Are We Finally Ready For Real (And Absolutely Justified) Profiling?

By Loudoun Insider

I’ve had it with PC BS getting in the way of protecting our citizens from an obvious danger posed by radicalized Muslim men.  A lengthy article in today’s WaPo about the Fort Hood shooter was sub-titled “Community haunted by clues that went unnoticed”  when it continued inside the paper.  The clues were noticed, but it’s painfully obvious that a fear of PC backlash kept some who noticed from speaking out.  Here’s a telltale passage:

 

“Another believed Hasan could pose a risk but kept quiet.  “If you complain and someone higher up says you’re biased, that can be a career ender.  That dogs you.”"

 

Reading through the clues left by this fanatic, and those surrounding the Christmas Day wannabe bomber it is all too obvious that a lack of realistic urgency still plagues our nation in this ongoing battle against Islamo-terrorism.  Of course we should not let up on reasonable overall screening and awareness, but extra attention MUST be paid to Muslim men who are almost exclusively responsible for these types of terror attacks.  It’s time to stop strip searching old women at the airport and concentrate on those who statistically make up the real threat.  Enough PC weenyism.  If they don’t like it, they can leave.  Simple solution.


Comments

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    I couldn’t even read the article, the premise that people are haunted is not because clues were unnoticed. They are haunted due to guilt, as they should be.
    *
    Shame anyone that did not sound the alarm due to fear over their career.

  • Antonio says:

    Tell me, what does a “Muslim man” look like? I had a high school teacher who was Muslim, he was a 6-foot-2 Anglo-German – went on Hajj, fasted, the whole bit.

    About 30% of the Indian Subcontinent is Muslim. Growing up in Northern Virginia, I knew plenty of Pakistanis, Bengalis, Indians, and I’m afraid to say I can’t tell the Hindus from the Muslims, can you?

    I’m Catholic – do you want to tell me what people of my religion look like? My parish has Southerners, Northerners, Hispanics, Europeans, Asians, Blacks, etc…

    Let us be, as you suggest, realistic.

  • Wolverine says:

    Profile if you must, but you have to avoid falling into the trap of narrowing your profile spectrum too much. These people we are up against are nuts, but they are not stupid. Focus only on the Muslim men who pass before your eyes; and, eventually, the bomb will be carried aboard by that little old woman, knowingly or naively, or by someone else who has escaped your habitual interest. Did you not notice that this time, instead of sending someone who looked like our idea of a suspect, they sent a very young Black man? They are already on to us in that regard. Don’t make it easier for them.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I’m not sure how one would concentrate on “Muslims”. My passport says nothing about my religion and I’m certain most other nations don’t indicate religion either.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    We can begin by subjecting certain foreign nationals to increased scrutiny. Of course that must include any majority Muslim nation.
    .
    I’m aware of that possibility, Wolverine, which is why I said the base level of scrutiny for all must not waver. But it is painfully obvious that a certain demographic continues to be the prime source for terrorists.
    .
    Antonio, I don’t see too many Catholics trying to blow up airplanes these days. Want an idea of what to look for? Try this poster of the “Magnificent 19″:

    http://www.wnd.com/images2/radicalposter2003.jpg
    .
    Call me a heathen and bigot if you wish but this must be done. We as a nation need to get our heads out of our asses.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I would be very surprised if males in the 18-50 range from Middle Eastern countries, Central Asia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. are not already getting considerably more attention as a group than any other.

  • Local GOP says:

    Profiling is a double-edged sword. If employed reasonably it can be a tool that eases the process of airport security. For example. Odds are the 80 year old with a grandchild is not going to blow an airplane up. I think profiling in this manner is much more useful than, say, profiling to find terrorists. Because terrorism is not limited to those who look middle eastern. Remember the shoe bomber, the OK City bomber, the uni-bomber? All white people. Just sayin’.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Richard Reid fit the profile, and McVeigh and Kazcinski were bad guys but not trying to blow up planes. Blowing up and hijacking planes seems to be a specialty of radicalized Muslim men.

  • Local GOP says:

    “McVeigh and Kazcinski were bad guys but not trying to blow up planes.”–Are you kidding me? Are you seriously trying to say that Timothy McVeigh who committed the second worst terror attack on US soil in history is any less ‘radical’ than the 9/11 hijackers? Thats a joke and a lousy argument. I’m sure that brings comfort to his victims. He is just as much a terrorist as any “radical muslim man.” Your blatant dismissal of these obvious examples of a failure in profiling based on physical looks shows evidence of a knee jerk reaction.

    Profiling based on things like: ties to known terrorists, being on watch lists, wearing a winter coat in an open market in the middle of summer, etc is smart profiling that should be employed. But to pull every muslim man between 18-40 aside in an airport for ‘random’ searches is 100% unacceptable and whether or not you want to admit it constitutes racism.

    It’s no different than 2 black males being searched for walking around in Georgetown at 12am. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing more than what they look like. I’m a white male, ‘statistically’ speaking I have a higher chance of being a serial killer than anyone else. Does that mean that I should be pulled aside in airports and searched?

    Let’s say racial profiling is legalized, which it wont be, but lets say it it. Who makes the profile? Who is in the profile? When the profile is published won’t terrorists send people who dont fit the profile? Whats to keep a profile from becoming a manual on how not to act?

    Lets face it, the only way to effectively stop terrorists is tighter security. I’d rather wait another hour in line than die.

  • How bout we just ENFORCE the list of suspects we do have evidence of?This cat was a known individual. How he was not listed on a no-fly list at the same time is something the dyke needs to explain….before she uttered the words “there was no problem with the system”.

  • Local GOP says:

    TBM is right, there is no need to start changing the ways we secure our airports. If your name is on a watch list, you go through special searches, if your even allowed on the aircraft.

  • Brian S. says:

    I agree with TBM. The issue isn’t that we aren’t identifying the terrorists, it’s that we’re not doing anything with the information we do have. If we start profiling terrorists, they’ll start recruiting people who don’t fit the profile we have set up and they’ll slip through. Al Qaeda isn’t stupid and their leaders aren’t stupid. They’ve demonstrated they are exceedingly adaptable. We need to adapt too. And that doesn’t mean we stop letting people use blankets on airline flights, either.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    No I am not kidding you, Local GOP, and you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I was talking in that instance about airplane related crimes. McVeigh was a shithead, as was Kaczinski.
    .
    FACT – the majority of hijacking problems on US flights have been due to Muslim fanatics. Whine about it however you want, but those that fit that profile need extra scrutiny.

  • Exactly, LI. Why waste ANY of my tax money (and make my flight LESS secure) by frisking 85 year old white ladies?

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Lloyd – Because as soon as you stop frisking 85 year old white ladies, the bad guys will dupe or persuade one to blow up an airplane.

  • I’ll take that chance.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I really don’t buy that argument, Scout. And again, I never said we need to reduce the overall security stance, we just need to focus more on those who are very much most likely to do the harm.
    .
    The Isaraelis simply do a lot of things related to security exceptionally well. Unfortunately I do not have much faith in our TSA to be that competent. It would take a huge revamping of TSA to get to that level of competence.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I guess my point is similar to Wolverine’s. First, I have no doubt we are profiling pretty heavily already. It’s anecdotal, but all my Middle Eastern (or Middle Eastern-appearing) friends have a devil of a time getting through airports. They routinely allow much more time and patience for security than I do. A lot of these people are Christian Conservatives who are probably less likely statistically than any of us to take a hostile act against the US, but they know they are being profiled and accept it as a reality that they just have to endure. Second, and more importantly, profiling, to work, depends on not letting the profile become predictable or entirely detectable to the other side. You absolutely have to screen with some frequency the old ladies and babies and nuns and Rick Warrens and John Waynes etc or the profile becomes useless and a threat rather than a protection. It is known that Al Quaeda has spent some effort recruiting European and American converts to Islam because they do NOT fit profiles at security checkpoints. It is nearly impossible to know that a 22-year old German graduate student from Hanover is a Muslim from anything you would see in terms of documentation at the airport.

    Obviously, everyone wants good security (although sometimes I wonder if anyone has studied whether the intelligent decision is to assume that the bad guys are going to get a planeload every so often and accept that as a modern risk, rather than to impose the crushing burden on commerce of trying to build a zero-defects system). My only comment on the original post is that profiling is not enough and that profiling on religion or national origin is probably already in full swing, but won’t work effectively if it becomes the known security template.

  • Local GOP says:

    None of the pro racial profiling people have answered the claim that a profile will merely become an outline of how not to act. DHS has a lot more things to do than secure airports. So you are basically saying only search muslim men in airports and that will beef up security. yeah thats not going to work. Like Brian S said, terrorists are smart and adapt, dont make the mistake of underestimating them.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    The pool of non-profile people that they can recruit will never amount to a significant portion of their numbers. We know who poses the biggest threat, whether we have the backbone to look at the demographic with deservedly more scrutiny is the question.

  • Local GOP says:

    “whether we have the backbone to look at the demographic with deservedly more scrutiny is the question”–Okay, so lets apply this principle accross the board.

    If a young black man goes into Nordstroms he is followed by security because he ‘deserves’ scrutiny. BS, what did he do to ‘deserve’ scrutiny. You are punishing people for the crimes of others. Its the same principle as those who call for reparations to be given to descendants of slaves by descendants of slave holders.

    What did the American born muslim do to ‘deserve’ scrutiny? Be born muslim? Is that a crime now? I guess in your world it is. Its not being “PC” its extending the same freedoms, rights, and liberties to every American, no matter what color your skin is. I know that might be a novel concept for some people.

    Oh, and by the way, the Ft. Hood shooter did not fit the ‘profile.’ A US Army officer, 39 years old, from Arlington, studied how muslims think and taught classes on it to the US Army. Far cry from the 9/11 hijackers. If he was to blow up a plane in an airport he would slip right past your racial profilers because, odds are, he would be wearing his army uniform and show military ID. Who in the military would blow up an American jet liner?

    Racial profiling is nothing more than racism hiding behind a thin veil of good intentions.

    Behavioral profiling, looking at financial records, travel patterns, etc is real profiling that works. Racial profiling is idiotic and does 0 good.

  • John Doe says:

    I was going to write that I AGREED with Loudoun Insider. However, due to the speed of my jaw dropping, I may have broken some teeth and I therefore need to rush to the emergency room for treatment. Hopefully, that will give me time to reassess my position (I CAN’T be correct if I agree with LI, can I?).

    In the meantime, all I can say is: ABOUT DAMN TIME you came to this conclusion. “Enough PC weenyism.” Isn’t that the very definition of the bloggers at “Too Conservative”?

  • Wolverine says:

    Local GOP — I both agree with you and do not agree with you. As I opined earlier, racial or ethnic or religious profiling alone can cause you to narrow your focus too much. Eventually, you will be beaten by a smart opponent. Profiling behavior is an absolute necessity. It is a very difficult art, but the Israelis have come as close as anybody to perfecting it. In this I think we agree

    I would not, however, go so far as to equate racial profiling with racism in a situation like this. I would say, rather, that it is a very universal human reaction to danger when the great majority of that danger has come demonstrably from a common source. When the wolves are stealing the sheep from your fold, the natural tendency is to focus on wolves and not on other critters. Not necesarily fair under our normal standards of liberty and justice, I agree; but sometimes it just happens because you are trying to stay safe and alive. Nevertheless, it still holds that, if you focus omly on the wolves, you will eventually lose sheep to the critters you have
    overlooked.

  • Local GOP says:

    Wolverine-Racial profiling as a small part of a comprehensive security plan is one thing. But hoping to solve airport security problems by relying either solely or greatly on racial profiling is what I am arguing against.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “If a young black man goes into Nordstroms he is followed by security because he ‘deserves’ scrutiny. BS, what did he do to ‘deserve’ scrutiny. You are punishing people for the crimes of others.”
    *
    It’s called statistics. Go check page 48 of this document: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/downloads/Crime_in_Virginia_2007.pdf. Now, go visit the census site and see what percentage of the total population that blacks constitute in Virginia. I’ll make it easy for you, they make up roughly 20% of the total but commit roughly 50% of the property crimes. If you passed statistics 101, it’s easy to see that this isn’t exactly a normal distribution….
    *
    With the exception of the libtard trolls who befoul this board from time to time, you may well be in the running for the “most full of shit comment” award. Maybe you should lighten up on the kumbaya bullshit and not try to second guess people tasked with stuff like loss prevention and protecting lives, etc.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Profiling behavior is an absolute necessity”
    *
    As usual, on the spot. I had a friend one time in the “business” who once told me “if you’re watching everybody, you’re watching nobody.” Supposedly it’s some ultra profound saying he picked on while in Shin Bet or somesuch shit but I digress. I’ll maintain that racial profiling based on statistical analysis can help to thin the herd when looking at a large pool. Your point that you’re going to miss the corner cases from time to time is well taken, but I think you’ll agree that we have to play the numbers to a certain extent.

  • Local GOP says:

    Blacks, hispanics, and every American has the right to conduct their lives without being subjected to unreasonable scrutiny. There is a difference between race being a small component and race being a sole component. I am arguing against the ladder. As one who has worked in the security field in the past, those in that industry are told to NOT use race as a way of watching people because more often than not it has led to tunnell vision i.e. guards get too wrapped up in watching the black people and a white guy slips by with a play station.

  • Wolverine says:

    Actually, I think the Israelis do profile to some extent everyone heading for a flight. The key is that they have developed this art to such an extent that they can quickly separate the possibles from the unlikelies and, given their record, apparently do so with maximum effectiveness. One of my principal concerns with regard to us in particular is the problem of scale — many more flights, much greater traffic. I am concerned that the TSA does not have and may never have enough top-notch screeners to cover all our bases. The bigger you are the better chance the opponent has. But, all in all, Local GOP is correct on one point. Profiling for us can be only one segment of a much broader effort. As we have seen in the Detroit case, what does or does not show up on your computer screen from world-wide intelligence reporting can be crucial. So can ancilliary observations, e.g. does the guy have luggage; how did he pay for his ticket; etc.

  • Listen to Cato on the “MFOSC” Award. This man has knows what he’s talking about.

  • Local GOP says:

    Wolverine makes the point that I am trying to make to no avail. Racial profiling to the extent that LI is promoting is foolish. Trying to catch terrorists in airports based SOLELY on skin color is absolutely idiotic. BUT, using race, behavior, body language, travel analysis, lists, etc as part of a bigger security plan is a correct way to employ it. But following ALL muslims in an airport for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that they’re muslim is not going to solve any problems, and will only lead to lawsuits that will be upheld. Its also wrong to do in a nation of freedoms, liberties, and rights. It’s important to remember tat we’re not fighting muslims, we’re fighting terrorists that use islam as an excuse to commit murder.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Wolv, Would you agree that the Israeli model of profiling (and other measures) has acted as a very large deterrant? Isn’t that basically what we are aiming for ultimately, despite being a much larger target flightwise?
    *
    As it stands now, I think our limited and sometimes meaningless security is actually inviting terrorists.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Local GOP, The Ft Hood shooter may not have initially fit a “profile” but he damned well filled one out to a “t” with his behavior, communications with known terrorists and actions. The fact that he was allowed, and I use that term deliberatly, to carry out his terrorist act is unforgivable!
    *
    Sadly, It will take another plane blowing up, or a middle school taken seige – like the Beslan School in Chechnya – where hundreds of people die – to make us crack down on just those on watch lists.

  • Local GOP says:

    Racial profiling as a large part or only part of securing the airports will not work. BUT using race as a small factor in a larger security plan is something that I would support.

  • Wolverine says:

    Loudoun Lady, if I ever sense that our airport profiling is limited only to guys who look like Osama bin Laden and that others are skipping through with only a wink and a nod, I will no longer fly… except on El Al, wherever possible. And you can take that from someone who was years in the counterterrorism business.

Leave Comment