Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: what do you feel about profiling?

  1. #1
    Im all for it. Hey, they do facial scans as St Pete airport and im cool with that. Yes, I think that profiling is necessary. Id like to see a mild "cold war" redux, tighten up ALL the borders and concentrate on things over here. Too many people coming in and draining the system.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Profiling is necessary, IMO. Stopping a nun and taking her knitting materials away from her, while letting three young arab men walk by with their bags unmolested in the name of "fairness" is not only wasteful, it is simply bad police work. When a crime has been committed, and a witness is able to provide a description of the perp, cops then search for people who fit that particular, individual profile. The same principle applies on a larger scale. Muslim arab men from ME countries are the profile that we should focus on for terrorism threats - they carried out 9-11, the 1993 WTC attack, and a host of other attacks beginning in 1979, through the marine barracks in Lebanon, through the USS Cole and even recently in Spain, Turkey, and even Riyadh. This is not to say that all or even most muslim arab men should be stopped. People who hear that someone "supports profiling" tend to overreact and stretch our words to an illogical extreme. Many muslim arab live in the USA and have families here, and the majority of muslim arab travellers have very good reasons to travel and have never done anything wrong, and have transparent backgrounds and pose no threat. However, if a group of three muslim arab men buy one-way tickets with cash, have no luggage, have a Kuwaiti passport from 1991 and describe themselves as "students" you bet your a$$ we should "profile" them and ask them a few questions, and detain them if they seem suspicious. And yes, by and large, the % of all "searches" and "detainees" should be weighted towards muslim arab men, it simply makes no sense not to acknowledge this unfortunate fact. Is this "fair" to innocent muslim arab men? Who knows? Probably not. Does that "unfairness" trump security needs? Not in my opinion. Any and all cases of blatant mistreatment or detainment without probable cause should be punished, and likely will by ambitious trial lawyers and a generally litigious current society. But, the fact remains that it wasn't a group of Buddhists that declared a jihad on us in 1998, be-headed western civilians, crashed planes into our buildings or stormed our embassies abroad and held hostages for 444 days, or killed 250 marines in the 80's. If it were, you bet your a$$ the peace-loving, non-threatening muslim arab men living in the USA would be supportive of our profiling of Buddhists!

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that you cannot be inconvenienced or annoyed. I work in Boston, at Rowes Wharf, right behind the Boston Harbor Hotel where many of the "dignitaries" are staying for the DNC. A commuter boat docks right at my building. The government is very worried about security in this area during the DNC, but after some consideration, they have decided to allow the commuter boats to run next week. The MassPort Authority has informed us that all passengers may be subject to searches and forced to show IDs, etc. Also, any pedestrians walking around that area may be forced to the same treatment as well. A predictable chorus of whining about "privacy" has been present here for some time now. It boggles my mind that people can have such a fundamental misunderstanding about such simple concepts. The question is not abstract or in an absolute sense about whether someone's "privacy" has been invaded, as if all invasions are equal or are tantamount to tyranny. The balance and trade-off is between the degree of such an invasion, and the necessity of such an invasion, and the duration of such an invasion, and the ramifications of such an invasion, if we even stipulate that searches constitue an invasion, which I think is hogwash. Even if we grant that is an invasion of privacy, it is an invasion that is (1) minor (2) temporary (3) avoidable and (4) necessary, IMO. Ask yourself this question - whose "privacy" was invaded more, the 3000 victims at the WTC on 9-11 or some dude on a boat in Boston who has to have his briefcase searched for less than a minute for three days straight, knowing full well beforehand that the searches would happen, and thus given a choice to avoid them?

  3. #3
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jul 23 2004, 08:30 AM
    [b] Profiling is necessary, IMO. Stopping a nun and taking her knitting materials away from her, while letting three young arab men walk by with their bags unmolested in the name of "fairness" is not only wasteful, it is simply bad police work. When a crime has been committed, and a witness is able to provide a description of the perp, cops then search for people who fit that particular, individual profile. The same principle applies on a larger scale. Muslim arab men from ME countries are the profile that we should focus on for terrorism threats - they carried out 9-11, the 1993 WTC attack, and a host of other attacks beginning in 1979, through the marine barracks in Lebanon, through the USS Cole and even recently in Spain, Turkey, and even Riyadh. This is not to say that all or even most muslim arab men should be stopped. People who hear that someone "supports profiling" tend to overreact and stretch our words to an illogical extreme. Many muslim arab live in the USA and have families here, and the majority of muslim arab travellers have very good reasons to travel and have never done anything wrong, and have transparent backgrounds and pose no threat. However, if a group of three muslim arab men buy one-way tickets with cash, have no luggage, have a Kuwaiti passport from 1991 and describe themselves as "students" you bet your a$$ we should "profile" them and ask them a few questions, and detain them if they seem suspicious. And yes, by and large, the % of all "searches" and "detainees" should be weighted towards muslim arab men, it simply makes sense not to acknowledge this. It isn't a group of Buddhists that declared a jihad on us in 1998, be-headed western civilians, crashed planes into our towers or stormed our embassies abroad and held hostages for 444 days.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that you cannot be inconvenienced or annoyed. I work in Boston, at Rowes Wharf, right behind the Boston Harbor Hotel where many of the "dignitaries" are staying for the DNC. A commuter boat docks right at my building. The government is very worried about security in this area during the DNC, and they have decided to allow the boats to run next week. The MassPort Authority has informed us that all passengers may be subject to searches and forced to show IDs, etc. Also, any pedestrians walking around that area may be forced to the same treatment as well. A predictable chorus of whining about "privacy" has been present here for some time now. It boggles my mind that people can have such a fundamental misunderstanding about such simple concepts. The question is not is an abstract or absolute sense about whether someone's "privacy" has been invaded. The balance and trade-off is between the degree of such an invasion, and the necessity of such an invasion, if we even stipulate that searches even constitue an invasion, which I think is hogwash. Even if we grant that is an invasion, it is an invasion that is (1) minor (2) temporary (3) avoidable and (4) necessary, IMO. Ask yourself this question - whose "privacy" was invaded more, the 3000 victims at the WTC on 9-11 or some dude on a boat in Boston who has to have his briefcase searched for less than a minute for three days straight, knowing full well beforehand that the searches would happen, and thus given a choice to avoid them? [/b][/quote]
    Wow. Exceptional reply. I agree with you. They should profile. It cracks me up that they, in effect, are blaming box cutters for the crime and entirely ignoring the men that had their hands on them. Inconvenience? Sorry. Time consuming? Sorry. Violation of one's rights? Tough s*it. They can have access to out country and be here without fear of persecution. It would be nice if all Americans abroad could be as comfortable, but we are not. So, the airports profile, adapt and learn to live with it.

  4. #4
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    Profile based on identification and personal information. If somebody is a "guest" in our country, and they are from the middle east, they should be served noticed they are going to be watched, but the opposite is happening. They are being intentionally ignored, for fear of being sued by the ACLU. Oh well, next time it'll be more than 3000 dead, but what the hey.

    You can't profile on appearance, alone, either. We all know people who look like muslim arabs, but aint. It has to be done based on personal documentation. Indeed, I think customs should have a seperate section for middle easterners. But that won't happen, 'cos of the ACLU.

    We have to clean house at the state dept, too. Remember the Visa applications of some of the 9-11 hijackers that were made public? Half the form was blank, at the rest was inneligible scribble scrabble. yet they were still issued visa's.

    So the customs agent, that's all he/she see's. A legitimate visa. They don't see the application.

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Tom The Nader Fan™[/i]@Jul 23 2004, 09:00 AM
    [b] Profile based on identification and personal information. If somebody is a "guest" in our country, and they are from the middle east, they should be served noticed they are going to be watched, but the opposite is happening. They are being intentionally ignored, for fear of being sued by the ACLU. Oh well, next time it'll be more than 3000 dead, but what the hey.

    You can't profile on appearance, alone, either. We all know people who look like muslim arabs, but aint. It has to be done based on personal documentation. Indeed, I think customs should have a seperate section for middle easterners. But that won't happen, 'cos of the ACLU.

    We have to clean house at the state dept, too. Remember the Visa applications of some of the 9-11 hijackers that were made public? Half the form was blank, at the rest was inneligible scribble scrabble. yet they were still issued visa's.

    So the customs agent, that's all he/she see's. A legitimate visa. They don't see the application. [/b][/quote]
    I agree with that as well. Americans are so maligned in other countries. We know this and deal with it. Yet we are supposed to be "open armed" with everyone here and its high time it stopped. Im sorry if it seem offensive, but the fact is self preservation of our (USA) lifestyle should be a priority and if we have to have some heavy handed techniques in place to help preserve it, so be it. If im not guilty of something, then so what.

    As for being hit again, I have no doubt that it will happen again. It doesn’t have to be a large scale attack. 9/11 was frightening, but so was the DC sniper, and that was just two confused men, yet an entire nation was gripped in fear.

    There is only ONE reason that I would ever vote for Bush (and ive voted republican since day 1). I will vote for him ONLY because he should be held accountable for some of the messes that he has created. That’s it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us