Profiling Politics
 

I'm a little confused about something. I read the TSA site tonight to see about scanning. It talked about the two types of scanners and the plans for rolling out machines. At one time it said (I think in bold type) that "TSA does not profile". And I was thinking how the job could be downsized by doing some profiling. Now, I also realize that TSA could end up in the courts if it did it (might be worth a try anyway). But then I stopped and wondered. Why should that be a problem if some overseas government did it? They can't be hauled into court just because they don't conform to American government policies in this regard. Profiling makes so much sense, that I can see why American security doesn't do it. But that same reason makes me wonder why security that isn't American doesn't do it?

Anyone able to cut through the fog with an explanation?

And how would have Jihad Jane and Joseph Stack fit the profile?

Nor would it have detected the Shoe Bomber or Crotch Bomber.

Actually, he was stopped from boarding the day before the attempt because of his appearance and inability to answer questions.

It did not detect the shoe bomber as a shoe bomber nor the underwear bomber as an underwear bomber, and it has missed terrorists on planes repeatedly. It "worked" as it was designed to fail.

Profiling works if one is looking for a specific person or type of person, but unfortunately terrorists come in all forms. Male, female, old, young, tall, thin, Muslim, Indian, white, black, European, Asian, and any other type of person you can think of. The only type I think you are not going to find are fat people, but then again as soon as some terrorist group figures this out they will recruit some larger people for their cause. Profiling is just not going to work, not for this. I have read some of the books advocating for profiling in the search for airport terrorists, and to a point they do make sense. Only until one starts noting the holes in their ideas.

As it is well known, in the United States it is against the law for the government to single out a group based on quite a number of factors. Race, ethnic background, age, etc. When the government does this, and sometimes an over zealous government flunky gets an itch and reaches beyond their level of authority or fails to consult the right folks, the ACLU gets a new case.

I am a staunch supporter of our Constitutionally recognized/guaranteed rights, and know more about them than most people do. And I see that profiling has its uses, but not here. Not by the TSA. Not searching for terrorists on the checkpoints.

It makes as much sense as turning over every rock looking for a gold coin because someone somewhere once found one. It is so statistically insignificant as to be of no value. For all of the billions of passengers flying since the morning of 9/11 we have had issues with only 20 or so.

That is why sensible security does not do it.

The above post would be more sensible if it included a call for the TSA to eliminate the ID checks and voodoo "security" BDOs at the screening checkpoints and a call to stop demanding such voodoo "security" at airports overseas too -- all of which were done as part of a TSA terrorist-interdiction program based on searching for terrorists.

"Those who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Who said that? Oh well it was a couple hundred years ago and he knew nothing about terrorism. OH, yes, he had been one, but they won so he was a freedom fighter. But, the people the USA was worried about at the time were British sympathizers, weren't they?

So the US has already given up on freedom so the bad guys won. The TSA should not even exist because they cannot find the obvious threats much less subtle ones. Modest security steps can do as well as the draconian stuff we have now.

:confused::confused::confused:

Rather amazing that the people who dream up these policies and enact legislation to enforce those policies have problems complying with those same policies the rest of us must obey or else.

Link

Oh, really?

The question of whether profiling is or is not illegal frequently comes up in a hypothetical like this – can a Chief of Police advise his officers that they could consider whether or not the passenger or drivers appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin to determine whether to conduct a thorough search of vehicles stopped at roadblocks?

To answer this question, we start with the often-expressed position of the Supreme Court that any statute or official policy that expressly considers race must be subjected to "strict scrutiny." See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 222 (1995) (clarifying that all racial classifications must be analyzed under "strict scrutiny"). Police, alerted to be on the lookout for a burglar, drug dealer, or terrorist, without further description, generally cannot legally target only Italians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Arab-Americans, or any other race. United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 355 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding the Equal Protection Clause is violated by government actors who act based on race alone). As the Sixth Circuit stated in United States v. Avery, "If law enforcement adopts a policy, employs a practice, or in a given situation takes steps to initiate an investigation of a citizen based solely upon that citizen's race, without more, then a violation of the Equal Protection Clause has occurred."

Yes, the law is clear as to the general prohibition against objective reliance solely upon race and ethnicity in law enforcement decisions, but this does not mean that race and ethnicity can never be overtly considered as a relevant factor. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975), the Supreme Court stated the likelihood that an individual of Mexican ancestry on the Southwest border was an alien was sufficiently high to make that ancestry a legitimate objective factor in the Border Patrol's decision to stop and interrogate the passengers in a vehicle. The following year, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Court stated that it perceived no constitutional violation in referring certain motorists to detailed secondary inspections at the San Clemente checkpoint "even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry." Id. at 563.

The Court in Brignoni-Ponce understood that the vast majority of Hispanics crossing, living, and driving in the vicinity of the Southwest border were American citizens or individuals who had been legally admitted. 422 U.S. at 886-87 n.12. However, the Court felt that the illegal alien problem involving individuals of Mexican ancestry was significant enough for officers to at least be able to consider race as a factor in their decisions.

Yes, the Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) acknowledges that the "Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on ... race"). But Wren does not prevent officers from thinking in this manner, and if you think they don’t, you’re fooling yourself. Although the law concerning when race may be considered as a factor may not be completely settled, it is clear that if police actually receive a "tip" that suggests the race of a suspect, they are not illegally profiling by concentrating on that race. See Brown v. City of Oneonta, 195 F.3d 111, 115, 120 n.8 (2d Cir. 1999), amended and superseded by 221 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2000).

Your opinion notwithstanding, government officials have the right to occasionally consider ethnic background in making decisions, and they are not being racists or acting illegally in doing so.

And TSORon said: "I am a staunch supporter of our Constitutionally recognized/guaranteed rights, and know more about them than most people do."

Wow halls, it would have been really COOL if you had read everything I wrote. But you didn’t.

Here, let me add back in the part you deleted in your post in what appears to be an attempt to place my comments out of context.

:rolleyes:

Ron - I was responding to this statement you made with my post.

The above statement is incorrect, and I was merely pointing that out.