Of note, the 20th 9/11 hijacker was "profiled" by Customs agent and Vietnam vet Jose Melendez-Perez. It was stated that he wasn't afraid of the "profiling" label. In turning away Mohammed Al-Qahtani, believed to have been the 20th hijacker for UA 93.

At one time "profiling" was considered good police work.

There was an article in the International Herald Tribune shortly after 9/11 that interviewed a bunch of right-wing groups of white people (I believe these were mostly in Germany) that saw Osama as a hero for what he was doing. I'm not sure if they agreed with his specific politics, but they definitely liked the tactics. I think there's some potential for these types of people to get into the terrorism game. And no amount of discrimination against Middle Easterners is going to help that.

Customs does profile, but it's not a "dark skin = bad" profile. That kind of simplicity gets one nowhere.

And Customs is a whole different thing than the airport checkpoint. TSA agents are neither trained to do anything besides look for contraband, nor are they empowered to do "police work."

Doppy,

Your post on another thread provides a link to exactly what I was talking about in my previous posts.

Folks, for a rational discussion of the correct use of "profiling" including a take on profiling based SOLELY on race, which I wholeheartedly agree with, take a gander at the following.

Common Sense

Authorities in Jordan say that two of the bombers there this week were a husband and wife couple.

There are so many examples of this "middle eastern male between a certain age range" "profile" being wrong, that I really don't see any redeeming value in it.

1 out of 5, 7, etc... is not random. It is a set pattern. Random selection would be letting the passenger flip a coin. head goes on, tails goes for addition screening.

Cheers,

J

I thought Tim McVeigh was of midwestern descent, not eastern descent?

1) Tim McVeigh did not attack transportation.

2) Tim McVeigh was not a suicide bomber.

3) TSA would not have detected Tim McVeigh. His yellow Ryder truck would have blown up a terminal, and if that terminal was the WN facility at LAX, many passengers waiting at a checkpoint would probably have been killed.

Deleted

That was completely uncalled for Bart. Nothing PH said could possibly indicate that.

I actually had a lot of respect for you until that post.

Grow up.

All of the argument against profiling are based on the assumption that it would be the ONLY criteria for screening, and that ONLY those who meet the profile would be screened.

NOWHERE has that been stated. The point of profiling is to give EXTRA scrutiny to those who are members of a group which STATISTIC LY have a greater chance of being a threat.

All passengers should still receive screening. No one is arguing that they shouldn't. But to deny that Muslim male roughly between the ages of 17 and 40 do not STATISTICAL have a greater chance of actually being a terrorist intent on doing harm to Americans is simply denying a FACT. Sticking your head in the sand to avoid reality will not make it go away.

This is simply a matter of knowing who the enemy is. Something most Americans don't want to face because it would involve offending a racial group who likes to claim victim status while all the wile calling you a racist for thinking such thoughts.

The worst offense in America today is to be accused of being a racist. And it seems Americans would rather risk a catastrophic attack which will kill thousands that to be called "racist".

If we fail to acknowledge who the enemy is, we cannot fight them. I fear that America will not be waken for this Utopian PC dreamworld by anything short of a mushroom cloud over a major city. Even then, I have my doubts.

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

No, that's not what those who have argued against profiling assumed. Please reread the arguments.

If you look at terrorrist attacks in the US alone, it's pretty evenly balanced between Muslims and non-Muslims over the long run. Now, if you're talking about groups like Al Qaeda in general, then yes, there are more Muslims out there to get us. But a couple problems arise:

(1) How is the TSA supposed to know what religion someone subscribes to? There are white Muslims, Asian Muslims, African Muslims, Arab Muslims and so on.

(2) How is the TSA supposed to know how old someone is?

(3) We know that groups like Al Qaeda are smart enough to use people who don't fit the male, 17-40 description. They use women (witness the husband-wife duo in Jordan a few days ago). They'll use people who aren't in that age range.

(4) What is the TSA supposed to do if a 25 year old Muslim male presents himself at the checkpoint? (Remember that the 9/11 hijackers didn't have any prohibited items on them, and many did get an extra careful screening by the checkpoint staff.)

Actually the concern is that some want to narrowly define the enemy to the point where we're getting less security for our effort instead of more.

Lets do the math. Lets say 5 million Muslims in the US. 25 have actually caused an attack on US soil.

25 / 5,000,000 = .000005 chance of a particular Muslim in the US of being a terrorist. If you figure of these 25, they are either all dead or in custody, you should not lose any sleep over night because of this.

Any statistician would laugh at that as any sort of predictor of behavior. That third grade math sure comes in handy.