New York cops (as well as others) have a pretty rough history concerning the subject of racial profiling. I used to think that it was an evil thing. An abuse of power. Now, I’m not so sure. I live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. I have to go over the Williamsburg bridge to come home or go out (if I don’t take the train). One cab I got had an Arab man as the driver. When we pulled up to the bridge (which is now guarded by police) they stopped the car and searched the trunk. I asked the dirver if they do that to everybody, and his response was “Just Arabs”.
Racial profiling. Without a doubt. But is it now warranted? Is this OK given the current climate? Or is it just as repulsive as it’s always been? Even if it is repulsive, do we have a choice?
I’m confused and on the fence on this issue. How do you feel?
the problem is the name “racial profiling”. it should just be called “profiling” or “physical profiling”. If you were looking for blonde neo-nazis then would be called racial if every blonde male was scrutinized?
The problem with the practice is that the authorities have to accept it as a necessity and realize that the profiled group is large and 99% innocent. so they have to cautious but not abusive to the profiled. of course thats difficult by the fact that the profiled don’t like be profiled. so it makes a potentially tense situation. but I can’t think of an alternative.
What are we talking about here? Treating all Middle-Eastern and South Asian people with suspicion until proven innocent? Please make a case that it will make us safer and not be a complete waste of law enforcement resources and we’ll debate the merits of that argument.
I vote travesty. It might be one we have to live with for the time being, but that does not make it any less of a travesty. There’s a big difference between saying:
“Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for Masar al-Khafar, a suspected Libyan terrorist. He has an olive-brown middle-eastern complexion, moustache and beard, black hair and eyes, about 180 pounds, and is 6 feet tall. Last seen in the New York metropolitan area.”
and saying:
“Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for suspected middle eastern terrorists. Stop anyone who looks vaguely Mediterranian, especially if they have dark skin or is wearing a turban.”
Whenever this subject is debated it seems to turn to quickly into theoretical arguments. I am a realist. Should every person of middle eastern descent be harassed constantly by the government just for the way they look? Of course not. The government doesn’t have the resources for this even if they for some reason wanted to. But, by not allowing “racial profiling” you are limiting the power of the authorities in the interests of political correctness. Because what really ends up happening is that cops would be afraid to check out a person who they feel is suspicious because he is middle eastern and they don’t want to appear politically incorrect.
The authorities should have every tool available to make decisions on who to target. They often have to rely on their gut instincts, and should not be limited from making the best decisions they can.
Lets say I am mugged and describe the attacker as Black male, 6 foot tall, wearing a blue jacket. The police quickly catch the suspect, but he has taken off the jacket. I recognize him and they arrest him. Would anyone agree that this case should be thrown away because the attacker was no longer wearing the jacket? The only possible things left that the police used to identify him was his height and skin color. This would fall into the category of racial profiling, would it not? Even if he has my wallet on him, this was only discovered because they caught him using racial profiling, so that could be prevented from being used as evidence.
In any practical scenario I just can’t see letting criminals go free, or lowering our defenses against terrorists because of this fear of racial profiling. We can’t fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs.
A travesty that will (likely) be foisted upon us as a necessity. Hence, with great reluctance, I tend to favor the national ID card approach. I am, as always, loathe to hand any more power to the Grey Men than we must, but there are upsides here:
Protection of the innocent. As noted, the ordinary white person is under no realistic threat of being misidentified as a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist. But any number of people currently residing here would face that threat. Such a card could prove that the bearer’s background has been vetted and that there is no reason for the authorities to detain or harrass said person without clear evidence of wrongdoing.
There is much trumpeting made by the Administration of the number of people they have arrested/detained. Of these what…700 or so?..detainees how many are actually guilty of anything. This is far more reprehensible than the admittedly distasteful prospect of sumbitting to carrying such a card. They certainly should not have to face this kind of thing twice.
Apprehension of the guilty. Put simply, it will make the task of simply disappearing into the woodwork more difficult for someone who actually has malign intentions. (I must, in fairness, note here how many of the 19 WTC terrorists had clean records, and thus would have eluded such a system entirely).
I must emphasize again that I find this prospect repulsive. Given the public clamor to be secure at any cost, we would probably be lucky if this is as bad as it gets. Further, my heart goes out to those illegal immigrants whose sole intent is to grub out a living in America’s shadow. Massive deportations are likely, a prospect some of us would applaud. And, of course, such as Tim McVeigh would have passed the background test without a hitch. And there is the daunting prospect of 300 million background investigations and the maintenance of such a database.
But if this nasty little excercise actually proceeds to a full-scale war, we will be very lucky indeed if this is the worst domestic consequence.
Please tell me you didn’t mean to imply that all black people look alike…
Depends – you already gave his height, so presumably you got a look at the mugger. Did you tell the police about the shape of his nose? His haircut? Weight? Musculature? Any distinguishing characteristics?
If you gave (some of) that information and the police identified him by those characteristics, then that’s not racial profiling. If the police drag in every black male in a ten-mile radius simply because they were black, then that’s racial profiling.
Sure, but there’s nothing that says it’s an either/or proposition – we can find a balance between safety awareness and targeting everyone who looks Mediterranian, for instance. Racial profiling to deter terrorism is a brute-force approach to the problem, and one that can be easily circumvented – not all Islamic fundamentalist terrorists look like Osama bin Laden, after all…
This sounds pretty theoretical to me. At any rate, how is this example racial profiling? They didn’t stop the guy because he was black and then charge him with a crime ex post facto, they stopped a guy matching the description of a suspect (except for one detail - the jacket) and then got a positive ID from the victim. The fact that the description included his race doesn’t make this a case of racial profiling.
The police should follow what Kelly did at US Customs: profiling the people who are actually smuggling the drugs as opposed to targeting a race or ethnic group. Check a combination of suspicious activities someone or group does.
I’ve heard a lot of support for racial profiling “in this particular case,” but that doesn’t justify it at all. It makes me sick when I hear of people being kicked off of planes or others refusing to ride with another passenger. Anyone could be a terrorist, so should I only fly alone? Boy, that bothers me. The “logic” isn’t any different than saying [*race X] commits more crimes, therefore let’s keep a really close eye on everyone who looks like [race X.]
*race X being whatever that individual considered to be the “problem.” Blehf!
Simply put, the terrorists aren’t stupid. If they know that we are focusing more attention on people with a stereotypically “Arab” appearance, then they will go out of their way to avoid that appearance. If you look at pictures of the hijackers, some of them couldn’t be easily identified as Arabs anyway.
Maybe we should pass a law requiring all terrorists to wear Turbans when they plan to hijack a plane. :rolleyes:
suppose you were about to board a flight today and 4 other passengers look like terrorist to you (for whatever reason). do you just say “racial profiling is not right” and get on or do you change flights or watch to make sure they are thoroughly searched?
the reality,as Debaser points out, is that we all make judgements all day long based on the appearance of a person.
If it was neo-nazis that were blonde blue eyes then you would be suspicious of that “race”.
If someone approaches you in your car and they are wearing tattered clothes you treat them differently than if they wore a suit. no reguards to race.
Here in London we have a “ring of steel” around the financial area, put in place to stop Irish terrorists (who have struck here several times) this gives the police the power to pull over anyone who looks suspicious (ie Irish).
Guess what? Black londoners are getting pulled over more often than white. With the exception of Phil Lynnott I can’t think of a black Irishman.
Now the circumstances have changed and the perceived risk is from the middle east this has all changed? Go on you guess…
Maybe what this thread should be discussing is what the definition of racial profiling is. It seems that the opponents and supporters of racial profiling have very different ideas about what it entails. No reasonable person would agree with dagging in every black male in a 10 mile radius. I define racial profiling as using someones race as a descriptor.
So, when anyone talks about not allowing racial profiling, I take that to mean the authorities cannot use race as a factor in any way. This too severely limits the cops and federal agents we depend on for safety. And I really don’t see a slippery slope here. If we allow the police to use the race of a suspect to do their jobs, I don’t think this means that next week we will be rounding people up to put into camps.
Then where is the line drawn, exactly? If you can use race as a description, then don’t we have racial profiling? Is it a specific number of people profiled that defines racial profiling, and no longer just a description? It happens to one person in my example and that is a description. It happens to 1,000 people in one day and it is racial profiling.
Debaser, I think the difference is using race as part of the description of a particular, identified person being sought.
If you said, “I didn’t see him, but I’ll recognize his voice,” and the cops then rounded up the black guys in the area so you could listen to their voices, that would be clear racial profiling. It’s also racial profiling when they search the cars of only the black people at a customs checkpoint, because “black people smuggle more often.” But when they get a call that “a lone black man coming through your checkpoint has ten keys in the trunk,” searching all cars driven by black men becomes reasonable.
The best argument against profiling–of any sort: race, age, gender, ethnicity–is that it rests on assumptions that are demonstrably false, or that we know intuitively to be false–namely, that different crimes are committed by different kinds of people in something other than numbers perfectly proportional to their percentages of the general population. So, for example, just as umemployed 19-year-old Black males are just as likely to engage in stock manipulation as are 47-year-old white male investment bankers, my 86-year-old retired high school librarian mom living in Peoria is no less likely to fly a domestic airliner into the Sears Tower than would a 24-year-old male Saudi national. For the sake of effective resorce-allocation, I hope the SEC and FAA share my understanding of the situation.
Honestly, I would run probably run screaming from the airport and sit trembling in front of the T.V. at home to see if anything happened…
We all make private judgement calls based on “gut instinct” and probably a few prejudices formed from prior experiences in life or reaction to things we hear on the news. They probably vary from person to person. I do not believe that we should allow people in positions of authority unlimited latitude where it comes to basing decisions on such arbitrary criteria. However, my problem in this case is with the guidelines used to determine when the use of such arbitrary criteria is applicable. The description “Arab” - when based on a person’s physical appearance alone - is very vague and unreliable. If security officials are asked to search all “suspicious-looking people”, they may have a better chance of catching a Lebanese terrorist than if they are asked to search only “Arab-looking people”.
I’m 5’2", female and not white. On five consecutive Eurostar trips to England I was stopped and all my bags searched (contents thrown on the ground, suspicious officials asking me the same questions over and over again in the hope that I would eventually slip up). I was the only person on the train who was searched, except for the last time when an immigrant who could barely speak English was searched as well. And I hold a British passport! That last time, I asked why I was always being searched. I was told that I “fit the profile”.
Was there some criminal out there who fit my description? If there was, then I suppose they were justified in eyeing me suspiciously - if they actually considered that I might be that person. If they are merely using the race of certain known criminals as a reason to assume that others of the same race may be criminal as well, I think they were wrong to do that. (This is basically the same point that ENugent just made it, but I didn’t see his post until I previewed.)
I’m sure that passengers arriving from Middle Eastern countries are now subject to special scrutiny in American airports. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with that. It is justifiable and is probably even a good idea. In this case, security officials have tangible evidence that the people involved have interests outside the United States. The problem is that in regular day-to-day life, not many of us are cosmopolitan enough to be able to guess where all of the people around us are from.
elucidator’s idea of a national identification card would effectively solve this problem for me. I’m sure that the people asked to show their cards would be mostly people who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, but once they prove that they are innocent American citizens, they should not be treated differently from any other innocent American citizens. Those who are in the country on Saudi visas, for example, must subject to having their car or other belongings searched. Those who can’t prove that they are in the country legally face deportation, as already pointed out. There is a system somewhat like this in France, where every person is required to carry proof of identification and proof of residence at all times. Legally, anyone who doesn’t can be thrown into jail. In practice, only people who don’t “look French” will ever actually be stopped and asked to produce this identification. But the law applies equally to all people in theory, at least.
** Elucidator** I’m rather surprised to hear you actually (even begrudgingly) endorsing national ID cards.
I’m not exactly sure what carrying a card could do for anyone other than make it easier for the “guys in gray” to be able to follow your every move better.
First off, who would get these cards? Every single person in the US? Or just some people? If it’s some people, then who? Legal permanent resident aliens? Students here on valid student visas? A combination thereof?
If it winds up being for a little slice of the population, I have a strong hunch that it won’t be very effective. All a terrorist would have to include in his plans are methods which would land him in the slice of the population which doesn’t require carrying the card. The card is truly little more than modern day version of a yellow Jewish star being handed out in Germany in the 30’s.
In regards to the OP, I think profiling is not something new or something that can ever be avoided. If the police only have a certain verbal/written description to go on (ie what they get on their radios or computers in their cars), then some profiling will be involved. Commonly heard over police radios are things like “suspect is white male… 30’s… etc” “Hispanic male… 6’0”…etc.
The current situation in the US is quite tense. The local law enforcement agencies are all on high alert 1) to try to calm the public fears about the “suspects that still remain at large” according to the incessant chants by the attorney general; 2)They are searching for any other accomplices that may still be related to the Sept 11th attacks.
Since most of the suspects were middle eastern, and the accomplices currently detained are middle eastern, the police are profiling a lot of middle easterners right now. I think it stands to reason. I hope it doesn’t wind up becoming a precursor for widespread harassment, but the current situation leaves little alternative to profiling of middle easterners.
However, with that said, I think even profiling is going to be pretty ineffective for any future deterrence of terrorism. The problem with terrorism is that it relies on using existing systems and remaining “invisible” within those systems.
I think profiling middle easterners will only mean that the next round of successful terrorists won’t be middle eastern looking.
For example, many middle easterners posses traits which are commonly associated with Anglo Saxons. Iranians are Aryan. Many have light skin and some have blue or green eyes. Same goes for some Turkish or even a small section of Arabs. And the rest of what mother nature didn’t give you, any beauty store can help you alter. Blonde hair? No problem. How about red hair and a nice European-looking mustache and beard? Born with dark brown eyes? No problem… pop on these colored contacts.
So altering an identity trait to get passed any known “triggers” will more than likely be covered in Terrorism 101.
So profiling loses a lot of its effectiveness until after a crime has been committed. Profiling before an incident in hopes of catching a potential bad guy is probably a bad idea. It’s really little more than yet one more reason for cops to pull over innocents.
I think one of the most effective ways of trying to locate bad guys before they commit atrocities would be to use a database that’s international. Say, something along the lines of an Interpol database, but connected to every cop car, every airport (particularly at the terminal/ticketing of international airports), and every DMV in every country that wishes to participate. The way a name gets entered into the database is if they do something substantial in the way of terrorism activity.
Now, anywhere they go in the entire world, they’re being watched and the information is well maintained and accurate by an agency who’s sole existence is to monitor and maintain this database.
Now, every time they go anywhere, automatic checks against their name and identity are being run.
I know that the problem with this system is that the identity change I mentioned before could be used to defeat this system as well. But that goes back to the fundamental advantage that terrorism, as an idea, has. It works because the perpetrators are able to blend in with everyone else almost seamlessly. There have been tons of rules and laws that have been passed since the sixties to try to combat terrorism. Almost every single one, regardless of the nation that came up with the law, has been unable to stop, slow down, or even deter terrorism. The Unabomber was able to perform his terror without ever falling victim to any of the traps that are being suggested even today. How would’ve a national ID card helped the US in that situation elucidator?
Great post Nietzsche. I do, however, get a little nervous around sentiments like these:
A system like this scares me. When they can identify you anywhere in the world, and all you have to do is step in front of a camera (cops camera, security camera in a mall, security camera on the street). It’s easy to say we’ll just do it for people we think are terrorists. But it’s not a big leap for some agency (FBI, CIA) to start using the same tech to monitor the movements of people they don’t like (unpopular political views, industry leaders, famous people). Could you imagine if Herbert Hoover had this tech?
Biometrics linked to public camera’s linked to law enforcement is just a bit too 1984ish for my tastes. Terrorists or no.
