What is wrong with Racial Profiling?

[Defarge]

I'm as liberal as they come, I support gay marriage, what have you.  But when it comes to racial profiling, I don't understand why it's wrong to search people who are statistically more likely to blow up the bus I'm on.  It is unfair to law abiding African Americans, or American Muslims or what have you, but the inconvenience of a few is a small price to pay for the safety of many.

So, my fellow Democrats, why should I be against Racial Profiling, especially in this day in age?

[The Dowager Mod]

Besides being racist?

[Defarge]

Besides being racist?

I acknowledge it's being racist, but if it's to ensure that hundreds or even thousands of people survive, is it too great a price to pay? 

[MODU]

Besides being racist?

I acknowledge it's being racist, but if it's to ensure that hundreds or even thousands of people survive, is it too great a price to pay? 

Unfortunately it's a fine line between being racist and using objective screening.  For example, a cop is told that a man with black (not light brown) skin committed a crime.  Is the cop going to screen everyone he sees (no matter what the skin color is) in order to not come across as racist, or will he narrow in on a man with black skin to save time?  Now, when you are trying to prevent a crime, it's a bit harder to do that since a criminal/terrorist can be of any background or color (not the variety in the UK bombing).  While I don't think it's wrong to give someone of Middle Eastern decent a closer look, you have to look out for anyone that seems to be acting unusual.

[John Dibble]

Besides being racist?

I acknowledge it's being racist, but if it's to ensure that hundreds or even thousands of people survive, is it too great a price to pay? 

Unfortunately it's a fine line between being racist and using objective screening.  For example, a cop is told that a man with black (not light brown) skin committed a crime.  Is the cop going to screen everyone he sees (no matter what the skin color is) in order to not come across as racist, or will he narrow in on a man with black skin to save time?  Now, when you are trying to prevent a crime, it's a bit harder to do that since a criminal/terrorist can be of any background or color (not the variety in the UK bombing).  While I don't think it's wrong to give someone of Middle Eastern decent a closer look, you have to look out for anyone that seems to be acting unusual.

^^

[ag]

There is a very simple practical argument against profiling: people are not selected to be bombers (or, for that matter, drug smugglers) at birth. If profiling becomes obvious (that is, if a probability of being checked is a lot smaller for a blonde female with perfect English than for a dark male with a Pakistani accent), than it is a matter of a short time before the identity of the bombers will change (with devastating consequences). If you think of it, the London bombers were not the type that anyone would have profiled against ex ante - they were native-born and spoke fluent English, which came totally unexpected.

There are enough of light-skinned Muslims with light hair in this world, so that it might be possible to find someone willing who looks perfectly European (would you easily distinguish a Turk from an Italian - I wouldn't, except by accent, and I've spent a lot of time among both)? Would you figure a Hui (Muslim) Chinese from the standard Han variety? Or, if such a person is not available, a friendly Columbian (Irish, Tamil, Communist, White Supremacist - take your favorite pick) terrorist cell give them a hand in exchange for future service elsewhere (such cooperation is not unheard of). Or it could be a matter of time before an unwitting girl- (boy-)friend, or even an unrelated messenger is used as a sitting duck ("could you get this box to the post office, please?"). 

In other words, the most obvious problem with profiling is that it discloses your strategy to the enemy - something to be avoided at all costs.  Entirely random checks might be a seeming waste of resources, but they are going to be more effective in preventing bombings.  It would be a different matter, if a certain proportion of dark-skinned Muslim youths were programmed at birth to explode in the crowds, willing or unwilling. However, this does not seem to be the case, mercifully.

Additionally, profiling creates distrust/ rejection in exactly the sort of communities cooperation of which is needed (and over 90% of which would be very willing to provide all cooperation possible if treated nicely). But this is a secondary issue, I would think.

Of course, it is an entirely different issue if you know the race of a perpetrator who has already committed the crime: it would indeed be stupid to stop all motorists to find the person who held up a bank if 10 witnesses have testified that this was a black guy. The act has happened, there is no way the identity of the criminal will change.  But what we want here is to stop the crime, before it happens, not after.

[A18]

Nothing with regards to racism. Pretty funny that anyone worries about that, but well, they are 'liberals.'

However, I suppose the objection should be raised that they'll just figure out who you're profiling, and send someone who doesn't fit the description. It still blocks off thousands of opportunities for them, though, so I would say go for it.

[ag]

It still blocks off thousands of opportunities for them, though, so I would say go for it.

It closes some, but it opens other opportunities for them much much wider. On balance, it probably makes their job easier, not harder, since it makes them better able to predict what you will do (see my previous post).

[Emsworth]

If any group--whether defined by age, class, race, height, gender, or anything else whatsoever--has higher-than-the-population-as-a-whole criminal statistics, then the police are justified in "profiling" that group.

However, race, or any other similar factor, alone is not probable cause for search and seizure.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Simple: It's ineffective. Would racial profiling have helped caught Timothy McVeigh?

Even if we exclude it to only Muslim terrorists, it still doesn't work. Can you tell the difference between a Muslim Filipino from the southern islands and the rest of them? Most people couldn't, and that area is the home of an insurgency that's causing them a massive headache now. Can you tell the difference between a Slavic Muslim and a Serb or Croat? I'd be suprised if even people from the region could. How about an Indonesian vs. a Thai? And how difficult would it be for Muslim terrorist groups to find a few lily-white fundamentalist converts? Remember Richard Reid and John Walker Lindh?

[ag]

NYTimes now says that there is a serious suspicion that the London bombers might not have intended to die - they were dupes (for one, they bought round-trip train tickets that day). It may or may not be true, but this just follows up on why profiling is wrong: if there might be some difficulty recruiting suicide bombers from outside the group, getting some innocent chap carry a backpack that explodes in the Tube could be fairly easy (haven't anyone ever asked you to carry a heavy bag for a friend who is just busy/sick and can't do it himself? "Oh, its' just my old computer, I think my grandpa wants to get online" ).

In fact, this would be the obvious tactics if any obvious profiling is observable. And the most obvious way to make profiling unobservable is not to profile: it's true, you might be really searching for young Muslim males, but you have to be going through the motions with pretty blond Scottish girls and their grandmothers. It's the same as in the airport: of course, they don't expect a portly middle-aged pastor, or an M.P. to explode in midair - but not checking their luggage would make that luggage an obvious target.

[Ebowed]

I agree with BRTD's point on Tim McVeigh.  If the government starts acting out on the assumption that a regular Arab is more likely to blow up a bus than a regular white, it won't be long till we start experimenting on African natives again to see if they're closer to apes than whites are (and therefore more dangerous to the public), or when we start having segregated public schools to ensure the safety of white students.  Governmental racism just ain't a good idea, whether it's in the form of racial profiling or affirmative action.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To add to ag's points, note that the one bomber was actually Jamican. He wouldn't have been picked up by racial profiling...

[AuH2O]

lol, ah the lengths the leftists go to.

First of all, the pool of people willing to commit suicide bombings is much lower than a lot of people here seem to think. Even Muslims do not want to die-- it's human instinct to survive. Second of all, the majority of people willing to do them are young Muslim males.

Fact of the matter is, Jessica Simpson lookalikes are never going to be a major source of bombing attacks. Sure, you can concoct various fantasies, whereby someone asks their friend to do so and so, blah blah.

But, alas, terrorism isn't that easy. Observe the failure of the second London attacks.

Furthermore, forcing terrorists to use more sympathetic people as suicide bombers hurts them, not us. Many Muslims are uncomfortable with the notion of female suicide bombers, for instance.

Statistically speaking, one is actually complicit to crime and/or murder by NOT engaging in sensible profiling.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One problem Goldie. Islam is a religion... you can't tell if someone is a Muslim just by looking at them.

[Ebowed]

One problem Goldie. Islam is a religion... you can't tell if someone is a Muslim just by looking at them.

Quiet, Communist

[AuH2O]

How many Muslims have blonde hair and blue eyes? Of course you can't tell 100% of the time.

First, is someone male or female? Males more likely to be terrorists.

Young or old? Young more likely.

Arab or not? Arabs more likely.

Muhammad their first name? Yes, more likely.

It's not that hard al.

[MODU]

One problem Goldie. Islam is a religion... you can't tell if someone is a Muslim just by looking at them.

Well, (according to sociologists) it's more of a culture, like Judaism and Hinduism.  Christianity is more of a religion than a culture.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How many Muslims have blonde hair and blue eyes? Of course you can't tell 100% of the time.

How many Christians have blue eyes and blond hair? Not many either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FALSE

And this is where racial profiling breaks down in this case. Not one of the intial four London bombers were Arabs. Not one of the failed four London bombers were Arabs.
Three of the four originals were Pakistanis, the other (and the one that killed by far the most) was actually Jamiacan. Two of the four failures seem to have been Pakistanis, the other two seem to have come from East Africa.
How the hell does racial profiling help in those cases?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. About a third of Muslim men are called Mohammed IIRC, but a lot of those don't use it as there first name as such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FALSE

[MissCatholic]

What is wrong with racial profiling?

hmmm it is racist.

you are saying that a white man is less likely to blow up a train than a black man.

remember on the battlefield in Afghanistan. was it me or didnt we pick up an American white man fighting agasint us?

What about abortion clinics? Do all black men blow that up too?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To prove my point these are the suspects in the failed attack (the first photo is the bugger that got tasered by the police this morning)...









And here's the first four bombers:









How exactly would racial profiling have helped to stop their attacks?
Unless you suggest locking up and/or monitoring everyone who doesn't fit your dreams of an Aryan master race...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How many Muslims have blonde hair and blue eyes? Of course you can't tell 100% of the time.

First, is someone male or female? Males more likely to be terrorists.

Young or old? Young more likely.

Arab or not? Arabs more likely.

Muhammad their first name? Yes, more likely.

It's not that hard al.

And here lies the flaw of this claim:

1-Not all Muslims are Arab
2-Not all Arabs are Muslim

I've met quite a few Muslims, and very very few were Arab. Most are Somali or Pakistani.

What country has the largest Muslim population in the world? If you're as smart as you always claim you should know this one.

As for the second point, anyone know what number of Arab Americans are Muslim? A quarter. That's right, Christian Arab Americans outnumber Muslim ones 3:1.

[John Dibble]

Can we at least agree on the following - checking the bags and whatnot of old ladies at the airport and yet at the same time letting every Middle Eastern man through unchecked is a crappy way to go about things.

I think the real problem is not that we are not using racial profiling, it's that we're afraid to be accused of it(which a lawsuit might come with) when it's really random, so we intentionally avoid checking people who might be high risk all together even when searches are supposed to be random.

[MODU]

Can we at least agree on the following - checking the bags and whatnot of old ladies at the airport and yet at the same time letting every Middle Eastern man through unchecked is a crappy way to go about things.

I think the real problem is not that we are not using racial profiling, it's that we're afraid to be accused of it(which a lawsuit might come with) when it's really random, so we intentionally avoid checking people who might be high risk all together even when searches are supposed to be random.

Agreed.  We should not waste our resources on people which are fairly obviously don't pose a terror threat.  Why don't give all men who are between 18 and 35 a closer look, while still keeping an eye out on the other 80% of the population . . . just in case.

[ag]

How many Muslims have blonde hair and blue eyes? Of course you can't tell 100% of the time.

First, is someone male or female? Males more likely to be terrorists.

Young or old? Young more likely.

Arab or not? Arabs more likely.

Muhammad their first name? Yes, more likely.

It's not that hard al.

Well, Russia alone has over 10 million Muslims, of which a very substantial chunk (a couple of million) would be very light-skinned, with blond to light-brown hair and blue to light-brown eyes. Most of the remainder would be indistinguishable from the Sicillians or the Chinese.

And, by the way, in recent years an overwhelming majority of suicide bombers there have been widowed females, frequently in their thirties.  None of them were called Muhammed.  Of course, the shift to females has happened since no male man from the Caucasus (an large majority of whom are Christian) can ever pass a single policeman without being checked, double-checked and extorted for the privilege (they aren't afraid of racial profiling there). An average man from the Caucasus, by the way, is only easily detectable in the crowd in a very light-skinned country like Russia (he is likely to be lighter-skinned than most South Europeans).  Additionally, the terrorists have had no problem to get blond Slavic converts to do the job when necessary (these tend to be the most fanatical). 

The statistics is simply a consequence of the current policy. You change the policy, the statistics would change - would you then argue for profiling blonds? What should matter is not what the statistics says, but which policy will make the terrorists' job more difficult. Letting the terrorists know that a light-skinned girl will not be checked makes their job easier, not harder.

Once again, I don't see any problem using racial information when searching for a perpertrator of a crime that already happened (if you have reasons to believe that a particular bomber WAS Pakistani - go forward, investigate the Pakistanis and leave the Swedes alone).  However, using it is a preventative strategy is worse than ineffective - it plays directly into the terrorists' hands.