0
   

Profile or die

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 01:38 pm
Quote:
Be it in an airport, subway or any other public place, checking the bags of wobbly matrons, gray-templed bankers, middle-aged professionals, beefy laborers and kids is comically foolish, a dimwit's waste of time and resources. The British, where Londoners are still raw from recent terror attacks, get it. British Transport Police Chief Constable Ian Johnston said his officers would not "waste time searching old white ladies."






http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/3
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,119 • Replies: 90
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 01:54 pm
Yes, their efficiency in wiping out potential suspects has garnered worldwide praise...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 01:56 pm
That was sooo evil, D'artagnan!
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:17 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Yes, their efficiency in wiping out potential suspects has garnered worldwide praise...


Laughing You must be a "Pal" of Norm Minetta, our politically correct Sec of Transportation, who forbids profiling at airports.

Actually there is a lesson in leadership to be found in the wake of the tragic killing of the Brazilian........... instead of backing up, profusely apologizing and making a scapegoat of the shooter, the LEADERSHIP, in the UK instead announced that other people may be shot but that his order to shoot to protect, was firm.

I'm reasonably certain this doesn't interest the politically correct wimps here who still cling to the hope that the terrorists can be reasoned with and appeased if only we give them our freedom and lay our necks on the chopping block. I hope you all are adept at learning arabic and memorizing the Koran............... Cool
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:23 pm
rayban1 wrote:
[...] profusely apologizing [...]


Well, Blair did apologize. Which is more a sign of leadership than the "we don't talk about it" stance of the US government.

rayban1 wrote:
I hope you all are adept at learning arabic and memorizing the Koran............... Cool


And growing beards. You forgot growing beards.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:27 pm
Just curious rayban, what profile would you use? It seems to me the only thing that all young muslim men have in common is that they're young and they're men.

Of course, then we may start seeing female bombers....
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:30 pm
old europe wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
[...] profusely apologizing [...]


Well, Blair did apologize. Which is more a sign of leadership than the "we don't talk about it" stance of the US government.

rayban1 wrote:
I hope you all are adept at learning arabic and memorizing the Koran............... Cool


And growing beards. You forgot growing beards.


Ah yes......a long beard is a sign of a loyal bin Laden fanatic.......goes well with whipping women who aren't properly covered.

Are you a loyal Wahabi? Have I at long last met one?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:35 pm
... you forgot stopping abortions. The bin Ladin fanatics won't allow abortions.

... and preventing homosexuals from marrying....
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 03:07 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 03:30 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Just curious rayban, what profile would you use? It seems to me the only thing that all young muslim men have in common is that they're young and they're men.

Of course, then we may start seeing female bombers....



The following would be a good place to start:

Truth be told, commuters need to be most aware of young men praying to Allah and smelling like flower water. Law enforcement knows this, and so should you. According to a January 2004 handout, the Department of Homeland Security advises United States border authorities to look out for certain "suicide bomber indicators." They include a "shaved head or short haircut. A short haircut or recently shaved beard or moustache may be evident by differences in skin complexion on the head or face. May smell of herbal or flower water (most likely flower water), as they may have sprayed perfume on themselves, their clothing, and weapons to prepare for Paradise." Suspects may have been seen "praying fervently, giving the appearance of whispering to someone. Recent suicide bombers have raised their hands in the air just before the explosion to prevent the destruction of their fingerprints. They have also placed identity cards in their shoes because they want to be praised and recognized as martyrs."

The bodies of the London suicide bombers were recognized by their identification cards. And on the eve of the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and perfumed themselves with flower water in a pre-martyrdom ritual called ablution. But don't expect the federal authorities to screen for these indicators on Amtrak, which pulls into Penn Station in New York and Union Station in Washington, two of the biggest commuter-rail depots in the country. Not only is there no passenger profiling on Amtrak, but there's no screening or mandatory searching of carry-on bags. The only restriction on bags is a 50-pound weight limit - and that's not much comfort when you recall that the bombs used in London weighed only 10 pounds.

Once an Islamist suicide bomber is sitting next to you on the train, your chances of escape are slim. The only solution is for the police to stop him well before he boards your car. But with the system as it stands, that terrorist could easily slip in through the numerical window of random security screening. By not allowing police to profile the most suspicious train passengers - young Muslim men who fit the indicators above - Mr. Bloomberg and other leaders not only tie one hand behind law enforcement's back, but they also unwittingly provide terrorists political cover to carry out their murderous plans. Call it politically correct suicide.

Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington."
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 03:44 pm
I find myself in the rather disagreeable position of having to agree with rayban1.

When you're looking for a specific type of criminal, you develope a profile and continually update it as new data becomes available. You then use that profile to focus your efforts to stop and/or catch that type of criminal. Strip-searching grandma and well known politicians is a useless symbolic exercise that's wasting resources.

Do Americans have the right to be free from profiling? Since profiling is used to catch serial killers and other types of criminals all the time, one would have to conclude that we don't. Receiving extra scrutiny at the airport because you fit a profile is an inconvenience, not an abridgement of your rights.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 04:00 pm
Mills75

I am doubly dismayed since I agree with you both.


Profiling cry gets rebuked

Quote:



BY HUGH SON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Mayor Bloomberg and a raft of politicians and civil rights groups slammed Assemblyman Dov Hikind's proposal to have cops target Middle Eastern men for subway searches - but Hikind found an ally in the City Council yesterday."Why should a policeman have to think twice before examining people of a particular group?" Hikind (D-Brooklyn) asked this week, adding that terrorists "all look a certain way."

Hikind will start legislation that allows the NYPD to profile Middle Eastern men - rather than the random subway bag checks cops now use - to help prevent a London-style bomb attack.

Yesterday, Councilman James Oddo (R-S.I.) thanked Hikind "for having the courage to say publicly what many of us have thought privately" and pledged to support the assemblyman's efforts.

Bloomberg just got an endorsement from the Orthodox Jewish leader, but yesterday he called racial profiling "illegal" and said he disagreed with it for "fairness reasons."

"We're not going to do it," said Bloomberg, who nonetheless said he was "thrilled" to have Hikind's backing.

Councilman John Liu (D-Queens), chairman of the Council Transportation Committee, called Hikind's proposal "simply un-American."

"Profiling transit riders on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion does not actually fight terror," Liu said.

"It's typical of Dov Hikind's ridiculous, racist comments about security," said Councilman Charles Barron (D-East New York).

A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said the Assembly "has never supported racial profiling legislation."

Margaret Fung, head of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Hikind's "sweeping statement that suggests that all Muslims are terrorists is really outrageous."

Targeting immigrant men punishes New Yorkers who already faced discrimination after 9/11 - and could backfire, said Mohammad Razvi, head of the Brooklyn-based Council of Pakistan Organization.

"Individuals who are committing the attacks are not wearing a turban with a beard," Razvi said, adding that the practice "would give a false sense of security."

But Hikind - who pioneered the use of surveillance cameras in Brooklyn subway stations - was undeterred by the firestorm of criticism.

"The terrorists in Madrid, London and New York all fit a profile," he said. "I'm not going to ignore that fact."

Not all those likely to be scrutinized if Hikind's proposal became law felt it was a special injustice.

"If the police needs to search me because of my skin or facial hair, I have no problem," said Aliz Aidi, a pharmacy worker on Coney Island Ave. in Midwood. "But I can't see a benefit over the way they do it now."



With Keith Zackowitz



Originally published on August 3, 2005

I saw an unofficial poll on this subject a few days ago. The resukts were heavily in favor of profiling.
Of cource it will never fly the politicaally correct yahoos will never let it.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 04:19 pm
au1929 wrote:
Mills75

I am doubly dismayed since I agree with you both.




Laughing

Doing something racist would be wrong, but it's not racist if race happens to be a consistent and statistically significant variable.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 04:36 pm
I disagree with all of you (I guess this I should consider this an "agreeable position").

The choice is simple-- Freedom or security. I am dismayed that so many people are choosing security.

By Freedom, I mean what freedom actually means. Our forefathers understood that Freedom meant being "innocent until proven guilty" and having the right to not be searched without due process and the right to choose, and follow your own beliefs regardless of how unpopular they were.

It is inevitable that freedom means a loss of security. If the police could search you house at will looking for drugs, their would be less drug crime. The fact that a judge can't force you to testify against yourself (the fifth amendement) means that some criminals have gone free-- and some have commited crimes again.

If you want to stop terrorism, we could outlaw Islam. We could get rid of the first, fourth and fifth amendments. We could lower the standard of proof for imprisonment. We could allow police to tap your phone, search your house at will, read your mail.

All of these steps would make it much easier to stop not only terrorism, but all sorts of crime.

There is very little terrorism in states like China, or Cuba or Iran.

I wan't to live in a Free country and I am brave enough to live with the risk. I like the fact that people in my neighborhood speak Arabic (and Spanish and Creole etc.) I like the fact that the government can't treat me, or anyone else, worse because of my religion or my beliefs or my ethnic background.

I also want all of you who are in the disagreeable position of agreeing with rayban to go back and read her posts. Look at the amount of hyperbole she employs to make her case. Does anyone sane really think that we are under threat of an Islamic government? Come on now, the 9/11 attacks (the worst attacks we have faced) presented absolutely no threat to our government, or our way of life (except the Patriot act.)

Rayban is talking about trashing our freedoms, not saving it. So now you all can come back to an agreeable sanity.

Fortunately, the Constitution puts up more barriers to this kind of thing that us "politically correct yahoos".
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 04:57 pm
ebrown_p
I was reasonably sure that you would be the next responder and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt what it would be.
I would only remind you that the founders of this nation were not faced or could even dream of the world as it is today.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:37 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1054406072525_2003/06/01/02n_eric_rudolph,0.jpg

This man is accused of having bombed the Atlanta Olympics, and an abortion clinic. Your profiling would not have captured him.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/28/india.gandhi/suicide.bomber.jpg

The woman on the right has been identified as the suicide bomber who took out former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Your profiling would not have captured her.

http://www.gagreport.com/images/RichardReid.jpg

This man has become known as the "Shoe Bomber." Your profiling would not have captured him.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/JohnWalkerLindh.jpg

This man is known as the "American Taliban." Your profiling would not have captured him.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:40 pm
This is what I was getting at in this thread, but I have to admit that if suspects are to be snuffed out, you must not waste time searching individuals who simply would not be a mass murderer.
Perhaps to satisfy both sides, we limit our searches to all middle eastern men, and some young males of any color, creed or religion? After all, I can't recall any terrorist, homegrown or foreign, who was female or elderly.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:42 pm
As an afterthought, I would hate to see profiling become the action that brings the terrorists to strap bombs to hostages and use them as decoys and bombs.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:49 pm
Candidone,

You are really basing your search on people who look like middle easter men.

The poor Brazilian guy who was shot in the head five times in the london subway (an act the English leadership should not apologize for) made the mistake of looking middle eastern.

This is not to say (as Setanta points out) that people who don't look like middle eastern men couldn't be terrorist-- or even that middle eastern men might make themselves not look like middle eastern men.

Of course all of this could be solved by taking away more Freedom. Identity cards that stated if your ethnic origin and religion with stiff penalties for people who didn't produce one when confronted might be a start.

The problem with this is that we really need something quicker and more prominent.

I seem to remember a country who, some 60 years ago, felt a pressing need to indentify an ethnic group on sight. They passed out badges to members of this group that were to be prominently worn any time they were in public.

What if we just had middle eastern men wear yellow crescents.

If security is really worth giving up Freedom, that is...
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:50 pm
I'm also not sure that "profile or die", or "choose freedom or security" are fair choices.
I am routinely searched as I go through airplane security, into nightclubs, and meetings with certain aquaintences. I still feel as though I have freedom. The searches are in place in order to ensure the broader sense of freedom I feel in society, my places of travel and recreation.

Profile or die is a catchy heading, but we could effectively search everyone and still die. Where there's a will there's a way, and when one medium is no longer viable, they will find another. This is how they are at the advantage. They are on your soil, their soil and foreign soils and they are in control no matter what precautions and measures are taken.
They will change as needed. The only difference is, their actions bring us to do things we have stood against for decades, and their spikes get driven even further into us.
IMO, busses and trains are the least of security worries.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Profile or die
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 01:09:45