In this morning’s Washington Post is a story (and we must admit one side of the story) of a guy at Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) who was investigated for being a spy.
Among the reasons he was suspected was his numerous trips to the Middle East, his friendship with one of the liaison officers (of a erstwhile allied nation) and generally being an oddball. (He spoke a foreign language, took off early on Fridays to make it to services, and seemed very dedicated to his work.
Face it, it was religious / racial profiling.
Of course we must say the guy still has his job. He was a little embarrassed is all. We have to suspect that the security people will make honest mistakes.
Your thoughts?
Man, this is yet another example of how Bush has eroded our civil rights and turned this country’s civil liberties on their head.
He even managed screw someone over in the 90s! 
What a fine line to walk. You’re right that some amount of mistakes are acceptable, whether due to their unavoidability or overzealousness. Thank you Fourth Amendment (and others) for protecting me in criminal situations, and thank you whatever tort laws would apply if conduct meets whatever standard was met (e.g., careless action, probably not, reckless disregard or intentional misconduct probably would be grounds, but that’s a whole other thread).
But it’s a fine line the investigators have to walk. What deems evidence credible and specific enough to warrant targeting an identifiable group? The internment camps of WWII were, I believe, one tragic example of that run amok. But does that mean such thinking is absolutely prohibited? Shouldn’t, in certain situations, a member of the nemesis de jur be looked at with infinitesimally greater scrutiny? Not anally probed or stalked, but subject to greater awareness—this is hard to describe without sounding pro waterboarding or like I’m spying on my neighbors. But yes, I want the police forces to be a tad paranoid, a tad suspicious, and a tad aware of geopolitics. How so is something of an inscrutable question, and I daresay claims that they should remain absolutely blind to such issues is as naïve as suggesting the return of internment camps.
(BTW, in these musings I’m considering honest, good-faith efforts. Maliciousness, prejudice, and malfeasance certainly exists and certainly plays a role in the discussion, but not at the moment.)