Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

[Divinus Arma]

Thank GOD. I'm glad (*edit) western my government is not completely idiotic (Thanks Ghost, I guess the headline alone caught my eye):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...313135,00.html

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.

The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank GOD. I'm glad my government is not completely idiotic:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...313135,00.html

E, you did see that it was the UK government? Are you moving?

Well, this just proves how governments manipulate opinion. The article gives the impression that these discussions are new in the UK.

The profiling outlined has been done for years and years. I was trained in it back in the early eighties. Utter propaganda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

[Pannonian]

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

[King Ragnar]

Its a very good idea i mean it seems a bit stupid searching a non muslim family say a white british family of 4, waste of time to be honest when a single muslim man poses the much greater threat....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.

[Pannonian]

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.

If the individuals we profile are as a result of concrete information or tip-offs from their communities, we can hardly be blamed if those individuals are exclusively Muslims. The public shouldn't have access to a list of exactly which individuals are profiled anyway, just a general description of the policy.

[Papewaio]

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

That is exactly my point, why are you picking on me.

At what point did I say Muslim=Arab, or Pakistani=Muslim.

If you look further back you'll see I actually made a reference to my Christian Arab friends.

Profiling is no good at airports because you're assuming you can profile on looks. If there is a serious risk you check EVERYONE.

Profiling is good in investigation and in investiagtion of Muslim terroism you can discount everyone who is not a Muslim.

[Aenlic]

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's one time Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is a Chaldean Catholic.

The cognitive dissonance setting in among certain parties to this thread is going to be almost audible now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Whats your point?

He unlikely to be involved in Jihad?

He's an Arab and a Christian?