NY Assemblyman in favor of racial profiling

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jave

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jave
I am in favor of racial profiling onlyif the law enforcement officials are paid $5.75 an hour. Why pay more when they are doing what a fast food employee can do?

You get what you pay for.

5.75 got is 4 planes hijacked, 2 skyscrapers imploded, the pentagon hit, and ~3000 Americans killed.

Exactly,
We need smart and well paid officials, who do not rely on primitive tool like profiling, which is destined to fail. I am afraid that most people who will suffer will be South American/Hispanic and Africans. Not every muslim is named Ahmed or Muhammad, infact I have an Omar in my office who is Mexican. Even Jews are going to suffer because of their looks and names unless someone can come up with a tool that can correctly identify a Muslim, who is not Hispanic, African or Jewish.

by all means tell us the better alternative?
I am still failing to see how stopping granny and letting akbar through is an effective measure to search and deter terrorism.

This isn't about the two extremes, granny and ackbar, it's about profiling in general, and it lets through way more than granny. If we focus on Ackbar, all a terrorist has to do is not look like Ackbar and our system is much LESS secure than it used to be. Are you arguing that this would be difficult, because you would be wrong.

Until Ackbar changes his look lets continue the profilling. You are talking in generalities and possibilities for the future. The face of terrorism today is ackbar and you cant get around it.

Focus less on grandma and the swede and more on ackbar. Once ackbar looks like grandma and the swede change with the times.

Ackbar hasnt changed his look in 800 years, and I dont think he will change it anytime soon.

How dumb do you think terrorists are? They don't bother trying to look different because it makes no difference now. We start targetting Arabs, and they will go to the store and buy some stuff for $10 that defeats our new system. It's not a possibility, it's an almost certainty, because the system has some glaring weaknesses, and if *I* thought of it, I'm pretty sure they can too. Underestimating your enemy is pretty foolish, especially when this is such and obvious tradeoff. And besides, how will we know that Ackbar the terrorists is changing his looks, when another subways blows up?

So let me get this straight. You dont want to target the ethnic group the majority of the terrorists come from for fear it will make them wear makeup and change their look?

What does it matter since you arent interested in targeting the ethnic group reponsible for 70% of the terrorism in the world anyways.

http://www.danzfamily.com/pictures/pictures02/hijackers.jpg

Think it makes more sense to look for guys like this or your atypical european decendent?
Ill jump off the profilling bandwagon when I notice cacausians exploding ordinances in public. Until then it is a silly argument to say we shouldnt profile for fear it might make the terrorists change their look with makeup.

You said it yourself, they dont bother looking different now because we arent profilling them and thus have little fear of moving within our society. They have little fear of our current system. So why should it surprise us they keep blowing up civilians?

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I'll do the commentary for you.

I couldn't agree more with him. Profiling works, and while people of that race might not like it, the facts that minorities commit more crimes and that almost all terrorists are Muslims means we would be doing ourselves a disservice by NOT profiling.

Some guy named Ben Franklin once said this:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Some other guy named Martin Luther King, Jr. once said this:

I have a dream that one day my four little children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of there skin but the content of their character.

(And please, don't be so stupid as to claim that King wasn't talking about Arabs.)

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So let me get this straight. You dont want to target the ethnic group the majority of the terrorists come from for fear it will make them wear makeup and change their look?

What does it matter since you arent interested in targeting the ethnic group reponsible for 70% of the terrorism in the world anyways.

http://www.danzfamily.com/pictures/pictures02/hijackers.jpg

Think it makes more sense to look for guys like this or your atypical european decendent?
Ill jump off the profilling bandwagon when I notice cacausians exploding ordinances in public. Until then it is a silly argument to say we shouldnt profile for fear it will make the terrorists change their tactic.

You said it yourself, they dont bother looking different now because we arent profilling them and thus have little fear of moving within our society. They have little fear of our current system. So why should it surprise us they keep blowing up civilians?

Not all arabs look alike. Many Muslims are not Arab (Palestinians, Iranians, Chechens). By targeting the 70%, you make it much easier for the 30% to slip through. Btw, I'm assuming the 70% figure is Arab terrorists vs 30% non-Arab. If the 70% figure is Muslim terrorists, then that makes non Arab terrorists a higher percentage.

Focusing on one group will get us blind sided. Our security should be focused on keeping the terrorists out of America, because once they are in, it is much harder to stop them.

Profiling will not work in the case of terrorism, simply because there is no one profile. You like to think that all terrorists look the same, but that's not true. Some of the British bombers were African, I'm sure there are plenty of white/jewish looking terrorists as well.

Security measures in airport give us the illusion of security. If you think airports are much safer now than they were pre 9/11, you're living in your own little world, and profiling will do little to help and possibly a lot to hurt. All it takes is one white guy with a bomb or several non-Arab terrorists who manage to get weapons on board a plane/train/boat/whatever. I'm willing to invest more money (pay more taxes) in keeping terrorists out of the nation, and doing what we can to keep the ideology from spreading, are you?

 

[Fern]

Fine, train cops to recognize suspicious behavior and other clues. That's something I could get behind. But the methods being suggested by most people in this thread, as well as the article in the OP, is NOT suggesting that. They are suggesting something much more basic, and dumb. Re-read the article and previous posts if you don't believe me.

From my read of the article (which, btw, I find to a POS, "simpleton" case of reporting) the assemblyman was talking about "terrorist profiling". It wasn't until you get quotes from the police that "racial profiling" pops up. I guess I feel the reporting sucks because instead of the reporter probing the concept of "terrorist profiling", zoom! right away he slides into "racial profiling" I guess that's more controversial and sells more copy.

BTW: I don't find saying something like "they all look the same" is neccessarilly racial profiling. "looks" can be reasonably contrued to include not only race/ethnicity but dress, age, gender and behavior (e.g., looks nervous).

 

[madworm]

profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jave

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jave
I am in favor of racial profiling onlyif the law enforcement officials are paid $5.75 an hour. Why pay more when they are doing what a fast food employee can do?

You get what you pay for.

5.75 got is 4 planes hijacked, 2 skyscrapers imploded, the pentagon hit, and ~3000 Americans killed.

Exactly,
We need smart and well paid officials, who do not rely on primitive tool like profiling, which is destined to fail. I am afraid that most people who will suffer will be South American/Hispanic and Africans. Not every muslim is named Ahmed or Muhammad, infact I have an Omar in my office who is Mexican. Even Jews are going to suffer because of their looks and names unless someone can come up with a tool that can correctly identify a Muslim, who is not Hispanic, African or Jewish.

by all means tell us the better alternative?
I am still failing to see how stopping granny and letting akbar through is an effective measure to search and deter terrorism.

This isn't about the two extremes, granny and ackbar, it's about profiling in general, and it lets through way more than granny. If we focus on Ackbar, all a terrorist has to do is not look like Ackbar and our system is much LESS secure than it used to be. Are you arguing that this would be difficult, because you would be wrong.

Until Ackbar changes his look lets continue the profilling. You are talking in generalities and possibilities for the future. The face of terrorism today is ackbar and you cant get around it.

Focus less on grandma and the swede and more on ackbar. Once ackbar looks like grandma and the swede change with the times.

Ackbar hasnt changed his look in 800 years, and I dont think he will change it anytime soon.

How dumb do you think terrorists are? They don't bother trying to look different because it makes no difference now. We start targetting Arabs, and they will go to the store and buy some stuff for $10 that defeats our new system. It's not a possibility, it's an almost certainty, because the system has some glaring weaknesses, and if *I* thought of it, I'm pretty sure they can too. Underestimating your enemy is pretty foolish, especially when this is such and obvious tradeoff. And besides, how will we know that Ackbar the terrorists is changing his looks, when another subways blows up?

So let me get this straight. You dont want to target the ethnic group the majority of the terrorists come from for fear it will make them wear makeup and change their look?

What does it matter since you arent interested in targeting the ethnic group reponsible for 70% of the terrorism in the world anyways.

http://www.danzfamily.com/pictures/pictures02/hijackers.jpg

Think it makes more sense to look for guys like this or your atypical european decendent?
Ill jump off the profilling bandwagon when I notice cacausians exploding ordinances in public. Until then it is a silly argument to say we shouldnt profile for fear it will make the terrorists change their tactic.

You said it yourself, they dont bother looking different now because we arent profilling them and thus have little fear of moving within our society. They have little fear of our current system. So why should it surprise us they keep blowing up civilians?

I didn't say they have little to fear from our current system, I said our current system doesn't require them to try and avoid fitting the terrorist profile. They have just as much chance of being randomly searched looking like Abdul bin Terrorist as they do looking like Lief Gunderson. As soon as we change our system so looking like Lief Gunderson means you are less often searched, guess who terrorists will try and look like?

You have it perfectly straight, I don't want to target the ethnic group the majority of the terrorists belong to. Firstly, because I believe identifying someone as a member of that group or not is an iffy proposition, especially if they spend even the most minimal effort in trying to look different (try those 9/11 hijackers with blonde hair...). I'm not comfortable hitching our security on being able to identify someone as an Arab or not on the fly, are you? Secondly, profiling CAN be effective, but it needs to be more complex than simply going off of ethnic group. Looking for people who don't pass the "funny test" for experienced and trained security people would be a lot more effective than something like racial profiling, because it is much less static, and relies on human intuition, something that is usually far more accurate than a profile in a security binder.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: madworm
profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

Right...except that's not what we're talking about here. Chances are very good that a random black person, in gang colors, in Compton, at night, is in fact someone you'd want to avoid. Chances are VERY bad that someone fitting most of the profiles people have been discussing here is a terrorist. Compton at night is a dangerous place because a lot of the people are dangerous. Airports, train stations, whatever, are not, because the vast majority of the people there, Arab or otherwise, are not dangerous people. Attempting to root out the very small percentage that are using such overly broad, and hard to use, profiles makes no sense.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Fine, train cops to recognize suspicious behavior and other clues. That's something I could get behind. But the methods being suggested by most people in this thread, as well as the article in the OP, is NOT suggesting that. They are suggesting something much more basic, and dumb. Re-read the article and previous posts if you don't believe me.

From my read of the article (which, btw, I find to a POS, "simpleton" case of reporting) the assemblyman was talking about "terrorist profiling". It wasn't until you get quotes from the police that "racial profiling" pops up. I guess I feel the reporting sucks because instead of the reporter probing the concept of "terrorist profiling", zoom! right away he slides into "racial profiling" I guess that's more controversial and sells more copy.

BTW: I don't find saying something like "they all look the same" is neccessarilly racial profiling. "looks" can be reasonably contrued to include not only race/ethnicity but dress, age, gender and behavior (e.g., looks nervous).

True, he didn't say "racial profiling", but he did indicate they should be profile based on how they "look", holding up pictures from the FBI. Profiling based on static looks (like you'd get from a picture) isn't real helpful, and suffers from the same basic problems as racial profiling, including the fact that they are way too basic, and way too static.

 

[madworm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm
profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

Right...except that's not what we're talking about here. Chances are very good that a random black person, in gang colors, in Compton, at night, is in fact someone you'd want to avoid. Chances are VERY bad that someone fitting most of the profiles people have been discussing here is a terrorist. Compton at night is a dangerous place because a lot of the people are dangerous. Airports, train stations, whatever, are not, because the vast majority of the people there, Arab or otherwise, are not dangerous people. Attempting to root out the very small percentage that are using such overly broad, and hard to use, profiles makes no sense.

its a situation, a comparison, a scenario...not all blacks dressed in gang attire are gangs (but yet, you say chances are...- is this not racial profiling itself?)...just like not all muslims are terrorists...it's like taking the subway, you stand next to a muslim with a backpack and acting very strange; would you not shy away from him just by the looks of him? profiling might not make sense...but it will work...if it looks like it, doesnt hurt to check it out...it's simple common sense to some people...if 9 out of 10 bombings came from a certain group; chances are, you will catch the rest if you hunt for them in that group or area...thats how it is...i'm not saying profiling is right, i'm saying it works. and what i mentioned relates to what racial profiling is about...not just for this thread. even saying all asians drive Mercede Benz is considered racial profiling...etc...

no harm given...no harm taken...just discussing...have a good one... :beer:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Fine, train cops to recognize suspicious behavior and other clues. That's something I could get behind. But the methods being suggested by most people in this thread, as well as the article in the OP, is NOT suggesting that. They are suggesting something much more basic, and dumb. Re-read the article and previous posts if you don't believe me.

From my read of the article (which, btw, I find to a POS, "simpleton" case of reporting) the assemblyman was talking about "terrorist profiling". It wasn't until you get quotes from the police that "racial profiling" pops up. I guess I feel the reporting sucks because instead of the reporter probing the concept of "terrorist profiling", zoom! right away he slides into "racial profiling" I guess that's more controversial and sells more copy.

BTW: I don't find saying something like "they all look the same" is neccessarilly racial profiling. "looks" can be reasonably construed to include not only race/ethnicity but dress, age, gender and behavior (e.g., looks nervous).

True, he didn't say "racial profiling", but he did indicate they should be profile based on how they "look", holding up pictures from the FBI. Profiling based on static looks (like you'd get from a picture) isn't real helpful, and suffers from the same basic problems as racial profiling, including the fact that they are way too basic, and way too static.

Please re-read the bolded part of my quote included in your response above.

I find that there is a significant difference in racial profiling and profiling on "looks". Racial profiling would indicate you search 85 yr old Arab women (as your only parameter is race), under the simple "looks" concept you would NOT. None of the terrost look 85, they look young. Likewise for 3 yr olds. Under racial profiling, if an Arab guy showed up in gym shorts with no shirt or shoes, you would still search him, not so under the "looks" concept. Same for females, one requires they be searched, the other says they don't. Unlike you, I don't see much similarlity between the two (other than they are rather simple in nature and require much less training than some more complex profiling models).

On average the "looks" concept is far ahead of the silly practice employed now. The "looks" concept would not, as I mentioned above, require much training and it would allow officers/security to eliminate "low risk groups" such as the elderly, the very young, Japanese/Chinese/Koreans/Scandinavians etc, women and so on. Even such a simple concept as this based only on looks is FAR superior to the "Eeny Meeny Miny Moe" approach currently in employed in NYC subways etc.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: madworm

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm
profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

Right...except that's not what we're talking about here. Chances are very good that a random black person, in gang colors, in Compton, at night, is in fact someone you'd want to avoid. Chances are VERY bad that someone fitting most of the profiles people have been discussing here is a terrorist. Compton at night is a dangerous place because a lot of the people are dangerous. Airports, train stations, whatever, are not, because the vast majority of the people there, Arab or otherwise, are not dangerous people. Attempting to root out the very small percentage that are using such overly broad, and hard to use, profiles makes no sense.

its a situation, a comparison, a scenario...not all blacks dressed in gang attire are gangs (but yet, you say chances are...- is this not racial profiling itself?)...just like not all muslims are terrorists...it's like taking the subway, you stand next to a muslim with a backpack and acting very strange; would you not shy away from him just by the looks of him? profiling might not make sense...but it will work...if it looks like it, doesnt hurt to check it out...it's simple common sense to some people...if 9 out of 10 bombings came from a certain group; chances are, you will catch the rest if you hunt for them in that group or area...thats how it is...i'm not saying profiling is right, i'm saying it works. and what i mentioned relates to what racial profiling is about...not just for this thread. even saying all asians drive Mercede Benz is considered racial profiling...etc...

no harm given...no harm taken...just discussing...have a good one... :beer:

You are talking about individuals making a judgement call based on a gut feeling. Call it profiling if you want, it doesn't really matter, the thing I'm saying is that this isn't something we can put into a binder or a computer, and it's certainly not something that can be expressed as "target the Arabs".

I fly a lot, and I never get pulled aside for extra screening, never. The last time I flew, I was kind of staring at the security people at the metal detectors and baggage scanners while I was waiting in line. I was trying to see what they were doing (something with one of the baggage scanners as far as I can tell), but they noticed me doing it and lo and behold, I was pulled out for extra screening when I reached the metal detector.

Now I don't look like the stereotype terrorist, but in retrospect that was pretty suspicious behavior. Most people aren't studying the security people that closely, they just kind of shuffle ahead in line. I stood out, and I did so in a suspicious way. Watching the security people is certainly something a terrorist might do. I'd much rather the security people watched for stuff that feels funny to them than pulled people out based on some set of factors written down in a handbook.

Now here is where the tradeoff comes in. Would they have been better off picking some random Arab to search, or a Swedish looking dude acting suspicious? You can't focus on everyone, and I'd argue that gut instincts are better than guidlines like "Arab wearing backpack", if only for the simply reason that building a comprehensive profile would be pretty difficult, or you'd end up with a simple one that targetted way too many people.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Fine, train cops to recognize suspicious behavior and other clues. That's something I could get behind. But the methods being suggested by most people in this thread, as well as the article in the OP, is NOT suggesting that. They are suggesting something much more basic, and dumb. Re-read the article and previous posts if you don't believe me.

From my read of the article (which, btw, I find to a POS, "simpleton" case of reporting) the assemblyman was talking about "terrorist profiling". It wasn't until you get quotes from the police that "racial profiling" pops up. I guess I feel the reporting sucks because instead of the reporter probing the concept of "terrorist profiling", zoom! right away he slides into "racial profiling" I guess that's more controversial and sells more copy.

BTW: I don't find saying something like "they all look the same" is neccessarilly racial profiling. "looks" can be reasonably construed to include not only race/ethnicity but dress, age, gender and behavior (e.g., looks nervous).

True, he didn't say "racial profiling", but he did indicate they should be profile based on how they "look", holding up pictures from the FBI. Profiling based on static looks (like you'd get from a picture) isn't real helpful, and suffers from the same basic problems as racial profiling, including the fact that they are way too basic, and way too static.

Please re-read the bolded part of my quote included in your response above.

I find that there is a significant difference in racial profiling and profiling on "looks". Racial profiling would indicate you search 85 yr old Arab women (as your only parameter is race), under the simple "looks" concept you would NOT. None of the terrost look 85, they look young. Likewise for 3 yr olds. Under racial profiling, if an Arab guy showed up in gym shorts with no shirt or shoes, you would still search him, not so under the "looks" concept. Same for females, one requires they be searched, the other says they don't. Unlike you, I don't see much similarlity between the two (other than they are rather simple in nature and require much less training than some more complex profiling models).

On average the "looks" concept is far ahead of the silly practice employed now. The "looks" concept would not, as I mentioned above, require much training and it would allow officers/security to eliminate "low risk groups" such as the elderly, the very young, Japanese/Chinese/Koreans/Scandinavians etc, women and so on. Even such a simple concept as this based only on looks is FAR superior to the "Eeny Meeny Miny Moe" approach currently in employed in NYC subways etc.

I get the sense I kind of agree with you on this issue...although I still think ANYONE should be searched if they set off "wonky" sensors for the security people (some factors you can't think up in advance). I am simply arguing against the "target the Arabs" mentality in the thread. And given the fact that the assemblyman mentioned not being "PC" I have a hunch he falls more into the above mentality, and less into your nuanced view of the issue.

Although I suggest any "low risk group" be considered with care, since we effectivly decrease the security being applied to them. They should be groups that couldn't be terrorists, either Arabs in disguise, or non-Arab terrorists. That's why I still think trying to rely on cop instincts is a better choice, it allows for things our profile might not have thought of.

 

[eilute]

Eric Rudolph is not Arab
The London bombers are not Arab.
The shoe bomber did not look Arab.
Jose Padilla is not Arab.

I don't think that there is any justification for the NYPD to perform ineffective seraches on 0.1% of NYC commuters. Are they seriously going to check 1% of all New York commuters on a daily basis? I don't know, but even if they did seach (with out dogs) individuals who were carrying bombs, they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 5 pounds of explosives, and an expensive bottle of wine.

 

[madworm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm
profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

Right...except that's not what we're talking about here. Chances are very good that a random black person, in gang colors, in Compton, at night, is in fact someone you'd want to avoid. Chances are VERY bad that someone fitting most of the profiles people have been discussing here is a terrorist. Compton at night is a dangerous place because a lot of the people are dangerous. Airports, train stations, whatever, are not, because the vast majority of the people there, Arab or otherwise, are not dangerous people. Attempting to root out the very small percentage that are using such overly broad, and hard to use, profiles makes no sense.

its a situation, a comparison, a scenario...not all blacks dressed in gang attire are gangs (but yet, you say chances are...- is this not racial profiling itself?)...just like not all muslims are terrorists...it's like taking the subway, you stand next to a muslim with a backpack and acting very strange; would you not shy away from him just by the looks of him? profiling might not make sense...but it will work...if it looks like it, doesnt hurt to check it out...it's simple common sense to some people...if 9 out of 10 bombings came from a certain group; chances are, you will catch the rest if you hunt for them in that group or area...thats how it is...i'm not saying profiling is right, i'm saying it works. and what i mentioned relates to what racial profiling is about...not just for this thread. even saying all asians drive Mercede Benz is considered racial profiling...etc...

no harm given...no harm taken...just discussing...have a good one... :beer:

You are talking about individuals making a judgement call based on a gut feeling. Call it profiling if you want, it doesn't really matter, the thing I'm saying is that this isn't something we can put into a binder or a computer, and it's certainly not something that can be expressed as "target the Arabs".

I fly a lot, and I never get pulled aside for extra screening, never. The last time I flew, I was kind of staring at the security people at the metal detectors and baggage scanners while I was waiting in line. I was trying to see what they were doing (something with one of the baggage scanners as far as I can tell), but they noticed me doing it and lo and behold, I was pulled out for extra screening when I reached the metal detector.

Now I don't look like the stereotype terrorist, but in retrospect that was pretty suspicious behavior. Most people aren't studying the security people that closely, they just kind of shuffle ahead in line. I stood out, and I did so in a suspicious way. Watching the security people is certainly something a terrorist might do. I'd much rather the security people watched for stuff that feels funny to them than pulled people out based on some set of factors written down in a handbook.

Now here is where the tradeoff comes in. Would they have been better off picking some random Arab to search, or a Swedish looking dude acting suspicious? You can't focus on everyone, and I'd argue that gut instincts are better than guidlines like "Arab wearing backpack", if only for the simply reason that building a comprehensive profile would be pretty difficult, or you'd end up with a simple one that targetted way too many people.

Well, picking some random middle eastern person to search is an extreme...and you know very well, security will not do that...like you said, you can't focus on everyone...it is random...
i do agree with gut instinct as well, but you do have to put "profiling" in; it will yield a higher percentage of finding the terrorists (terrorist from the middle east that is targeting US Citizens)...do you not think security uses a combination of tactics; not just racial profiling? things can't be said or done to the extreme...it seems as though everyone thinks Racial Profiling is 100% widely used in the system and making a big deal about it...and we all know it is not 100% in full effect; so why make a big deal about it?

...we are not targeting the arabs...it's targeting terrorist...and yes you can put a terrorist face in the binder or computer that so happens to be of middle eastern decent...just like how they put a Columbian drug lord into a DEA system...and why do we call him a Columbian Drug lord? yeah, he's from Columbia...and statistcially when you try to catch a columbian drug lord...he has to be columbian...or maybe even from Latin America...is this racial profiling not working if you want to catch someone? -- i'm not saying racial profiling to the extreme, but it is tactical...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: madworm

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm
profiling works. case closed.
to all those that oppose...try walking down the street in Compton at night, would you cross the street when you see a african american suited up in gang attire? or would you continue walking the same sidewalk as them?

Right...except that's not what we're talking about here. Chances are very good that a random black person, in gang colors, in Compton, at night, is in fact someone you'd want to avoid. Chances are VERY bad that someone fitting most of the profiles people have been discussing here is a terrorist. Compton at night is a dangerous place because a lot of the people are dangerous. Airports, train stations, whatever, are not, because the vast majority of the people there, Arab or otherwise, are not dangerous people. Attempting to root out the very small percentage that are using such overly broad, and hard to use, profiles makes no sense.

its a situation, a comparison, a scenario...not all blacks dressed in gang attire are gangs (but yet, you say chances are...- is this not racial profiling itself?)...just like not all muslims are terrorists...it's like taking the subway, you stand next to a muslim with a backpack and acting very strange; would you not shy away from him just by the looks of him? profiling might not make sense...but it will work...if it looks like it, doesnt hurt to check it out...it's simple common sense to some people...if 9 out of 10 bombings came from a certain group; chances are, you will catch the rest if you hunt for them in that group or area...thats how it is...i'm not saying profiling is right, i'm saying it works. and what i mentioned relates to what racial profiling is about...not just for this thread. even saying all asians drive Mercede Benz is considered racial profiling...etc...

no harm given...no harm taken...just discussing...have a good one... :beer:

You are talking about individuals making a judgement call based on a gut feeling. Call it profiling if you want, it doesn't really matter, the thing I'm saying is that this isn't something we can put into a binder or a computer, and it's certainly not something that can be expressed as "target the Arabs".

I fly a lot, and I never get pulled aside for extra screening, never. The last time I flew, I was kind of staring at the security people at the metal detectors and baggage scanners while I was waiting in line. I was trying to see what they were doing (something with one of the baggage scanners as far as I can tell), but they noticed me doing it and lo and behold, I was pulled out for extra screening when I reached the metal detector.

Now I don't look like the stereotype terrorist, but in retrospect that was pretty suspicious behavior. Most people aren't studying the security people that closely, they just kind of shuffle ahead in line. I stood out, and I did so in a suspicious way. Watching the security people is certainly something a terrorist might do. I'd much rather the security people watched for stuff that feels funny to them than pulled people out based on some set of factors written down in a handbook.

Now here is where the tradeoff comes in. Would they have been better off picking some random Arab to search, or a Swedish looking dude acting suspicious? You can't focus on everyone, and I'd argue that gut instincts are better than guidlines like "Arab wearing backpack", if only for the simply reason that building a comprehensive profile would be pretty difficult, or you'd end up with a simple one that targetted way too many people.

Well, picking some random middle eastern person to search is an extreme...and you know very well, security will not do that...like you said, you can't focus on everyone...it is random...
i do agree with gut instinct as well, but you do have to put "profiling" in; it will yield a higher percentage of finding the terrorists (terrorist from the middle east that is targeting US Citizens)...do you not think security uses a combination of tactics; not just racial profiling? things can't be said or done to the extreme...it seems as though everyone thinks Racial Profiling is 100% widely used in the system and making a big deal about it...and we all know it is not 100% in full effect; so why make a big deal about it?

...we are not targeting the arabs...it's targeting terrorist...and yes you can put a terrorist face in the binder or computer...just like how they put a Columbian drug lord into a DEA system...and why do we call him a Columbian Drug lord? yeah, he's from Columbia...and statistcially when you try to catch a columbian drug lord...he has to be columbian...or maybe even from Latin America...is this racial profiling not working if you want to catch someone? -- i'm not saying racial profiling to the extreme, but it is tactical...

I'm just saying that as far as effectivness goes when you're talking about forms of targeted (as opposed to random) searches, doing it by broad racial, religious, whatever, catagories is pretty far down the list. Sure, you can put a terrorist's face in a binder, and certainly pull that terrorist out of a line at the airport. But finding the terrorists we don't know about (which is the goal mostly) is much more complex than people make it out to be. I'm sure security does a lot of things, but there is only so much that they can do, and I can think of many things they would be better off doing than racial profiling.

And remember, we're not doing anything as focused as trying to catch a specific person, or a member of a specific group. Our goal is to prevent terrorism, and while watching Arab males over Swedish grandmothers isn't a bad idea in theory, it is really easy to over do it and it should really be pretty far down on the list of security approaches. I might have been wrong before when I suggested it can't possibly help, but I believe it is not an effective trade-off, especially considering what else we COULD be doing instead.

Also, no one has brought this up, but another danger with profiling (of any kind) is turning it into an "us against them" mentality with the profiled group. Treating Arab males like terrorists (which would be the perception, true or not) is not going to help our cause. Remember, most of them are just fine, and we want them on our side. This will not help that.

 

[madworm]

good stuff.

i'm done...back to work.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: madworm
good stuff.

i'm done...back to work.

Heh, I'm done with work, it's time to argue with strangers on the Internet.

Actually, maybe it's time for something else

 

[madworm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: madworm
good stuff.

i'm done...back to work.

Heh, I'm done with work, it's time to argue with strangers on the Internet.

Actually, maybe it's time for something else

LOL. time to look for some hot deals and off topic threads...

 

[ECUHITMAN]

I think we should make all Muslims wear a special symbol designating them as Muslim. And then a few years later move them out of any nice place and into a ghetto. A few years latter we should set up concentration camps, and well we all know what comes next....

I would really love to hear what kinds of security/anti terrorism backgrounds all of you advocating racial profiling to stop a suicide bomber. From the classes I have taken and the federal law enforcement I have talked to it seems that behavioral profiling is far better than profiling only one race of individuals, but what do I know.

A side note: Considering how many Middle Eastern looking people we have in this country and considering how few (% wise) are or could be terrorists, I really think it is a bad idea to ask the Muslim community to help us track down these individuals if we are going to treat them ALL as terrorists. Pretty soon, you will have a completely disenfranchised population that is ridiculed and treated as lepers and you WILL turn them into radicals.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

And according to the US Court of Appeals: "It is axiomatic that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from police action that is based on race." it seems searches based on race is also unconstitutional.

Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810
June 8, 2005, Decided