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.

Odd how I specifically asked why OTHER governments can't profile and the thread so far has dwelt on issues of American law. I stipulated at the get-go that we have political problems within our own borders, probably a result of a long history of racism. But in what way does this impair authority in other countries from profiling? Despite what TSORon says, terrorists do not come in "all shapes and sizes". At least not the terrorism which is the enemy in our current war. Who are all these other jihadists who are not mail and Muslim? I've never heard of them? Oh there were the religion zealots who tried to kill people in Japan in subways. I have a strong suspicion that TSORon is not going to encounter them coming through a security position. Same with IRA renegades.

Anyway, perhaps responses could be more germane to my question which is how US legal barriers against profiling affect anything but screening methods within US jurisdiction.

Who says racist profiling doesn't occur within or beyond US borders? It happens at home and abroad already.

It's clear enough to me that you don't mind harassing innocent males who believe in Islam even as the number of male believers in Islam engaged in acts of terrorism are a statistically insignificant number of persons. Not everyone is a fan of such bigotry (as you may welcome), not even beyond US borders -- just like not everyone a fan of some country or group of countries' killing of muslims beyond US borders and thus inspiring some forms of political zealotry. Political zealotry has a basis in reality, regardless of whomever is the target of whatever kind of political zealotry is resulting in disgusting behavior ranging from bigots' profiling at airports to the killing and maiming of innocent people referred to as "collateral damage" of sorts by whomever is doing the killing and/or maiming of such innocent people.

Show me a country whose people are all free from a history of bigotry and you've probably made up a country or are depending upon ignorance and/or revisionist history.

I reject the concept that it is "harrassment" to thoroughly screen someone who could easily be a bomb carrier. As for the "insignificance" of the percentage, I am always asking myself why the overwhelming majority who are supposed to be against terror never speak up for their point of view. Don't start quoting the handful who have spoken up. I'm talking about the Muslim masses. They shouldn't, by their silence, be making the bombers their representatives. Actually it wasnt until Irish Catholics got sick of IRA bombers being given a pass that the peace process got underway in Ireland. Same is going to be true in the Middle East. The fact is that for every one white Christian who dies at the hands of these bombers, hundreds of Muslims die. We should be allies against them. It would be as if I was dead set against George Bush's illegal wars but kept silent because I hated the people against whom his wars were fought. A lot of people like me very vocal and active against Bush. I'd love to see that kind of rational impartiality among Muslims.

Anyway, it seems to me that if American authorities are going to fritter our money and their efforts away in a manner that makes a frontal attack on Americans' freedoms, then we have to rely on foreigners to do the unpopular things we refuse to do.

Talk about imagining "their silence" and supposed lack of "rational impartiality" in a world where "their" actions speak louder than words and most all are not terrorists. Let's not ignore the following: for every one person of European ethnic heritage(s) killed or maimed by some male self-identifying believer in Islam in the past three decades, the actions of persons of European ethnic heritage(s) over the past three decades have killed multiple more self-identifying believers in Islam. It's rather significant that -- despite all the harassment and worse directed against "the Muslim masses" -- the self-identifying believers in Islam who are terrorists remain a statistically insignificant number amongst "the Muslim masses" despite the violence perpetrated against "the Muslim masses" by non-"white Christian" terrorists and "white Christians" amongst others.

The bombers are able to swim like fish in the sea of Muslim bystanders. And there are those who say when we take steps to filter that sea to EXTRACT that tiny minority from the sea in which they swim, that is wrong, too. Well, good luck with that. There are only so many options available for our self defense, and if we are sane, we will use them. Be a lot easier if the Muslims simply presented the people to us that we are after, but I don't see any Muslim lifting a finger to help. So the "infidel" world will have to protect itself without that help. Sorry, self-defense is still a paramount right. You can argue all you want about other "rights", but if the ultimate meaning of them is the forfeiture of the right of self-defense, the arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Nonsense can be amusing. Thanks for the joke.

About you not seeing "any Muslim lifting a finger to help" and bombers swimming "like fish in the sea of Muslim bystanders", then I suspect that is a case of willfully ignoring/downplaying that which you wish to ignore/downplay. If it weren't for the believers in Islam undermining and turning over terrorists -- fishing them out as well -- the world would be a lot more disgustingly violent place than it already is.

Harassment of innocent believers in Islam on the basis of them being believers in Islam is not the definition of "self-defence" -- it is the manifestation of bigotry.

Another guy eager to make an interminable two-way argument. Well, you can blow smoke forever if you want, but I've really nothing more to say. We're really fighting ghosts the way we're doing it right now. We gotta stop the PC crap and focus on probable enemies. Imagine if in the Pacific War, we had decided it was unfair to ASSUME every Japanese encountered on a Pacific Island was an enemy. Luckily, the stupidity that now passes for a war plan hadn't occurred to anyone back then.

Imagination run amok.

An advocate for concentration camps too, like during "the Pacific War"? No need to confuse actual wars (of the past) with messy police actions going on today. A "war" on terrorism" is like a "war on drugs" and all those other un-winnable "wars" that involve going after non-military opponents.

The new "PC crap" is the tolerance for intolerance (and worse) directed at believers in Islam. When the kind of neo-"PC crap" found in the above post and the other disgusting behavior directed at believers in Islam stops then the risks about which the paranoid worry and the bigoted use as an excuse (to target believers in Islam) will be far better managed risks.

Lets see if I can help you out on that a bit. Air France ‘eh? Hmm, France.

When Where Who Victim/Target
2007-12-01 France Capbreton Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA) 2 Police
2007-08-24 France Messanges Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA) 3 Private Citizens & Property

2006-01-22 France Aix-en-Provence Corsican National Liberation Front FLNC) 1 Government (General)

2004-10-08 France Paris French Armed Islamic Front 1 Government (Diplomatic)

And more. Some Islamic, some not. Below is a link to the Global Terrorism Database, interesting reading. Glad I am able to help.

Global Terrorism Database

You still seem to totally miss the point. Possibly France bases its methods on whatever experience it has with terrorism (don't forget the colons of the Algerian war, the ones who wanted to assassinate De Gaulle).

But ETA, the Algerians, etc are NOT the concern of the the American government. And the American legal environment isn't their concern either. So why shouldn't they base their screenings on their perceived terrorism threat and laws, not OUR terrorism threat and laws?

Did you read that? Do you have an answer? Can you stop yourself from wandering off on some other tangent?

Tangent? Not hardly.

U.S. domestic terrorism is still a problem. In most cases, right now, it seems to be “cause” focused rather than politically. Animal Liberation Front, Anti-Abortion groups, ECO-Terrorism, etc. But there are very few countries that have been able to avoid terrorism against commercial aviation, and while it is no longer as common as it was it is obviously still a concern. Nothing prevents these folks from using commercial aviation as a weapon or target, nothing except the government’s efforts to prevent it.

Aircraft that transit U.S. airspace must meet certain standards of screening or be denied access to our nation’s airspace. The security of commercial aviation is in the best interests of every civilized nation, and even the most third-world of countries has some form of airport screening. Those that are unable to meet the requirements of U.S. Law do not fly into the US, but use airports in countries that can.

And all I was saying, if you read from the beginning was just because it is a political problem for American law enforcement to profile, why should that prevent any OTHER government from focusing on the groups representing an actual threat? The wider you spread the net, the bigger the holes, the more likely it won't filter out the dangerous ones.

Ahh.

Answer: At the checkpoint it is ineffective.

As a "silver bullet" single solution, you are correct - profiling at the checkpoint is indeed ineffective. But proper profiling can be part of layered security. Isn't that why TSA continues to operate the scientifically unproved BDO program? ;)

Supporting Consitutional rights while working for the TSA is the exact living definition of the word "oxymoron".

^^^

If that is what you believe then it is obvious that you understand neither.:(

It is times like this that we need a "smiley" for irony - for those priceless moments when a member who consistently demonstrates his own lack of knowledge about the law decides to criticize another member for their apparent lack of knowledge about the law. :rolleyes: