The Brits are thinking about an airport-security strategy that would focus more on young Muslim men than 80-year-old white grandmothers:
The Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.
The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.
Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.
Gee, ya think? And here I thought “random searches” were so effective! Because, you know, thoroughly searching a small percentage of people, at random, is obviously such an effective way of stopping undeterrable suicide terrorists…
Look, I sympathize with those who are offended by this sort of thing, I honestly do. I don’t like the idea of racial/ethnic/religious profiling at all, at all. It goes against my grain to support it. But I also honestly believe that, if a group of people, 95% of whom are Irish redheads, were actively engaged in war against my country, I wouldn’t mind being subject to an extra minute or two of screening at the airport just because I’m an Irish redhead. Nor would I take that extra screening as a sign that people assume that all Irish redheads are terrorists. (It would simply mean they assume that all — well, nearly all — terrorists are Irish redheads. There’s a difference.)
It would be different if we were talking about a truly serious deprivation of my liberty, like making me sit in the back of the plane, or not allowing me to fly at all, or throwing me in a detention camp. Obviously those steps would be unjustifiable. But subjecting me to extra screening so that there are better odds of actually corralling our limited resources to catch the evil men who want to kill us all? I suppose it’s easy for me to say, sitting from this perch, but I truly don’t believe I’d have a problem with that if the tables were turned. After all, it’d be making me safer, too.
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security, Ireland & the U.K.
|
August 14th, 2006 at 7:07:43 pm
Lamont’s victory must have been the straw that broke the camel’s back–now you’re really sounding like a Republican! :-P
August 14th, 2006 at 7:10:17 pm
LOL. I believe I said it was the “straw that broke the donkey’s back.” :) But no, I’ve believed what I say in this post for years. I’m just generally somewhat hesitant to say it in polite company because I know some people will jump on me for it. Oh well.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:17:35 pm
The problem is when you assume that Arabs are the only ones plotting to kill us, they will slip in a John Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla on us. Granted, there is something to be said about the idea that these attacks usually involve 20 or so people, and they are usually Middle Eastern. But Al Qaeda has also successfully recruited Jamaicans and Australians. Also, Chechens and some Syrians could pass for white.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:23:25 pm
There are many things that you don’t say in polite company, it doesn’t make them any less true. In this case, making more efficient use of limited resources is sensible–regardless of the political correctness of such a policy.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:25:34 pm
Mad Max, you’re right there are Muslims that don’t fit our stereotypical profile. But if you focus on the stereotypical Muslim, you at least greatly increase the odds of preventing an attack. And since it takes a plot of plenty more than just one or two Jose Padillas or John Walker Lindhs to succeed, I like our overall chances at preventing any attacks.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:27:44 pm
Max, that dose not eliminate the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are males aged 18 - 28. However, it does ignore the fact that female terrorists tend to be ring leaders–which would actually reduce the likelihood of their involvement in a suicide attack. That, of course, ignores the fact that in the case of Al Qaeda there is a low likelihood of any of them being female. Point being there are always caveats, But if the goal is to stop as many of these people as possible there is a certain need to focus on those most likely to act.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:39:15 pm
Max, Padilla & Lindh are why I said “95%” and “nearly all.”
But Andrew and Dane are right (there’s something you don’t hear in same the breath very often, heh) … present patterns strongly suggest that if we focus on young Arab/Muslim males, we are much much more likely to catch a terrorist than if we focus on the population at large. If and when Al Qaeda adjusts its M.O. so drastically that that ceases to be true, then it would make sense to adjust our strategy accordingly. But for the moment, focusing on Arabs/Muslims is just sensible. And if some white guy is acting really suspiciously, search him too, duh.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:43:45 pm
I’m not saying don’t focus on young Middle Eastern men. I’m saying authorities shouldn’t develop tunnel vision.
Case in point, the DC Sniper. Seems to me the profilers were so convinced that the shooter(s) were either two white teens or a lone white man in a white van that authorities overlooked several opportunities to get the real killers. In fact, during the only shooting in DC proper, the DC police I.D.’d the correct vehicle. But Chief Moose and company ended up ignoring it because the mob-think was that it was a white panel van. So much so that when the snipers killed the guy at the gas station in Manassas, the friggin’ cops let the snipers through the blockade they had set up.
If Al Qaeda sees this as a weakness, it will exploit it.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:48:26 pm
Yes but the Irish Redhead Terrorists (IRT :) were never actively engaged in a war against Our country, they’re dumbarses but not quite That stupid, it would have wrecked their principal source of Revenue. ;> (Well. Apart from the odd Bank job of course. ;) Anyway they’ve Decommissioned and adopted peaceful Politics. ;> Try to Keep Up. :}
August 14th, 2006 at 7:53:37 pm
Its your nose Brendan it has a profile
of its own.Ha ha !!!
August 14th, 2006 at 8:01:40 pm
Max, I think your recent post demonstrates — at least in part — why the DC snipers were not the best example for misuse of profiling (although a good example for how tunnel-vision can sink an investigation): the missed opportunities to nab them were partly due to the profiling, and partly due to the eyewitness accounts of the white van.
Perhaps a better example would be the anthrax investigations, which appeared to go awry once the FBI used profiling to target Stephen Hatfield, and then after months of turning the screws on Hatfield, searching every piece of property he ever went near, and even running over his foot, they came up dry. (Meanwhile, they appeared to ignore several pieces of evidence that suggested a link to the 9/11 plotters).
I would have guessed that Brendan would support a security strategy that includes profiling, unlike many PC-mad Democrats. And, for that matter, Republicans. Perhaps with Japanese-American relocation camp survivor Norm Mineta’s retirement in the bag, the Bush administration will come to its senses and follow Tony Blair’s lead.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:11:50 pm
“Leanna,” you may want to log off as Mom and log back on as yourself. :)
August 14th, 2006 at 8:54:31 pm
My first flight after 9/11 was on Friday 9/21/2001. It turned out that I sat next to a Pakistani businessman in his mid 40s.
I guess if it happened again today, I’d clue into the fact that he was a) travelling alone, b) a bit old, and c) with the accoutrements of being a businessman, such that I would consider it unlikely for him to be a terrorist.
On 9/21/01, I thought he was a terrorist. The stewards clearly thought he was a terrorist. Surely everyone on the plane thought he was a terrorist. Our only comfort was that he would have been checked excessively by the security that surely also thought he was a terrorist.
Later in the flight I struck up a conversation with him (out of nervousness that he was a terrorist - you know if you’re nice maybe he won’t kill you. I know. Me - nice.) He was an alright fellow. He mentioned that security was a problem now for guys like him - and his view?
Good. If people that look like him were going to blow up planes, he didn’t want to get on the same plane with them.
Maybe he was the exception and people are more likely to get offended than be pragmatic, I don’t know.
But if four or five young, nervous-looking Muslim men are in an airport, and they’re nervous because they think people will consider them to be terrorists -
- their problem runs WAY deeper than racial profiling. Even if they’re innocent, there’s something positively creepy about the far-left view that says,
“People think you kids are dangerous, but not US, because we’re not like that”
(So Kossites, you think they’re not dangerous?)
(No - we think they’re dangerous. We’re just not SAYING that, because it wouldn’t be very nice).
(Hm).
August 14th, 2006 at 9:24:10 pm
I can’t think of a more serious deprivation of one’s liberty than being blown up by some nutbag.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:51:59 pm
Why, Leanna @ 7:48 PM, (if I may be so bold), you *have* changed ! (grin)
Brendan @ 8:11 PM, - umm - it does look like *you* are ‘profiling’ in your response to “Leanna”, are you not ? (bigger grin)
August 14th, 2006 at 11:53:05 pm
Joe Mama - how about being blown up by some nutbag because the screeners weren’t allowed to screen the terrorist cuz that would have been ‘profiling’ ?
August 15th, 2006 at 6:34:54 am
I’m sitting here dumbfounded at the absolute breadth of value in what EVERYONE is saying here. Really is stunning. I had figured at least somebody would be breathlessly arguing against profiling.
Yet only argument against is Max’s and his is not really one against profiling so much as the pragmatism of it and making sure it doesn’t develop into a weakness.
I’m not sure how big a problem that might be, with TSA becoming complacent in their type of profiling, but certainly a rational concern.
But random searches are the biggest loads of shit right now. I sympathize that some Middle-Eastern looking men and some women will be inconvenienced by this policy, but that is what it is. An inconvenience. I would like to think I would consider it the same way if roles were reversed.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:00:46 am
I think as a deterrence factor random searching is effective because it makes it more difficult to be sure you can pass someone that does not fit a profile through security–it is possible, though highly unlikely and in the sense that anything is possible, that a 90 year old grandmother could be a terrorist. However, that does not mean that we should not investigate those that are statistically more likely to attack to a greater extent. Certainly we need to not get tunnel vision nor continue with old ideas when we realize they are wrong.
It is kind of like NYPD and their random surges to different parts of the city. They do this so that terrorist have no idea when or where hundreds of police officials and terrorism experts are going to show up or why. This does not keep NYPD from running a surge to a location that they think might be a target at a time they think it might be a target.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:04:59 am
“I can’t think of a more serious deprivation of one’s liberty than being blown up by some nutbag.”
Joe Mama - You would make Patrick Henry proud. Thank God the Founding Fathers didn’t have your mindset.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:25:30 am
A&A, your attempted riposte falls pathetically short of the mark. Patrick Henry’s speechifying (”Give me liberty or give me death!”) urged the VA legislature to take military action against the British. Thus, he was indicating his willingness to give his life in order to achieve American independence (or at least wasn’t willing to live under British tyranny). By obvious contrast (to most, anyway) absolutely NOTHING is being gained or achieved by falling victim to a terrorist bomb. In fact, judging by his speeches, one could make a much more convincing argument that today Patrick Henry would be similarly unwilling to live under the tyranny of constant fear of another terrorist attack, and would likewise urge military action to counter that threat.
Thanks for making my point, A&A.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:42:33 am
Joe Mama-
Bock, bock, bock.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:05:45 am
A reference to Sam Adams Triple Bock? If you were imbibing, that would explain a lot, A&A.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:37:45 am
One more attack on US planes and we may jump beyond profiling, to “allowing” muslims their own flights.
When I saw that Al Gore was searched on one flight, I relized we were operating from “loonie land” and not using common sense.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:52:38 am
Nah, Joe Mama. I’m just calling you out as a chicken.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:55:49 am
I amend my statement. Everyone was included until Angrier dropped in.
I’ll just wait until Angrier points to a person’s right not to be inconvenienced.
Personal Liberties vs. Public Safety. On this one, Safety trumps easy.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:11:25 am
Actually, Joe Mama started to whole exchange with his ridiculous and myopic declaration.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:39:26 am
Then A&A, I’m calling you out as an obnoxious douche who thinks like a child.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:41:38 am
. . . that is, if you even bother to think at all before posting your ludicrous drivel.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:44:31 am
Joe Mama-
I know you are, but what am I?
August 15th, 2006 at 11:50:31 am
Congrats, A&A. You’ve dragged yet another thread down to your level.
August 15th, 2006 at 12:15:30 pm
Ummm . . . let’s avoid the ad hominem, please? It isn’t winning any arguments.
The DC sniper was missed, I think, because everyone was looking for a white van, and not a old, blue Chevy Caprice Classic. (I remember the pain at seeing my favorite car model being towed away after they discovered it was being used. Is nothing sacred?) No one was going to have a good way to know the skin color of those in the car, and probably reported on the basis of vans.
The sniper does prove that bad things can happen in Montgomery County, where there are more cops around than anywhere I have ever seen. You can’t drive a mile without seeing one.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:27:12 pm
Ummm - and why does it have to be random OR profiling ?
Why not simply search the prime probabilities AND a certain random percentage ?
August 16th, 2006 at 3:47:05 pm
The real I.D. act will take effect in 08.The new I.D. will contain RFID technology.This new technology will allow the govt to track these cards anywhere in the world via satelite.These cards will hold information about your whole life down to your dna and a reitna scan.So you see we will all be montitored starting in 08.The govt will be able to track anyone with this card.Without this new ID card you will not be able to open a bank account or fly.So you see in the near future there will be no racial profiling because if you dont allow them to track you 24/7 with your new ID your not getting on a plane or even opening a bank account.Do you trust the Federal Govt to Monitor your every move in the name of national security?It seems I have read a warning about this some where oh yeah the BIBLE!
August 16th, 2006 at 3:52:20 pm
There is no way in Hell I would allow the govt to track me 24/7 with either a id card or a implantible chip which they are trying to use on our children.NO WAY NO HOW!
August 19th, 2006 at 1:42:53 pm
Unfortunately, I think that focusing on a particular ethnic/religious group is not an unreasonable idea in combatting terrorism; after all, this group has shown itself to be rather active in that area. However, there is also something about that kind of profiling that turns my stomach. Additionally, wouldn’t a truly crafty group of terrorists want to have an innocent-looking and -behaving 80-year-old grandmother (or other ostensibly innocuous person) on their team?