Racial Profiling (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

100% of the hijackings we have had on American planes have come from young, Arab, Muslim men. Wouldn’t it be more effective and efficient to look closer at people who fit this profile at airports as opposed to white grannies from Idaho-especially given that the alternative may be mass murder?

What is lost by doing things this way? Most people would be fine with being searched for five minutes longer upon finding out that they fit the description of a mass murderer. It is hysterical to go as far as to say that the tragedy of airline inconveniences would make these people 2nd hand citizens. We are the only country in the world that is held to this unreasonably higher standard and expected to fight every fight with our hand needlessly tied behind our backs.

The only people throwing the pity parties are liberals and they are selective about who they throw them for. Nobody complained when Attorney General Bobby Kennedy only looked into white people when investigating Klan violence. Nobody expected the authorities to treat blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics equally when trying to prevent further white militia attacks on federal buildings after Oklahoma City.

We are not talking about randomly pulling over black people just because they are 12% of the population and commit over 80% of the violent crime. This isn’t about crime. It is about ENEMIES trying to kill us by the thousands. We need to kick this hippy nonsense to the curb and get serious about security.

If security is being handled correctly, liberals should be screaming their heads off. By this reliable standard, one can rest assured that the Patriot Act is warranted and that we are on the right track in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no screaming about racist airline policies. Well, Al Gore did recently get paid a small fortune to go trash our country (calling us racists and many of the other usual Democrat smears) in front of Saudi fundamentalists, but that was the only tantrum I've seen on this yet.

So why are we not hearing the usual chorus of seething anti-American hate from our patriotic Democrat counterparts on this one?

There is one Democrat Bush left in office from Clinton’s administration when he took over-Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. Before 9/11, this had to seem like the one job Democrats couldn’t screw up. But now, it is critical that we tell this ineffective hippy to get his patchouli, take a bath, and leave important national security matters to us insensitive conservative barbarians who would dare to care more about mass murder than warm, fuzzy inclusiveness for young, Arab, Muslim men.

 

[HTColeman]

100% of the hijackings we have had on American planes have come from young, Arab, Muslim men. Wouldn’t it be more effective and efficient to look closer at people who fit this profile at airports as opposed to white grannies from Idaho-especially given that the alternative may be mass murder?

What is lost by doing things this way? Most people would be fine with being searched for five minutes longer upon finding out that they fit the description of a mass murderer. It is hysterical to go as far as to say that the tragedy of airline inconveniences would make these people 2nd hand citizens. We are the only country in the world that is held to this unreasonably higher standard and expected to fight every fight with our hand needlessly tied behind our backs.

Easy to say when you know that you'll never be profiled, huh? If you allow arabs to be racially profiled, you allow every minority to be profiled. Drawing the line at arabs or airlines for terrorism is arbitrary, if you say it is okay to persecute arabs b/c they "fit the profile," then it is okay to use if for other forms of law enforcement, why not? It is the same reasoning. For example if you allowed what you propose, it would be okay for police to stop me on the road and tear apart my car for drugs and guns, because I "fit the profile" of the average gangster, young black male. And why wouldn't it make them 2nd hand citizens? The Bill of Rights says that you must have probable cause, race is biological, not evidence.

The only people throwing the pity parties are liberals and they are selective about who they throw them for. Nobody complained when Attorney General Bobby Kennedy only looked into white people when investigating Klan violence. Nobody expected the authorities to treat blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics equally when trying to prevent further white militia attacks on federal buildings after Oklahoma City.

The only people who don't care are the ones it doesn't affect, who cares what happens to everyone else, as long as it doesn't happen to me, that is selfish and pig-headed. Oh yeah, the key word for white militia attacks, is white. If you were looking into a suspect described as white, you look for a white person. However, you wouldn't say that all domestic terrorists are white because of the Oklahoma City bombing would you?

We are not talking about randomly pulling over black people just because they are 12% of the population and commit over 80% of the violent crime. This isn’t about crime. It is about ENEMIES trying to kill us by the thousands. We need to kick this hippy nonsense to the curb and get serious about security.

Define enemy, because these arabs you want to profile are citizens, otherwise it doesn't matter because they aren't citizens. And tell me the difference between racially profiling blacks and profiling arabs? My next door neighbor is originally from Pakistan, but he is a citizen, is he an enemy?

If security is being handled correctly, liberals should be screaming their heads off. By this reliable standard, one can rest assured that the Patriot Act is warranted and that we are on the right track in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no screaming about racist airline policies. Well, Al Gore did recently get paid a small fortune to go trash our country (calling us racists and many of the other usual Democrat smears) in front of Saudi fundamentalists, but that was the only tantrum I've seen on this yet.

So why are we not hearing the usual chorus of seething anti-American hate from our patriotic Democrat counterparts on this one?

There is one Democrat Bush left in office from Clinton’s administration when he took over-Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. Before 9/11, this had to seem like the one job Democrats couldn’t screw up. But now, it is critical that we tell this ineffective hippy to get his patchouli, take a bath, and leave important national security matters to us insensitive conservative barbarians who would dare to care more about mass murder than warm, fuzzy inclusiveness for young, Arab, Muslim men.

You give republicans a very bad name, you are not conservative, you are ignorant. Bashing political parties doesn't contribute to anything, it only lets people know how deeply rooted you are in stereotypes. I am sure you have already formed an opinion of me based on stereotypes.

and leave important national security matters to us insensitive conservative barbarians who would dare to care more about mass murder than warm, fuzzy inclusiveness for young, Arab, Muslim men.

Once again, you are not conservative, you are one of the people who put your own a** before anyone else's, that's all it boils down to. You don't think that young arab citizens have the same rights as you? You know there was a reason that Congress has repeatedly apologized for their actions towards Japanese-American citizens.

 

[Kandahar]

Easy to say when you know that you'll never be profiled, huh? If you allow arabs to be racially profiled, you allow every minority to be profiled. Drawing the line at arabs or airlines for terrorism is arbitrary, if you say it is okay to persecute arabs b/c they "fit the profile," then it is okay to use if for other forms of law enforcement, why not? It is the same reasoning. For example if you allowed what you propose, it would be okay for police to stop me on the road and tear apart my car for drugs and guns, because I "fit the profile" of the average gangster, young black male. And why wouldn't it make them 2nd hand citizens? The Bill of Rights says that you must have probable cause, race is biological, not evidence.

A couple of distinctions between airport screening of young Arab males, versus random searches of young black males:

1. The police have the right to search people getting on airplanes; they do not have the right to stop motorists and search them without probable cause.

2. The danger posed by a terrorist attack is imminent; a young black gangster, on the other hand, is most likely not on his way to commit a crime when the police stop him.

The only people who don't care are the ones it doesn't affect, who cares what happens to everyone else, as long as it doesn't happen to me, that is selfish and pig-headed. Oh yeah, the key word for white militia attacks, is white. If you were looking into a suspect described as white, you look for a white person. However, you wouldn't say that all domestic terrorists are white because of the Oklahoma City bombing would you?

I would say that the vast majority of domestic right-wing terrorists who are associated with conspiracy theories and racial supremacy groups, are white. So if we're looking for a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented, skinhead terrorist group, it wouldn't make much sense to question middle-aged Japanese women, would it?

Racial profiling in certain cases is simply a matter of common sense. Certain groups are more likely to commit terrorist attacks then others, and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Of course profiling of any sort is evil and should not be countenanced by a civilized society.

When the cops are searching for a rapist, they should interrogate equal numbers of men and women. The description of the rapist should not include any information that would tell the reader what sex the suspect is, how tall they are (short people got rights too, eh?), skin color, hair color (bald guys can get it up, too), etc. Concentrating law enforcement efforts only on those likely to be a rapist is discriminatory and should not be permitted.

 

[The Real McCoy]

100% of the hijackings we have had on American planes have come from young, Arab, Muslim men. Wouldn’t it be more effective and efficient to look closer at people who fit this profile at airports as opposed to white grannies from Idaho-especially given that the alternative may be mass murder?

What is lost by doing things this way? Most people would be fine with being searched for five minutes longer upon finding out that they fit the description of a mass murderer. It is hysterical to go as far as to say that the tragedy of airline inconveniences would make these people 2nd hand citizens. We are the only country in the world that is held to this unreasonably higher standard and expected to fight every fight with our hand needlessly tied behind our backs.

The only people throwing the pity parties are liberals and they are selective about who they throw them for. Nobody complained when Attorney General Bobby Kennedy only looked into white people when investigating Klan violence. Nobody expected the authorities to treat blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics equally when trying to prevent further white militia attacks on federal buildings after Oklahoma City.

We are not talking about randomly pulling over black people just because they are 12% of the population and commit over 80% of the violent crime. This isn’t about crime. It is about ENEMIES trying to kill us by the thousands. We need to kick this hippy nonsense to the curb and get serious about security.

If security is being handled correctly, liberals should be screaming their heads off. By this reliable standard, one can rest assured that the Patriot Act is warranted and that we are on the right track in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no screaming about racist airline policies. Well, Al Gore did recently get paid a small fortune to go trash our country (calling us racists and many of the other usual Democrat smears) in front of Saudi fundamentalists, but that was the only tantrum I've seen on this yet.

So why are we not hearing the usual chorus of seething anti-American hate from our patriotic Democrat counterparts on this one?

There is one Democrat Bush left in office from Clinton’s administration when he took over-Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. Before 9/11, this had to seem like the one job Democrats couldn’t screw up. But now, it is critical that we tell this ineffective hippy to get his patchouli, take a bath, and leave important national security matters to us insensitive conservative barbarians who would dare to care more about mass murder than warm, fuzzy inclusiveness for young, Arab, Muslim men.

Meanwhile, while we're busy searching Arabs and increasing tensions with the Middle Eastern community, some Southeast Asian Islamic radicals hop on board and hijack the plane.

 

[HTColeman]

A couple of distinctions between airport screening of young Arab males, versus random searches of young black males:

1. The police have the right to search people getting on airplanes; they do not have the right to stop motorists and search them without probable cause.

Actually, they do have the right for random searches. You could refuse the search but then they would just make you wait until they call in a police dog and sniff around your car. By that time, you might as well have let them search your car. Also, we are not talking about the right to search people in airports, we are talking about whether it is right for the police to treat arab citizens differently because of their biological make-up.

2. The danger posed by a terrorist attack is imminent; a young black gangster, on the other hand, is most likely not on his way to commit a crime when the police stop him.

So iminence is the only factor that decides whether racial profiling is right or wrong? So if a police dept. gets a tip that there is going to be a drive by shooting in 'x' area. Its okay for them to detain any young black man in 'x' area? Well, if this is okay, then any time a violent crime occurs the police should go looking for blacks according to statistics (skewed statistics).

I would say that the vast majority of domestic right-wing terrorists who are associated with conspiracy theories and racial supremacy groups, are white. So if we're looking for a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented, skinhead terrorist group, it wouldn't make much sense to question middle-aged Japanese women, would it?

No it wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that white is enough cause to be suspected as a domestic terrorist. Being arab is not suspicious, maybe if they are carrying a suspicious bag, look unreasonably nervous, wearing a bulky coat in the middle of summer, etc. But arab is not enough for a denial of rights.

Racial profiling in certain cases is simply a matter of common sense. Certain groups are more likely to commit terrorist attacks then others, and should be dealt with accordingly.

By certain groups, you mean arabs. Where is that statistic? Aquapub stated that 100% of plane hijackings are from young, arab men. Well, that is a pretty easy statistic considering there are only TWO occurences, both performed by al Queda, one group of arabs. TWO occurences does not show a trend among an entire race. If you were to look outside of America, there are plenty of Israeli terrorists, Eastern European terrorists, African terrorists, and others that we don't really hear about.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bottom line, you cannot treat a citizen unequally because of their national background. By doing so you are saying that there is something wrong with being arab, and thereby encouraging prejudice against them.

 

[DeeJayH]

Of course profiling of any sort is evil and should not be countenanced by a civilized society.

When the cops are searching for a rapist, they should interrogate equal numbers of men and women. The description of the rapist should not include any information that would tell the reader what sex the suspect is, how tall they are (short people got rights too, eh?), skin color, hair color (bald guys can get it up, too), etc. Concentrating law enforcement efforts only on those likely to be a rapist is discriminatory and should not be permitted.

LOL
yeah right
I mean if a white guy robs a liquor store
why wouldnt you stop every black woman you come across just incase:doh

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Meanwhile, while we're busy searching Arabs and increasing tensions with the Middle Eastern community, some Southeast Asian Islamic radicals hop on board and hijack the plane.

Right on!!

It's just plain foolish to target a racial group in the way being suggested (not to mention unacceptable). Terrorists may be many things, but they are not stipid. They will just start finding vulnerable white people to convert to Islam and then to terrorism. And then what?

Oh, and do you know what I always enjoyed? The visa waiver form I signed several times in order to enter the USA, which, amongst other things, basically asked me if I was a terrorist. Now why didn't that stop terrorism?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Right on!!

It's just plain foolish to target a racial group in the way being suggested (not to mention unacceptable). Terrorists may be many things, but they are not stipid. They will just start finding vulnerable white people to convert to Islam and then to terrorism. And then what?

Oh, and do you know what I always enjoyed? The visa waiver form I signed several times in order to enter the USA, which, amongst other things, basically asked me if I was a terrorist. Now why didn't that stop terrorism?

I wonder if anybody's ever put "yes" for that question and if so, what happened to them?

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Racial profiling doesn't automatically mean that they stop everyone of that race regardless of where they are. There are criteria that must still be met, and it isn't as clear cut as you seem to make it. And if you think it doesn't happen to whites, get real.
How? I used to be a real estate appraiser. More money in investing, so I don't bother with appraisals, but I still go to a lot of neighborhoods where I stand out.
Over 6 ft tall and white, in a black neighborhood, you can bet that the police, if they see me, will pull me over and question what I am doing there. Why?
Because I am in a predominately black/hispanic/arabic neighborhood, and therefor, stand out.
I've been stopped over fifteen times, and had my car searched three.
And it doesn't bother me one bit. It is just the security of our country doing what it is supposed to do for a neighborhood, nothing else.
I've also been pulled out of line at the airports every time I fly for the search. And it is strictly based on my appearance, since I don't look happy all the time.
And I'll continue to let it go on, because I know that they are trying to protect the country.

 

[earthworm]

To quote Mr Coleman ...... Easy to say when you know that you'll never be profiled, huh?
If you allow Arabs to be racially profiled, you allow every minority to be profiled. ............................................................................................
Bull****(male bovine feces) Only the Arabs/Islamics are to be profiled,NOT a Black-American,NOT a Chinaman, NOT an Eskimo, NOT an Indian, but the Islamic only !
Now this must be done very carefully, using ONLY intelligent men with the capability.

If this cannot be done, then I would trash the idea...


Quote again......Drawing the line at Arabs or airlines for terrorism is arbitrary, if you say it is okay to persecute Arabs b/c they "fit the profile," then it is okay to use if for other forms of law enforcement, why not? But of course, this has been done since day one of crime...........................................................................

This "profiling" must only be done at places where there could be a problem..

Quote................It is the same reasoning. For example if you allowed what you propose, it would be okay for police to stop me on the road and tear apart my car for drugs and guns, because I "fit the profile" of the average gangster, young black male..................................

There is a huge difference between yourself and a terrorist..

If a profiler cannot see this, then he should be sweeping floors or washing dishes..
Quote.............And why wouldn't it make them 2nd hand citizens? The Bill of Rights says that you must have probable cause, race is biological, not evidence........................................................................

IMO, the Arabs have made themselves into second class citizens..if they do not like this, make them clean their own house and stop supporting and cheering the terrorists !!

This is a " war " against the terrorist - to hell with the Bill of Rights, as far as the Islamics are concerned....

 

[Navy Pride]

If Arabs commit terrorist act then you profile Arabs...Its as simple as that..........

 

[Kandahar]

Actually, they do have the right for random searches. You could refuse the search but then they would just make you wait until they call in a police dog and sniff around your car. By that time, you might as well have let them search your car.

Oh I don't doubt that they can make life very difficult for people who won't consent to the search. But bottom line is they STILL don't have the right to get in your car without your consent or without probable cause.

Also, we are not talking about the right to search people in airports, we are talking about whether it is right for the police to treat arab citizens differently because of their biological make-up.

If you know that a certain group is more likely to commit a crime than another group, it's silly to pretend otherwise. Which would make you feel safer in an airport: A) Searches of 50% of Arab Muslim males ages 16-30, and 5% of everyone else, or B) 10% of everyone, including small children, grandmothers, Chinese people, etc?

So iminence is the only factor that decides whether racial profiling is right or wrong? So if a police dept. gets a tip that there is going to be a drive by shooting in 'x' area. Its okay for them to detain any young black man in 'x' area?

If a young black man stands out enough in such an area, then yes. If it's in the middle of the inner-city (like most drive-by shootings), then that isn't enough information since many people fit that description.

Well, if this is okay, then any time a violent crime occurs the police should go looking for blacks according to statistics (skewed statistics).

Every crime carries its own evidence. If that's all the "evidence" the police can come up with, they're in the wrong business.

No it wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that white is enough cause to be suspected as a domestic terrorist. Being arab is not suspicious, maybe if they are carrying a suspicious bag, look unreasonably nervous, wearing a bulky coat in the middle of summer, etc. But arab is not enough for a denial of rights.

But no rights are being denied, as people don't have the right to NOT be searched before getting on a plane. The security people can search anyone they want; the fact that they're singling out people who are likely to commit terrorist acts is not a denial of rights, its simply common sense.

By certain groups, you mean arabs. Where is that statistic? Aquapub stated that 100% of plane hijackings are from young, arab men. Well, that is a pretty easy statistic considering there are only TWO occurences, both performed by al Queda, one group of arabs. TWO occurences does not show a trend among an entire race. If you were to look outside of America, there are plenty of Israeli terrorists, Eastern European terrorists, African terrorists, and others that we don't really hear about.

Add up all of those Israeli terrorists, Eastern European terrorists, African terrorists, etc., and I'd be willing to bet that you're still nowhere close to the number of Arab terrorists.

Besides, if we're talking about racial profiling in American airports, it makes sense to consider terrorist acts within America.

Bottom line, you cannot treat a citizen unequally because of their national background. By doing so you are saying that there is something wrong with being arab, and thereby encouraging prejudice against them.

There's nothing wrong with taking precautions against crimes based on appearance. If I'm trying to prevent a murder that I suspect members of a certain gang are about to commit, am I wrong for questioning people wearing that gang's colors and flashing that gang's signs? How is this different?

 

[debate_junkie]

Oh I don't doubt that they can make life very difficult for people who won't consent to the search. But bottom line is they STILL don't have the right to get in your car without your consent or without probable cause.



If you know that a certain group is more likely to commit a crime than another group, it's silly to pretend otherwise. Which would make you feel safer in an airport: A) Searches of 50% of Arab Muslim males ages 16-30, and 5% of everyone else, or B) 10% of everyone, including small children, grandmothers, Chinese people, etc?



If a young black man stands out enough in such an area, then yes. If it's in the middle of the inner-city (like most drive-by shootings), then that isn't enough information since many people fit that description.



Every crime carries its own evidence. If that's all the "evidence" the police can come up with, they're in the wrong business.



But no rights are being denied, as people don't have the right to NOT be searched before getting on a plane. The security people can search anyone they want; the fact that they're singling out people who are likely to commit terrorist acts is not a denial of rights, its simply common sense.



Add up all of those Israeli terrorists, Eastern European terrorists, African terrorists, etc., and I'd be willing to bet that you're still nowhere close to the number of Arab terrorists.

Besides, if we're talking about racial profiling in American airports, it makes sense to consider terrorist acts within America.



There's nothing wrong with taking precautions against crimes based on appearance. If I'm trying to prevent a murder that I suspect members of a certain gang are about to commit, am I wrong for questioning people wearing that gang's colors and flashing that gang's signs? How is this different?

There is nothing wrong with it. When Susan Smith claimed she was carjacked by a black man, were they searching cars being driven by white grandma's? No, they weren't.

When young black men started dying, in Atlanta, in the '70's and '80's, who was it they were looking for? The TYPICAL serial killer profile, which was who... oh yeah a white man. Doesn't anyone remember how stunned authorities were, when they found that Wayne Williams was black?

A child is kidnapped, last seen with an Asian man, are they going to be looking at Hispanic men?

I mean really, racial profiling is a necessary tool in police work. Otherwise, they would be searching for a needle in a haystack, and would be wasting VALUABLE time necessary to solve crimes and/or find missing persons.

 

[HTColeman]

Oh I don't doubt that they can make life very difficult for people who won't consent to the search. But bottom line is they STILL don't have the right to get in your car without your consent or without probable cause.

What is the point of a right if you can't use it in reality?

If you know that a certain group is more likely to commit a crime than another group, it's silly to pretend otherwise. Which would make you feel safer in an airport: A) Searches of 50% of Arab Muslim males ages 16-30, and 5% of everyone else, or B) 10% of everyone, including small children, grandmothers, Chinese people, etc?

Honestly, neither, because if someone were to try another airplane hijacking with current security (which is unlikely, they would try some other way) they would have done enough research to get around security. Also, I would feel safer if they were searching people who actually look suspicious, not just arab. Because just looking for arab men tells me that they don't actually know what they are looking for.

If a young black man stands out enough in such an area, then yes. If it's in the middle of the inner-city (like most drive-by shootings), then that isn't enough information since many people fit that description.

Exactly my point, go back and read what I said, I never said anything about race. Yet you assumed that since I said gang, the suspect is black. He could be hispanic, asian, or guess what, even white. I believe most school shootings have been commited by white students. Should the schools concentrate on searching white students and less on everyone else because of past occurences?

Every crime carries its own evidence. If that's all the "evidence" the police can come up with, they're in the wrong business.

My point, if arab male is all they have against them then they need to do more research on what they are looking for.

But no rights are being denied, as people don't have the right to NOT be searched before getting on a plane. The security people can search anyone they want; the fact that they're singling out people who are likely to commit terrorist acts is not a denial of rights, its simply common sense.

You are denying them the right to be treated and viewed as equal citizens. You are assuming they are more likely to be terrorist because they were born arab.

Add up all of those Israeli terrorists, Eastern European terrorists, African terrorists, etc., and I'd be willing to bet that you're still nowhere close to the number of Arab terrorists.

But you don't have any of those numbers do you?

Besides, if we're talking about racial profiling in American airports, it makes sense to consider terrorist acts within America.

But there have not been near enough to establish any sort of trend. Also, I understand that in this time Arab male may be a part of the average profile the police would look at, but it should only be a part, it is not enough to complete a profile.

There's nothing wrong with taking precautions against crimes based on appearance. If I'm trying to prevent a murder that I suspect members of a certain gang are about to commit, am I wrong for questioning people wearing that gang's colors and flashing that gang's signs? How is this different?

Its different because they chose to be affiliated with that gang, no one chooses to be arab. Also, wearing the gang's colors and flashing their sign is obvious evidence that they are affiliated with the gang. Skin color is not evidence that you are a part of a gang. It is wrong because, as I said earlier, by targeting them for their race, you encourage that something is wrong with their race. Especially when it is the government encouraging this prejudice. That is de jure discrimination (discrimination as the result of a law) and as we have seen with African-Americans and women, this type of discrimination becomes socially ingrained in the majority (those not persecuted) and leads social discrimination and prejudice for years after the discriminatory law is taken away.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

LOL
yeah right
I mean if a white guy robs a liquor store
why wouldnt you stop every black woman you come across just incase:doh

Hmmm...the Whiffle Ball of Sarcasm never ruffles your hair, does it?

 

[DeeJayH]

Hmmm...the Whiffle Ball of Sarcasm never ruffles your hair, does it?

I like to believe that it is pretty hard to get something over on me
but it is easier to do on the net, that is for sure

 

[The Mark]

I think there should be a sort of profiling, but not full-out racial profiling.
For example, it wouldn't do to stop all who are (as aquapub puts it)"young, Arab, Muslim men", just because they might be terrorists.

From the opposite side, it wouldn't do to have a random number generator select who in a line would be searched.


For example, if a airport security guard sees a "young, Arab, Muslim man" dressed in a business suit, talking on a cell phone, and generaly looking like a perfectly normal businessman, he/she would be less likely to stop him than if they saw a "young, Arab, Muslim man" dressed like BL.

Now, I assume that these security people are trained to avoid letting their pre-programed conceptions of what a terrorist looks like distract them from evaluating the way a certain person acts. This would seem only reasonable, because there is the extreemly slight chance that a middle-aged white female, who speaks perfect english (american style), would be a terrorist.

That said, it is far more likely that a "young, Arab, Muslim man", would be a terrorist than the woman.

 

[Kandahar]

What is the point of a right if you can't use it in reality?

I'm not saying that police SHOULD have the right to make life difficult for people who won't consent to random car searches; I'm just acknowledging that you're correct that it happens.

Honestly, neither, because if someone were to try another airplane hijacking with current security (which is unlikely, they would try some other way) they would have done enough research to get around security.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such security in place.

Also, I would feel safer if they were searching people who actually look suspicious, not just arab. Because just looking for arab men tells me that they don't actually know what they are looking for.

I'm not suggesting that they ONLY stop Arab men. If someone is acting suspiciously, by all means, search them at the airport.

Exactly my point, go back and read what I said, I never said anything about race. Yet you assumed that since I said gang, the suspect is black.

It seemed like a reasonable assumption given the context of your argument.

He could be hispanic, asian, or guess what, even white. I believe most school shootings have been commited by white students. Should the schools concentrate on searching white students and less on everyone else because of past occurences?

If they have reason to believe that a school shooting is about to take place, then yes. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

My point, if arab male is all they have against them then they need to do more research on what they are looking for.

One can't do a thorough search of everyone at an airport; it would take too long. So if we're doing a quick search of the most likely terrorists, the security officers don't really have much to base their searches on other than appearance.

You are denying them the right to be treated and viewed as equal citizens. You are assuming they are more likely to be terrorist because they were born arab.

That's a reasonable assumption; Arabs ARE more likely to be terrorists. If they weren't, I would be against singling them out for airport searches.

But you don't have any of those numbers do you?

Not in front of me...Do you deny that most of the world's terrorists are Arab males?

But there have not been near enough to establish any sort of trend. Also, I understand that in this time Arab male may be a part of the average profile the police would look at, but it should only be a part, it is not enough to complete a profile.

Agreed. But again, if you're looking through an airport security line for the most likely suspects, you don't really have much else to base your decision on.

Its different because they chose to be affiliated with that gang, no one chooses to be arab. Also, wearing the gang's colors and flashing their sign is obvious evidence that they are affiliated with the gang.

But it's not obvious evidence that they're the gang members about the commit the aforementioned crime.

Skin color is not evidence that you are a part of a gang. It is wrong because, as I said earlier, by targeting them for their race, you encourage that something is wrong with their race. Especially when it is the government encouraging this prejudice. That is de jure discrimination (discrimination as the result of a law) and as we have seen with African-Americans and women, this type of discrimination becomes socially ingrained in the majority (those not persecuted) and leads social discrimination and prejudice for years after the discriminatory law is taken away.

So if I'm a police officer tracking down a serial killer, am I wrong for focusing on males, because it encourages discrimination? People with certain characteristics are simply more likely to commit certain crimes.

 

[aquapub]

if a airport security guard sees a "young, Arab, Muslim man" dressed in a business suit, talking on a cell phone, and generaly looking like a perfectly normal businessman, he/she would be less likely to stop him than if they saw a "young, Arab, Muslim man" dressed like BL.

Actually, if I were the screeners, I would look MORE at seemingly Americanized young, Arab, Muslim men because the Al queda handbook instructs them to blend in, where sporty clothes, shave their beards, etc.

 

[aquapub]

1) Easy to say when you know that you'll never be profiled, huh? If you allow arabs to be racially profiled, you allow every minority to be profiled.

2) The only people who don't care are the ones it doesn't affect, who cares what happens to everyone else, as long as it doesn't happen to me, that is selfish and pig-headed.

3) tell me the difference between racially profiling blacks and profiling arabs?


4) Bashing political parties doesn't contribute to anything.


5) You don't think that young arab citizens have the same rights as you? You know there was a reason that Congress has repeatedly apologized for their actions towards Japanese-American citizens.

1) And your rhetoric is easy to say when you've never lived through a terrorist attack. Also, every minority isn't committing mass murder against our civilians using airliners, only young, Arab, Muslim men.

2) Sorry if placing a greater concern on not letting Americans be murdered than on airline inconveniences for young, Arab, Muslim men offends you.

3) Blacks aren't committing mass murder using airliners, young, Arab, Muslim men are. One REQUIRES us to put aside our touchy feely hippy crap and be serious about security. The other doesn't

4) Your party (presumably) sides with terrorists every single time; they defend them; they generate sympathy for them...Your party deserves and needs to be bashed.

5) Should Bobby Kennedy have also investigated black women for Klan violence? No. When something has been stolen, you question the thieves.

Congress has apologized about the internment camps for two reasons:

a) Congress has liberals in it.

b) Congress isn't living in a time when NOT sending the Japanese to the camps could get their families killed.

 

[HTColeman]

I'm not saying that police SHOULD have the right to make life difficult for people who won't consent to random car searches; I'm just acknowledging that you're correct that it happens.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such security in place.

I'm not suggesting that they ONLY stop Arab men. If someone is acting suspiciously, by all means, search them at the airport.

I understand your point of view(as opposed to aquapub who seems to have some vendetta against arabs, you seem to have national security in mind) but I disagree with the principle that it upholds.

It seemed like a reasonable assumption given the context of your argument.

If they have reason to believe that a school shooting is about to take place, then yes. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

No, it was a stereotype. And that stereotype you hold is caused by the police force's use of racial profiling against young black males. Furthermore, because of such stereotypes against young black males (gang violence, drugs, etc.) people become guarded when approached or encounter young black males. And that is why it is harder to get a job, or come across as professional, because in the back of their minds they can't help but wonder (more than average) if I ever had any gang, drug, or criminal involvement.

Think about it, if you have been told by many people that someone is a liar, do you not wonder whether or not they are telling the truth more often than if you were not led to believe they were not a liar?

It is the same concept with arabs, if you correlate arabs with terrorism, is that not one of the many thoughts that comes to mind when you first see an arab person? Long term, such predispositions, as history has shown, affect their ability to get a job, because they would feel more comfortable with an employee that is not associated with terrorism. It affects their ability to blend in with society, be succesful in society.

One can't do a thorough search of everyone at an airport; it would take too long. So if we're doing a quick search of the most likely terrorists, the security officers don't really have much to base their searches on other than appearance.

True, but there is more to appearance than skin color. Body language, apparent nervousness, bulky clothing. Do they have a heavy accent (of any foreign country), that indicates that they may not be citizens (don't harass them for it, but just check). All I am saying is look for a terrorist, not an arab. The terrorist may be arab, but don't put across the message that arabs are terrorists for the afore mentioned consequences. We don't need another civil rights movement.

That's a reasonable assumption; Arabs ARE more likely to be terrorists. If they weren't, I would be against singling them out for airport searches. Not in front of me...Do you deny that most of the world's terrorists are Arab males?

Maybe its just me, but when you say 'more likely' it seems to be saying that there is some biological imbalance that causes people of arabian descent to become terrorists. And while presently that does not seem like it really matters, in the long term it can have devastating affects on our country, that certain people can't be Americans.

Agreed. But again, if you're looking through an airport security line for the most likely suspects, you don't really have much else to base your decision on.

Like I said before, there is more to appearance than skin color.

But it's not obvious evidence that they're the gang members about the commit the aforementioned crime.

But it is obvious evidence that they may know information about any planned shooting. By comparing the two, you are saying that being arab is obvious evidence that they know about terrorism. Once again, this says arab=terrorism.

So if I'm a police officer tracking down a serial killer, am I wrong for focusing on males, because it encourages discrimination? People with certain characteristics are simply more likely to commit certain crimes.

Such as arab, is that a characteristic of a criminal? Yes, the argument is that focusing on arab males in airports is only an invonvenience, but what could be put in place to guaruntee that it stops there? In the past, such discrimination only escalates if the problem gets worse.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think it is an effective tool in our national security arsenal-- but it's only one tool, and over-reliance upon it would be far more foolish than discarding it.

When there is a clear correlation between ethnicities, countries of origin, and religious beliefs, it is a matter of simple good sense to pay closer attention to people who match those ethnicities, countries of origin, and religious beliefs.

And I am not saying this as someone who will "never be profiled". Yeah, I'm white-- but I'm also Norse Pagan and I've been associated with a number of questionable organizations and/or movements over the years. It's caused members of my family problems with security clearances; luckily, I was never questioned or detained when I had something to hide.

 

[aquapub]

I think it is an effective tool in our national security arsenal-- but it's only one tool, and over-reliance upon it would be far more foolish than discarding it.

I agree fully.:mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

I understand your point of view(as opposed to aquapub who seems to have some vendetta against arabs, you seem to have national security in mind) but I disagree with the principle that it upholds.

I have no vandetta vs Islam, I just understand terrorists. My vandetta is against people (ACLU, liberals in general) who refuse to learn from history and would have us focus on being sensitive to our enemies (while they use that against us) and have our hands tied behind our backs at every turn.