Steeler

The problem with profiling is that it relies on stereotyping, and stereotyping is not only morally questionable, it is ineffective. How can you tell the difference between a Turkish Coptic Christian and a Kurd? An Egyptian exchange student and a Pakistani jihadi? An Iraqi and an Italian? My last name, being Germanic/Scandinavian in origin, has "berg" in it, and I've often been taken as Jewish by ignorant people.

Humans, fallible as they are, can't even get their damn prejudices right.

Not to mention the fact that no amount of ethnic profiling would have stopped Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczinski, or any number of other real threats. So with profiling we are not trading a little liberty for a little security, as some are all too eager to do. We are trading liberty, community, and plurality for the barest illusion of security.

If you want a course of action, I suggest a recruiting drive for more qualified law enforcement, such as translaters and investigators, more international cooperation with foreign police, and an effort to spread more good will and pro-American sentiment globally.

__________________

Magnum50

but it's common sense, and that was the whole reason for my post...


If a 60 plus old woman from Ohio is boarding a plane for a knitting seminar in New York, why should she be stripped searched because her number came up... waste of time, resources, and total lack of common sense.

On the same token, a young Muslim Male boards the same plane, but is not questioned or search because his number did not come up...


the point, when are we going to admit who the enemy is and what they may look like, and start using common sense to protect our borders and our entry/exit throughout and in and out of our country.


The time to let everyone be free to come and go too America, the land of the free, is over if we want to survive... now I'm not talking about a total lost of freedoms... just, and heres that word again, common sense.

__________________
Magnum
www.gettacticaldammit.com

Steeler

Your common sense is missing a key point. How do you know who is Muslim and who is not? Shall it be the policy of every airport to census screen all passengers for religious and political affiliation before boarding a flight? Or should it be a visual determination?

__________________

CingularDuality

Like muslims that are citizens of our country, organizing their terror plots through their mosques and then blowing up a bunch of buses at the same time in our largest city?

Whether or not profiling is right, I don't think that the amount of time that has passed so far changes its effectiveness.

Another general point that I want to make is that investigators/screeners don't profile for "muslim males". They look for dozens of characteristics and once a certain number of those characteristics match the profile, further investigation is initiated. Oversimplifying for the sake of discussion is fine, but let's not let that oversimplification confuse the issue of the effectiveness of profiling.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

And they won't even follow that:

"They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave." I'd love to hear from any spec ops soldier who went through "electric cable beating" class. If that's an "interrogation technique" then the writers of Law and Order need to learn a thing or two.

I guess that's why we ship them off to other countries first. Besides, we all know how well the Bush administration deals with evidence: "if we ain't got it, make some up. Pass the gravy."

HA! And that would make it ok AFTER the fact? I'm sure that would give me some solice after weeks of being beaten and tortured: "I'll get these damn guys back. Just wait till the supreme court hears about THIS!"

How about some freakin' accountability on part of the Bush administration?

And that makes what's going on right now ok? Why is it we can gloss over this, but Hitler got the bad rap? I mean, God forbid we LEARN from history, rather than ignore it.

__________________

Steeler

We seem to be fumbling around the specific mechanics of the profiling in question. Are we talking about on-site spot checks and searches of people who match a broad physical description? Criminal profiling of specific suspects over the course of a wider investigation of suspicious activity? Or DARPA-style data mining to extract potential suspects from the total population?

__________________

leejo

Link please.

This is an example of why I am so suspicious of the "support the troops, not the war" crowd. You imply that our soldiers are willing participants in torture. Their word is routinely dismissed in the media and by people who write here, while taking their captives' word at face value, as if there were any better reason to believe them over your countrymen.

I don't understand how people can think, on the one hand, that our military are so ugly and on the other hand claim to support them, if not the mission.

Rather, I don't understand how they think anyone would buy their story. But many do.

I do not want torture. I do not support torture. But I do not think it's helpful to codify precisely what our interrogators may and may not do. This would essentially provide our enemy a playbook: they would know exactly how far things would go. I believe this would cause their lips to be sealed.

I guess this is one of the big differences that exist between people who see these world events as a war or as a law-enforcement action. I think it's war.

Rincewind

Oh no, not this again.


Isn't it about time to reference "The Sandbox Thread" thread?

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

leejo

I'd just like to see who said that and get sense of context. Was this the pope testifying under oath? Was this some dude who's pushing his new book? Who said that and why should I believe him? Is there any evidence that supports his claim? Scars on his knuckles, for example.

TheFeniX

From This post I gave the link in: Link here.

I support getting the troops home because we're only fostering terrorism by remaining in Iraq, we're not fighting it.

Some soldier are. Just like some people are sociopaths. And if I'm not mistaken, it's still against the law for a soldier to follow orders that put him in violation of the Geneva conventions. The problem is, their superiors just get others soldiers to do the dirty work, then ship THEM off to jail as well, and wash their hands of the situation. Accountability: I want it from Bush and Co, not soldiers just following orders.

Well, after an extended vacation in the great nation of Syria, they found no terrorist links with this particular man to ANY form of terrorist groups. As he is NOT a criminal and had numerous basic right violated NUMEROUS TIMES, I feel no guilt in taking his account at face value.

This case wasn't actually military. It was some cloak and dagger branch of the CIA (or so I would think).

Well, there's no pictures like with Guantanamo, but I suppose even those naked bodies could be photoshoped. But, we did nail that one low ranking solider TO THE WALL. And Bush says he had no idea about what went on there (It might be because he tends to put his fingers in his ears and sing "Jesus loves the little children" anytime someone threatens him with Reality).

Say that now. Yet if you or one of your family members was the one getting beaten, you'd be singing a different story. If someone whisked you off to another country without cause and attempted to beat information out of you that you didn't have... well... there's always the Supreme Court, right?

And yet, if they can do this without evidence, without warrant, and without oversight, you STILL see nothing wrong with it? I mean, we're already doing this to Canadians, why not just start again with cops beating confessions out of suspects. I mean, if they admit to if after being beaten for days, they MUST be guilty!

So, the ends justify the means? One word is the difference between allowing people basic rights of human dignity and beating them constantly for information?

What about Iraq and Afganistan: we ARE the law-enforcement. The war is over. Can we still beat them? Or are we only allowed to gun them down when we get a little angry?

Yea, it's war. But this isn't some guy trying to kill you anymore. This is some guy who's strapped into a chair, completely at your mercy. Good luck justifying it.

__________________

TheFeniX

I already posted the link in the previous post. But that aside: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking for documentation about evidence presented. If you make a point, you should be ready to back it up.

__________________

leejo

So you used that quote to imply that US forces had tortured someone but in fact he claims to have been tortured by Syrians? In your opinion, what should we have done with him?

And don't you think that implication was a tad dishonest?

Also, I really wish you'd steer clear of the hyperbole. It undermines your points.

Steeler

Another tired talking point. This has nothing to do with the character of the conflict and everything to do with the conduct of that conflict. You say it's war? Fine. We already have multiple sets of guidelines on how our country conducts itself in warfare. One of those guides is the Geneva Conventions, which according to Article IV of the Constitution, is binding:
Thus the Geneva Conventions are the Supreme Law of the Land. Including:
That is why the Supreme Court ordered the administration to extend Geneva Convention protection to the detainees - because they are bound by law. So regardless of whether this is war or not, the rules by which we determine our honorable conduct are the same.

Now, as to the specific case of Mr. Arar, his account is widely considered accurate by the Canadian committee formed to investigate his case, and the US government has made no formal denial of the events. The entire process of extraordinary rendition (begun under Clinton), is generally accepted as fact, although the details are sketchy. The same as with the CIA overseas prisons.

Like it or not, our government is engaged in various illegal and brutal activities which reflect poorly on us as citizens, and on the troops fighting overseas right now. These activities, continued ad infinitum, do not make us safer and only endanger the safety of those trying to win "hearts and minds" - because as more innocents get rounded up and mistakes get made, it makes our own countenance that much darker. "Getting tough" doesn't mean a damned thing if we get stupid and nasty in the process.

To bring it back to the topic at hand - if getting tough on profiling alienates an innocent segment of the population, it creates resentment and bad will within our own borders. We will have protected nothing and made the country that much worse a place for our efforts.

__________________

TheFeniX

Define: US forces. If you say military, I never said that.

Further, what does it matter WHO tortured him? He was in American custody. But, that's ok because we handed him off for the express purpose of torture, and so we can wash our hands of it? BS. He was in the custody of the American "Justice" system (I used the term losely). He is entitled to the rights and dignities accorded to that.

How about we treat people with the tennents of "Innocent until proven guilty?" Unless we feel like chaning it to "torture until proven innocent."

What implication? That the US government is endorsing torture, then relying on the apathy of the American Citizen to let it blow over when we do it to someone who's innocent?

I don't know about that. My points kind of speak for themselves. I mean, we're talking about the "Land of the free" debating the uses of torture. Wasn't that a huge deal about Saddam? He tortured his political prisoners. Hmmm, or was it WMDs? No wait, Saddam's beard was WAY to 1970s! That was it. How's that for hyperbole?

You have to understand Leejo. My view of my government is so pathetically low right now, I find caustic humor is the only way I can think about it without my head exploding.

__________________

xTYBALTx

The 'War on Terror' is an engagement involving both warfare and law enforcement. I would've thought that to be self evident.

As Steeler says, it is indeed a tired talking point. I doubt anyone in here opposed at the time - or would oppose in retrospect - a military invasion of Afghanistan. I similarly doubt that anyone here would appreciate the military taking over all investigation regarding terrorism.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek