If you speak Arabic, you're a terrorist.
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 23:13
VIEWED: 9253
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
My apologies, My comment was more about this idea we shouldn't profile. It just makes no sense to me. If the "Intelligence (USED WITH CAUTION)" comes in that a threat is from BLANKITY..BLANK, we should look for BLANKITY, BLANK. Not blankity, blank.
I apologize if I misunderstood you before.
But isn't this sort of racial profiling a limit we impose upon our own awareness? It makes us blinder to the threat that doesn't fit the profile, and it only fosters this sort of paranoia directed at innocents in the population.
People merely speaking Arabic had passengers scared enough to have them removed. After they were past security. That's not normal vigilance, that's being crippled by paranoia. People should be able to trust security in a way that reassures them. Meaning, they should have checks and tests in place that ensure the harmlessness of every individual so that people don't feel a helpless panic at the ones who merely share a physical resemblence to a possible threat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Yes I'm talking about lately.
"Two young black guys were London bombers: one Jamaican, the other Somalian. Muslim, too. Ergo: Watch your back when around black men -- they could be Muslims."
"What about those non-Arab, non-South Asians without black or brown skins who are bombing apartment buildings, train stations and theaters in Russia. They've taken down passenger jets, hijacked schools and used female suicide bombers to a fare-thee-well, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. They are Muslims from Chechnya, and would pass the Krauthammer test for terrorists with ease."
"· D.C.-born and Silver Spring-raised white male John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam and was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban."
Again, I think you need to look at the Israeli screening system. They're obviously surrounded by more than a few Arabs and Persians (Iranians) who would love to highjack/blow-up an El Al aircraft, and they don't use racial profiling. The reason being, IT DOESN"T WORK.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But isn't this sort of racial profiling a limit we impose upon our own awareness? It makes us blinder to the threat that doesn't fit the profile, and it only fosters this sort of paranoia directed at innocents in the population.
Well said, AgentRouka.
Edit: To say nothing of the fact that it alienates the very segment of the population from which we need the most help and cooperation.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you had to choose between Xenophobia and the threat of getting blown up, which would you pick?
Originally posted by citizen:
So do you agree that people who look Muslim should be banned from aircraft? Mob rule?
Is Xenophobia okay if we're the one's doing it?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I haven’t read Krauthammer’s paper so I’m not going to respond to this, except to say that I think you’ve missed my point. And also there is nothing inherently bigoted about racial profiling. In the same way that there is nothing bigoted about arguing that more African-Americans comment crimes then White Americans. This is a statement of fact. Much as it is a statement of fact that the majority of terrorists we are dealing with are of Middle Eastern ethnicity. So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I think you're missing the point. Charles Krauthammer, neo-conservative talking head and Fox News political analyst, wrote a column in the New York Times, "Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists," advocating the practice of using ethnicity, nationality, and religion as the determinate factors when screening for potential terrorists at U.S. airports. This position is so flawed, it's hard to know where to start.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me stick my nose where it doesn't belong
I would take Xenophobia, personally. But I don't think that's the contest, even if Citizen does.
I think it's a test between relatively empty threat, and the countermeasure which is an eye for an empty threat against an eye.
We shouldn't be taking pre-emptive action, it's morally wrong, violates the idea of minimum death, and totally undermines any attempt at diplomacy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Once someone has decided to get on a plane with a bomb, diplomacy becomes a secondary issue to preventing the explosion, I think. And we are already taking pre-emptive action, with regard to screening passengers, we are simply now doing it with no clear methodology for choosing likely suspects, which leads to strip searching old women.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We shouldn't be taking pre-emptive action, it's morally wrong, violates the idea of minimum death, and totally undermines any attempt at diplomacy.
Also everyone's nose belongs on this board.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you had to choose between Xenophobia and the threat of getting blown up, which would you pick?
Basically, anyone who dares to speak Arabic in your presence is automatically a terror suspect and you can point at them and demand that they be banned from your flight(/bus/train/building/whatever)?
Because, those people had been through the same security measures everyone else had. Their only crime was looking and speaking Arabic.
At some point, the racial paranoia has to stop. There needs to be a point of reassurance, because you cannot make belonging to a certain race a crime.
So what is it that you propose Arabic-speaking and -looking innocents do to take a plane ride without getting thrown off the moment someone hears them talk?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I haven’t read Krauthammer’s paper so I’m not going to respond to this, except to say that I think you’ve missed my point. And also there is nothing inherently bigoted about racial profiling. In the same way that there is nothing bigoted about arguing that more African-Americans comment crimes then White Americans. This is a statement of fact. Much as it is a statement of fact that the majority of terrorists we are dealing with are of Middle Eastern ethnicity. So if you want to prevent terrorism and your choice of suspects is an old English woman or a young Middle Eastern man, who do you choose to interrogate, if you can choose only one?
You're right. African-Americans statistically commit more crimes than White-Americans, or at least they have a higher conviction rate. However, that's a whole other debate. As for your choice between an old English woman and a young Middle Eastern man, that's a false choice. But the Bush administration has been giving Americans those ever since 9/11.
I think that we must be careful to respect people's civil liberties. To suggest there is a trade-off between security and individual freedoms - that we must discard one protection for the other - is, again, a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it.
When you design systems that are targeted to one group or another, you justifiably can anticipate a reaction that you are profiling and that it is discriminatory. In order for us to continue to be the kind of country we want to be, we need to design a system where nationality, ethnicity, and religion is not the element that drives any kind of screening method. A system that respects the liberties of every individual.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
- Benjamin Franklin
I realize you're not willing to give up your liberties, you're just asking the government to restrict the liberties of others, so that you will have your false sense of security.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you really want to know, I suggest that we consider airport screening processes that don’t use random methodology, since strip searching old women is not likely to give anyone on board much piece of mind. I suggest that we consider evaluating potential suspects based on a broad spectrum of characteristics including behavior. And yes, we should more closely examine Muslim passengers then old women. Then maybe they went "through the same security measures everyone else" will mean more then it does right now.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So what is it that you propose Arabic-speaking and -looking innocents do to take a plane ride without getting thrown off the moment someone hears them talk?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME