ForumGarden

OK, granted, profiling can be carried out to the extreme, but wouldn't it be safe to eliminate for example------elderly, white haired old ladies using a walker when going through airport security? Or, wouldn't it be safe to eliminate tall, blond, blue eyed Nordic looking males (how many fitting that description have been terrorists?)

Seems to me that PROFILING is a more efficient means of conducting a search. I mean after all, if 85% of a particular type crime is committed by people that look a certain way, then why not focus in on those people? Oh, I forgot, that would not be POLITICALLY CORRECT and heaven forbid, might even be considered RACIST.

Lon;1279660 wrote: OK, granted, profiling can be carried out to the extreme, but wouldn't it be safe to eliminate for example------elderly, white haired old ladies using a walker when going through airport security? Or, wouldn't it be safe to eliminate tall, blond, blue eyed Nordic looking males (how many fitting that description have been terrorists?)

Seems to me that PROFILING is a more efficient means of conducting a search. I mean after all, if 85@% of a particular type crime is committed by people that look a certain way, then why not focus in on those people? Oh, I forgot, that would not be POLITICALLY CORRECT and heaven forbid, might even be considered RACIST.


not only certain looks but certain places certain types hang out. I now quite a few bars in this city are targets for random "profiling" due to the fact they are well known biker bars. Cops always seem to find a reason for wandering in and "profile" I know the patrons and owners of these establishments dislike these tactics. I am not to crazy about it either because not all people in there are potential criminals nor have records of any sort. It is an invasion if you ask me.

It seems that perhaps in the course of constructing your post, you have answered your question in part yourself. But I think theres more to it than that, Lon.

When any member of a society (in this case middle eastern looking people) due to a certain feature or behavior is inconvenienced , all members of that society should be inconvenienced as well. Thats what makes us a community. It gives us all a reason to care about issues and causes us all to self reflect, hopefully.

Those who see it as an inconvenience to only themselves because they don't fit the profile are the selfish ones among us.

minks;1279664 wrote: not only certain looks but certain places certain types hang out. I now quite a few bars in this city are targets for random "profiling" due to the fact they are well known biker bars. Cops always seem to find a reason for wandering in and "profile" I know the patrons and owners of these establishments dislike these tactics. I am not to crazy about it either because not all people in there are potential criminals nor have records of any sort. It is an invasion if you ask me.


I don't see anything wrong with the police going into the bar that you describe in searching out suspects of a crime. Should they go to a nursing home or elementary school to look for a suspected bank robber? Profiling in my view just has to be a very efficient means of conducting an investigation. If you were searching out the cause of a Malarial Outbreak would you search among the Eskimos?

Ahso!;1279665 wrote: It seems that perhaps in the course of constructing your post, you have answered your question in part yourself. But I think theres more to it than that, Lon.



When any member of a society (in this case middle eastern looking people) due to a certain feature or behavior is inconvenienced , all members of that society should be inconvenienced as well.



Thats what makes us a community. It gives us all a reason to care about issues and causes us all to self reflect, hopefully.



Those who see it as an inconvenience to only themselves because they don't fit the profile are the selfish ones among us.


We have to prioritize.

Which holds more value, our lives or our feelings?

The situation is what it is. To not enact safety measures would be the ultimate degradation of society. To enact measures that we find discomforting or offensive is a degradation of sorts but less severe.

Seems like a no brainer. Safety 1st.

Ahso!;1279665 wrote: It seems that perhaps in the course of constructing your post, you have answered your question in part yourself. But I think theres more to it than that, Lon.

When any member of a society (in this case middle eastern looking people) due to a certain feature or behavior is inconvenienced , all members of that society should be inconvenienced as well. Thats what makes us a community. It gives us all a reason to care about issues and causes us all to self reflect, hopefully.

Those who see it as an inconvenience to only themselves because they don't fit the profile are the selfish ones among us.


Sorry, but I could not disagree more. Are you saying that out of fairness we should all be inconvenienced even though the overwhelming odds favor people of a particular appearance? Selfishness has nothing to do with it. It's about effectiveness, costs and results.

Lon;1279673 wrote: Sorry, but I could not disagree more. Are you saying that out of fairness we should all be inconvenienced even though the overwhelming odds favor people of a particular appearance? Selfishness has nothing to do with it. It's about effectiveness, costs and results.Well then, all Arab looking females, children, older people and bald Arab men should be excluded as well, right?

If your going to get into profiling, its only fair to get as precise as possible, no?

Ahso!;1279680 wrote: Well then, all Arab looking females, children, older people and bald Arab men should be excluded as well, right?

If your going to get into profiling, its only fair to get as precise as possible, no?


Yes, yes, yes---------young Arab children and old Arab people should be excluded because so far they have not proven to be a threat. I thought I made this point with my initial post. I am really talking about SELECTIVE PROFILING. Eliminate those that have never proven to be a threat and go after the more likely suspects which are-------------------------------------------------

Lon;1279686 wrote: Yes, yes, yes---------young Arab children and old Arab people should be excluded because so far they have not proven to be a threat. I thought I made this point with my initial post. I am really talking about SELECTIVE PROFILING. Eliminate those that have never proven to be a threat and go after the more likely suspects which are-------------------------------------------------Which are what, Lon? How would you make the profile? Can you explain exactly who we should be looking for? Or if thats difficult, who we should not be looking for as you began doing in the OP?

I think when you get right down to it, its not that simple, profiling.

The fact is that with the exception of this past incident, if it is indeed actual and factual, there have been no problems with the way airport security has been handled.

I think some people are having buyers remorse and looking for ways to exclude themselves from the process because its been going so well. Thats the selfishness I was referring to.

Ahso!;1279691 wrote: Which are what, Lon? How would you make the profile? Can you explain exactly who we should be looking for? Or if thats difficult, who we should not be looking for as you began doing in the OP?

I think when you get right down to it, its not that simple, profiling.

The fact is that with the exception of this past incident, if it is indeed actual and factual, there have been no problems with the way airport security has been handled.

I think some people are having buyers remorse and looking for ways to exclude themselves from the process because its been going so well. Thats the selfishness I was referring to.


It is simple-----------I am not just talking about terrorists.

You look at groups that have been responsible for the MAJORITY of a particular crime and focus on them. That's efficient and cost effective.

Ahso!;1279691 wrote: Which are what, Lon? How would you make the profile? Can you explain exactly who we should be looking for?


Hi.

Im not Lon but Im having a thought and if I dont respond soon it may pass like a comet in the night.



If the majority of terrorist actions are stemming from a base of say 5 nations and the majority of terrorists are between the ages of 20-40 and an individual(s) is flying in from Yemen that fits that general description, for the sake of the safety of innocent civilians from anywhere why would you not target thos persons for close scrutiny and inspection?

I dont understand why you think the criteria must be so defined.

Broaden the criteria so that the majority may continue on with their lives free from the burden of fear.

American citizens travelling have been captured, charged and imprisoned or worse for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All were doing is trying to make it safe by combating extremism with sound judgement.

Whats the problem?

I hear you say that the concept is simple, Lon, but I doubt the actual constructing of the profile would be that easy. If a proper profile were designed, there would be more time spent in airport lines deciding who qualifies for the profile than just doing it as we now are.

Take a look at your first post in this thread and even you had to qualify the blond as "tall" and the old people as "white." Can you imagine the task involved in developing a profile accurate enough for acceptance?

Nomad;1279701 wrote: Hi.

Im not Lon but Im having a thought and if I dont respond soon it may pass like a comet in the night.



If the majority of terrorist actions are stemming from a base of say 5 nations and the majority of terrorists are between the ages of 20-40 and an individual(s) is flying in from Yemen that fits that general description, for the sake of the safety of innocent civilians from anywhere why would you not target thos persons for close scrutiny and inspection?

I dont understand why you think the criteria must be so defined.

Broaden the criteria so that the majority may continue on with their lives free from the burden of fear.

American citizens travelling have been captured, charged and imprisoned or worse for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All were doing is trying to make it safe by combating extremism with sound judgement.

Whats the problem?What I would say is: its working as is, why fix whats not broken? Plus, neither one of us knows what security is going on behind closed doors. If I were a betting man I'd say what se see is not all there is to it. For all we know, what we are seeing is just an illusionary tactic and security camera's are in fact performing profiling tactics. That said, I have no first hand information to prove that, but come on, this is America and we do all kinds of stuff outside the view of the general public while diverting their attention.

Lon;1279660 wrote: OK, granted, profiling can be carried out to the extreme, but wouldn't it be safe to eliminate for example------elderly, white haired old ladies using a walker when going through airport security? Or, wouldn't it be safe to eliminate tall, blond, blue eyed Nordic looking males (how many fitting that description have been terrorists?)

Seems to me that PROFILING is a more efficient means of conducting a search. I mean after all, if 85% of a particular type crime is committed by people that look a certain way, then why not focus in on those people? Oh, I forgot, that would not be POLITICALLY CORRECT and heaven forbid, might even be considered RACIST.


Lon, you've got a great point. To me, profiling makes a lot of sense. Obviously, you would want to pay more attention to the bearded Muslim passenger arriving from Sudan that the grey-haired woman arriving from Sweden! It could only help to make our stretched resources be more efficient!

The argument seems to be the "Driving While Black" argument that if more attention is placed on a single group of people, they will automatically get in more trouble. Isn't that only true if you are already doing something wrong?:-2

Ahso!;1279705 wrote: What I would say is: its working as is, why fix whats not broken? Plus, neither one of us knows what security is going on behind closed doors. If I were a betting man I'd say what se see is not all there is to it. For all we know, what we are seeing is just an illusionary tactic and security camera's are in fact performing profiling tactics. That said, I have no first hand information to prove that, but come on, this is America and we do all kinds of stuff outside the view of the general public while diverting their attention.


Clearly not enough. We missed the old hide stuff to blow up the plane in the underwear trick.

His own father handed us his son on a silver platter.

I don't blame the administration for that but obviously as they figure out loop holes in our security we need to make patches and preempt their cunning with counter cunning.

Nomad;1279720 wrote: Clearly not enough. We missed the old hide stuff to blow up the plane in the underwear trick.

His own father handed us his son on a silver platter.

I don't blame the administration for that but obviously as they figure out loop holes in our security we need to make patches and preempt their cunning with counter cunning.Its going to happen every now and then. The best security would be for American capitalism and politics to avoid arrogantly throwing their weight around in other cultures. We leave them to their way of life, they will leave us to our way of life. Its that simple but thats off topic.

Airport security is an inconvenience we all share and must live with. Profiling won't work. before you know it people will be dying their hair, shaving and wearing makeup. IMO!

I'm gonna make this very simple for me.....Lon, Nomie, saint...i agree with you. Saves me a lot of typing!! :wah:

The argument seems to be the "Driving While Black" argument that if more attention is placed on a single group of people, they will automatically get in more trouble. Isn't that only true if you are already doing something wrong?


Not quite. It's more the case that many drivers commit minor offences and aren't stopped for them, or have cars that are a bit on the edge, legally (tyres with insufficient tread, for example). If A particular group is concentrated on, then more of these offences, which would usually be ignored, get picked up on. That group is then being disproportionately victimised.

Lon;1279660 wrote: OK, granted, profiling can be carried out to the extreme, but wouldn't it be safe to eliminate for example------elderly, white haired old ladies using a walker when going through airport security? Or, wouldn't it be safe to eliminate tall, blond, blue eyed Nordic looking males (how many fitting that description have been terrorists?)

Seems to me that PROFILING is a more efficient means of conducting a search. I mean after all, if 85% of a particular type crime is committed by people that look a certain way, then why not focus in on those people? Oh, I forgot, that would not be POLITICALLY CORRECT and heaven forbid, might even be considered RACIST.
Because profiling is putting off the inevitable. If you focus your efforts on just one group, then the organisations that try to blow up people, will start using those grannies using frames, children and Nordic blonde and blue eyed folks to slip through, knowing they arent being looked at. You may scoff at this, but do you know what the Albanians, Chechnyans, and Kosovoans, look like? They are all Muslim as well. Not to mention Turkey. So by your reasoning, it is how one looks that makes a person look suspicious?

Ahso!;1279705 wrote: What I would say is: its working as is, why fix whats not broken? Plus, neither one of us knows what security is going on behind closed doors. If I were a betting man I'd say what se see is not all there is to it. For all we know, what we are seeing is just an illusionary tactic and security camera's are in fact performing profiling tactics. That said, I have no first hand information to prove that, but come on, this is America and we do all kinds of stuff outside the view of the general public while diverting their attention.


But is it working, as is? If it hadn't been for a faulty detonator or inept terrorist, Detroit and the people on that plane would be a different story.

I don't understand some of the tactics used, such as when I brought my 90 year old mother out from Kansas City to live with me in Nevada in 2005. I flew out to get her, turned right around and returned with her and 4 cardboard boxes & 2 suitcases filled with clothes and photos albums. Going through security the person said that she could remain in the wheelchair and they would just run the sensor over her body. She asked me if they did this to everybody & I had to tell her no. When we got home and opened the boxes & luggage, each one contained an inspection slip, showing that they had been searched. It would be different if they did this to everybody but they don't. Two years before that I was in the Dallas airport I believe it was, when I overheard a man who appeared to be in his early twenties, standing in line behind me, coaching his friend on how to get around the random pat searches that they were pulling people over to the side to do. "Don't look them in the eye, just act nonchalant," he told him. I had second thoughts about getting on that plane.

I'm all for anything they can do to make us safer.

I don't think profiling would make travel safer. I think it would make security predictable.

It is working as is, but every now and then there is going to be a breach. There is no way around that fact. though I should say that there will be more breaches if there were lots of dangerous people attempting to board planes, but thats not the case and the moment one is discovered, just about all flights are temporarily grounded.

Watched President Obama explaining on BBC24.

Oh man. You (American) guys have expressed jealousy of our Prime Minister before now.

Shoe's on the other foot. You've got a good one. In the end he will get corrupted. But right now, you've got a good one. (Three cheers for America).

Ahso!;1280139 wrote: I don't think profiling would make travel safer. I think it would make security predictable.

It is working as is, but every now and then there is going to be a breach. There is no way around that fact. though I should say that there will be more breaches if there were lots of dangerous people attempting to board planes, but thats not the case and the moment one is discovered, just about all flights are temporarily grounded.


I'm not sure I can agree with you on this Ahso....I don't want to derail this thread with politics, but I do want to let you know that under the Bush administration there were over 90 thwarted terrorist attacks...many of them having to do with planes and airports. Now there's a breach? I believe racial profiling would help rather than hinder security for the US.

shelbell;1280143 wrote: I'm not sure I can agree with you on this Ahso....I don't want to derail this thread with politics, but I do want to let you know that under the Bush administration there were over 90 thwarted terrorist attacks...many of them having to do with planes and airports. Now there's a breach? I believe racial profiling would help rather than hinder security for the US.you really can't say its Bush or Obama. Neither one of them are doing the screening. Everything is the same as it was under Bush unless someone can show me different. What about the shoe bomber? That was on Bush's watch.

Clodhopper;1280141 wrote: Watched President Obama explaining on BBC24.

Oh man. You (American) guys have expressed jealousy of our Prime Minister before now.

Shoe's on the other foot. You've got a good one. In the end he will get corrupted. But right now, you've got a good one. (Three cheers for America).:)i haven't heard that one but his rhetoric is good. Unfortunately he's surrounded himself with a bunch of people who are very embedded in the status quo. His cabinet is made up of a bunch of typical washington elites. Its a shame really. When I see him replace people such as Rahm Emanuel and his entire economic team, I'll begin to feel better, but until then, its just rhetoric.

Ahso!;1280146 wrote: you really can't say its Bush or Obama. Neither one of them are doing the screening. Everything is the same as it was under Bush unless someone can show me different. What about the shoe bomber? That was on Bush's watch.


oops! my bad...i had forgotten the shoe bomber...thankfully his matches didn't work.

Seems to me, when a white American tries to cause mass killings by blowing up a school, or Holocaust museum, federal building, abortion clinics/doctors, etc, they are viewed as criminals and prosecuted as such.

When a non-American (presumably with darker skin) attempts this, they are considered terrorists, it's an act of war.

Double standard?

Seems to me, when a white American tries to cause mass killings by blowing up a school, or Holocaust museum, federal building, abortion clinics/doctors, etc, they are viewed as criminals and prosecuted as such.

When a non-American (presumably with darker skin) attempts this, they are considered terrorists, it's an act of war.

Double standard?


Terrorist/criminal or Freedom Fighter? A classic dichotomy. We grew up with it here in the UK with Northern Ireland. Largely, it's a matter of viewpoint. Often, they are both.

Oh, and the top terrorist/freedom fighter of the IRA is now the Education Minister.

Clodhopper;1280491 wrote: Terrorist/criminal or Freedom Fighter? A classic dichotomy. We grew up with it here in the UK with Northern Ireland. Largely, it's a matter of viewpoint. Often, they are both.

Oh, and the top terrorist/freedom fighter of the IRA is now the Education Minister.


That's true. In the 1980's the U.S. funded and trained the terrorists like Osama Bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. They called them freedom fighters back then. The U.S. isn't really opposed to terrorism, our government just doesn't like to be on the receiving end of it.

shelbell;1279870 wrote: I'm gonna make this very simple for me.....Lon, Nomie, saint...i agree with you. Saves me a lot of typing!! :wah:


I second that "EMOTION":driving:

yaaarrrgg;1280376 wrote: Seems to me, when a white American tries to cause mass killings by blowing up a school, or Holocaust museum, federal building, abortion clinics/doctors, etc, they are viewed as criminals and prosecuted as such.



When a non-American (presumably with darker skin) attempts this, they are considered terrorists, it's an act of war.



Double standard?


You mean like Timothy McVey?...... Hmm where is he now? Oh yah...6 feet under.



How many KNOWN

"non-American (presumably with darker skin)"

have we put 6 feet under?



Another thought, aren't we prosecuting these terrorist in civil court now?



Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial ...



Terrorists being tried in Civil Courts: National News, Politics ...

BTS;1280935 wrote: You mean like Timothy McVey?...... Hmm where is he now? Oh yah...6 feet under.



How many KNOWN

"non-American (presumably with darker skin)"

have we put 6 feet under?



Another thought, aren't we prosecuting these terrorist in civil court now?



Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial ...



Terrorists being tried in Civil Courts: National News, Politics ...


Yes, and these guys probably would have already been handed a death penalty if they were handled by the civilian courts to begin with. McVeigh did the bombings in 1995, and was executed in 2001. What's that, a six year turn around?

What has the military court system accomplished in the same time? This guy is still awaiting a guilty verdict.

Personally, I'm not for executing anyone, but the military courts are a joke. They don't have any credibility with which to act, if they are picking up dark-skinned Muslims on the basis of hearsay (that is rewarded with cash), and sending the whites guys through a different legal process.