I guess this isn't really a new topic, but I'm currently reading CRAZIES TO THE LEFT OF ME, WIMPS TO THE RIGHT OF ME, by Bernard Goldberg. I found his take on airport security very interesting.

Here it is:

On Ethnic Profiling at our Airports.

Yes, I'm for it.

I spend too much time at airports and when I see 85 year old grandmas getting the once over by security guys...I'm thinking: This is insane.

Why should a grandmother from Dubuque get the same scrutiny as a 20 year old male from Saudi Arabia? The guys who are trying to kill us fit a profile. They're young...Arab...men.

I know the argument: If we profile them they'll hand the bomb off to a blonde from Sweden. I'll worry about that some other time.

Profiling is a small price to pay for living in a free country during a time of crisis.

Yet the crazies on the Left are firmly against it...and the wimps on the Right won't implement policies that make profiling routine.

Because once again...everyone is afraid of being called a bigot.

This kind of political correctness could get us killed.

I was drawn to the title of this book because I'm left of center on some issues and right of center on others. I firmly believe that both extremes are nuts.

Thoughts?

Interesting.

Nonsense!! A small price to pay?? It is far too LARGE of a price to pay!! FAR too large!

Was Tim McVeigh a young Arab?? Was the Texas Tower shooter? Or Dylan Klebold?? These are ALL acts of violence, all acts of domestic terrorism!

Violence doesn't have a name or a face. It's the act of a madman. And to sacrifice our constitutional freedoms, to slay the liberties that this country was built on, is EXACTLY what the terrorists want!

A small price to pay? Puh-leeze!!!

Point well taken SB. Having just flown back and forth to Philadelphia, I was once again totally amazed at the whole airport security system. It is totally slipshod. When it gets hectic the TSA people seem to move people along faster, and at one point one TSA official had her back turned to the passengers and was hving a personal conversation with another TSA worker as TWO people ahead of me went right through without showing their ID's.

Some places have those blower things, some don't. SOmetime you have to take off your shoes, sometimes you dont. On the way up I inadvertently had a bottle of after shave in my carry on along with razor blades, which I usualy make sure are in what I check. I breezed right through and didnt realize I had brought liquids and sharp objects on board without anyone raising an eyebrow.

I don't think the problem is racial or ethnic profiling, the problem is that the system has to be consistent and thorough. The fact is, unfortunately, people of all colors shapes and sizes can be crazy enough to blow up an airplane.

BTW one os the women who was watching the X Ray machine was a muslim...she had her headscarf on.

I love Goldberg's books, and I too am in the middle of Crazies. Frankly, I think he's spot on with most of his stuff, and with airport security, there's no exception.

How many white guys have tried to blow up American flights again?

Of course, this is the standard argument - that there are nutjobs like Timothy McVeigh and the KKK too - and we'll therefore risk self-annihilation before we risk offending anyone.

I could care less about offending anyone. My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

On September 11th, the terrorists had no desire to simply blow up buildings and kill people. To believe that would be underestimating them. What they wanted to destroy was an ideal, a way of life. To concede to racial profiling, to give up those constitutional freedoms, is to hand it over to them.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

What we're doing, all this PC, ACLU-supported crap, is supporting the terrorists. They're laughing at us, and certainly planning another attack, exploiting the very weakness that our free society espouses in the name of "civil liberties."

We lost civil rights in the Civil War. We lost civil rights in World War II. Sacrifices have to be made, or we will be obliterated.

Why would you say "I could care less." That means that you still care. For once and for all, the correct saying is "I COULDN'T care less." Madonne!

Civil liberties were lost in World War II?? Like when we locked up Japanese Americans in camps? And is that a part of our history that we should be proud of? Or is it a lesson that we should learn from?

Sorry, I don't buy YOUR argument.

Olivant, I appreciate the correction. However, you could have tried to sound less like the Sister Mary Rose of my youth. I expected the yardstick!!

BINGO! That's exactly right Don T!

The authorities and those in charge of security are NOT consistent. As time goes on, the fear that was once fresh in these people's minds begins to slowly fade, and their sense of diligence begins to fade along with it. That is until the next attack is made ( GOD FORBID ) or the next attack is thwarted. Then all of a sudden the people in these positions wake up and are on the ball. Then time rolls on, things begin to cool down, the fear begins to fade away, and their diligence once again begins to fade away along with their fears. The key thing here, as you mentioned, is having them be consistent.




Yes they did. But there is more that goes along with what you say here. They also knew and still know how to work OUR system. They know that organizations such as the ACLU will scream and holler about racial profiling. There has been several cases already where middle eastern people have purposely made themselves appear to look suspicious. They've purposely went out with the intention of bringing attention on themselves in public places. Then when someone alerted law enforcement that this middle eastern person was acting very strangely and law enforcement detained them for questioning but found nothing, these middle eastern people turned around and filed a complaint with the ACLU. They have tried suing the person who alerted the authorities and also tried suing the law enforcement agencies who detained them for questioning.

Along with killing people, destroying our economy and trying to divide the people of this nation, they've also educated themselves as to how to use the system that is in place for us, against us.

I don't believe that this is racial profiling. It's who did it. It's who continues to threaten to do it. It what they are.

If 19 Italians had flown planes into our buildings, and an Italian organization declared war against the west, then it would only make sense to look more carefully at Italian people. More carefully at people from that region of the world.

Does that mean that we should only watch middle eastern looking people? Absolutely not. As you said, there are the Timothy Mcveighs of the world who are just as crazy. No, we need to watch everyone and anyone who appears to be acting strangely in an airport or a public place.

But this charge that we are racial profiling middle easterners is just pure crap. We're keeping a close eye on the people who continually threaten our country. The people who advocate Islamic Jihad. Unfortunately for those of middle eastern origins who are innocent and peaceful people, the people who have declared Jihad against us happen to be middle eastern also.

It's not profiling. It's what they are.

Sorry, DC. You can't convince me of that. If 19 Italians did something wrong, then why should you or I suffer for it? I've been a law-abiding citizen. I pay my taxes. I vote. I've never done anything wrong, and to suggest that I should be looked at more closely is absurd.

Let's say that the Attorney General is trying to make a name for himself in an election year. He starts to go after certain criminals who have names that end with vowels. Simply because you or I are of Italian heritage, does that give him the right to tap our phones?

The Middle East did not declare war on America. Muslim extremists did. Huge difference.

Both Babe and DC have points. But one problem is that we Americans (me excepted) believe that we only die in the name of liberty in a foreign country and that only soldiers die. To preserve liberty, I am quite willing to get blown to bits here in America on an airplane, at the mall, in a sports stadium, etc. in lieu of further erosion of my liberty by federal, state, or local governments. If you want to qualify the liberty that we have all become used to over the 200+ years of this Nation's existence, then chnage the US Constitution. Stop trying to work around it. Several people have said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Okay. What is it then? if you keep nibbling at it, it will eventually be devoured.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution's Bill of Rights was composed and ratified as a constraint upon government and an itemization of our rights in the face of potential government oppression. It was government that Madison and others in the late 18th century feared.

Jean Charles Demenezes was a brazilian who was shot dead by London police after the bomb-blasts, because he was looking like a Muslim and he came out of a building they were spying on. They even declared to the press that he was a pakistani. They made such ridiculous excuses to cover up such as, he was running away and was wearing a thick jacket and so on. That is the kind of tragedies that happen with racial profiling. Airport security check should be done equally on all travelers.

Lesson #1...never run from the cops.

We should learn from these generations that sacrifices are necessary for self-preservation.

Explain to me how the terrorists aren't winning when they still can blow up airplanes and buildings, because we refuse to crack down on their actions to avoid either a.) racial profiling b.) an impact on civil liberties c.) a combination of both.

I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. You seem to really think that we can win by playing fair.

I don't.

Regards,
Double-J

My fundamental problem with racial profiling at airports, or anywhere else for that matter, is that it invites and legitimizes discrimination and prejudice under the masquerade of vigilance. While we must establish and provide safeguards for air travel, standards for safety should be applied, independent of racial considerations. The comparison was made between the 85 year old grandmother and the 20 year old Arab male. Well, how about the 85 year old Arab grandmother or the 20 year old skinhead?

I don't think that there is any evidence that racial profiling, as opposed to the more objective safety measures, is a strong tool in preventing terrorism on planes. Certainly, if we want to take an extra step, why not just deny air travel to people, who fit our preconceived notions of what a terrorist looks like.

Those, whom we would entrust with the racial profiling, would also have to scan passengers and visually distinguish passengers. Many Hispanics, Africans, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Indians, and Pakistanis can pass for Arabs. How broad do we make the net.

Finally, I found great irony in the line, "Racial profiling is a small price for a free society to pay in a time of crisis." We condemn this type of discriminatory behavior in totalitarian regimes, but when we perceive a crisis, we're willing to discriminate.

I think when it comes right down to it, racial profiling makes us less safe as a free society.

While I realise you meant "neo-Nazi" by the term skinhead, Klydon, it was a stereotypical term in itself. Not all skinheads are malicious in action or intent.

But I guess that stereotypical example is itself very telling of this kind of debate.

"Racial profiling" to me is some sort of system whereby people are measured or questioned by their race - but it's not really their race, it's just because their skin is browner than ours. Like Klyd says, how broad do we make the net.

Can we "win by playing fair"? I don't know. And win what, exactly? And what are we playing? What are we fighting/playing for?

I don't know; I think some people fighting "for" this thing are just as dangerous to the beneficial upkeep of democracy as the terrorists threatening it in the first place.

http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/national/story/81262.html

Gee, another Muslim terrorist from within the United States? Pure coincidence.

I agree standards need to be increased at the airports - the problem I see is the NFTA/security is essentially bureaucratized and incompetent. Privatizing this industry may be a good way to ensure more efficient and effective methods, but the problem is that a company would probably face financial ruin if they fucked up.

However, all of this free society, civil rights, and comparisons to totalitarian regimes will mean extremely little when we're being blown to bits on an airplane, or are glowing particles of radioactive sludge from a dirty bomb. It's only a matter of time before it happens again, so long as the current system is in place.



But when race or country of origin both play a significant role in the likelihood of someone being a terrorist threat, doesn't that merit some sort of consideration? I mean, this isn't racism or xenophobia - we are at war with Islamic terror. The exceedingly vast majority of these people who perpetrate these acts are Arabs. I don't really see any way to rationalize not to scrutinize those passengers who are either originating from foreign countries (particularly rogue nations) related to Islamic terror or those passengers who are of Arab descent.



It's never been tried. Of course there is no evidence for it.

You start putting pressure on these Muslim communities and more inspections on those of Arab descent in the airport, and I guarantee you've made it more difficult for the terrorists to perpetrate their heinous act.

Need more proof?

How about 1 in 4 Muslim in the US supporting suicide bombers.

Does this worry no one else besides PB and myself?



Some sort of pre-screening may help, particularly with countries of origin, or, for domestic passengers, a revised passport system with more detailed information and background history.



As I've said before, Americans need to get off our high horse with moral victories in this war. We need victories in actuality, on the field of battle, not in our hearts and minds. Okay, we didn't piss off CARE today. Great. They just blew up a 747 heading into O'Hare.

I feel so much better now.



I think that what makes us a less safe free society is basically letting the terrorists play by their own rules, while we proclaim the blanket of free society, which they use to further their abhorrent goal of complete anarchy and murder. I think that the way things are right now is not deterring terrorists in the least.

I think, frankly, they find it particularly humorous that we talk about a free society, which they clearly exploit and use to their advantage, in order to kill more Americans.

Regards,
Double-J

Keeping your ass and mine and everyone else's alive and free in spite of conscious attempts by those who seek to exploit our free societies and destroy our civilization and way of life.



Oh, so philosophical. Once again, I'm always impressed at the ability to rationalize an argument based upon protecting freedom and democracy and analogizing it with murderers and terrorists.

No wonder the book is called Crazies to the Left...

DJ, I have no problems with more security procedures. I think that we need them and that we should have them. However, we don't. Anyone who has flown in the past few years can attest to that. I was flying home from Florida last year, standing patiently in the security line. All of a sudden, someone (I can't remember if it was an airport or flight company employee) came through with a huge crowd of people and pushed them through to the front of the line. They had just gotten off a cruise and the boat was late, so they were pushing them through to make their flight. Do you think that these folks were given a full security check? Not a chance.

Until we apply a standard set of security measures for EVERYONE, I agree that we won't be safe. However, I believe that you can't pick and choose when and where to use them.

Btw, are you saying that you agree that we should have put Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II?? These were American citizens, business owners, many of them born here in the US. How could that be right for a country to imprison their own citizens simply because of their ethnic heritage? And why only Japanese-Americans from CA?? Because they were more recognizable than the German-American or Italian-American citizens?? I think that the internment of the Japanese-Americans was a blot on our history, and in Korematsu v. US, the Supreme Court agreed.

Hey, I'm not "against standards being increased at the airports". But security measures based on race is a decidedly iffy way to go about it, don't you think?

Sure. But iffy for reasons like political correctness, which is crap, imho.

If it's a choice between offending someone and keeping people alive, I'd take the latter every time.

That statistic that says one in four AMERICAN male Muslims believe that, in the name of Allah, nothing is wrong with suicide bombings, is downright scary.

When I read it in the NY Post this morning, my skin crawled.

For the most part, we totally agree. I simply think that we have reached an impasse where we simply cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of terrorists attempting to attack our country are Muslims of Arab descent. And our brains are preconditioned to discriminate and profile - certainly it would be worthwhile to at least consider it for airport security.

After all, it is a factor in plenty of other things - college admissions, jobs, housing, etc. - which is essentially a form of reverse discrimination through affirmative action.



Was it right? No.

But I don't crucify Roosevelt for his decision. His goal was the preservation and safety of the citizens of the United States from an enemy that was perceived to be attacking us from both outside and within.

A blot on our history? Debatable. Certainly I am sympathetic to the Japanese-Americans for what happened to them. But again, I am not going to sit here and lambaste Roosevelt for what was considered to be a legitimate security measure during the 1940's, unlike many of my colleagues.

No. It's not iffy for political correct reasons, it's iffy because of democratic reasons. But I'm gay like that; I class myself as on par with an Arab terrorist, because I'm in no position to doubt he doesn't believe in what he does.

Nobody should be offended or made uncomfortable in order to preserve the freedom of others. "Sorry, ma'am, I have to check you in order to preserve the safety of yourself and others" should apply to a Catholic caucasian nun as much as it should to a young Arab. I think everybody should be made uncomfortable, everybody should be offended. Everybody should be checked.

But then you'd probably argue against that and say it'd cripple our air traffic systems, up admin fees and taxes and whatnot. It'd be an intrusion upon your rights, simply because you were born to not physically fit the profile of an Arab.

You can't have it both ways.

I disagree. It's the way you've been brought up. I was brought up the same way. It's not a deficiency on our parents' part, it's just the sad, natural way people are nurtured. But I've made a conscious effort to get away from that.

Pre-conditioned? So you mean racism is inherent?

Yet, many still refuse to acknowledge that our enemy is attacking us both from the outside and within. McCarthyistic? Probably. But I'd say that radical Islamic infiltration and indoctrination is the biggest threat facing the United States today. This 1-in-4 poll, and the link I posted (and those like it) with homegrown terrorists, could be more deadly than the threat we faced from the Soviets.

Not racism. Pre-conditioned to memory.

For example, we taste something for the first time, it is bad. Our brain makes a subconscious note that this is bad for whatever reason - be it poison, be it toxic, etc.

Or animals - you are stung by a bee, the same sort of reaction.

I'm not talking about active conditioning of humans to be racist in the sort of "good 'ol boy, let's go shoot us some ni**ers" way. I'm talking of human prejudices based on experiences and natural defense mechanisms.

So what you mean is that, on a simple level, you remember 9/11 and now look at Arabs with caution?