/li][li]skin color[/li][li]male[/li][li]young[/li][li]good shape[/li][/ol]Granted that is technically more than a few (3), but the criteria is so grossly simplistic it isn’t even useful as a starting point. You’ve identified every young, male traveler from India and a huge portion of South and Latin America. Sure, you go on to list other non-physical criteria (country of origin, names, etc.) and presumably want to include both physical and non-physical attributes in your profiling, but if that is the case, why include black hair at all? Certainly most people that set off the Saudi Arabia flag are also going to set of the black hair flag. Is there any value in excluding a blonde haired person from Saudi Arabia? The same argument could be made for skin color except that its range is even wider than hair color.
Personally, when I looked at the pictures from your attached link, I saw a wider variety of physical characteristics than I expected. The skin color alone runs a wide range. Hairstyles, facial hair, and dress vary. If I was spotting strangers and had to guess their occupations and nationality, it would vary.
Brown to black hair - percentage of the world, what about 50% would you guess?
Darker than average skin color - by definition 50%, though, eliminating people of sub Saharan African descent who don’t seem to ever be a problem when it comes to airline terrorism, it would be more like 30%.
Male - 50%
Young (40 or under) - 50% sound good for a round number?
Good shape - I’ll go with about 25%
There, with those simplistic characteristics, we have narrowed it down to less than 1 in 64 travelers to get added attention even if we *only *use physical characteristics, which would be silly. (unless my math is wrong, which I’m willing to accept it might be!). Not too shabby.
But, you’re absolutely right, we would likely pull aside travelers from India or Latin America (or in my case of Southern European descent, and again, I get added attention at the airport damn near every time). If a security checkpoint has the manpower to give added attention to 100 people an hour (made up number alert), we would be much better off including such people by casting a relatively wide but focused net, and at the same time excluding others, such as the proverbial elderly black woman than we would be by randomly chucking a net around and wasting time including her.
What is the huge drawback? They pull you aside and run a wand over you. They ask to see the underside of your metal belt buckle. They ask to see under your feet. They pat down your legs. It takes 60 seconds or less.
And don’t give me slippery slope BS, that if we allow this extra search then it is inevitable that soon the government will want to burn all of your books and take liberties with your beagle. We have all accepted that when we fly, we have to be cleared through security. There are good reasons for this. Do you have any doubt that without security planes would be blowing up more regularly? It’s just so obvious that we should focus that security.
And, the argument that they could simply recruit pale, red-headed Irishmen only computes if I were advocating that such people would simply be waved through into the plane, which would be asinine. There is still a very slight chance that such a person might blow up the next plane. But I doubt it.
I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. It sounds macabre, but another plane will certainly be used by a terrorist in our lifetime. Anyone want to bet that the people involved are young, male, dark skinned, black haired and in reasonably good shape?
If these criteria are truly meaningless, then the odds are well against me, correct?
90-95%?
Except that you don’t acknowledge my whole point. Unless I misunderstood, you would use physical profiling in addition to other profiling (e.g. country-of-birth). If that is the case, then why use hair and skin color to eliminate 75% (using the best numbers 50% and 50%) of the people if you are going to use country-of-birth to eliminate a much larger portion? In this case, hair and skin color are mostly redundant. For example, profiling Saudi Arabians only would eliminate 99.6% of the people.
But I don’t even agree with your estimates. I don’t think that 50% of the world population does not have brown or black hair. I can try to dig up a cite, but I suspect on reflection, you might agree. I am not so clear on skin color, but I think it is reasonable to say that the lightest skinned hijackers fall under your 50% mark and the darkest skinned fall over your 80% mark. In other words, the range is larger than 30% or 50%. The other numbers seem reasonable and are not redundant with the non-physical profiling criteria.
Although I wonder if these profiles are applied to airline screening only, would these numbers need to be adjusted? I wonder if airline traveler statistics don’t exactly match general population statistics? For example, are there more men flyers than women? What about age groups?
Hey, I’ll accept changes to my numbers!
Of course it would not be the only criteria. Country of origin would be EXTREMELY helpful as well. But the screeners are not privvy to that information.
Beside the fact that many would likely still argue that using country of origin still falls under the umbrella of racial profiling.
How about targeted surveillance of mosques known for ‘extreme rhetoric’ (or something like that)?
This seems a bit utopian to me. I assume there is limited time/attention/resources for any problem, and therefore there must be established a hierarchy of need. Certainly some applicants would merit extra scrutiny, no?
But suppose the average DEN-SFO flight has 5 passengers with Muslim names. Today’s flight has 15. Would it be racist to assign another couple of air marshalls, or just good security practice?
But what makes yout think the next wave of terrorist will have Arab-sounding names? If they are already in the US they don’t need a passport to flight domestic. From what I see in the news procuring false papers doesn’t seem too difficult if you are already intent on breaking the law. The next terrorist could have, African-sounding names, for example, which to the average airport officer will explain the accent.
Getting your name changed legally at the courthouse is a piece of cake, too. Granted, if you were on a watch list it may be a little harder.
Muslim names like John Reid? Marmaduke Pickthall? Jose Padilla?
With all due respect, that’s a clever way of not answering the question.
I think everyone will stipulate that not ALL terrorists are Arabs or Muslims. That fact doesn’t preclude a reasoned discussion of the questions I asked.
Just to be clear, are those here who are against racial profiling in airports against using country of origin as well? Would you oppose giving Saudis or Egyptians a little extra look see?
What is your point? You asked about profiling “Muslim” names and I provided the names of three well-known Muslims, two of whom are accused of involvement in terrorism.
I’m not trying to make a ‘point’; I’m trying to ask questions and generate discussion about pertinent issues. You could have simply answered that, in your opinion, the concept of ‘Muslim names’ is not workable based on these examples. Instead you seem intent on being coy. I think I’ll just leave it alone now.