Profiling-We Need More
NYPD began randomly searching bags of people wanting to use the transit system, and predictably the objections have begun based upon the Fourth Amendment and profiling.
We do have a Constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. We do not have a Constitutional right to use the public transit system. So, if you don’t want to comply with the security searches at the transit system, don’t use the transit system. That’s pretty straight forward, don’t you think? Not for the ACLU or the NY Civil Liberties Union:
“The New York Civil Liberties Union opposed the searches, saying they violated the Fourth Amendment. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he hoped the NYCLU would recognize that the city had struck the right balance between security and protecting constitutional rights. He said the bag-checking program is part of a policy to "constantly change tactics" and "may, or may not, be there tomorrow."”
Racial profiling in the past was an odious component of law enforcement. And, it is now against the law. So, we get politically correct and make procedures like the following:
“Police had promised there would be no racial profiling, and when a woman in what looked like Muslim dress was selected by Officer Richard Dixon, he said he was simply picking "every fifth person with a bag."”
Was the woman really picked because she was the fifth person with a bag? What if the fifth person had been an eighty year old Japanese woman? Would she have been singled out for an inspection? Let’s hope not, but the reality today in the U. S. is that she probably would have been selected. That is not just an inefficient use of manpower chasing the image of politically correctness; it is a dangerous misappropriation of a finite resource.
Let’s be honest people, everyone profiles every day of their life. It’s how our brain works. All of our experiences are sorted and catalogued and then brought forth to create judgments which guide action or reaction. Here’s an example: You are walking down a street when suddenly you are confronted with two snarling dogs. One is a Pomeranian and the other is a Pitt Bull. Your brain quickly gathers the various sensory data being fed to it, checks the memory banks for additional data stored from a lifetime of experiences, assesses the threat level and prioritizes the threats. Which dog did you choose as the greatest threat? Profiling wise, it does not matter which dog you choose, as long as you correctly choose the greater threat. If your analysis is wrong and you address the lesser threat, you will be attacked by the greater threat. Now, if anyone chose the Pomeranian as the greater threat, you are clueless and have probably just dropped in from another planet. Profiling is natural, and that is as it should be.
So the problem is how do we sort out the real Islamo-fascist threat potentials from the general population? First we assess the data banks and decide who is historically making the greatest number of attacks against us. Is it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or Muslims? Is it males or females? Is it the elderly, the very young, or some other age group? What countries are the attackers from: Sweden, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, or some other place? Put all this in the mix, stir it up and what pops out in our analysis? Well, it surely is not an eighty year old Caucasian woman from the U. S. or Sweden. Does that mean she can not be a suspect? No, but I’m sure you will agree that the probability is quite low.
What then is the profile of the greatest threat? It is a late teens to late 20’s Muslim male, often educated and financially stable from the countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Northern Africa or Pakistan. In addition, the U. S. is beginning to see signs that home grown Islamics, most often blacks, are becoming a threat. Read my blog on that here. But, what about Taliban Johnny and Jose Padilla? They don’t fit the mould. Yes they do, partially. They are males of the right age who have converted to Islamo-fascism. I never claimed that profiling is 100% correct. But, it is better than any other alternative.
If you don’t think I am right about the general target profile, take a look at the FBI’s Terrorism Wanted Page here & here. See the pictures of the current 4 terrorists from the London 7/21/05 incidents & here. See any similarities in the people pictured at these two sites?
We do have a Constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. We do not have a Constitutional right to use the public transit system. So, if you don’t want to comply with the security searches at the transit system, don’t use the transit system. That’s pretty straight forward, don’t you think? Not for the ACLU or the NY Civil Liberties Union:
“The New York Civil Liberties Union opposed the searches, saying they violated the Fourth Amendment. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he hoped the NYCLU would recognize that the city had struck the right balance between security and protecting constitutional rights. He said the bag-checking program is part of a policy to "constantly change tactics" and "may, or may not, be there tomorrow."”
Racial profiling in the past was an odious component of law enforcement. And, it is now against the law. So, we get politically correct and make procedures like the following:
“Police had promised there would be no racial profiling, and when a woman in what looked like Muslim dress was selected by Officer Richard Dixon, he said he was simply picking "every fifth person with a bag."”
Was the woman really picked because she was the fifth person with a bag? What if the fifth person had been an eighty year old Japanese woman? Would she have been singled out for an inspection? Let’s hope not, but the reality today in the U. S. is that she probably would have been selected. That is not just an inefficient use of manpower chasing the image of politically correctness; it is a dangerous misappropriation of a finite resource.
Let’s be honest people, everyone profiles every day of their life. It’s how our brain works. All of our experiences are sorted and catalogued and then brought forth to create judgments which guide action or reaction. Here’s an example: You are walking down a street when suddenly you are confronted with two snarling dogs. One is a Pomeranian and the other is a Pitt Bull. Your brain quickly gathers the various sensory data being fed to it, checks the memory banks for additional data stored from a lifetime of experiences, assesses the threat level and prioritizes the threats. Which dog did you choose as the greatest threat? Profiling wise, it does not matter which dog you choose, as long as you correctly choose the greater threat. If your analysis is wrong and you address the lesser threat, you will be attacked by the greater threat. Now, if anyone chose the Pomeranian as the greater threat, you are clueless and have probably just dropped in from another planet. Profiling is natural, and that is as it should be.
So the problem is how do we sort out the real Islamo-fascist threat potentials from the general population? First we assess the data banks and decide who is historically making the greatest number of attacks against us. Is it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or Muslims? Is it males or females? Is it the elderly, the very young, or some other age group? What countries are the attackers from: Sweden, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, or some other place? Put all this in the mix, stir it up and what pops out in our analysis? Well, it surely is not an eighty year old Caucasian woman from the U. S. or Sweden. Does that mean she can not be a suspect? No, but I’m sure you will agree that the probability is quite low.
What then is the profile of the greatest threat? It is a late teens to late 20’s Muslim male, often educated and financially stable from the countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Northern Africa or Pakistan. In addition, the U. S. is beginning to see signs that home grown Islamics, most often blacks, are becoming a threat. Read my blog on that here. But, what about Taliban Johnny and Jose Padilla? They don’t fit the mould. Yes they do, partially. They are males of the right age who have converted to Islamo-fascism. I never claimed that profiling is 100% correct. But, it is better than any other alternative.
If you don’t think I am right about the general target profile, take a look at the FBI’s Terrorism Wanted Page here & here. See the pictures of the current 4 terrorists from the London 7/21/05 incidents & here. See any similarities in the people pictured at these two sites?
posted by Paul Coambs | 11:18 PM
<< Home