One American Muslim's opinion: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ent%2Dopinions .

hey cactus you beat me to posting that article in here. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I hope everyone reads that, it sums up the issue here very well.

Anyone remember the name of the Supreme court justice who said "The constitution is not a suicide pact"?

I think you need to take a look at the flight crew's capacity to make these judgements. When the passengers have already passed through greatly increased security, what is the justification for their conclusions?

Naturally, if there is a justifiable risk, then the passenger should be removed. If, however, they unjustifiably remove a passenger, then that's fine as well. It should be noted though that, if the aircrew have unjustifiably removed a passenger, they should then face disciplinary action for their folly.

If the aircrew are incapable of making that judgement, then they should either be made capable or refrain from making ill conceived judegements.

Things will start to settle down once the airlines and aircrews are made accountable for their actions.

I know the law states that pilots have full and unrefutable ability to throw people off planes. I did not realize this extends to flight attendants; and I don't think it does. I guess it may be true in reality, because if the FA refuses to fly, then the flight is normally grounded, and a pilot might rather inconvenience one or two pax rather than a whole plane load.

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying that authority should be removed from pilots. They should be, and they will be, held accoutnable for their actions. They should remember there are thousands of qualified pilots just waiting to take their job in the wings...

While racial profiling may help, it wouldn't work all the time. Take a look at this picture:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...ial_lil103.jpg

That is the picture of a suspected terrorist with links to Bin Laden. Now it's well known that the 'terrorist guide' said for individuals to be clean-shaven. If this guy shaved, could you easily tell he was a terrorist?

Rest of the story on this guy:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=n...amp=1001924779

Latest Supreme Court news re profiling:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...ofiling_5.html

the supreme court turns down an overwhelming majority of cases it is asked to hear. Something like 95%? They only can hear so many...

True, but if they want to make a statement, they would pick it up. Their unwillingness to take up this issue (to either prohibit, or to define what is racial profiling and what are the acceptaqble limits of such), particularly in light of current events, is salient.


Someone asked for this earlier:

"[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160, 83 S.Ct. 554, 563, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963).

More pax hassled again!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum12/HTML/000371.html

61% of polled Arabs living here feel profiling is justified as they want to be safe too:

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terror2...1_20011001.htm

That is, until one of their own family members is harassed.

You've been posting this link everywhere as some sort of support or justification for racial profiling. Just as we've learned from any poll, any poll result depends on how the question was phrased and asked.

Racial Profiling at the Airport --
Discrimination we're afraid to be against.

http://slate.msn.com/Readme/01-09-28/Readme.asp

[This message has been edited by cactuspete (edited 10-01-2001).]

There is a difference between racial profiling and harrassment. Racial profiling just makes one race more susceptible to be 'checked' than another. I am not surprised that Arabs in this survey, and Americans overall (as they are AMERICANS) are ok with this, because just like you and me, Arabs don't want to get blown up by a terrorist.

Harrassment, in the form of poor treatment by security and airline officials, is a whole different thing.

Personally, I shudder when I read the article posted elsewhere about White separatist groups celebrating the Sept 11 attacks. I was not too surprised; after all , Timothy McVeigh blew up Oklahoma City because it was a symbol of the government -- he was ok with innocents dying.

These terrorists are alive and well, and now they know that they can use a plane as a guided missile. I would not be surprised if at least one of these groups tries a similar attack, especially knowing that the public would automatically blame an Arab on the flight, and especially if racial profiling means they would walk through security unaccosted.

Personally, rather than talk about the morality and legality of racial profiling, I'd rather see discussions about its effectiveness. Succintly, evil people come in all shapes and colors. I'd rather see more random checks (as a percentage of pax) to catch the Arab terrorist, the White terrorists, the IRA terrorist, the WHATEVER terrorists.

I completely agree with pitflyer.

It is impossible to conduct the types of investigations we need to conduct without racial profiling. Profiling is necessary.

As a gay man, I have been unable to give blood to the Red Cross since 1984. I am not HIV positive. However, when the blood supply was becoming infected in the 80's, it was WISE and JUSTIFIED to refuse donations from gay men. I didn't like it either. I don't know why, in light of today's technology, that this still exists, but it DOES. I have NO WAY of proving to a Red Cross screener that I'm not HIV positive, and have no NEED to deny who I am. So, I'm profiled, and I'm denied.

Harrassment is another story. If I'm called mean names by people, that's not profiling. But when I'm told "NO" or more questions are asked about my background, I don't object, I accept.

The reality of the world today dictates some things that may not be politically correct. But political correctness doesn't always save lives.