DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:Ethnic profiling is not as simple as people think. Your net WILL catch a lot of people you did not intend to.

Right... but if you don't do any profiling, your net catches a lot MORE people you did not intend to -- like, 80 year old Irish grandmas.

The point of profiling is to change the focus of your net so that you increase your chances of catching the "bad guys" vs the innocent. You'll always hit more innocents than guilty, but you'll hit the guilty a lot more often if you focus your efforts appropriately.

This might mean increasing the percentage of "not fully random" searches at airports that hit Blacks, Arabs, Persians, Venezualans, etc. Or maybe not. Again, I'm not advocating using racial/ethnic profiling exclusively, or necessarily at airports -- only using it as a part of a larger system when it's worthwhile. As for "when it's worthwhile", I honestly don't know; I'm not a security expert. But I do think it's stupid to dismiss it out-of-hand just to try to be PC.

Lothar wrote:We have locks on our doors. They slow us down getting inside, but are worthwhile. We have searches and such at the airport. They slow us down, but are worthwhile.

And perhaps I've not been clear on this issue. I'm not opposed to having reasonable searches at airports. We do want to keep people from getting guns into the cabins. I'm opposed to silly things like banning pocket knives and nail scissors. It's not just that it's inconvieniant and doesn't help, it's that it disarms the very people who are in the best position to defend the plane.

Make up your mind... is it silly and not helpful, or does it disarm people?

IMO, banning nail clippers is "silly and not helpful" -- it doesn't take away a worthwhile weapon from anybody. Banning knives disarms people, though -- and on an airplane, I'd prefer everyone to be disarmed. This is different from the traditional Conservative position precisely because an airplane is a controlled environment. Similarly, I support the idea of banning weapons in courthouses and anywhere else where everyone present has to pass through a security screening. Whether or not the screening process is working is another matter, of course. And banning liquids doesn't disarm anyone BUT the terrorists -- it's not like you could use your baby bottle to spray them down and stop them from setting off their liquid bombs.

Kilarin wrote:The vast majority, actually, in all likelihood almost ALL of those who will be humiliated and abused by racial profiling will be completely innocent victims.

I disagree with the premise that screening is humiliating or abusive. Any person screened getting on a plane should be savy enough to understand the threat that created the need to screen.

In your mind if you literally screened everyone then you haven't abused anyone or humiliated anyone, only by singling out by profile are you creating victims.
So what changed between the two groups (everyone vs. some)?
Certainly not the physical act of being screened, that would be the same for both groups.
No, maybe it's the intent of the screener that has possibly changed. Did he single someone out simply to exert control and domination over them? To put them in their place?
Or does the 'victim' realize he was singled out only because the very threat/people that created the need for the screening process is/are much more like you in appearance than the other passengers?

It's always nice when we can afford to be overly cautious about sparing anyone an inconvenience or uncomfortable moment but it is absolutely foolish to let that take precedence over common sense when implimenting life and death safety measures!
If you're too fat for the rollercoaster you don't get to ride. Can't swim? Then you don't get to go snorkling with the group....etc. etc.?

If we can't search everyone then we should at least start with the most likely suspects and if you happen to belong to the group that the suspects come from then wear your thick skin to the airport.

Alllllllllllrighty then.

Kilarin wrote: The only point of the story was that Ethnic profiling is not as simple as people think. Your net WILL catch a lot of people you did not intend to. Even when you get the correct ethnic profile, you will always hit more "good guys" than "bad guys" because the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a fantastically wide margin.

We're having problems communicating on this thread, Kil. I really have no idea what you're talking about here, when you say "net" and "hit more 'good guys' than 'bad guys'". Are you talking about screening non-terrorists, detaining non-terrorists, arresting non-terrorists, or convicting non-terrororists? If you're talking about screening, the "net" of profiling apparently Muslim men of a certain age range is likely far narrower than random screening. If you're talking about wrongful convictions, you're blowing smoke -- you have no evidence for such an assertion.

Kilarin wrote:And, again, just to make certain everyone is understanding the full implications. This WILL mean we need to profile Black Americans.

GASP. My God no. No NOT THAT. When oh when will the black man finally be free from Whitey's insidious oppression!!! Fall back oppressor! Fall back BD!!!

Good lord that's a panicky cry you just gave off. Are you sure you're not a democrat? And hey, seems like something of a double-standard you're running there -- what about the Sinn Féin types I mentioned?

Kilarin wrote:I'm not convinced this profiling would add any level of safety, but even if it would, would it be worth the hostility it would cause?

Look, if the ethnic makeup of terrorists were White British/Irish-American Roman Catholics (I'm a poor excuse for an attending Catholic these days but you get the idea), I would gladly embrace profiling. Wouldn't you?

Hostility?

Bold Deceiver wrote:(PurpleMan)'s actually a pretty famous cryptographer.

Kilarin wrote: Indeed.

My bad on this one. What I meant was, he's actually a pretty famous cryptographer (emphasis really added on that word) -- meaning a well-respected, top-of-the-charts, pony-tailed code monkey who publishes articles for the ACLU. He also links websites discussing how to evade subway searches in New York. That's FINE, and believe me I have no doubt his advice on cryptography is very useful. On the other hand, my locksmith is "security expert". The reach of his expertise doesn't qualify him to opine on the subject how to catch a terrorist, but PurpleMan's thesis tells me he may have more credibility than PurpleMan.

That's because my locksmith doesn't try to rationalize away the obvious, with algorithmic logic. Probably the same guy who does Lothar and Drakona's place.

BD

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:The other fabrication is that it's either one or the other. It's not. That's an argument made up by civil libertarians and the left.

So that's why you kept saying I was a doctrinal leftie/libertarian. Well, by your reasoning you were right in saying that, but thankfully Drakona pulled the wool away from my eyes on the either/or argument.

Hmmmm. I think we have a better understanding of each other's positions now Shadow. Always good to have fresh thoughts on this board, that's certain. Thank you for yours. Now if you can just help me convert that pesky Kilarin from the dark side . . . .

BD

Dang these things are getting too long.

Lothar wrote:But I do think it's stupid to dismiss it out-of-hand just to try to be PC.

I'm *uncomfortable* with racial profiling, and strongly suspect that the negatives would outweigh any positives. That's not dismissing it out of hand, its looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective. If the benefits were to increase, like say the odds of catching terrorists in line at the airport were really improved by using racial profiling, enough to make up for the negative effects, I'd be willing to reconsider.

Lothar wrote:Make up your mind... is it silly and not helpful, or does it disarm people?

Sorry. That WAS sloppy of me. Banning nail clippers is just silly. Banning pocket knives disarms people, I also consider it a bit silly, but not at the same level as banning nail clippers.

Will Robinson wrote: I disagree with the premise that screening is humiliating or abusive.

But you just said above "You don't seem to recognize the abuse you want the majority of the passengers to endure by not profiling"

Will Robinson wrote:It's always nice when we can afford to be overly cautious about sparing anyone an inconvenience or uncomfortable moment but it is absolutely foolish to let that take precedence over common sense when implimenting life and death safety measures!

Common sense says that the odds that a Black American Male is a terrorist are probably on the same order of magnitude as the odds that a White American Male is a serial killer. Which needs more scrutiny?

According to the 2000 census, 3.5 million Americans are of Arab descent. And how many have been involved in terrorism so far? The only source I could find with a quick search didn't seem exactly unbiased, but they said that not one Arab-American had been convicted of any terrorist related crime. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but lets say there were even 10 Arab-Americans who we had found to be involved in terrorism. Thats 1 in 350,000.

Will Robinson wrote:In your mind if you literally screened everyone then you haven't abused anyone or humiliated anyone, only by singling out by profile are you creating victims. So what changed between the two groups (everyone vs. some)?

Being singled out as "you're a criminal type" is humiliating to most people.
I used to work night shift in a high class business district. During my lunch break I'd go walking through the nearly deserted down town. It was an interesting walk that late, pretty lit fountains and statues around many of the buildings, hardly a soul in sight.

UNTIL one night when my friend from Kenya got off work from a late shift and decided to join me. That evening, one of the cops on patrol decided to pull over and interrogate us. The cop wanted to know why we were there, what we were doing, etc. He was nice, but it was very clear he was suspicious. I had to show him my badge to convince him I worked in the area in order to get him to leave us alone. I was baffled because they had never found any reason to be interested in my late night strolls before. Then it hit me. My friend was, of course, black as night. Duh!

Could have just been coincidence. The same friend went walking with me on other occasions and no one accosted us. Perhaps it was a new cop, who knows? But the APPEARANCE to me at the time was that we were interrogated just because my friend was black, and yes, it made me angry.

So again, no, I'm not dismissing racial profiling out of hand. But you ARE going to make a lot of people feel humiliated and angry if you single them out just because of their race. You will have to show some MAJOR benefits to be worth that. I haven't seen anything indicating that we would see such benefits.

Bold Deciever wrote:when you say "net" and "hit more 'good guys' than 'bad guys'". Are you talking about screening non-terrorists, detaining non-terrorists, arresting non-terrorists, or convicting non-terrororists?

Screening. Whatever you use as your procedure for deciding who needs extra screening will screen more non-terrorist than terrorist, obviously. Why subject a particular American ethnic group to this if there aren't any appreciable benefits.

Bold Deciever wrote:Good lord that's a panicky cry you just gave off. Are you sure you're not a democrat? And hey, seems like something of a double-standard you're running there -- what about the Sinn Féin types I mentioned?

No double standard. I picked Black Americans because most white people are more uncomfortable descriminating against them than they descriminating against Arab Americans. I didn't pick the Irish because they seem to have quieted down. (But I must admit, Lothars example of the Irish Grandmother was TEMPTING)

Bold Deciever wrote:Look, if the ethnic makeup of terrorists were White British/Irish-American Roman Catholics (I'm a poor excuse for an attending Catholic these days but you get the idea), I would gladly embrace profiling. Wouldn't you?

I honestly don't know.

Bold Deciever wrote:The reach of his expertise doesn't qualify him to opine on the subject how to catch a terrorist, but PurpleMan's thesis tells me he may have more credibility than PurpleMan.

George Bush seems to disagree with you. Seriously though, you'd have to know a lot more about security before your opinion of Mr. Scheiener mattered.

Bold Deciever wrote:Now if you can just help me convert that pesky Kilarin from the dark side . . . .

Good luck...

Kilarin wrote:Dang these things are getting too long.

most interesting and fruitful dialogue is...

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: I disagree with the premise that screening is humiliating or abusive.

But you just said above "You don't seem to recognize the abuse you want the majority of the passengers to endure by not profiling"

What I was pointing to is the abuse of having to board a plane where the limited screening resources were further limited due only to political correctness!
As a passenger I'm being subjected to a higher risk of exposure to a successful attack because, although every sucessful terrorist to hijack a plane in recent times was a young male carrying a Saudi Arabian or Egyptian passport who appeared to be from the middle eastern part of the world, he has a much better chance of getting aboard unchecked because of politically correct idiocy!!!
That's the abuse I was talking about!

Kilarin wrote:Common sense says that the odds that a Black American Male is a terrorist are probably on the same order of magnitude as the odds that a White American Male is a serial killer. Which needs more scrutiny?

As soon as white male serial killers start attacking people on planes add them to the higher risk list. The same with black americans, but until then neither black americans or white males are as high a risk as male middle eastern decent especially those with foriegn passports!!! Common sense should have told you that!

Kilarin wrote:According to the 2000 census, 3.5 million Americans are of Arab descent. And how many have been involved in terrorism so far? The only source I could find with a quick search didn't seem exactly unbiased, but they said that not one Arab-American had been convicted of any terrorist related crime. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but lets say there were even 10 Arab-Americans who we had found to be involved in terrorism. Thats 1 in 350,000.

Yea, and according to recent history every single sucessful terrorist to bring down a plane full of victims has been a middle eastern decent male approximately 17 to 27 years old with a foriegn passport! That's 100%!!! Aren't statistics fun? So while your reason for not screening your target has at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened my reason for screening will be 100% effective in including any terrorist until they change tactics and find some one outside their profile to do the deed! Which is not as easy as you might want us to believe.

Kilarin wrote:Being singled out as "you're a criminal type" is humiliating to most people.
I used to work night shift in a high class business district.<snip> I was baffled because they had never found any reason to be interested in my late night strolls before. Then it hit me. My friend was, of course, black as night. Duh!</snip><snip>But the APPEARANCE to me at the time was that we were interrogated just because my friend was black, and yes, it made me angry.</snip> ....

Maybe they see a white dude out late on the street with a black dude in a nieghborhood where that combination usually means trouble, drugs, prostitution,robbery etc. You fit a profile you got checked out. Big deal. They didn't shove a billy club up your rectum or beat your friend did they?
In my town there are some black neighborhoods that if a white person goes in there they get stopped coming out...why? Drugs. They fit a profile, driving while white from a black neighborhood...
Have you ever been stopped at a random DUI stop? You fit the profile...you were driving a car at night!
As I said before, anyone boarding a plane in this day and age should be savy enough to know if they fit a profile they will be singled out. As long as the track record of terrorist hijackers is 100% narrow profile those in that narrow group will have to suck it up. There is no right to be un-offended!

If you ask me, screening someone because of their race is a bad idea. Even if the race being screened don't mind the screening, the other races will feel superior to them.

Will Robinson wrote:

Kilarin wrote:According to the 2000 census, 3.5 million Americans are of Arab descent. And how many have been involved in terrorism so far? The only source I could find with a quick search didn't seem exactly unbiased, but they said that not one Arab-American had been convicted of any terrorist related crime. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but lets say there were even 10 Arab-Americans who we had found to be involved in terrorism. Thats 1 in 350,000.

Yea, and according to recent history every single sucessful terrorist to bring down a plane full of victims has been a middle eastern decent male approximately 17 to 27 years old with a foriegn passport! That's 100%!!! Aren't statistics fun? So while your reason for not screening your target has at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened my reason for screening will be 100% effective in including any terrorist until they change tactics and find some one outside their profile to do the deed! Which is not as easy as you might want us to believe.

1: There's a difference between an Arab-American and a middle eastern decent male approximately 17 to 27 years old with a foreign passport. Either you two (in this case Kilarin) talk about the same cases, or stop arguing over something like this!
2: Will, how did you get that "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened" out of his post?

TIGERassault wrote:1: There's a difference between an Arab-American and a middle eastern decent male approximately 17 to 27 years old with a foreign passport. Either you two (in this case Kilarin) talk about the same cases, or stop arguing over something like this!

We are talking about the same thing, screening people and which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers. What's wrong with the discussion?

TIGERassault wrote:2: Will, how did you get that "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened" out of his post?

It was his estimate of how many arab americans could actually be terrorists, (probably based on recent arrests) within the total population of arab americans. Talk to him if you think his math is bad.
It was just a point of discussion, the actual numbers don't have to be right on the money for the purposes of him making his point, just the fact that the ratio was extremely low was what he wanted to get across. I understood him, I think you didn't though....

Will Robinson wrote:We are talking about the same thing, screening people and which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers. What's wrong with the discussion?

He didn't say anything about which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers in his post.

Will Robinson wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:2: Will, how did you get that "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened" out of his post?

It was his estimate of how many arab americans could actually be terrorists, (probably based on recent arrests) within the total population of arab americans. Talk to him if you think his math is bad.
It was just a point of discussion, the actual numbers don't have to be right on the money for the purposes of him making his point, just the fact that the ratio was extremely low was what he wanted to get across. I understood him, I think you didn't though....

But he said that atan Arab-American has at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of being a terrorist, which is entirely different to "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened".

I love this debate. Will someone let me know when I've won it?

Kilarin wrote:The only point of the story was that Ethnic profiling is not as simple as people think. Your net WILL catch a lot of people you did not intend to. Even when you get the correct ethnic profile, you will always hit more "good guys" than "bad guys" because the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a fantastically wide margin.

Bold Deceiver wrote:when you say "net" and "hit more 'good guys' than 'bad guys'". Are you talking about screening non-terrorists, detaining non-terrorists, arresting non-terrorists, or convicting non-terrororists?

Screening. Whatever you use as your procedure for deciding who needs extra screening will screen more non-terrorist than terrorist, obviously.

It's not obvious from your writing, if that's what you mean. First, I am not suggesting that profiling be solely limited to pulling Muslems out of an airport screening line for ... additional screening. I want an expansive use of ethnic profiling that catches them before they even get to the airport, or the bus terminal, or the train station, or whereever. But sticking with the airport line scenario, I agree that whatever procedure used will screen more terrorists than non-terrorists.

Kilarin wrote:Why subject a particular American ethnic group to this if there aren't any appreciable benefits.

This is our point of dispute: "appreciable benefits" . You believe the following to be true:

There is no logical reason to scrutinize one specific ethnic group over any other group, even if the extremist elements of the more closely scrutinized group seek to destroy us.

I think that is beyond ridiculous.

Kilarin wrote:I picked Black Americans because most white people are more uncomfortable descriminating against them than they descriminating against Arab Americans.

Hmm... the race card. Are you sure you didn't vote for Kerry in '04?

Kilarin wrote:Seriously though, you'd have to know a lot more about security before your opinion of Mr. Scheiener mattered.

Don't get snippy, mister. You're just disappointed because your "expert" turned out to be something less than you what you held him out to be, and the "MIT Study" turned out to be a class paper.

And for the record, I have a Juris Doctor degree -- I am licensed to practice law in Texas and California, and I make my living deposing, examining, and ultimately shredding people who hold themselves out as "experts". It might be the most rewarding part of my job. AND I'm a member in good standing of the DBB, AND I once had a few beers with Koolbear. So BD's opinion MATTERS baby.

BD

Will Robinson wrote:every sucessful terrorist to hijack a plane in recent times was a young male carrying a Saudi Arabian or Egyptian passport who appeared to be from the middle eastern part of the world

TIGERassault wrote:There's a difference between an Arab-American and a middle eastern decent male approximately 17 to 27 years old with a foreign passport

Nothing wrong with the discussion, but yes, we do seem to have a possible misunderstanding here. I have been focusing on screening American Citizens. I'm much less worried about any profiling done on citizens of other countries.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You believe the following to be true:There is no logical reason to scrutinize one specific ethnic group over any other group, even if the extremist elements of the more closely scrutinized group seek to destroy us.

Not what I said. I said that ethnic profiling has not proven to be very successful, there are actually some valid arguments that it reduces security, and it has negative effects that must be taken into account. You would have to demonstrate that the benefits outweighed the negatives. Can you point to any study or examples showing that ethnic profiling has been successful?

Bold Deceiver wrote:the "MIT Study" turned out to be a class paper.

You'll note I specifically linked to an article that disagreed with the MIT study.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You're just disappointed because your "expert" turned out to be something less than you what you held him out to be

Because the ACLU printed one of his essays? ha! Nope, I'll stick by my original assessment.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I have a Juris Doctor degree -- I am licensed to practice law in Texas and California

Oh! I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I'll be certain to use small words and explain things several times from now on.

Seriously though. I'm a Bruce Schneier fan, but I'm not a Bruce Schneier apologist. If you want to question his expertise, go right ahead. I doubt if it will disturb Mr. Schneier in the least.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You believe the following to be true:There is no logical reason to scrutinize one specific ethnic group over any other group, even if the extremist elements of the more closely scrutinized group seek to destroy us.

Kilarin wrote:Not what I said. I said that ethnic profiling has not proven to be very successful . . .

Other than the purple pony-tailed cryptologist, whom you have failed to qualify as an expert on the issue of profiling as a tool against terrorism, you provide no "proof" at all for this proposition.

Kilarin wrote:I there are actually some valid arguments that it reduces security . . .

Based on the leftist meanderings of a well-meaning computer guru, and based on a false construct of profiling to the exclusion of other methodologies.

Kilarin wrote: . . . and it has negative effects that must be taken into account.

This is the part that really troubles you. You're sensitive, I get it. That's nice. The rest is rubbish. I'm not troubled by those negative effects in the context of a war; you are.

Kilarin wrote:You would have to demonstrate that the benefits outweighed the negatives. Can you point to any study or examples showing that ethnic profiling has been successful?

As I said, I'm not the one troubled by it, and as other posters have remarked -- I'm not here to do your homework for you. You might start with Israel, though.

BD

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We are talking about the same thing, screening people and which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers. What's wrong with the discussion?

He didn't say anything about which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers in his post.

Does that mean no one else is allowed to raise the issue? Really, what exactly are you so unhappy with on this point? Be specific please.

TIGERassault wrote: But he said that atan Arab-American has at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of being a terrorist, which is entirely different to "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened".

If you aren't just trying to be obtuse then your answer lies in re-reading the related posts again...

Will Robinson wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We are talking about the same thing, screening people and which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers. What's wrong with the discussion?

He didn't say anything about which ones are more likely to be al Queda type hijackers in his post.

Does that mean no one else is allowed to raise the issue? Really, what exactly are you so unhappy with on this point? Be specific please.

I'm unhappy about another argument degenerating into people comparing completely different things in an attempt to satisfy their opinions, and the argument will have no end because you can supply an entirely true fact that isn't actually relevant to virtually any argument, so that it's impossible to reach an actual outcome.

Will Robinson wrote:

TIGERassault wrote: But he said that atan Arab-American has at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of being a terrorist, which is entirely different to "at least a 1 in 350,000 chance of letting a terrorist go unscreened".

If you aren't just trying to be obtuse then your answer lies in re-reading the related posts again...

I did. Now I have no idea what you mean.

Tiger, it's pretty simple really. Kilarin implied that only a very few arab american were terrorists and based on that he didn't think we should profile them. I said that although the number of arab americans who were also terrorists is low, all the recent attacks were perpetrated by arab men so we definitely should include them in a profile for more rigorous screening.

By not including them we would be failing to increase the odds of catching arab american terrorists so whatever the number is that is the number that would be scrutinized 100% of the time under my plan and that is the number that would not be under Kilarins plan.

No one is comparing anything as far as I can see. We are talking about people fitting a profile and whether or not arab americans should be subject to making the profile.

Will Robinson wrote:Tiger, it's pretty simple really. Kilarin implied that only a very few arab american were terrorists and based on that he didn't think we should profile them. I said that although the number of arab americans who were also terrorists is low, all the recent attacks were perpetrated by arab men so we definitely should include them in a profile for more rigorous screening.

By not including them we would be failing to increase the odds of catching arab american terrorists so whatever the number is that is the number that would be scrutinized 100% of the time under my plan and that is the number that would not be under Kilarins plan.

No one is comparing anything as far as I can see. We are talking about people fitting a profile and whether or not arab americans should be subject to making the profile.

Ah, yes. If I understand you correctly, you have ignored Kilarin's figures on Arab-Americans for whatever reason. Otherwise, I still dont think I understand you.

In the post 9/11 era, I have been on roughly 45-50 flights for work / leisure. I have been \"randomly\" selected for secondary searches 31 times. In those 31 times, how many people did they pass up that actually fit some sort of profile? If they want to do it, fine, but actually screen the right profile. 80 year old grandmas being patted down is just disgusting, not comforting.

TIGERassault wrote:Ah, yes. If I understand you correctly, you have ignored Kilarin's figures on Arab-Americans for whatever reason. Otherwise, I still dont think I understand you.

What the hell did I ignore?! He stated that very few per capita were actually terrorists. I acknowledged that point and accepted his estimates for the discussion. I used his estimates when comparing the pro's and con's of profiling people that would include arab americans or not including them....

Are there other figures about arab americans that he posted and I have ignored? I've looked and don't see them.

And for the record, I have a Juris Doctor degree -- I am licensed to practice law in Texas and California, and I make my living deposing, examining, and ultimately shredding people who hold themselves out as \"experts\". It might be the most rewarding part of my job. AND I'm a member in good standing of the DBB, AND I once had a few beers with Koolbear. So BD's opinion MATTERS baby

What relevance does this have to this topic? My sister is a lawyer (she got her J.D. from Northwestern, I'm sure you got yours from a far lesser school) and she has a much more open mind than you do. That's sort of why I've always believed you to be full of it BD. I know quite a few lawyers who do not have this twisted view of reality that you love toting around.

For the record, I received my Masters degree from the University of Chicago and work now for a multi-billion dollar investment firm. Let's all measure our c.ocks now huh?

Zuruck wrote:And for the record, I have a Juris Doctor degree -- I am licensed to practice law in Texas and California, and I make my living deposing, examining, and ultimately shredding people who hold themselves out as "experts". It might be the most rewarding part of my job. AND I'm a member in good standing of the DBB, AND I once had a few beers with Koolbear. So BD's opinion MATTERS baby

What relevance does this have to this topic?

Sure, right, couple of quick points on that:

(1) I enjoy bragging about my credentials strangers who may never be able to verify whether I'm telling the truth, of course; and

(2) Consider reading the triggering post; specifically, the one preceding where Kilarin says I'm not qualified to opine on the qualifications of his security expert. Go on, get going. Before you hyperventilate.

Zuruck wrote:My sister is a lawyer (she got her J.D. from Northwestern, I'm sure you got yours from a far lesser school) . . . .

I'll bet the girls were prettier at my school.... Probably a fair bit more fun, too, if your gene pool is any indication.

Zuruck wrote:That's sort of why I've always believed you to be full of it BD.

I breathlessly await your critical analysis ....

Zuruck wrote:I know quite a few lawyers who do not have this twisted view of reality that you love toting around.

Really? Maybe I should attend those nutty ABA conventions more often to get the proper talking points. Thanks so much for enlightening me.

Zuruck wrote:For the record, I received my Masters degree from the University of Chicago and work now for a multi-billion dollar investment firm.

Say that is impressive. Not sure how that's relevant here though. Maybe you can start another thread on this in the PTMC Cafe entitled "Investment Strategies - A View From the Mailroom", or some such thing? Anyway, don't hate yourself for selling out to the Man, you corporate laddermaster you.

BD

Will Robinson wrote:Tiger, it's pretty simple really. Kilarin implied that only a very few arab american were terrorists and based on that he didn't think we should profile them. I said that although the number of arab americans who were also terrorists is low, all the recent attacks were perpetrated by arab men so we definitely should include them in a profile for more rigorous screening.

Utterly ridiculous Will, and you'd know that if you were an MIT grad student or a pony-tailed ACLU-published cryptologist. You're neither. Stop trying to drag common-sense into this thing.

Really.

BD

Zuruck wrote:Let's all measure our c.ocks now huh?

Mine is 4 inches /off topic

Bold Deciever wrote:Utterly ridiculous Will, and you'd know that if you were an MIT grad student or a pony-tailed ACLU-published cryptologist.

Is insulting Mr. Schneier's hair style the best you can do? And being published by the ACLU certainly doesn't disqualify him. He's also been quoted by the Washington Times, so what? It seems your main argument is that if you don't like someone's opinions, you will ridicule them. Sorry, like I said, you'll have to do better than that.

Kilarin wrote:Can you point to any study or examples showing that ethnic profiling has been successful?

Bold Deceiver wrote:As I said, I'm not the one troubled by it, and as other posters have remarked -- I'm not here to do your homework

I DID my homework. I've presented not only my opinion, but also the opinion of a world wide acknowledged security expert. Where are the experts backing up your opinion? That's YOUR homework, not mine.

Mr. Schneier is undeniably one of the worlds foremost computer security experts. You say this makes his opinion on physical security completely worthless, which is just silly. Securing computer systems and securing physical systems are closely related.

Is Mr. Schneier therefore immune to criticism? Of course not. Experts can make mistakes, and I disagree with Mr. Schneier on occasion myself. But dismissing his ideas because he wears a pony tail is juvenile.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Stop trying to drag common-sense into this thing.

It's not so common anymore. But lets try to get back to it.

Can you name any cases where ethnic profiling has caught a terrorist? None that I'm aware of. Of course, part of the point is just to scare off potential terrorist, but generalized searches seem to do the exact same thing, without the holes.

And, to get down to the brass tacks, would ethnic profiling have prevented any of the airline terrorist attacks that we are aware of? Would it have stopped the terrorist who flew planes into buildings on 911? Nope. Box knives weren't prohibited, that's why they carried them. These guys would have gone right through a full body cavity search and still been able to get on the planes. Now a GOOD "no fly" list might have gotten a few of them, BUT, that's a completely separate issue unrelated to ethnic profiling because its something that we would have applied to every passenger.

So, 911 would NOT have been prevented in any way by ethnic profiling.

What about the shoe bomber? No one had thought to check the lining of a shoe yet, so he would have sailed right through. Of course, a good chemical sniffer could have caught him, but again, that would (hopefully) be something applied to all passengers so it is unrelated to ethnic profiling.

Ethnic profiling would not have stopped the shoe bomber.

What about the most recent "liquid bomb" case? Would ethnic profiling have caught those guys? Highly unlikely. I have not heard any details on exactly how they planned to slip the volatile liquids onto the planes, but judging by what is being searched now (toothpaste tubes, baby bottles, etc), it is probably something that would have slipped right through even an enhanced search. That's why they picked that method.

Ethnic profiling would (probably) not have stopped the "liquid bomb" terrorist.

Now, like I said, I feel MUCH less disturbed about profiling non-American citizens. BUT, I'm not convinced it will help much because the terrorist generally don't bring on anything that would be caught in a security search.

And this is the point. Terrorist look at what kind of security you have set up, and look for away around it. In all three of these cases they found systems that could walk right through security. That's why we want to make our security responses as broad as possible.

The specific "whack-a-mole" response of searching shoes for explosives does not provide the same level of protection as a generalized checking for chemical traces. Checking for traces of explosives anywhere on the passengers will not only find explosives in their shoes, but also in many other places they might choose to hide them.

Attempting to ban any item that could conceivably be used as a weapon always leaves some weapon available that the terrorist can walk right through security with. Installing more secure doors on the cockpit protects the pilots from MANY kinds of weapons, including weapons that no one in airport security have yet thought of.

My argument is NOT that we shouldn't have airport security, its only that we need to have SMART airport security. Lets take Drakona's example of the lock on her front door. It's true, it won't stop a determined criminal. BUT, a lock is a GENERALIZED defense. It forces ANYONE who wants to get in without the key to have to BREAK in. Having people walk through a metal detector is analogous to having a lock on your front door. Sure, there are ways around it, but it defends against a broad range of attacks and makes the terrorist have to work much harder. Banning nail clippers is a specific (and silly) defense that is more like leaving your front door wide open.

Terrorist look at what kind of security you have set up, and look for away around it.

Same with all security systems.

Having people walk through a metal detector is analogous to having a lock on your front door.... Banning nail clippers is a specific (and silly) defense that is more like leaving your front door wide open.

No... better stated, it's more like calling the cops whenever you see that teenager with the yellow hat hanging out near the bushes late at night. As long as you don't take away the metal detectors, you still have a door lock.

Not all of your defenses can be door locks / generalized. You need to use an overall defensive strategy that includes generalized defenses AND specific defenses to deter and/or catch specific individuals. For example, my apartment has a door lock. There's also a remote/code activated entry gate for autos, and a walk-in gate that doesn't actually lock but deters people from trying to walk in. These are all generalized defenses. I also have some specific defenses -- I have a phone and can call the cops if I see \"shady figures\" walking around. I wouldn't call the cops on just anybody standing around, only on people who fit a specific profile (which, in this case, doesn't include ethnicity since I'm worried about random crime rather than jihad... but would include ethnicity if, say, a group of Japanese people had threatened me.)

Now, I totally agree that some defenses we've tried are stupid overreactions. Banning nail clippers, for example, which is GENERAL (since EVERYONE is subject to it) is stupid. Giving extra scrutiny to people who fit certain profiles, whether before or after they arrive at the airport, which is SPECIFIC, is not stupid.

Back to business --

Kilarin wrote:Is insulting Shneier's hair style the best you can do? And being published by the ACLU certainly doesn't disqualify him.

It wouldn't bother me if he had a nose-ring. Its just easier to profile people like Schneier when they wear pony-tails.

He has a privacy-before-security, liberal agenda. This fact is born out in his publications for the ACLU and elsewhere. Schneier argument against the use of ethnicity as a component of overall homeland security is (1) driven by his privacy agenda, and (2) just plain silly by any standard of common sense.

The fact that he makes the hearts of liberals everywhere go pitter-pat is unimpressive to me. He is apparently using his notoriety for code-writing brilliance as a platform for opining on subjects for which he is not qualified. And for the sake of argument, I presume he is the world's foremost software code cryptologist, as you believe him to be. Again, I have a damned good locksmith, but I wouldn't rely on him for counter-terrorism advice. I've made this point to you a few times now, it's really not all that subtle. I hope you're just feigning ignorance.

Kilarin wrote:Can you point to any study or examples showing that ethnic profiling has been successful?

Israel. Second time I've answered the question.

Kilarin wrote:Where are the experts backing up your opinion?

Ahh, I'm not the one trying to disprove that which most people hold is simply rational: if Muslims are attacking your country, you should be able to use that fact as a component to enhance your counterterrorism program.

Besides, I've already pointed you to Israel, a nation who systemically profiles as part of its counterterrorism. You chose to ignore that difficult fact. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a hijacking of an El Al flight in about 30 years.

Take a look at Rafi Ron. He was former Security Director at Ben Gurion Airport and chief in charge of security in the Israeli Airport Authority. He was in charge of all aspects of the Israeli airport security including security assessment and risk analysis, security planning and development, commanding all security operational units, identifying, negotiating, purchasing, and implementing new technologies, et cetera. In addition, he was in charge of more than 2,000 security personnel who were working at Ben-Gurion Airport.

Currently he is the Chief Executive Officer of New Age Aviation Security and directly in charge of the professional side of the company's performance. He is also a member of ACI's (Airports Council International) World Standing Security Committee and a member of GASAG (Global Aviation Security Action Group), which was initiated by IATA (International Air Transport Association). He was a paratrooper officer in IDF (Israeli Defense Force) who took part in multiple combat activities; and he served as one of the early EL-AL sky marshals. He also served as a Chief Security Officer in Israeli Embassies in various parts of the world. He spent twenty years in Israel's Prime Minister Office as an operational intelligence and special operations officer and retired at the U.S. equivalent rank of full Colonel.

Ron testified before Congress in 2002 regarding Israeli method profiling -- which I think is probably the state of the art. Its policy does not exclude race, ethnicity, nationality or anything else, as far as I know, as a component of profiling.

Ron believes random checks are useful but only to a point --

Rafi Ron testifying before Congress wrote:I oppose the idea of random checks as a main method. As an additional method they are okay. But as the main method they are completely wrong because as it was described earlier, they lead to cases like this morning's case, where a decorated second world war General, 84-years old, which I think we all agree is not only a waste of time, but if I look at this incident this morning, I would assume that probably between seven to ten people were involved in this incident, in dealing with all the implications of this incident.
These ten people should have been looking for the Richard Reids of this world, and not wasting their time in dealing with an unintelligent decision to confiscate the Congressional Medal from a Second World War hero.

Kilarin wrote:Mr. Schneier is undeniably one of the worlds foremost computer security experts.

And when the topic of computer security comes up, I'll take notes. His opinion isn't worthless to me. It's just not authoritative or probative in this context -- despite your weak offering that somehow physical security and computer code-security are all the same. Please.

Kilarin wrote:Can you name any cases where ethnic profiling has caught a terrorist?

Can you name any jihadists who aren't Muslim? Say, this question game is fun....

Kilarin wrote: And, to get down to the brass tacks, would ethnic profiling have prevented any of the airline terrorist attacks that we are aware of? Would it have stopped the terrorist who flew planes into buildings on 911? Nope. Box knives weren't prohibited, that's why they carried them.

You might be right, back then. We're not talking about back then, we're talking about now. You also continue to deploy narrow, facile reasoning. Here, you assume that the only criteria for profiling is racial or ethnic. Can you imagine using other criteria - say, what's with the maps and how come there's more than one of you carrying boxcutters on board?

Kilarin wrote:What about the shoe bomber? No one had thought to check the lining of a shoe yet, so he would have sailed right through . . . . Ethnic profiling would not have stopped the shoe bomber.

Oh really?

Rafi Ron, testifying to Congress in 2/2002 wrote: Richard Reid flew to Israel by El-Al [in July of 2001], before he boarded the American Airline flight from Paris. Through profiling he was singled out and checked from hair to sole. He was found out clean and was allowed to board the aircraft. That information was conveyed to the air marshal on board and he was properly seated, not very far from the air marshal so the air marshal could keep an eye on him during the flight.

Gee I wonder, when Israel profiled him, whether they considered the fact he was (1) Muslim, and (2) looked for all the world like all your favorite jihadists? D'ya think?

Kilarin wrote:Ethnic profiling would (probably) not have stopped the "liquid bomb" terrorist.

Your credibility on these kinds of predictions has recently been undermined. You might want to wait a bit before you offer any more.

Kilarin wrote:Banning nail clippers is a specific (and silly) defense that is more like leaving your front door wide open.

I'm not part of the nail-clipper debate. I think the Israeli-style profiling is where we should be heading. I'll bet you'd agree with a good bit of it, if you took the effort to look at it.

BD

I think you will find that there was a racial/ethnic/religious affiliation component to watching and investigating the liquid bomb plotters. And it's been reported that the wire tapping and internet monitoring methods used wouldn't be allowed by U.S. laws...
Yet there is no end of euroweenies who like to pop up with comments about how we americans are giving away our freedoms. Heh!
I especially like it when the german contingent of those self righteous whiners talk about how oppressive and bigotted we are here while their politicians are debating expelling muslims and all sorts of other ideas on immigration due to the overwhelming evidence that they have a serious problem with the kinds of people that are swarming their country.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Take a look at Rafi Ron.

Ah, good! an actual expert on your side. We are making progress here!

Bold Deceiver wrote:You might be right, back then. We're not talking about back then, we're talking about now. You also continue to deploy narrow, facile reasoning.

Nope. You're not listening. The point is that the terrorist aren't coming on to the planes with items they think will be detected, even by a thorough search. When you change the criteria, they change what they bring on board. So "back then" IS now.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Here, you assume that the only criteria for profiling is racial or ethnic. Can you imagine using other criteria - say, what's with the maps and how come there's more than one of you carrying boxcutters on board?

If you'll remember, I've been PROMOTING behavior based profiling.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Gee I wonder, when Israel profiled him, whether they considered the fact he was (1) Muslim, and (2) looked for all the world like all your favorite jihadists? D'ya think?

Interesting point here. Reid was in no way Arabic. He is half Jamaican and Half English. So, are you stating that the USA should profile based on religion?

Bold Deceiver wrote:That information was conveyed to the air marshal on board and he was properly seated, not very far from the air marshal so the air marshal could keep an eye on him during the flight.

Yes, air marshals are very expensive, but they work. Of course, the Reid case does demonstrate that citizens CAN be effective in stopping terrorists. But I certainly have no objections to air marshals. The profiling in this case, however, doesn't seem to have accomplished anything. And unless they were using chemical sniffers, wouldn't have caught anything even if Reid had been wearing his shoe bombs. And if they were using chemical sniffers, why would they need to profile?

Bold Deceiver wrote:His opinion isn't worthless to me. It's just not authoritative or probative in this context -- despite your weak offering that somehow physical security and computer code-security are all the same

Not the same, but very closely connected. Do you have any experience with computer security? If you don't have physical security, your computer isn't secure. And almost all physical security systems now involve computer elements. The two are all tangled up together into one big whole. All on top of the fact that many of the goals and even methods are closely related. Which is why Homeland Security asked Schneier to be one of the security experts to evaluate "Secure Flight" for them.

Bold Deceiver wrote:He has a privacy-before-security, liberal agenda.

Yes, he IS in favor of privacy. So were our founding fathers...

<cue "God Bless America">

Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, yes, these men were familiar with a government that invaded it's citizens privacy in the name of "security". In order to secure the colony against the ravishes of the French, and against internal attacks from terrorist rebels, the English could invade any home at any time. Our founding fathers found this to be UNACCEPTABLE! And thats why the wrote:

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.

<Cue Flag Image>

This country was FOUNDED upon the principle that the government should stay OUT of your business unless it had darn good reason to suspect you were doing something illegal. And even then, they had to follow procedures and get a warrant. This country was begun on a firm foundation of the privacy of every individual, and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Terrorist are an important risk, but not as dangerous to us as our own government. The Founding Fathers recognized that we give our governments power over us, and that makes them a constant threat, so they built in checks and bal lances to help keep that government under control. When we abandon that notion, when we expand the powers of the government at the expense of personal privacy, We open the door to the same abuses that caused the "Son's Of Liberty" to rebel.

<Cue Fireworks>

Privacy is as American as Mother, Apple Pie, and George Washingtons wooden teeth! To denigrate it to a "liberal agenda" is to bring down Benjamin Franklin's curse upon us:

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Hey, these Hip-Waders are working great ...

Bold Deceiver wrote:You might be right, back then. We're not talking about back then, we're talking about now. You also continue to deploy narrow, facile reasoning. Here, you assume that the only criteria for profiling is racial or ethnic.

Kilarin wrote:Nope. You're not listening. The point is that the terrorist aren't coming on to the planes with items they think will be detected, even by a thorough search. When you change the criteria, they change what they bring on board. So "back then" IS now.

Ok. First, I don't have any idea what you are talking about, but on this thread we're discussing profiling policies in the wake of 911 and other recent terrorist attacks.

Second, the profiling strategy you are presently attacking is an all-inclusive one; no details to be ignored as a matter of law. Hello? Yet you seek to BAR the use of profiling indicators you find offensive to your sensitivities (race, religion, ethnicity, weaponry stuffed in the Koran, lord knows what else). Then you point to the indicators YOU find offensive, hold them out in isolation, and say "that'll never work, terrorists will just change their tactics".

Do you understand just how logically backward the argument you are trying make here? I'm not sure you getting this yet....

Kilarin wrote:If you'll remember, I've been PROMOTING behavior based profiling.

Kilarin's Circular Retort: Nope. You're not listening. The point is that the terrorists aren't coming on to the planes engaged in behavior they think will be detected, even by thorough scrutiny. When you change the criteria, they change what their behavior.

Dang. Behavior-based profiling seemed like such a good idea too. Damn. Won't work. Gotta throw it out.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Gee I wonder, when Israel profiled him, whether they considered the fact he was (1) Muslim, and (2) looked for all the world like all your favorite jihadists? D'ya think?

Kilarin wrote:Interesting point here. Reid was in no way Arabic. He is half Jamaican and Half English.

Open your eyes, and you shall see.

Kilarin wrote:So, are you stating that the USA should profile based on religion?

Hmm, lets see. YES.

Rafi Ron to Congress in February of 2002 wrote: Richard Reid flew to Israel by El-Al [in July of 2001], before he boarded the American Airline flight from Paris. Through profiling he was singled out and checked from hair to sole. He was found out clean and was allowed to board the aircraft. That information was conveyed to the air marshal on board and he was properly seated, not very far from the air marshal so the air marshal could keep an eye on him during the flight.

Kilarin wrote:The profiling in this case . . . doesn't seem to have accomplished anything.

You misunderstand. Reid wasn't attacking anyone on the El AL Flight in July of 2001 -- so there was no weaponry to find. His attack on the American Airlines Flight 63 was a half-year later. So in fact, the "profiling" was rather effective in the sense they screened and identified a terrorist, albeit one who wasn't in the process of committing a terrorist act.

Bold Deceiver wrote:His opinion isn't worthless to me. It's just not authoritative or probative in this context -- despite your weak offering that somehow physical security and computer code-security are all the same

Kilarin wrote:Not the same, but very closely connected. Do you have any experience with computer security? If you don't have physical security, your computer isn't secure.

Please. You have to save yourself here. Really.

Bold Deceiver wrote:[Richard Schneier] has a privacy-before-security, liberal agenda.

Kilarin wrote:Yes, he IS in favor of privacy. So were our founding fathers...

The Constitution is not a suicide pact; and

The Left Will Get You Killed,

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:the profiling strategy you are presently attacking is an all-inclusive one

Uhm, no. The profiling policy I was attacking was one based physical characteristics, specifically on race, but I'll happily add religious profiling to the list. I've stated all along that profiling based on BEHAVIOR has had repeated successes. Profiling based on race has not shown any such successes and may very well be distracting the searchers from behavioral clues they need to be looking for.

And no, Behavior is NOT as easy to change as what kind of weapons you bring on board. It's very easy to control what you carry onto a plane. It's very difficult NOT to be nervous when you are about to kill yourself.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You misunderstand. Reid wasn't attacking anyone on the El AL Flight in July of 2001 -- so there was no weaponry to find.

No, I didn't misunderstand. I said:

Kilarin wrote:unless they were using chemical sniffers, wouldn't have caught anything EVEN IF Reid had been wearing his shoe bombs. And if they were using chemical sniffers, why would they need to profile?

Kilarin wrote:Reid was in no way Arabic. He is half Jamaican and Half English.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Open your eyes, and you shall see.

You aren't actually claiming Reid was Arabic are you? Surely not.
So you must be claiming that he is suspicious because of his hair and beard? Your "profiling" list is expanding quite a bit.

Kilarin wrote:So, are you stating that the USA should profile based on religion?

Bold Deceiver wrote:Hmm, lets see. YES.

So then, should we insist that everyone declare their religion before they are allowed on the plane? How can we prove they didn't lie? Do we need a national registry for Muslims? What other religions should we add to the list?

Bold Deceiver wrote:The Constitution is not a suicide pact;

So then, anything that improves security nullifies any constitutional concerns? MANY more people are killed by criminals within the United States than be terrorist. Orders of Magnitude more. If we just got rid of those annoying warrants, the police could do a better job of stopping the criminals. Heck, what about just disarming the criminals, no guns or knives would at least make it HARDER for the bad guys to kill 16 thousand or so people a year. After all, the constitution isn't a suicide pact!

Bold Deceiver wrote:The Left Will Get You Killed

And the Right has forgotten it's roots and is now the party arguing that we should just trust that Big and Powerful government. They love us. They have our best interest at heart, and they will take care of all our problems.

Phooey on both the Left AND the Right.

Pass the pretzels.

Kilarin wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:the profiling strategy you are presently attacking is an all-inclusive one

Uhm, no. The profiling policy I was attacking was one based physical characteristics. . .

Umm, no. Profiling is used to create a summary or collection of information about a person. If you exclude a component (say, race or ethnicity), you are attacking its all-inclusive nature, to the exclusion of the offensive component. Willful ignorance isn't going to help you here.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You misunderstand. Reid wasn't attacking anyone on the El AL Flight in July of 2001 -- so there was no weaponry to find.

Kilarin wrote:No, I didn't misunderstand. I said: unless they were using chemical sniffers, wouldn't have caught anything EVEN IF Reid had been wearing his shoe bombs. And if they were using chemical sniffers, why would they need to profile?

You still don't get it. He didn't have shoe bombs, yet the program correctly selected him as a terrorist. He was searched from head to toe. Since he had no weapons, but was still deemed suspicious, an air marshal was seated near him to observe and presumably preclude him from engaging in acts of terrorism.

You deem catching a terrorist who isn't in the act of terrorism a failure of security. I view it as an incredible success. I also think your assessment of failure here is utterly inexplicable.

Kilarin wrote:Reid was in no way Arabic. He is half Jamaican and Half English.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Open your eyes, and you shall see.

Kilarin wrote:You aren't actually claiming Reid was Arabic are you? Surely not.
So you must be claiming that he is suspicious because of his hair and beard? Your "profiling" list is expanding quite a bit.

"Expanding"? I'm seriously beginning to question your capabilities here on this point. Say it with me, maybe that will help: "the profiling strategy Kilarin is attacking is an all-inclusive one". I'll try saying it a different way: I advocate profiling that excludes nothing in terms of indicators that are probative on the question of terrorism. That would includes race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

That your sensitivities are offended when profiling includes the use of racial, ethnic, and religious components is fine for the coffee bars or whereever. It's silly in the context of making national security policy in a time of war.

And yes, I understand Richard Reid was a Muslim born of a Jamaican father and British mother.

Kilarin wrote:So then, should we insist that everyone declare their religion before they are allowed on the plane? How can we prove they didn't lie? Do we need a national registry for Muslims? What other religions should we add to the list?

No. Moot. No. Whichever are necessary.

Kilarin wrote:So then, anything that improves security nullifies any constitutional concerns?

No. Constitutional concerns must be balanced against the need to protect U.S. citizens from, in this instance, foreign attack. The Supreme Court has recognized this simple concept in the past. You do not, and I accept that. That's why your party will never, ever be taken seriously. How many libertarian Congressmen are there, exactly?

You question where this will lead, and wonder if "anything that improves security nullifies any constitutional concerns?" -- this is classic liberal black-and-white hyperbole. You say "MANY more people are killed by criminals within the United States than be [sic] terrorist. Orders of Magnitude more. If we just got rid of those annoying warrants, the police could do a better job of stopping the criminals." This statement reveals a fundamental difference between the left and the right.

The left (and on this issue, you are on the left) does not believe that terrorism constitutes a grave threat to the security of the United States. The right does. Some 62 million people died in World War II, which dwarfs whatever number you'll find on victims of domestic criminal slayings. When and if the number of criminal slayings rise to the level that the protections afforded citizens by the Fourth Amendment are deemed self-destructive, then our constitutional process provides a remedy. It's called a constitutional amendment.

Where we are is World War III (or World War IV, depending on how you view the Cold War). This war will go on for a very, very long time. It will probably outdistance the Cold War.

It is my view and the view of most rational people I know that the rule of law you support -- a law prohibiting the use of race, religion, or ethnicity as a component of profiling at a time when we are under attack from members of group largely identifiable by just such means -- is patently ridiculous.

Kilarin wrote:Phooey on both the Left AND the Right.

Ah. This is the call for Libertarian retreat. But then I'm being redundant.

BD

Bold Deciever wrote:Where we are is World War III (or World War IV, depending on how you view the Cold War). This war will go on for a very, very long time. It will probably outdistance the Cold War.

BUT, WHAT is the war?, since Congress doesn't have the testicular fortitude to actually DECLARE them any more.

Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is a war. Fighting Saddam, and now the insurgents in Iraq is clearly a war. And it's quite possible we'll be in a war with Iran before too long. We are in SEVERAL wars right now, and the war front will almost certain expand. But this is not the same thing as the "war on terror".

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq might actually END some day. They are against an enemy that can be defeated. Under what circumstances (other than genocide) do you see an end to the "war on terror?"

I think the "war on terror" has much more legitimacy as a cause than the "war on drugs", but its the same KIND of war. Both involve foreign forces who are willing to kidnap, terrorize and kill in order to get their way. Both have no hope of ever being "won". And both are used as excuses for the friends of big government to make government bigger and more powerful.

YES we have to stop the terrorist (both foreign and domestic, don't forget McVeigh). Right now they can only do small damage, but high school biology labs are getting gene sequencers. Iran is building nukes. Sometime in the future, in the NEAR future, the terrorist will have the potential to strike MUCH harder. We DO have to stop them. BUT, I think we can do that without becoming the kind of nation that singles people out to be searched because of their RELIGION. If we can't, then the terrorist have already won.

Kilarin wrote:

Bold Deciever wrote:Where we are is World War III (or World War IV, depending on how you view the Cold War). This war will go on for a very, very long time. It will probably outdistance the Cold War.

BUT, WHAT is the war?, since Congress doesn't have the testicular fortitude to actually DECLARE them any more.

Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is a war. Fighting Saddam, and now the insurgents in Iraq is clearly a war. And it's quite possible we'll be in a war with Iran before too long. We are in SEVERAL wars right now, and the war front will almost certain expand. But this is not the same thing as the "war on terror".

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq might actually END some day. They are against an enemy that can be defeated. Under what circumstances (other than genocide) do you see an end to the "war on terror?"

I think the "war on terror" has much more legitimacy as a cause than the "war on drugs", but its the same KIND of war. Both involve foreign forces who are willing to kidnap, terrorize and kill in order to get their way. Both have no hope of ever being "won". And both are used as excuses for the friends of big government to make government bigger and more powerful.

YES we have to stop the terrorist (both foreign and domestic, don't forget McVeigh). Right now they can only do small damage, but high school biology labs are getting gene sequencers. Iran is building nukes. Sometime in the future, in the NEAR future, the terrorist will have the potential to strike MUCH harder. We DO have to stop them. BUT, I think we can do that without becoming the kind of nation that singles people out to be searched because of their RELIGION. If we can't, then the terrorist have already won.

You just identified the broad scope of the problem, the fluid dynamic of the threat.....then you jumped right off the logic train into touchy feely land!

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the "War on Terror" will have many fronts and over time the most iminent threats may change faces. Right now we're looking for a particular face so we focus more attention on those faces. The enemy hasn't won just because we have to focus that way to maximize our successes!

We're looking for something?
OK what is it, animal, mineral or vegetable?
Ahh animal you say! Good! That narrows it down some.

Now what kind of animal? Two legs you say?!? Great! Human you say? Excellent, now we're getting somewhere!!

Usually darker skin and male from a particular region or has ties to the culture from that region especially the muslims. OK! Now were really narrowing it down! Good thing too because the group was looking rather large there for a minute!

What's that you say? We can't recognize the subset we've identified because some members of that group will be offended?!?

We have to go back a few steps and pretend we don't know what our suspects look like?!?
We have to include millions of other two legged animals that we could easily eliminate from the process? you must be joking!!
Why?!?! This better be a good reason because people will die as a direct result of this bone headed move!
Feelings you say.....FEELINGS...?!?
WTF?!?! Are you insane?!?

Will Robinson wrote:This better be a good reason because people will die as a direct result of this bone headed move! Feelings you say.....FEELINGS...?!?

It's not about feelings. It's about an even greater threat than terrorism. And that threat is a government that thinks it needs to keep a close eye on the religion of it's citizens.

ANY step in that direction terrifies me. NOT because I'm worried about hurting someones feelings, but because we have seen, over and over, what governments do when they move in that direction. The war we are fighting right now is largely based upon the fact that our enemy does not believe in the seperation of Church and State. That is what drives the Islamic Fundamentalists. We can not defeat them by moving closer towards them.

HOW does anyone propose that we implement this "religious" profiling? The simple, logical, and common sense solutions lead in very dangerous directions. Nightmarish ones.

We've been over this before. And like I said before, I'm even more afraid of my own government moving in this direction than I am of the terrorists.

Will Robinson wrote:Are you insane?!?

That is very open for debate.

Kilarin wrote:....It's about an even greater threat than terrorism. And that threat is a government that thinks it needs to keep a close eye on the religion of it's citizens....

Aren't you taking your fear just a weee bit too far there?

I'm guessing we can allow our security agents to be aware of who fits the profile, even a profile that includes followers of islam, and yet not be a government that 'keeps a close eye on the religion of it's citizens'!
Now if its citizen happens to be a male between the age of 17 and 40 and a follower of islam, and is boarding an airplane, then, at that time and only for that time will that citizen be under a close watch by his government.
Once he leaves the plane he can go rape sheep in the mosque of his choosing for all I care and will have no more chance of being observed by the government than a christian sheep rapist!

Kilarin wrote: It's not about feelings. It's about an even greater threat than terrorism. And that threat is a government that thinks it needs to keep a close eye on the religion of it's citizens.

Hmmm...I wonder what the polygamist believing side of the Mormon Church thinks about this?

Will Robinson wrote:Once he leaves the plane he can go rape sheep in the mosque of his choosing for all I care and will have no more chance of being observed by the government than a christian sheep rapist!

Certainly you are aware that there have already been several controversies over whether the government should be spying on mosques without warrants.

And even ignoring that, is it reasonable to profile people getting into a plane, but not profile people anywhere else that we have security checks? What about at football games or courtrooms? The big risk from terrorists is NOT airplanes. They are unlikely to do much more damage that way. The big risk is bio/nuclear/chemical attacks on large congregations of people.

If it is reasonable and justifiable to single out Muslims for searching before they get on airplanes where they pose only a small risk, it MUST be reasonable and justifiable to search them in the places where terrorism poses an astronomically greater risk.

And then we come back to the problem of how to IDENTIFY people by religion. They aren't all of the same race, they don't all dress alike, they don't all mumble prayers as they go through line or carry a Koran. Do we have a national registry? Make them wear a big yellow crescent and star?

Woodchip wrote:Hmmm...I wonder what the polygamist believing side of the Mormon Church thinks about this?

They believe that the government has no qualms about sticking their nose into other peoples business as long as the public will let them.

Don't you find it a bit bizarre that a man can have 12 women living in his home and having sex with him all the time and it's not a crime. BUT, if he has a religious conviction that he must make an oath before God about his relationship with these women, then he goes to jail for it.

The government will take all the power we give it, and then it will push for more. This is a universal rule.

Kilarin wrote:The big risk from terrorists is NOT airplanes. They are unlikely to do much more damage that way....

And you base this on what? So far that has been their target of greatest success, and airplanes have been one of their favorite targets since the 70's! And even in the wake of our stepped up security at the boarding gates they have continued to try to target airplanes!
So I reject your assertion and raise you one of my own. If we hadn't stepped up security watching for another attack on a plane we would most likely have already been hit there and if we noticably relax our efforts regarding airline security they will move like sharks on a blood trail right to their next successful airplane attack!

As to your concerns of how do we know who's really a muslim etc. I use the example of Richard Reid. I think the Israelis took one look at him and said "There's a likely suspect, we better watch him."

For all they knew he was really a mormon on a mission to england to try and convert the british to the chuch of latter day saints! But he looked like a threat so they watched him closely. They probably let some grey haired american grandmother go relatively un-scrutinized on the same flight.
I think they were right in their decision (of course with the benefit of hindsight we know they were right, but trust me I would have been right with them if they had asked me) and I want our security people to be able to make those kind of judgements on the fly anytime they think they spot someone that fits the profile. If it turns out it was really a rabbi carrying a tin of matzo balls home to his mother that they mistakenly profiled I think he'll understand why and not be too upset.

If there was a rash of white guys my age from america carrying out deadly attacks I'd think the security people were pretty damn stupid to let me go unchecked while they, in the pursuit of politically correctness, searched a bunch of black women!

As for other venues as targets, if the security people at a stadium or cafeteria or community swimming pools think they should apply a profile based on recent terrorist activity then let them.
And as soon as al Queda finds a bunch of red headed irishmen to bring their weapons on the next flight or cruise ship or movie theater I would find searching red headed white guys to be a common sense move.

None of those changes would be a cure but they wouldn't be stupid either. Not paying special attention to someone who fits the profile of everyone single person who ever hijacked a plane in the last 20 years well that is stupid!

Kilarin wrote:The big risk from terrorists is NOT airplanes. They are unlikely to do much more damage that way

Will Robinson wrote:And you base this on what? So far that has been their target of greatest success

And if that's all they can do, they are less of a threat to you than drunk drivers, by FAR. If you don't count 911, all of the deaths from terrorist airplane attacks are an insignificant speck. You are in more danger from lightning strikes.

Even counting in 911, the total death count is still pretty small. And 911 won't happen again. Flight 93 PROVED that once passengers understood what was going on, they would be willing to make any sacrifice necessary to stop it. That kind of attack can't happen again that way.

If hijacking/blowing up airplanes is the worst the terrorist can do, then they are not very important. YES they must be stopped, absolutely. Stopped and killed. But the risks are just not that high.

HOWEVER, the terrorist want to do MUCH more than blow up airplanes. And if they figure out how to do it, we could have death totals in the millions. Thank GOODNESS they are almost universally stupid, otherwise they would have hit us some where MUCH more vital already. (asking people to strap explosives on themselves and push the detonator tends to filter out the smart types apparently).

So, to repeat, the risk to this country, and to any individual, from terrorist attacking airplanes is very low. The risk to this country, and to any individual, from terrorist using nuclear/chemical/bio weapons of mass destruction is MUCH higher. If they get their brains turned on and figure out how to do it, we will be in very big trouble.

Will Robinson wrote:As to your concerns of how do we know who's really a muslim etc. I use the example of Richard Reid. I think the Israelis took one look at him and said "There's a likely suspect, we better watch him."

They didn't just base it on how he looked. He was questioned at length, and analyzed on a behavioral basis. MUCH better data to go on.

Will Robinson wrote:As for other venues as targets, if the security people at a stadium or cafeteria or community swimming pools think they should apply a profile based on recent terrorist activity then let them.

Which means, we would need some reliable way for the security guy at the superbowl to detect if you were Arabic (eyeballing is NOT reliable), and if you were Muslim.

The risk from terrorists is significant. The risk from our own government is ALSO significant. The most reliable ways to detect terrorist do not require having a national registry of Muslims, so we can, hopefully, keep both under control.

I'm afraid we are just going in circles on this now. We may have to just agree to disagree.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As to your concerns of how do we know who's really a muslim etc. I use the example of Richard Reid. I think the Israelis took one look at him and said "There's a likely suspect, we better watch him."

They didn't just base it on how he looked. He was questioned at length, and analyzed on a behavioral basis.

... which is exactly what all of us have been saying. Use all of the tools available -- looks, behavior, whatever you happen to know that helps. (Religion can often be determined from behavioral factors; we don't need a national database.)

Lothar wrote:... which is exactly what all of us have been saying. Use all of the tools available -- looks, behavior, whatever you happen to know that helps. (Religion can often be determined from behavioral factors; we don't need a national database.)

Well, at least he figured it out, eventually.