PDA

View Full Version : 2 NYC Officials Call for Racial Profiling



savafan
08-04-2005, 03:21 AM
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/T/TRANSIT_SECURITY?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Middle Easterners should be targeted for searches on city subways, two elected officials said, contending that police have been wasting time with random checks in efforts to prevent terrorism in the transit system.

The city began examining passengers' bags on subways and buses after the second bomb attack in London two weeks ago. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have said several times that officers will not engage in racial profiling.

But over the weekend, state Assemblyman Dov Hikind said police should be focusing on those who fit the "terrorist profile."

"They all look a certain way," said Hikind, a Democrat from Brooklyn. "It's all very nice to be politically correct here, but we're talking about terrorism."

On Tuesday, Republican City Councilman James Oddo said the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack by Middle Eastern men in hijacked airplanes prompted him to publicly declare his support for Hikind's statements.

"The reality is that there is a group of people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life," he said. "Young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking these acts of terror, and we should keep those facts prominently in our minds and eyes as we attempt to secure our populace."

Oddo commended Hikind for "rushing headlong against the strong undertow of political correctness."

Hikind said he planned to introduce legislation allowing police to racially profile, and Oddo said he intended to introduce a resolution in the City Council supporting the measure.

The director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Wissam Nasr, said their push for racial profiling is offensive and ignorant.

"Terror comes in all shapes and sizes, and certainly there's no legislation or system that's going to identify terrorists on the spot," Nasr said.

The New York Police Department said in a statement that racial profiling is "illegal, of doubtful effectiveness and against department policy."

The Republican mayor reiterated Tuesday that it is against the law and doesn't work. "I'm against it for fairness reasons, and we're not going to do it," he said.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 10:28 AM
"They all look a certain way," said Hikind, a Democrat from Brooklyn.

Welcome to 1942.

GAC
08-04-2005, 10:31 AM
But over the weekend, state Assemblyman Dov Hikind said police should be focusing on those who fit the "terrorist profile."

"They all look a certain way," said Hikind, a Democrat from Brooklyn. "It's all very nice to be politically correct here, but we're talking about terrorism."

"The reality is that there is a group of people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life," he said. "Young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking these acts of terror, and we should keep those facts prominently in our minds and eyes as we attempt to secure our populace."

Nuff said. But lets keep pulling those 80 yr old grandma's and Girl Scouts out of line carrying handbags. Gotta be politically correct.

Do you think the terrorists profile? Oh, that's right...we have to be better then them, and set a better example for the world. ;)

GAC
08-04-2005, 10:35 AM
Welcome to 1942.

So you're saying the terrorists who have been committing suicide attacks, bombings, and the taking of innocent lives don't look a certain way or fit a profile?

savafan
08-04-2005, 10:38 AM
I'm going to admit, I get nervous anymore whenever I see a woman wearing the Muslim head covering or veil, or groups of men of Middle Eastern descent speaking to each other in a foreign language. I've seen it a lot in and around Dayton, at the grocery store, library, etc. I sometimes feel bad about it later, but I can't help but feel uncomfortable at those moments anymore.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 10:44 AM
Gotta be politically correct.

Honestly, it has nothing to do with being politically correct. It has everything to do with Constitutional rights.



Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#5

The text of the web site is lengthy, so I won't post it here.

I'm not a lawyer, but as the web site explains, the amendment protects *people,* not property. It also states that "It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior."


So you're saying the terrorists who have been committing suicide attacks, bombings, and the taking of innocent lives don't look a certain way or fit a profile?

In 1942, the US government started rounding up Japanese people and putting them into camps because they "fit a profile." I'm not too proud of that.

I know a lot of people who look "a certain way" and fit a profile who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I don't think they deserve to get hassled any more than the rest of us.

Redsfaithful
08-04-2005, 11:42 AM
So you're saying the terrorists who have been committing suicide attacks, bombings, and the taking of innocent lives don't look a certain way or fit a profile?

Tim McVeigh?

registerthis
08-04-2005, 11:59 AM
I will say this (and this may land me somewhere - GASP - right of center)...

In London, there is currently a directive out for police to be extra-cautious and increasingly suspicious of Muslim men riding about the city's public transportation system. Why? Because four weeks ago attacks by Muslim men killed over 50 people, two weeks ago fouled-up attacks by Muslim would have no doubt killed many more, and police and intelligence officials in the UK have strong evidence pointing to other cells in the country populated by - yep - Muslim men who are planning additional attacks.

Now, people are hesitant to support anything containing the word "profiling", because it has significant negative, racist connotations. We think of black men who have been pulled over for 'driving while black", we think of Hispanics who are denied jobs because of their ethnicity...some of us even think of Japanese internment camps. All examples of racism at its worst, a perverted form of profiling.

The truth is, though, people profile every single day. You see a white male with slicked-back hair in an Armani suit yapping on his cell phone and you think "arrogant jerk". You see the bearded man in the old sweater with a plastic bag and you think "homeless bum." Granted, none of these things require any follow-up action on you part. But stereotyping and compartmentalizing people is something done by everyone, every single day, whether we wish to admit to it or not.

I can tell you with honesty that if I was riding the Londond Underground, and witnessed a Muslim-looking man get on wearing a backpack or winter coat, I would be suspicious. Rightly or not, I would be. What the london police have done is simply verbalized a policy that most likely would have been undertaken anyway--Muslim men will be under more intense scrutiny.

What these NY representatives are proposing sounds ugly - but is an unfortunate, yet natural, response to the culture of today. As I heard an NPR host exclaim one day, "These aren't Swedes who are blowing up subway trains."

None of this, mind you, means that there should be a lessened awareness by security officials for *anyone* who looks suspicious--be they Muslim, Black, Hispanic, Swedish, what have you. This also doesn't give authorities a green light to unfairly detain, abuse, mistreat or harass individuals simply because they appear to look like Muslim men. Nor does it mean that a Muslim extremist group couldn't recruit a non-Middle Eastern Muslim to carry out attacks.

But is it ridiculous to say that Muslim men will be viewed more skeptically and with increased suspicion than other members of our society, considering the recent events and recently-gathered intelligence? I don't think so. The response, in fact, seems quite natural to me.

westofyou
08-04-2005, 12:07 PM
I know a guy who was walking down the street in Seattle and these security guards ran up behind him and grabbed him by the arm and dragged him into a Nordstroms down the block. Took him into a room and handcuffed him. Accused him of shoplifting from the store, insisting that he was seen and that the witness was on the way to finger him.

The guy walks in the room, looks at the guy and says, "That's not him. Not even close."

He sued them for false imprisonment and got a nice settlement for the idiots "racial profiling"

Oh BTW he was black.

Unassisted
08-04-2005, 12:25 PM
I recently read on another message board, a proposal by someone who said they had the "simple solution to finding all of the terrorists in this country." That person proposed subjecting every Muslim in the country to a polygraph test and asking them during the test if they were "affiliated with a terrorist organization."

Seems to me like the NYC proposal is only a short slide down the slippery slope to this one.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 12:29 PM
I recently read on another message board, a proposal by someone who said they had the "simple solution to finding all of the terrorists in this country." That person proposed subjecting every Muslim in the country to a polygraph test and asking them during the test if they were "affiliated with a terrorist organization."

Seems to me like the NYC proposal is only a short slide down the slippery slope to this one.
That's obviously taking it to extremes. I would never support something like that on a mass scale.

But "increased vigilance" of Muslim males? I don't have as much of a problem with that, provided it is clearly defined and strictly observed.

Falls City Beer
08-04-2005, 12:40 PM
"The reality is that there is a group of people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life," he said. "Young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking these acts of terror, and we should keep those facts prominently in our minds and eyes as we attempt to secure our populace."

Yeah, this kind of talk reminds me of the bullcrap shoveled by Bush when he said the 9/11 Nineteen were driven by hatred of freedom when they committed their atrocious acts.

Please. More like pissed off because we support Israel and the state-sanctioned ghettoization of Palestinians. Not that that condones what the terrorists did, but don't LIE to me about WHY they did what they did. "Hating freedom?" What a joke. I guess they hate "air," too; and "water."

If you REALLY want to stare this thing in the face and dispense with political correctness, you'll understand WHY the Muslim world hates the U.S. before you act upon a plan to protect our country.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 01:53 PM
But stereotyping and compartmentalizing people is something done by everyone, every single day, whether we wish to admit to it or not.

Citizens internally (or even externally) stereotyping one another is one thing. Government agencies stereotyping individuals is a whole different ballgame.


I can tell you with honesty that if I was riding the Londond Underground, and witnessed a Muslim-looking man get on wearing a backpack or winter coat, I would be suspicious. Rightly or not, I would be. What the london police have done is simply verbalized a policy that most likely would have been undertaken anyway--Muslim men will be under more intense scrutiny.

How about putting *everyone* under more intense scrutiny, not just Muslim men?

Jaycint
08-04-2005, 02:10 PM
How about putting *everyone* under more intense scrutiny, not just Muslim men?

Not to speak for Reg but I will put everyone else under more scrutiny once someone of a different religious or ethnic background than "Arab Muslim" blows up a bus full of people as an attack on the war on terror.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 02:28 PM
Citizens internally (or even externally) stereotyping one another is one thing. Government agencies stereotyping individuals is a whole different ballgame.
I don't necessarily think so. Part of a government's job is to protect its citizenry. If you're arguing that government and security officials should ignore the facts behind the recent London attacks, as well as the intelligence gathered which indicates that more Muslim men are plotting more attacks, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. It simply doesn't make sense to view the old woman in the wheelchair and the Muslim male with the backpack as equally likely to blow up a bus.

Governments don't view everyone as identical--affirmative action programs across the nation target minorities, albeit in a beneficial manner. Certain loans and government subsidies are available strictly to minority individuals--because the government has made a generalisation that Hispanics, for example, are generally in a more difficult position to succeed in business than caucasians. Does this mean that EVERY Hispanic is disadvantaged or incapable of succeeding without government assistance? Not at all. But the government has made the determination that, in general, they are.

Now, keep in mind that security measures reflect a response to an immediate, short term need. Increasing suspicion on Muslim men does nothing to dissuade the feelings of anger and resentment that many Muslims feel towards the west. Clearly a concerted effort must be made to reach out to those groups, to work with them directly, so as to eliminate the possibility of a terrorist arising from their community. To that end, the U.S. and U.K. could do significantly more to work with Muslim and Middle Eastern communities--both domestically and internationally. But, in the immediate future, an increase in scrutiny and suspicion as done in the U.K. is not out of hand, IMO.


How about putting *everyone* under more intense scrutiny, not just Muslim men?
I believe that's why I wrote this:


None of this, mind you, means that there should be a lessened awareness by security officials for *anyone* who looks suspicious--be they Muslim, Black, Hispanic, Swedish, what have you.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 02:34 PM
"The reality is that there is a group of people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life," he said. "Young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking these acts of terror, and we should keep those facts prominently in our minds and eyes as we attempt to secure our populace."

Yeah, this kind of talk reminds me of the bullcrap shoveled by Bush when he said the 9/11 Nineteen were driven by hatred of freedom when they committed their atrocious acts.

Please. More like pissed off because we support Israel and the state-sanctioned ghettoization of Palestinians. Not that that condones what the terrorists did, but don't LIE to me about WHY they did what they did. "Hating freedom?" What a joke. I guess they hate "air," too; and "water."

If you REALLY want to stare this thing in the face and dispense with political correctness, you'll understand WHY the Muslim world hates the U.S. before you act upon a plan to protect our country.
Very, very true...I couldn't agree more. But, again, what you're discussing is a long term strategy to eliminate the root causes of terrorism--something that is critically important and needs to be a top priority, yet which will do nothing to solve the immediate problem of the suicide-minded individuals who are already plotting to carry out their deeds. Of course they aren' t motivated by a hatred of freedom and iberty--that's a complete bunch of bunk. But for purposes of preventing terrorist attacks in the near future, the reasons behind the terrorists actions are inconsequential. We have unfortunately placed ourselves in a reactive position--forced to respond with methods like those discussed in this thread. I wish I could say that the immediate solution for stopping the next guy from blowing up the bus in London or N.Y. was an increase in funding for education of Middle Eastern Muslim children--but that is unfortunately not the case.

creek14
08-04-2005, 03:09 PM
Okay, I'm not being a smart :mooner: here. Really. But isn't it racial profiling every time an Amber Alert is broadcast and they say - the suspect is a white male, 28 to 33 years old..." Or when a bank is robbed and on the news they ask us to be on the lookout for two hispanic women.

Don't know. Just asking.

Roy Tucker
08-04-2005, 03:22 PM
Seems that we're talking apples and oranges.

Random searches get performed by police and law enforcement organizations regularly without any due cause. It is these that have to be truly random and not racially (or otherwise specifically) targeted. So grandmas and little kids get searched. I view this as the price we pay for a free society. I think that is what the base article is talking about. Forget the grandmas and little kids and target mid-Easterners.

Other searches get performed because of suspicion by law enforcement. Of course, "suspicion" is a loose concept and is an abused one as well, but in these cases, pulling over all whites ages 28-33 is OK.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 03:28 PM
Not to speak for Reg but I will put everyone else under more scrutiny once someone of a different religious or ethnic background than "Arab Muslim" blows up a bus full of people as an attack on the war on terror.

To quote Redsfaithful: Tim McVeigh?

How about the IRA?


It simply doesn't make sense to view the old woman in the wheelchair and the Muslim male with the backpack as equally likely to blow up a bus.

The terrorists are smart enough to figure out how to plant a bomb in an old woman's wheelchair. By not viewing everyone as an equal threat, you're leaving yourself wide open for attack. Everyone should be scrutinized. Roy made a good point about this.

And yes, Creek, I'd say that's racial profiling, although it's a little different when a crime has already been committed and you're profiling suspects.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 03:43 PM
The terrorists are smart enough to figure out how to plant a bomb in an old woman's wheelchair. By not viewing everyone as an equal threat, you're leaving yourself wide open for attack. Everyone should be scrutinized. Roy made a good point about this.
I'm not talking about what could potentially happen, Johnny. I'm talking about likelihoods. A Muslim male *is* more likely to blow up a bus than a grandmother in a wheelchair. Could the Muslim plant the bomb in the wheelchair? of course. They could also train birds to fly small bombs into crowded areas an detonate them.

You simply can't prepare for every conceivable scenario. And, of course, be vigilant with everyone. But there are finite amounts of manpower, and finite amounts of time and funds which can be placed into securing things such as public transport. I'm arguing for a wiser use of those things in applying them to the measures with the greatest likelihood of success--in this case, preventing another attack.

Roy Tucker
08-04-2005, 04:04 PM
I'm not talking about what could potentially happen, Johnny. I'm talking about likelihoods. A Muslim male *is* more likely to blow up a bus than a grandmother in a wheelchair. Could the Muslim plant the bomb in the wheelchair? of course. They could also train birds to fly small bombs into crowded areas an detonate them.

You simply can't prepare for every conceivable scenario. And, of course, be vigilant with everyone. But there are finite amounts of manpower, and finite amounts of time and funds which can be placed into securing things such as public transport. I'm arguing for a wiser use of those things in applying them to the measures with the greatest likelihood of success--in this case, preventing another attack.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, this makes total sense. Law enforcement and national security personnel is already stretched to their breaking point. Selective application of this precious manpower makes a world of sense. But that darn Constitution and pesky Fourth Amendment says you can't do that. And therein lies the rub and the dichotomy of living in a free society. Modern day terrorism brings this point home all too well.

And of course, this has infinite shades of gray. Say the subway bombings happened in NYC. Mid-easterner males age 28-33 were observed planting the bombs. An APB (or whatever its called) is broadcast nationwide. Months go by and they don't catch the guys. Just how long is it constitutional to pull over all mid-eastern males 28-33 who fit the profile?

I don't have the answers for these questions.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 04:18 PM
From a purely pragmatic point of view, this makes total sense. Law enforcement and national security personnel is already stretched to their breaking point. Selective application of this precious manpower makes a world of sense. But that darn Constitution and pesky Fourth Amendment says you can't do that. And therein lies the rub and the dichotomy of living in a free society. Modern day terrorism brings this point home all too well.
The pesky Constitution and darn 4th amendment protect you from illegal search and seizure of property....neither of which I am condoning. But if the DHS has already made a recommendation to conduct bag and parcel searches of those using public transportation, and a warning has gone out that cells of Muslim male extremists are looking to attack public transportation vehicles--it makes sense to target Muslim males for the period in which the threat is considered legitimate. As has been mentioned, officials already use profiling with Amber alerts, or even (as you mention below) when attempting to apprehend a criminal or group of criminals who have escaped, or who have not yet been able to carry out their acts.


And of course, this has infinite shades of gray. Say the subway bombings happened in NYC. Mid-easterner males age 28-33 were observed planting the bombs. An APB (or whatever its called) is broadcast nationwide. Months go by and they don't catch the guys. Just how long is it constitutional to pull over all mid-eastern males 28-33 who fit the profile?

I don't have the answers for these questions.
I don't have answers either, it's simply unfortunate that we've been reduced to this situation.

Jaycint
08-04-2005, 04:33 PM
To quote Redsfaithful: Tim McVeigh?

Isolated. There hasn't been a rash of copycat Timothy McVeigh style bombings. The people that follow the McVeigh belief system, while doing a lot of barking, very rarely, if ever, bite on the scale that the radical Muslims have.


How about the IRA?



As far as I know, just the other day the IRA announced it was giving up its armed campaign.

westofyou
08-04-2005, 04:35 PM
Hi and Hello from Eric Rudolph and Trey Arrow.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 04:57 PM
Fine, you can target skinheads too. :)

Jaycint
08-04-2005, 05:02 PM
Hi and Hello from Eric Rudolph and Trey Arrow.

I really don't think we want to go down the "which terrorists are more likely to strike" road do we?

In this corner:

Tim McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
Trey Arrow (an eco-terrorist by the way who hasn't even tried to kill anybody but is in the business of burning logging trucks if I remember correctly)

In the opposing corner:

WTC 1993 6 dead
WTC 2001 over 3000 dead
Bali Night club 200+ dead
London July 7th 2005 50+ dead
Spain 2004 190 dead
USS Cole 17 dead
etc etc etc.
In Israel (too many to list, I'll just give a link): Israel 2002-2005 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/2000-2004-+Major+Terror+Attacks.htm)

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 05:09 PM
or who have not yet been able to carry out their acts.

That's where the line is drawn. Pre-emptive prosecution usually violates the 4th Amendment. Those other cases you mentioned occur after a crime has been committed.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 05:36 PM
That's where the line is drawn. Pre-emptive prosecution usually violates the 4th Amendment.
Then what is the purpose of random bag checks at all? Is that not pre-emptive prosecution?

Redsfaithful
08-04-2005, 06:13 PM
Hi and Hello from Eric Rudolph and Trey Arrow.

And Ted Kaczynski. And William Pierce, who was indirectly responsible for Oklahoma City.

Or Dr. Goldstein:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/dr_robert_goldstein/?sect=22

Or this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5350.htm

Which was extremely underreported, I'm guessing because they weren't Muslim.

At the moment, the argument could be made that there's not enough attention being paid to extremist right wing groups. Hopefully that lack of attention won't result in another Oklahoma City.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 06:33 PM
Then what is the purpose of random bag checks at all? Is that not pre-emptive prosecution?

I'd say it is, to a degree. As far as I know (and like I said, I'm not a lawyer), the current policy of random checking hasn't been challenged in court, at least not at a high level, so the Supreme Court hasn't made that determination. But if the NY racial profiling bill gets passed, I'll bet someone files a lawsuit.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 06:40 PM
I'd say it is, to a degree. As far as I know (and like I said, I'm not a lawyer), the current policy of random checking hasn't been challenged in court, at least not at a high level, so the Supreme Court hasn't made that determination. But if the NY racial profiling bill gets passed, I'll bet someone files a lawsuit.
Well, then, perhaps that entails another discussion on its own. I doubt any such law would be stricken down--it would most likely be viewed as a reasonable effort by a nation to defend its citizenry. But, I digress...

Until then, so long as random bag checks are legal and maintained, there will be a certain amount of profiling that's involved...and there will continue to be certain people "of interest" whom security officials will target. It is a natural--and constitutional--reaction by security officials.

Mutaman
08-04-2005, 06:50 PM
Dov Hikind is a racist and an idiot. No one in this city, other than the poor misguided souls who keep voting for him, takes him seriously.

Mutaman
08-04-2005, 07:17 PM
The gorgeous mosaic lives, at least in the form of Dov Hikind, the Borough Park assemblyman whose brush with law enforcement last year seems to have changed him as profoundly as the trip to Mecca changed Malcolm X. Hikind, long known as a combative disciple of Jewish Defense League capo Meir Kahane, is now billing himself as a new man, more attuned to the problems facing New Yorkers, more appreciative of New York's diversity, more sensitive to discrimination and intolerance.

Until you read the fine print, that is. Looking to run for higher office, Hikind may sound like Jesse Jackson ("We should really all get along and respect each other"), but his positions remain predictably conservative. He's still endorsing Republicans, he's still pro-life, he's still antigay. Nevertheless, Dov has a story to tell, the story of juror number eight.

She was one of 12 jurors who sat in a courtroom for months hearing charges by the federal government that Hikind had illegally used public funds for personal and political purposes, including travel expenses, fundraising, even his children's tuition costs. Had he been found guilty, he would have faced up to 10 years in prison. The jury took less than two hours to reach a not-guilty verdict.

Afterward, the aforementioned juror eight, a 35-year-old woman from Harlem, met Hikind for dinner at a kosher restaurant on the Upper West Side. Then he invited her to his Borough Park home for dinner on Shabbat. The episode may not seem extraordinary to some, but to Hikind it was a revelation. "My kids were fascinated" with having an African American in their home, he says. "We spent six hours talking about the case. It was unreal. What an incredible story!"

Being aquitted by a mostly minority jury has broadened his outlook, he says. But Hikind has hardly neglected his base in Borough Park, the conservative Orthodox Jewish community he has represented in Albany since the early 1980s. For years, Hikind's m.o. was straightforward: endorse a candidate (regardless of party affiliation) and get some petty patronage and local pork in exchange. His recent machinations have been slightly more sophisticated. A few months ago, he opened a new political club, the United New York Democratic Club, in Borough Park. According to Hikind, the club has more than 600 paid members, whose average age hovers around the mid 30s, in contrast with the geriatric hue of most political clubs these days.

Elected the area's district leader last year, he briefly put up a candidate in a civil court race against the Democratic party organization's candidate, peeved that county leader Clarence Norman hadn't consulted him over his choice. (The candidate dropped out after Hikind realized he had no chance of winning.) He's also made peace with his longtime neighborhood rival, City Council member Noach Dear. Although the two are hardly friends, they are no longer committed antagonists either. ("He does his thing, I do mine," Hikind curtly comments on the subject.)

But Borough Park no longer fulfills Hikind's political ambitions; he wants the entire city of New York. For the past year, he has talked about running for Brooklyn borough president in 2001, but Hikind told the Voice that his real interest is in a citywide position. "If I had a choice, I'd rather be public advocate," he says. "It excites me a lot more than borough president." But there's a problem: he would need to get 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. In borough president races, there is no runoff; the candidate with a plurality wins. In what promises to be a crowded field for Brooklyn beep, Hikind would have a distinct advantage over the likes of Senator Marty Markowitz, Darryl Towns (Congressman Ed's son), and Jeanette Gadson (deputy borough president and Clarence Norman's candidate), the early contenders to succeed Howie Golden.

Meanwhile, Hikind is also the latest addition to the right-wing airwaves. He's got his own radio show now, holding forth Saturday evenings on WMCA-AM (last week's topic was "Hillary Rodham Clinton: Please don't run"). What's more, he now presents himself as Dov the Populist: "I'm going out there to meet people. I've been reaching out to people in the black community, the Latino community, and I'm very happy about the reception I am getting."

But rhetoric aside, Hikind's actions look mighty familiar. In last year's elections, for example, he stayed true to form, backing Republican George Pataki and even Al D'Amato, despite the presence of Brooklyn boy Chuck Schumer in the Senate race.

Hikind began the year expressing tolerance toward the gay community, distancing himself from the rabidly homophobic rabbi Yehuda Levin, head of Jews for Morality, who was running for the City Council in February. "I cannot support anyone who is homophobic," Hikind told a Brooklyn paper in January. "I can't and I won't." Gay activists applauded Hikind's stance and were further pleased when he cast a vote for the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination bill that passed in the assembly in March. But Hikind said the vote was an electronic mistake and filed a memo with the assembly stating that he would have voted no had he been present. "I have no intention of supporting that bill, unless someone changes the laws of the Torah," he declared. Lamented Lambda Line, a newsletter for the gay and lesbian Democratic club in Brooklyn, "We were optimistic that Hikind had, indeed, matured in his thinking on this issue, but were sadly mistaken."

Undaunted, the assemblyman is plowing ahead. His political action committee, Friends of Dov Hikind, has already raised more than $250,000 just for the upcoming election. But will that thwart his powerful enemies? During his trial, Hikind never hid his suspicion that Mayor Giuliani was behind his troubles, believing that the mayor engineered the investigation after the two parted ways over the 1994 gubernatorial race. The animosity toward Mayor Giuliani is still there. They do not speak, according to Hikind ("but that may be changing soon," he adds), and he frowns on the prospect of Giuliani in the Senate, noting how even his own conservative constituents are tired of the mayor's dictatorial style. "He's done a decent job as mayor, but I'm absolutely not excited about him running for the Senate," Hikind says. "I don't think people like this mayor at all. People look forward to a period when he's not around, when there's less confrontation."

And yet, Hikind has printed 10,000 buttons urging the First Lady not to run. It's not HRC's support for a Palestinian state that bothers him— not only does Israel's new prime minister support a two-state solution, he admits, but even the Israeli lobby has conceded the issue— it's what Hikind calls her "love affair" with PLO chairman Yasir Arafat that irks him so. "Arafat must be dealt with, but let's not forget who he is," the onetime JDL activist says. Continuing with the sexual metaphors, he adds, "I mean, you don't have to go to bed with him, which is what Hillary has done."

Village Voice 1999.

GAC
08-05-2005, 10:16 AM
Tim McVeigh?

Nice stretch. Totally absurd reasoning too.

Profiling, in this instance, does not target ALL Muslims or Arabs; but a specific group within that segment - who by the way, have been committing 100% of the suicide bombings and killings of innocent people. And NYC is a "hub" for foreign travel (to and fro). So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile—young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)—the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What’s the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports.

We should really drop all security measures since they are somehow gonna be interpreted as infringing on someone's civil liberties. Wouldn't want to impose a bag search on someone that may feel offended. Even if it may avert a tragedy. And if it continues to cost us a few hundred innocent civilians here, or maybe a few thousand there, so be it. Our civil liberties are intact.

GAC
08-05-2005, 10:25 AM
Honestly, it has nothing to do with being politically correct. It has everything to do with Constitutional rights.

If that is the case, then searching bags at all, especially singling out every 5th person wouldn't stand the Constitutional test. I guess it all depends on the definition of a "unreasonable" search?


In 1942, the US government started rounding up Japanese people and putting them into camps because they "fit a profile." I'm not too proud of that.

But we are not talking of something that extreme Johnny. Of course that was/is wrong. We're talking of pulling someone off to the side and searching their bags.

And you mention the IRA. Has the IRA declared war on the US and it's citizens? When was the last IRA-sponsored terrorist attack on this soil? How many innocent American citizens have they murdered lately?

Redsfaithful
08-05-2005, 11:37 AM
We're talking of pulling someone off to the side and searching their bags.

It's hilarious how quick you are to offer up other's constitutional freedoms.

Roy Tucker
08-05-2005, 11:57 AM
I still think we are talking about 2 different things (although the lines blur).

1.) Random searches for no good reason - I'm a frequent business traveller. Every so often, I get pulled aside for no apparently good reason and get an extra special search. I've asked why this is being done and they say it is a random search. There is no heightened alert, there is no alert for middle-aged white guys, there is no reason besides a random number generator hit that I am being searched.

These are the searches that constitutionally cannot be racially or otherwise profiled. And these are the kinds of searches the guys from NYC want to be racially profiled. They want to say "naaaah, soccer moms and grandmas won't be terrorists, so we're not going to search them. We want to skew random searches to middle aged white guys because we know them often to be terrorist".

Not being a legal expert, I don't know how high up the judicial system food chain racial profiling has gone. But I'm pretty sure the courts frown pretty heavily upon them.

2.) Targeted searches for a good reason - Something bad happens or is suspected to happen. A terrorist bomb has gone off, a US security agency has firm indications that an attack is imminent, a bank has been robbed, etc. And the profile of the suspects is a known one.

Then they pull over all middle-aged white guys.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 12:52 PM
I still think we are talking about 2 different things (although the lines blur).

1.) Random searches for no good reason - I'm a frequent business traveller. Every so often, I get pulled aside for no apparently good reason and get an extra special search. I've asked why this is being done and they say it is a random search. There is no heightened alert, there is no alert for middle-aged white guys, there is no reason besides a random number generator hit that I am being searched.

I don't necessarily disagree, but i would then argue that said searches are useless. If we're going to say that only a minute fraction of a percentage of commuters could be bomb-toting terrorists, and we're not going to use any qualifiers to narrow the pool to search for potential bomb-toting terrorists, then the odds of catching one with a purely random search of every X number of passengers is statistically nil. Therefore, it's a waste of time, and they might as well stop doing it. And I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, as I stated--I don't think they're doing much good now.

Jeremy Piergallini
08-05-2005, 02:32 PM
Tim McVeigh did his deed in retaliation for the goofball in Texas, Koresh.

In 1942, the Japanese that were here were planting fields, supposedly, that were planted pointing to potential targers along with the fact that we had Japanese living here that were sending information back to Japan.

2005 is not 1942. Do not compare WWII to the mess we're in now. Not even the same.

I don't think we can call for racial profiling let alone passing legislation, but if I'm a cop, who do you think I'm watching? It ain't the 22 year old white blond haired guy walking up the street. It's the guy who looks Muslim. As racist as that may sound, and I feel bad about it, but those are who are not happy with us. Can we really afford to take chances now as a society?

GAC
08-05-2005, 06:13 PM
It's hilarious how quick you are to offer up other's constitutional freedoms.

So you're saying, by that statement, that they shouldn't be searching at all?

Constitutional freedoms? You first have to show where it is an "unreasonable" search when the current situation over the last several years dictates otherwise? Unreasonable to search young Middle Eastern men entering this country or using our mass transportation systems, when they do fit a profile of those committing prior acts of terrorism all over the world and already against us ? In other words - a pattern. It's all about common sense. I fully understand the reasoning in having to do so in this day and age.

What if that individual is not a US citizen? Do they have constitutional protection? Hubs like NYC are probably the largest travel point, to and fro, of foreign visitors. I think it should be done in all of our largest airports where such type traffic exists. Funny, when I was in Europe, I was all the time being asked to see my passport or identification papers (military) and what my business was. Especially when I was boarding a mass transport system. I rode the trains alot. And in cases where suspicion was possible or unclear, that individual was temporarily detained, their background checked, and if nothing was there, they were free to go. I didn't feel offended. I understood why they took such measures.

And I would really like to know what your answer is to handling this situation when we know, from experience, what type of individual (profile) is committing these acts? Do you think it's proper to be searching grandma or any other type of individual when [b]common sense tells us they don't fit that profile? Until I start seeing Anglo-Saxon white haired grannies carrying bombs and blowing people up, I'd let them pass with minimal effort. You can scream all you want about civil liberties; but what of the right to life of the innocent who are destroyed because of a simple bag search before entering a mass transit system.

Yes, this is a huge constitutional violation. :rolleyes:

I don't like it any more then you do RF; but sadly enough, the times dictate it as necessary to take such measures. You, and others, don't see this as a war. I, and may others do.

When a certain segment of society makes threats against our citizenry, and then is successful in the past in carrying that threat out, then such security measures are needed and required to meet such a threat.

Funny how we all have no problem with security measures being taken when we go to large functions such as baseball games, concerts, and other venues. Searching my bag for weapons or alcohol doesn't mean they are saying I'm a terrorist or a drunk.

I appreciate the efforts being taken to ensure of my, and others, safety. Especially, in this situation, when we have a fanatical group, fitting a definitive profile, declaring war on us infidels.

GAC
08-05-2005, 06:31 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, but i would then argue that said searches are useless. If we're going to say that only a minute fraction of a percentage of commuters could be bomb-toting terrorists, and we're not going to use any qualifiers to narrow the pool to search for potential bomb-toting terrorists, then the odds of catching one with a purely random search of every X number of passengers is statistically nil. Therefore, it's a waste of time, and they might as well stop doing it. And I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, as I stated--I don't think they're doing much good now.

If it stops one terrorists from setting off a bomb in our mass transit system and killing hundreds, maybe thousands - and we have already seen that they have targeted mass transit systems because that is where huge amounts of people are congregated - then isn't the extra security measures worth it?

Doe a similar situation, such as what just happened in London, have to happen before we see any justification and take such preventative measures?

For us to say "they aren't finding anything" does not mean we shouldn't be taking the heightened measures when we have already been a victim of such attacks. I don't want to wait till AFTER it happens here before we decide to THEN take the necessary steps to prevent it - when the threat has already been made and carried out in the past.

Mutaman
08-05-2005, 08:42 PM
I'm happy to know that someone living in Bellefontaine, Ohio is so concerned about my security. GAC , if you really care about the safety and security of New Yorkers, write to your senators and congressmen and tell them you will be happy to pay increased taxes if the federal government gives more money to new York for extra security. I don't think you're willing to do that. In fact I bet you're only willing to have searches in the City subways as long as we New Yorkers are the ones paying for it.

As someone who rides the subways every day I can state the following:

1. I want a safe and secure New York, but not at any price, and not stupidly done. Random or even racilly profiled searches don't work and are not worth it. As any cop you talk to will tell you, their sole purpose is to make a few naive people feel better in an election year. New York has 41,000 cops and 4.5 million train riders. Do the math.
Even if you profile, do you have any idea how many people ride the subway every day who fit the description of a potential bomber.

2. Selective searches are clearly unconstitutional which means anyone arested or harmed as a result of these searches will sue the city and win. That means us city tax payers will have to foot the bill for millions in legal awards.

3. What non-New Yorkers don't understand is the impossible task this is. We're talking hundreds of people a minute going into the subway system during rush hour. My station at 72nd and Broadway handles thousands of people every few minutes . To expect police to pull people out and search them is imposssible and is asking for a confrontation. It will make the subway system impossible to use during rush hour.

4. Even scarier is the weather. Any delay in entering a subway subjects people to brtual heat, as does being on the subway platform.

5. Real security would involve installing thousands of cameras in the subway, keeping open token booths and hiring more police specifically to deal with the subway. Right now New York City sends $13 billion dollars more to the federal government than it gets back, and 11 billion more to the state government . We are presently closing down fire houses. So instead of you guys from Ohio being so generous with my rights and offering pie in the sky ideas about my security, why dont you just send a check to the New York City comptroller? There is no free lunch.

GAC
08-05-2005, 09:43 PM
And I'll be just as concerned if a terrorist sets one off in one of our subways (regardless of where it's located). Living in Bellefontaine has nothing to do with it at all.

And you can keep screaming about the constitutionality of it all you want. Tell that to any possible victims and there surviving family members..."Yes, your loved one was splattered all over the place; but the good news is, that their constitutional rights were protected (just not their lives)." :rolleyes:

GAC
08-05-2005, 10:17 PM
I want a safe and secure New York, but not at any price, and not stupidly done. Random or even racilly profiled searches don't work and are not worth it.

Any solid and objective studies to back that up? Again (and I've yet to get a response)... Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and all the other various radical Islamic terrorist groups who have threatened to export their terrorism to this country, and have carried out viscious acts of terrorism against the innocent around the world, are of what culture/background, and solely from what region of the world?


Even if you profile, do you have any idea how many people ride the subway every day who fit the description of a potential bomber.

And stopping those who don't fit the profile is gonna help alleviate that situation?


What non-New Yorkers don't understand is the impossible task this is. We're talking hundreds of people a minute going into the subway system during rush hour. My station at 72nd and Broadway handles thousands of people every few minutes . To expect police to pull people out and search them is imposssible and is asking for a confrontation. It will make the subway system impossible to use during rush hour.

Yes. Which is why you profile, and not stop 85 yr old Anglo-Saxon grandma's and various others who don't fit the profile. We have a pretty firm description, due to previous attacks and threats made, as to who is gonna carry them out.


Selective searches are clearly unconstitutional which means anyone arested or harmed as a result of these searches will sue the city and win. That means us city tax payers will have to foot the bill for millions in legal awards.

By "harmed" do you mean "offended"? Because all the police are doing is searching carry-ons. And if they refuse, then they are not allowed to board. Show me where they are manhandling or using Gestapo tactics on individuals by asking someone, who fits a profile, to simply look in their carry-on, and if nothing is there, they board?

What should be done then to protect our mass transit systems in this country when we know that these radical Arab terrorist groups have targeted them for maximum effect?


Even scarier is the weather. Any delay in entering a subway subjects people to brtual heat, as does being on the subway platform.

Yes. Extreme heat and sweating is some much more of a threat then a bomb going off. :rolleyes:


So instead of you guys from Ohio being so generous with my rights and offering pie in the sky ideas about my security, why dont you just send a check to the New York City comptroller? There is no free lunch.

There you go again with this "my rights" argument. Unless you fit the profile, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And even then, you still shouldn't if you're doing nothing wrong. You're getting all in an uproar over a simple carry-on search.

Installing more cameras in the terminals is not gonna tell you what's necessarily inside someone's carry-on. In case you haven't noticed, the terroists arent stupid. They specialize in stealth. The only safe and sure way to protect passengers on a mass transit system that may be targeted is by a personal search.

But you're right - I live in Ohio, and it's your subway system. I hope it never happens. But I wouldn't feel very safe following your advice/strategy.

Mutaman
08-05-2005, 10:23 PM
And I'll be just as concerned if a terrorist sets one off in one of our subways (regardless of where it's located). Living in Bellefontaine has nothing to do with it at all.

And you can keep screaming about the constitutionality of it all you want. Tell that to any possible victims and there surviving family members..."Yes, your loved one was splattered all over the place; but the good news is, that their constitutional rights were protected (just not their lives)." :rolleyes:

The question was, are you willing to pay for it. Don't talk to me about possible victims and surviving family members. I lost friends on 9/11 and, like all New Yorkers, I smelled the bodies burning for a week thereafter, and I saw the funeral possessions for the next few months. I know very well whats at stake here. Regarding the practical aspects of this issue, with all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Now excuse me, I have to go get on the subway.

GAC
08-05-2005, 10:31 PM
The question was, are you willing to pay for it.

If they want it done, then they can find ways to pay for it. Or else, they may, God forbid, pay for it in other ways.


Don't talk to me about possible victims and surviving family members. I lost friends on 9/11 and, like all New Yorkers, I smelled the bodies burning for a week thereafter, and I saw the funeral possessions for the next few months. I know very well whats at stake here.

Then you should be thankful that your local and federal authorities, since NY has been targeted before with devastating consequences, and most likely is targeted for a future attack, want to take the measures needed to try the best they can to protect their mass transit systems. Especially after what just happened in London. You never let your guard down.

Again- what measures would you take immediately after a London attack?

We in Bellefontaine are just thinking of your safety. ;)

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 10:36 PM
If they want it done, then they can find ways to pay for it. Or else, they may, God forbid, pay for it in other ways.

Maybe their lil' Iraq errand should be paid for in "other ways," like, say, out of Dick Cheney's pocket instead of in American soldiers' lives.

Homeland Security=Federal program

Federal Programs need tax money.

Mutaman
08-05-2005, 10:47 PM
[QUOTE=GAC]If they want it done, then they can find ways to pay for it. Or else, they may, God forbid, pay for it in other ways. /QUOTE]

Some questions:

1. Who is "they". By "they" do you mean "me", because I know you don't mean "you".

2. Two of the London bombers were black. Do we stop every black person as well?

3. if we stop people who look Arab,a lot of Israelis, are gonna get stopped as well. Can you tell a Hindu from a Muslim? No? Can you tell a Filipino from a Muslim? No? Can you detect a Turk or Albanian from an Italian? No?

4. Have you ever ridden a New York City subway at 9AM on a Monday morning. Do you have any idea how many people are on it at that time who fit your profile?

Mutaman
08-05-2005, 10:56 PM
Again- what measures would you take immediately after a London attack?


I told you, hire a lot more cops, install a lot more cameras, keep all token booths
open 24/7. (This is so absurd, you talk about searching all men of arabic appearance who enter the subway and the City of New York can't even afford to keep all of the token booths open). New Yorkers can't afford to do this, so we need money from the feds, just like they need it in every other major city. That means the good people of Belleville will have to pay more taxes. I repeat, are you willing to do so? Thats what is needed, not debates about constitutional rights regarding a political puff program that will never work.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 10:57 PM
That attitude of "let someone else take care of it" is classic chickenhawk rhetoric--pass the buck, pass the responsibility. As long as I got my Wal-Mart and my Jesus, someone else can answer the call.

I don't have a problem with searches on their face , but Mutaman's objections point to exactly the issue, which is not their constitutionality, but their efficacy, which is next to nill. As the 9/11 report pointed out, the failure was in imagination, not in effort or searches or even manpower. They've got to build a better mouse trap, which means brains and above all else money.

paintmered
08-05-2005, 11:02 PM
I'm happy to know that someone living in Bellefontaine, Ohio is so concerned about my security. GAC , if you really care about the safety and security of New Yorkers, write to your senators and congressmen and tell them you will be happy to pay increased taxes if the federal government gives more money to new York for extra security. I don't think you're willing to do that. In fact I bet you're only willing to have searches in the City subways as long as we New Yorkers are the ones paying for it.

As someone who rides the subways every day I can state the following:

1. I want a safe and secure New York, but not at any price, and not stupidly done. Random or even racilly profiled searches don't work and are not worth it. As any cop you talk to will tell you, their sole purpose is to make a few naive people feel better in an election year. New York has 41,000 cops and 4.5 million train riders. Do the math.
Even if you profile, do you have any idea how many people ride the subway every day who fit the description of a potential bomber.

2. Selective searches are clearly unconstitutional which means anyone arested or harmed as a result of these searches will sue the city and win. That means us city tax payers will have to foot the bill for millions in legal awards.

3. What non-New Yorkers don't understand is the impossible task this is. We're talking hundreds of people a minute going into the subway system during rush hour. My station at 72nd and Broadway handles thousands of people every few minutes . To expect police to pull people out and search them is imposssible and is asking for a confrontation. It will make the subway system impossible to use during rush hour.

4. Even scarier is the weather. Any delay in entering a subway subjects people to brtual heat, as does being on the subway platform.

5. Real security would involve installing thousands of cameras in the subway, keeping open token booths and hiring more police specifically to deal with the subway. Right now New York City sends $13 billion dollars more to the federal government than it gets back, and 11 billion more to the state government . We are presently closing down fire houses. So instead of you guys from Ohio being so generous with my rights and offering pie in the sky ideas about my security, why dont you just send a check to the New York City comptroller? There is no free lunch.


Just be glad you don't read the daily terrorism briefing. You wouldn't get out of bed.

GAC
08-05-2005, 11:12 PM
That attitude of "let someone else take care of it" is classic chickenhawk rhetoric--pass the buck, pass the responsibility. As long as I got my Wal-Mart and my Jesus, someone else can answer the call.

I never said that. "They" refers to those government officials/leaders, whether local or federal. And I believe the people/taxpayers would pay for it if a viable plan was laid out and presented before them. They want to be/feel secure in this day and age where radical rab fundamentalists are killing so many via stealth tactics.

And I really don't appreciate the "chickenhawk" comments, which is why I have stopped talking politics on here. You love your derogatory labels FCB (instead of adding to the argument).

You can disagree without the labels. ;)

Mutaman
08-05-2005, 11:23 PM
Just be glad you don't read the daily terrorism briefing. .

I don't read it, and judging from what happened in July/August 2001, thats something President Bush and I have in common.

GAC
08-05-2005, 11:41 PM
[QUOTE=GAC]if we stop people who look Arab,a lot of Israelis, are gonna get stopped as well. Can you tell a Hindu from a Muslim? No? Can you tell a Filipino from a Muslim? No? Can you detect a Turk or Albanian from an Italian? No?

You can't distinguish one of Arab descent from a Filipino or other nationalities? The fact is that our law enforcement/security people can be properly trained to discern and address these situations. Yes, it is gonna take more funds/personell/training.

And you do not have to stop every single young man who looks like one of Middle Eastern origin. But profiling does narrow the field and scope of your search/protection methods, and help you to have a set idea on what to be looking for, highlight maybe the obvious, while also eliminating the less-likely.


Have you ever ridden a New York City subway at 9AM on a Monday morning. Do you have any idea how many people are on it at that time who fit your profile?

How do you stop someone who uses stealth tactics and has a bomb concealed in their carry-on? What is the best method available to possible catch that individual, and to protect your other passengers?

Having more security forces/cops patrolling is nice. But if you're not acting suspiciously, then they aren't going to mess with you. Do you think that terrorists know how to do that, while secretly carrying a bomb? I'd say they have it mastered. Cameras will help if an individual is doing something openly obvious and suspicious. We have a lot of great video footage of those terrorists getting on those planes right before 9-11 (after the fact). Why weren't they stopped then? Maybe because they weren't acting suspiciously? Again- these terrorists are trained too, and know how not to draw attention to themselves.

Their objective is to be as inconspicuous as possible in order to carry out their objective. They don't openly advertise. Methods must be taken to FIND THEM.

Your methods have already been proven inadequate. We've had private and governmental security agencies, who were hired to test our latest technology, show their inadequacies/lack by smuggling weapons and such onto airplanes. That should be a wake-up call that more measures need to be taken.

But all that you are suggesting also costs money (and has proven ineffective in the past)... So why are you questioning me about who will fund this then, when you seem to think they have the funds, or could appropriate them, in order to do what you propose?

Mutaman
08-06-2005, 02:34 AM
Cameras will help if an individual is doing something openly obvious and suspicious. We have a lot of great video footage of those terrorists getting on those planes right before 9-11 (after the fact). Why weren't they stopped then? Maybe because they weren't acting suspiciously? Again- these terrorists are trained too, and know how not to draw attention to themselves.

Their objective is to be as inconspicuous as possible in order to carry out their objective. They don't openly advertise. Methods must be taken to FIND THEM.

Your methods have already been proven inadequate. We've had private and governmental security agencies, who were hired to test our latest technology, show their inadequacies/lack by smuggling weapons and such onto airplanes. That should be a wake-up call that more measures need to be taken.

But all that you are suggesting also costs money (and has proven ineffective in the past)... So why are you questioning me about who will fund this then, when you seem to think they have the funds, or could appropriate them, in order to do what you propose?

Now you're not making any sense. The 9/11 terrorists were "searched", they had to go through metal detectors. The fact that they were not detected proves my point, such searches, unless conducted by well paid, highly trained people, under organized circumstances are ineffective. To argue this could take place in the subways of a large city is nonsence.

I think what I said is pretty clear: the funds to adequatly fund proper security aren't there on the local level, they have to be provided by the feds. But the feds can't do that and continue to cut taxes. But you guys don't want to pay more taxes. So the end result is window dressing- colored security alerts and random bag searches. This is all form and no substance.

Its a good thing we don't profile for stupidity because if we did Dov Hikind and his kind would be getting stopped three or for times a day.

GAC
08-06-2005, 07:13 AM
The 9/11 terrorists were "searched", they had to go through metal detectors. The fact that they were not detected proves my point, such searches, unless conducted by well paid, highly trained people, under organized circumstances are ineffective.

I never said they weren't searched. But only nine of the 19 were singled out and searched. ;)

My whole point is that searches by qualified and trained security forces, while certainly not perfect, is still the most efficient and thorough way to catch someone using stealth methods and carrying concealed weapons/explosives on them that cannot be visually seen by cameras or security sources, and because one's behavior is not suspicious.

You say that these guy's ability to get on board shows that searches doesn't work. But they weren't carrying explosives! If they had, would a search have caught it? I believe so. Camera's and various other technology probably wouldn't have.

Sure, they were able to smuggle onboard box cutters and pepper spray. Two things helped them there: 1) lady luck 2) those doing the search not doing a thorough job and following protocol. Whether that was due to lack of training or simply a lackadaisical approach, we'll never know for sure. Or maybe those remaining 10 who were not searched carried it on for their compadres. ;)

But I believe both of those points were evident.... and we can do something about #2.

So your argument that personal searches don't work is false and incomplete IMO.

These terrorists, at that time and before 9-11, took advantage of the lapses in our system. And that goes all the way back to the failings of the INS (but that is another argument ;) ).

It has taken a tragedy like a 9-11 to wake this nation up as to our weak and lax security measures. And we still haven't learned our lesson yet obviously.

You want safety, security, and civil liberties protected. So do I. But sadly enough, due to the times we now live in, a compromise has to be worked out, or more innocent are gonna die.


I think what I said is pretty clear: the funds to adequatly fund proper security aren't there on the local level, they have to be provided by the feds. But the feds can't do that and continue to cut taxes. But you guys don't want to pay more taxes.

And I pretty clearly stated that it takes federal aid, working in conjunction with local government/authorities. ;)

And of course YOU want to pay more taxes right? No conservative is against higher taxes for programs like what we are discussing here. We are against W-A-S-T-E of tax dollars by politicians who see the taxpayer as an endless source for their revenue spending with little or no accountablity or efficiency. Security programs such as what we are discussing here is not a waste. So your argument/accusation that we NEVER support higher taxes is wrong.

Johnny Footstool
08-06-2005, 02:10 PM
We probably shouldn't start talking about tax dollars being wasted, since the argument would pretty much end as soon as someone mentioned the multi-billion dollar sinkhole called "Iraq."

Falls City Beer
08-06-2005, 02:39 PM
We probably shouldn't start talking about tax dollars being wasted, since the argument would pretty much end as soon as someone mentioned the multi-billion dollar sinkhole called "Iraq."


Maybe their lil' Iraq errand should be paid for in "other ways," like, say, out of Dick Cheney's pocket instead of in American soldiers' lives.

Homeland Security=Federal program

Federal Programs need tax money. :)

registerthis
08-06-2005, 03:36 PM
Just be glad you don't read the daily terrorism briefing. You wouldn't get out of bed.
Ni kidding. That thing is hideous.

dsmith421
08-07-2005, 01:20 PM
If your response to this issue views the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as some sort of obstacle, then I question what the point is at all. If you want to gut the Constitution, then what is left of this country?

Mutaman
08-07-2005, 01:34 PM
If your response to this issue views the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as some sort of obstacle, then I question what the point is at all. If you want to gut the Constitution, then what is left of this country?

A place where nobody ever leaves home and we just hide under the covers. By the way, has there ever been any hard evidence offered that racial profiling, even under the best of circumstances, works?

GAC
08-07-2005, 10:05 PM
Any to disprove that it doesn't?

If we see a consistent pattern of behavior (i.e. acts of terrorism) being committed by a young men between the ages of 18-35, and of Arab descent, then why on God's green earth would we be wasting our time searching 80 yr old grandma's, or anyone else who doesn't fit the profile?

If a murder was committed, and an APB is put out by the police that the suspect is a white male, armed, approximately 6 ft, blonde hair, approximate age 25-35, and they give the vicinity they were last seen, and post police officers at the local bus terminals and airports to be on the look out for this suspect- would it be a violation of the Constitution to stop those that fit that profile, even though they had nothing to do with the crime?

Falls City Beer
08-07-2005, 10:25 PM
Any to disprove that it doesn't?

If we see a consistent pattern of behavior (i.e. acts of terrorism) being committed by a young men between the ages of 18-35, and of Arab descent, then why on God's green earth would we be wasting our time searching 80 yr old grandma's, or anyone else who doesn't fit the profile?

If a murder was committed, and an APB is put out by the police that the suspect is a white male, armed, approximately 6 ft, blonde hair, approximate age 25-35, and they give the vicinity they were last seen, and post police officers at the local bus terminals and airports to be on the look out for this suspect- would it be a violation of the Constitution to stop those that fit that profile, even though they had nothing to do with the crime?

The difference being, of course, that the suspect in your APB scenario has already committed a crime and is fleeing the law.

Being fairly dark-skinned (which is all you'd really be able to go on until "the Arab terrorist" is apprehended) doesn't make one a criminal.

savafan
08-07-2005, 10:35 PM
If a murder was committed, and an APB is put out by the police that the suspect is a white male, armed, approximately 6 ft, blonde hair, approximate age 25-35, and they give the vicinity they were last seen, and post police officers at the local bus terminals and airports to be on the look out for this suspect- would it be a violation of the Constitution to stop those that fit that profile, even though they had nothing to do with the crime?

I've been stopped by police once because I fit the description of a suspect they were looking for. Everything checked out for me, and I wasn't the person they were looking for. At the time, I just thought it kinda creepy.

GAC
08-08-2005, 11:18 AM
The difference being, of course, that the suspect in your APB scenario has already committed a crime and is fleeing the law.

But what about the people who fit that profile, yet had nothing to do with the crime, but yet were stopped? Was it wrong of the police to stop them?


Being fairly dark-skinned (which is all you'd really be able to go on until "the Arab terrorist" is apprehended) doesn't make one a criminal.

Never said it made them a criminal. And our police, who have years and years of expertise in this area, can work up pretty detailed profiles that aren't as simplistict as you state - every fairly dark-skinned person who looks like a terrorist.

Again - what measures would you take in order to make our mass transit systems, such as in NYC and other places, safe and secure from terrorists who have targeted such areas (due to the large volume of life to be lost), and who use stealth methods and have explosive concealed on themselves?

What is the best way to do it that also has the greater chance of success; but more importantly, protects the people?

GAC
08-08-2005, 11:30 AM
I've been stopped by police once because I fit the description of a suspect they were looking for. Everything checked out for me, and I wasn't the person they were looking for. At the time, I just thought it kinda creepy.

I was stopped once about 9 years ago because I had my daughter with me (she was 5 at the time), and the police were looking for a guy who had abducted his daughter. They had a profile, and we fit it. I wasn't offended, though I did no wrong or committed no crime. It didn't make me feel like a child-napper or low-life. I knew that the police were simply working on what info they had, and were trying to do their job. Afterwards, they were courteous and I was on my way. I even thanked them, and told them that I appreciated the job they were trying to do, and I hope they catch the guy.

Doesn't the Constitution also say that it is the responsibility of the government to protect it's citizens? Certainy extremes are not to be taken, and our civil liberties should be protected. But there has to be some sort of allowable measures taken when threatened, and when the goal of those measures is to protect the lives of it's citizenry.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2005, 11:49 AM
I was stopped once about 9 years ago because I had my daughter with me (she was 5 at the time), and the police were looking for a guy who had abducted his daughter. They had a profile, and we fit it. I wasn't offended, though I did no wrong or committed no crime. It didn't make me feel like a child-napper or low-life. I knew that the police were simply working on what info they had, and were trying to do their job. Afterwards, they were courteous and I was on my way. I even thanked them, and told them that I appreciated the job they were trying to do, and I hope they catch the guy.

Imagine the cops hadn't received a report about a guy who kidnapped his daughter. They just saw you driving around with a young girl in the car and decided to pull you over to make sure you weren't a child molester. I don't think you would have been okay with that. No one would have been.

Most child molesters are heterosexual white males. That doesn't give the police the right to pull over every white male they see.

Mutaman
08-08-2005, 03:48 PM
Any to disprove that it doesn't?

Considering you are the one advocating putting us through the incredible expense of searching every young "arabian looking" male, and making an exception to longstanding constitutional safeguards that such searches would entail, I submit the burden is on you and your kind to prove that such searches even work.

GAC
08-08-2005, 09:48 PM
Considering you are the one advocating putting us through the incredible expense of searching every young "arabian looking" male, and making an exception to longstanding constitutional safeguards that such searches would entail, I submit the burden is on you and your kind to prove that such searches even work.

Figured as much. But no it is not. You're the one who made the original contention that they don't work. ;)

You'd still have to show where it is an "unreasonable" search. Especially when those commiting the acts of terrorism do fit a certain/specific profile.

GAC
08-08-2005, 09:53 PM
Imagine the cops hadn't received a report about a guy who kidnapped his daughter. They just saw you driving around with a young girl in the car and decided to pull you over to make sure you weren't a child molester. I don't think you would have been okay with that. No one would have been.

Without just cause - of course not. But they had just cause didn't they. ;)


Most child molesters are heterosexual white males. That doesn't give the police the right to pull over every white male they see.

Again - without just cause, no they don't. But if they are informed to be on the lookout for a white male and female child (fitting a certain description), then yes, they have every right to stop and inquire.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2005, 10:22 PM
Figured as much. But no it is not. You're the one who made the original contention that they don't work. ;)

You'd still have to show where it is an "unreasonable" search. Especially when those commiting the acts of terrorism do fit a certain/specific profile.

No YOU were the one who made the original contention that they *do* work.

Mutaman
08-09-2005, 03:05 AM
Oh heck, this could go around forever. Can you top Ray Kelly? Despite the fact that the New York police went toally overboard in hassling demonstators during the Republican Convention, I still think NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly is a great cop, and most New Yorkers feel a lot safer because Ray is on the job ( a "slight" improvement over Bernie Kerick). Kelly has always been adament about the fact that racial profiling is stupid and does not work. The leading study on this issue is a book by David Harris, a law professor at Toledo, entitled " Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work" (New Press, 2002).

Harris states the following: "And that's one of the great myths of this. Racial profiling does not work, and the evidence for that is in the statistics that have been gathered in places like Maryland and New York and New Jersey and a whole host of others over the last few years. If race actually predicted a higher rate of criminality, what we would see is that the success rate for searches of African-Americans and Hispanics would be much higher than the success rates for searches of whites. And in all those jurisdictions that I mentioned-- and others-- what we actually find is that the success rates or the hit rates as I call them in my work are the same between blacks, whites and Hispanics or they're even lower for minorities -- even lower. So that tells us that this is not smart policing. It is not effective policing. It is not efficient policing"

And Ray Kelly agrees. In commenting on Harris' study, Kelly said: "David Harris points the way toward policing that can be achieved without trampling on the rights of any members of our community. This smart and important book should be read by citizens and police alike.
—Ray Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police Department, and former Commissioner, United States Customs Service"

There are plenty of studies available that support these findings. Numerous surveys in the United States, the largest being a survey by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics which reviewed 1,272,282 searches of citizens by police in 1999, have revealed that the chances of finding contraband after searching minorities (Black and Latino) are the same or less than finding evidence of crime on White persons searched. Similarly when the U.S. Customs Service re-evaluated their search procedures to eliminate racial, ethnic and gender bias in their search activity, they were able to conduct 75% fewer searches without reducing the number of successful searches for contraband carrying passengers.
Lamberth Consulting, "Racial Profiling - Effect on Our Nation", online: Lamberth Consulting <http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/research_nation.asp>.

See also http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/consultations/racial-profiling-report_5.shtml

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 09:30 AM
Of course Ray Kelly has to be just as much politician as he does Police Commissioner. What's he gonna say? "Yeah the majority of our crime is committed by minorities so we need to profile them." Not if he enjoys being police commissioner.

Somebody wake me up the next time there is a non-Muslim extremist bombing or terrorist act committed on US or British soil.

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 10:04 AM
Of course Ray Kelly has to be just as much politician as he does Police Commissioner. What's he gonna say? "Yeah the majority of our crime is committed by minorities so we need to profile them." Not if he enjoys being police commissioner.

Somebody wake me up the next time there is a non-Muslim extremist bombing or terrorist act committed on US or British soil.

Great. Can you pick out a Muslim from an Indian, a Greek, a southern Italian, a Bulgarian, a darker-skinned Israeli?

No one's arguing it isn't Muslim extremists. I'm arguing it's ineffective and a little silly. A better mousetrap needs to be constructed than stopping dark-skinned people before they board the subway in a city full of dark-skinned people (New York).

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2005, 10:10 AM
Without just cause - of course not. But they had just cause didn't they.

That's the whole issue here. What constitutes just cause? If a crime has been committed and there is a description of the perpetrators, the police have just cause to engage in profiling.

If no crime has been committed, there is no just cause.

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 10:23 AM
Great. Can you pick out a Muslim from an Indian, a Greek, a southern Italian, a Bulgarian, a darker-skinned Israeli?

No one's arguing it isn't Muslim extremists. I'm arguing it's ineffective and a little silly. A better mousetrap needs to be constructed than stopping dark-skinned people before they board the subway in a city full of dark-skinned people (New York).

Any proposal as to what a better mousetrap would be? I'm open to new ideas and suggestions.

RBA
08-09-2005, 10:35 AM
Any proposal as to what a better mousetrap would be? I'm open to new ideas and suggestions.

Yeah, we insert chips in people's brains. This could be monitored by cell towers and linked to the FBI/CIA/DHS/DOD joint communication databases. If someone get's out of line or has an improper thought, a law enforcement person sends a cell signal to chip causing it to throw out an electrical charge rendering the person immobile. Sound like a plan?

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 10:42 AM
Yeah, we insert chips in people's brains. This could be monitored by cell towers and linked to the FBI/CIA/DHS/DOD joint communication databases. If someone get's out of line or has an improper thought, a law enforcement person sends a cell signal to chip causing it to throw out an electrical charge rendering the person immobile. Sound like a plan?

Cute. Feel better? Now, anybody with a legit plan?

GAC
08-09-2005, 10:43 AM
No YOU were the one who made the original contention that they *do* work.

And I answered that contention (in a nutshell)...

I stated they are more effective compared to what he was proposing.

Here's what Mutaman said...


Random or even racilly profiled searches don't work and are not worth it


there ever been any hard evidence offered that racial profiling, even under the best of circumstances, works?

I simply asked...


Any solid and objective studies to back that up?

I got no response to a direct question. Nothing presented to back up that contention. No data - no studies - zilch!

Mutaman response to solving the situation is...


I told you, hire a lot more cops, install a lot more cameras, keep all token booths open 24/7

Which will do very little to catch someone using stealth tactics carrying a bomb. Personal searches are the most effective method when compared to what he proposes.

He complained about cost. Who is gonna pay for those extra policeman and hundreds of cameras he wants to add? Again - got no response.

Having more police to LOOK is fine. But unless the suspect is acting suspicious (and terrorists try not to track attention to themselves ;) ), then it means very little (unless they have x-ray vision).


Can you search everyone? Of course not. Impossible. Which is why you use common sense. We know for certainty what type of profile these terrorists fit (see pics I posted ;) ). We know they are targeting mass transportation systems with hidden bombs on their person.

So you narrow your search via the process of elimination. YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN. Quit searching granny and girl scouts! Waste of time.

If I was a NYC police officer assigned to the subway, or any other mass transit system, to be on the lookout for any suspicious activity (terrorist), and to conduct searches as needed - if I saw a young man who fit the profile, with a carry-on or other package- then I'd be respectfully stopping him and ask to search his package. And he could give vocal resistance and start screaming about his Constitutional rights all he wants; BUT HE AIN'T GETTING ON THAT TRAIN!

Even if it cost me my job. So line up your civil rights lawyers.

RBA
08-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Cute. Feel better?

What's that crack suppose to mean? Feel better about what? It was a joke. Sorry if you have to interpet it as I'm sick and need something to make me "feel better."

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 10:58 AM
What's that crack suppose to mean? Feel better about what? It was a joke. Sorry if you have to interpet it as I'm sick and need something to make me "feel better."

I asked a simple question about what we could do besides profiling to cut down on the likelihood of a terrorist attack and I got your version of Orwell's 1984.

Again, I'll ask, what can we do short of profiling in order to cut down on the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack?

Cameras? I don't see how they help other than after the fact. After hundreds of people are dead we can rewind the film and say "Yep, there's the guy that did it, glad we have a picture of him entering the subway so we can splash it all over Foxnews and CNN."

Extra police? Not a bad idea but what does it matter how many there are if they aren't empowered to stop someone who looks suspicious?

GAC
08-09-2005, 11:05 AM
Extra police? Not a bad idea but what does it matter how many there are if they aren't empowered to stop someone who looks suspicious?

It's called "window dressing" to make things look good.

500 more cops practicing political correctness. ;)

RBA
08-09-2005, 11:06 AM
Extra police? Not a bad idea but what does it matter how many there are if they aren't empowered to stop someone who looks suspicious?

Someone who looks suspicious? You mean they should detain all white maile christians within 350 feet of an abortion clinic because they meet the profile of a person who bombs such clinics?

registerthis
08-09-2005, 11:11 AM
Someone who looks suspicious? You mean they should detain all white maile christians within 350 feet of an abortion clinic because they meet the profile of a person who bombs such clinics?
How about a creationist who comes within 500 feet of a Natural History Museum?

Sorry, really...only joking. ;)

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 11:38 AM
Someone who looks suspicious? You mean they should detain all white maile christians within 350 feet of an abortion clinic because they meet the profile of a person who bombs such clinics?

Yes, someone who matches the profile of a subway bomber. I don't care how politically incorrect it sounds. A male of Arab descent wearing a backpack. Exactly. Hit the nail on the head.

By the way I fit the little profile you layed out above and I don't care if I get stopped and checked outside an abortion clinic, know why? Because I don't have anything to hide.

savafan
08-09-2005, 11:39 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-1724531%2C00.html

David Leppard



TERRORISTS could be preparing to use women and children as suicide bombers in further attacks on trains and other soft targets in London, internal Scotland Yard documents have warned.
Official “stop and search” guidance just issued to thousands of Metropolitan police officers indicates that police fear the bombers may be planning to change their tactics.



“Terrorists will try to use our actions against us and will adapt their methods (use women or even children),” the document states.

The paper contains advice to officers exercising their powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The rules govern the conduct of the 6,000 officers who have been deployed across the capital to stop a possible third terror cell following on from the July 7 atrocities and the failed July 21 attacks.

The paper was released this weekend on the order of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, in an effort to defuse the row over claims that police are singling out Asian and black men during street searches.

Under the rules, Met officers have been told to avoid “racial profiling” and “not to focus on specific groups”. The advice adds: “Be aware that there is no specific racial, ethnic, sexual or religious profile for terrorists.”

Blair insisted the new advice was not dictated by political correctness. “Everything’s got to be intelligence-based,” he said.

“If we said the only people to be searched are young males who are of Caribbean or Asian or north African appearance it would be handing the objectives to the terrorists and they would immediately change their tactics.”

He was talking after Ian Johnston, chief constable of the British Transport police, which guards the Tube and train network, suggested his officers had been told to single out Muslim and African men as the most likely terrorist suspects. “We should not waste time searching old white ladies,” he said.

The disclosure of the Yard’s guidance comes as transport police draw up plans for elite “sniper squads” to combat the threat of suicide bombers. Between 150 and 200 firearms specialists are to be recruited as part of a nationwide drive to stop further attacks on the transport system.

The unit will be modelled on Scotland Yard’s SO19 firearms unit, whose officers shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, after mistaking him for a suicide bomber 16 days ago.

The move will see armed officers regularly patrolling the Underground and the rail network for the first time. Crack sniper squads and close-quarter “hit teams” such as the one that killed Menezes will be on permanent stand-by to deal with suspected suicide bombers.

Blair said he planned to recruit several hundred more armed officers to bolster the number already licensed to carry guns. He is also in talks with the Home Office for an extra 500 or 600 officers to boost the Met’s counter-terrorist capability. The move would effectively double the size of the anti-terrorist branch.

Blair also repeated his call for a national border control agency to make it more difficult for terrorists to enter and leave the country. The Sunday Times revealed last week that Hussain Osman — also known as Hamdi Isaac — one of the men arrested over the failed July 21 attacks, had managed to leave Britain on the Eurostar train.

MAN ON TUBE CHARGES

Yassin Omar, 24, has been charged over one of the failed attempts to bomb three London Tube trains and a bus on July 21. He faces charges of conspiracy to murder and possession of an explosive substance in connection with the bombing attempt at Warren Street station. Omar, from New Southgate, London, will appear before Bow Street magistrates tomorrow.

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 11:40 AM
“Be aware that there is no specific racial, ethnic, sexual or religious profile for terrorists.”

Wow, just....wow. I'm speechless. (Which is a first :) )

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2005, 12:01 PM
TERRORISTS could be preparing to use women and children as suicide bombers in further attacks on trains and other soft targets in London, internal Scotland Yard documents have warned.

That's *exactly* why you can't rely on profiling. Stop all Arabic-looking young men, and they eventually start using other people.

That's what I was talking about when I wrote this:

The terrorists are smart enough to figure out how to plant a bomb in an old woman's wheelchair. By not viewing everyone as an equal threat, you're leaving yourself wide open for attack. Everyone should be scrutinized. Roy made a good point about this.

Mutaman
08-09-2005, 01:13 PM
I got no response to a direct question. Nothing presented to back up that contention. No data - no studies - zilch!


I get the feeling you selectivly profile other's posts. Can you read? Go to the last paragraph of post 72. I repeat:

"Similarly when the U.S. Customs Service re-evaluated their search procedures to eliminate racial, ethnic and gender bias in their search activity, they were able to conduct 75% fewer searches without reducing the number of successful searches for contraband carrying passengers.
Lamberth Consulting, "Racial Profiling - Effect on Our Nation", online: Lamberth Consulting <http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/research_nation.asp>."

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 06:31 PM
Any proposal as to what a better mousetrap would be? I'm open to new ideas and suggestions.

I don't know. It's not my job. But I know that "racial profiling" (a term, btw, with many meanings and many levels of deployment) has done very little at the level of protection by rank and file police officers, which is the level of law enforcement we're discussing right now.

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 06:37 PM
Yes, someone who matches the profile of a subway bomber. I don't care how politically incorrect it sounds. A male of Arab descent wearing a backpack. Exactly. Hit the nail on the head.

By the way I fit the little profile you layed out above and I don't care if I get stopped and checked outside an abortion clinic, know why? Because I don't have anything to hide.

You couldn't identify an Arab from a Sicilian, from a Macedonian, from a southern Romanian, from a Bangladeshi if you tried, and you know it. That's why you didn't answer my earlier question. It's ineffective and it doesn't protect anyone.

By the way, both Germany and France have had guards posted in their subways bearing M-16s for decades. And both countries have had some of the greatest increases in Middle Eastern immigration over that same period.

I'm still waiting for so much as a barroom donnybrook to break out between Christian and Muslim--in either country.

DoogMinAmo
08-09-2005, 06:47 PM
Nice stretch. Totally absurd reasoning too.

Profiling, in this instance, does not target ALL Muslims or Arabs; but a specific group within that segment - who by the way, have been committing 100% of the suicide bombings and killings of innocent people. And NYC is a "hub" for foreign travel (to and fro). So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile—young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)—the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What’s the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports.

We should really drop all security measures since they are somehow gonna be interpreted as infringing on someone's civil liberties. Wouldn't want to impose a bag search on someone that may feel offended. Even if it may avert a tragedy. And if it continues to cost us a few hundred innocent civilians here, or maybe a few thousand there, so be it. Our civil liberties are intact.


The problem is, as soon as you begin to visually profile terrorists, they will change what they look like. In an age of plastic surgery, and virtually unlimited financial resources, is this really wise? The best deterrent, is to make everyone feel safe, and make everyone who is thinking of threatening that safety, unsure.

BTW, being a man of Arabic descent, I have many friends and relatives, that you would never figure are "Arabs." Granted, I am not a Muslim, but I think it is irrelevant to judge people on looks, and that is what you are suggesting, visual judgement. What's next, only letting Arabs ride above ground, for safety reasons?

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 07:05 PM
You couldn't identify an Arab from a Sicilian, from a Macedonian, from a southern Romanian, from a Bangladeshi if you tried, and you know it. That's why you didn't answer my earlier question. It's ineffective and it doesn't protect anyone.

By the way, both Germany and France have had guards posted in their subways bearing M-16s for decades. And both countries have had some of the greatest increases in Middle Eastern immigration over that same period.

I'm still waiting for so much as a barroom donnybrook to break out between Christian and Muslim--in either country.

Actually I probably could differentiate a few of the groups you described above but that's neither here nor there. You don't know me and my background with other cultures anymore than I know yours. Although apparently you have a preformed opinion of little old sheltered midwestern Jaycint which makes you think what you do.

The reason I didn't answer your question is that I don't have the total answer to the question either. It's not my job either, just like it isn't yours. I proposed that I think profiling could be of some benefit. I don't think it solves everything. I don't think any one course of action solves the problem.

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 07:25 PM
Actually I probably could differentiate a few of the groups you described above but that's neither here nor there.


No. It's completely relevant. It's all about resources and their deployment.

Only the most trained and well-schooled law enforcement officer could identify defining characteristics thoroughly. Cops need to screen based upon different and more carefully examined criteria than "dark-skinned people with backpacks."

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 07:38 PM
Cops need to screen based upon different and more carefully examined criteria

In other words, they need to profile.

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 07:45 PM
In other words, they need to profile.

Great. I have zero problem with profiling if it's efficacious. But they need to do better than "dark skinned people with backpacks." I'm saying "race" may be the worst criterion to screen on. Hell, behavioral profiling is much more efficacious. It would create absolute bedlam for cops in a huge metropolitan subway to have to screen according to race.

And for the record, it's been proven time and time and time again that increased police presence (that is, simply more cops on the streets) reduces crime. But then, police hirings cost the taxpayer money, which, of course, Republicans want ZERO part of.

Jaycint
08-09-2005, 07:59 PM
But then, police hirings cost the taxpayer money, which, of course, Republicans want ZERO part of.

Hey you're preachin to the choir here brother FCB. :)

GAC
08-09-2005, 09:37 PM
[url]
TERRORISTS could be preparing to use women and children as suicide bombers in further attacks on trains and other soft targets in London, internal Scotland Yard documents have warned.
Official “stop and search” guidance just issued to thousands of Metropolitan police officers indicates that police fear the bombers may be planning to change their tactics.

And until they do change their tactics, and we SEE woman and children carrying out suicide bombing missions, we still have a very reliable profile/history of those who are and HAVE BEEN doing it.

GAC
08-09-2005, 10:08 PM
The problem is, as soon as you begin to visually profile terrorists, they will change what they look like. In an age of plastic surgery, and virtually unlimited financial resources, is this really wise? The best deterrent, is to make everyone feel safe, and make everyone who is thinking of threatening that safety, unsure.

BTW, being a man of Arabic descent, I have many friends and relatives, that you would never figure are "Arabs." Granted, I am not a Muslim, but I think it is irrelevant to judge people on looks, and that is what you are suggesting, visual judgement. What's next, only letting Arabs ride above ground, for safety reasons?

And I fully understand what you are saying Doog. But don't we have to act, as best that we can, on what we know to already be true?... that those who are committing these suicide bombing atrocities are those not only associated with a misguided and radical form of Islam, but are also of a defintive ethnic and regional origin? So why not use "looks" when we see from a past behavioral aspect, what these terrorists look like, and where they are from (ethniticity/region)? It's not saying, as some contend, that we are to treat all Muslims, or those of Arab descent, are terrorists - or that they are.

It is a perverted religious teaching that is the motivation. But what people/region is this teaching being promulgated?

I, like you, want people to feel safe and secure. And I've still yet to hear anyone else's idea on what is the most efffective way to catch someone who is using stealth methods, and carrying concealed/hidden explosives on them?

A personal search is the only way, IMO, that can have a higher level of success. And due to the fact that they are dealing with a mass transit system that sees thousands of people shuffling to and fro daily, and that it is impossible to check every single person, then profiling, IMO, along with all the other means mentioned (extra police, cameras, etc) should be used to eleiminate the less obvious/likely.

But utilizing some sort of political correctness in searching, when the utmost importance should be the safety of the innocent, is ridiculous IMO.

I've heard some say that we shouldn't be searching at all. That they are ineffective, and more importantly - unconstitutional. I'm a firm believer in protecting civil liberties. But again -when someone is carrying a concealed explosive on their person, and is trained how not to act in a way not to bring suspicion/scrutiny upon themselves, then what measures/tactics should our security forces use to best catch them?

Are airport personal searches a violation of civil liberties?

Final point - And I stated this before. We could do oursdelves a big favor if our INS did a better job of background checking those wanting to enter this country from those regions that are promoting terrorism, AND going after those who here on temporary VISA's that have expired. They are way too lax IMO.