From the Times Online:
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.
The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.
Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have discussed the practicalities of introducing such a system with airport operators, including BAA. They believe that it would be more effective at identifying potential terrorists than the existing random searches.
[my emphasis]
From the perspective of law enforcement, I don’t think there’s ever been any doubt about this—and all the hypotheticals about terrorists simply adapting by recruiting suicide operatives that don’t fit “the profile” is inapposite, as the ethnic component of terrorist profiling is simply intended to (commonsensically) augment the screening of other signals (strange behavior, unusual travel patterns, one-way tickets purchased with cash, etc.).
Ironically, the UK—whose commitment to the idea of multiculturalism has far exceeded that of the US’s own (and as a longterm social and philosophical commitment has, at least in my estimation, resulted in the current predicament in GB where certain areas of London, for instance, are for all intents and purposes outside of British jurisdiction)—is willing at least to broach this subject, whereas in the US, we still stubbornly resist, clinging to the dangerous PC notion that “random” checks (which amounts to “random” law enforcement, something that one could argue runs more afoul of the Fourth Amendment than does, say, the NSA domestic surveillance program), are somehow a worthwhile endeavor, if only to create the appearance of a certain type of cosmeti “fairness” that shouldn’t have anything to do with terrorist screening.
The question is, is the UK’s willingness to finally face down PC objections more a result of their having foiled a major terror attack? Or is it that in a country that has so fully committed itself to the precepts of boutique multiculturalism, once the host culture decides that the social engineering experiment has failed, the backlash is likely to be more swift and severe.
Of course, what’s most likely is that the UK is undergoing some combination of the two impulses; still, it’s long been my sense that those countries who have more fully committed to the kind of dangerous multiculturalism that leads to Balkanization and competing grievance groups vying for social welfare will be the first to react harshly to the clear failures of that worldview.
The problem has always been in forcing them to admit the error of their ways.
It could be that this latest foiled attack has set in motion just such a sea change. And if it indeed has, that will be, in my opinion, the biggest victory yet in the GWOT. And it would follow another fairly significant move by the President, who publicly referred to Islamic fascism—and was immediately greeted with howls of protest by the usual suspects, who even larded their response with certain veiled threats.
Which was to be expected. But should we wish to succeed in this war, we must be willing to look at the enemy and identify it. And part of doing that is showing no fear about publicly labeling it.
(h/t Craig C)
Cripes. Last night my TV was loaded with Muslims spouting, basically, that Islamic Fascism is an absurdity. A nullity.
Like as if we were talking about Islamic Industrialism.
FASCIST!
But that would be calling a spade a spade, which is just wrong.
Oh. No, it isn’t.
tw: Done. My time here is done.
I don’t believe for a minute that they don’t and haven’t been profiling on an ethnic basis. My husband’s 4 grandparents were all born in Italy south of Rome, and he looks very Mediterranean. He has been singled out for “special screening” on every flight that he has taken since Dec, 1988. (He flew from Brussels to Chicago one week before the Libyans brought down the flight over Lockerbee.)
So, survey question for all of you people out there who look Muslim but aren’t—Italians, Greeks, Sephardic Jews, Arab Christians, etc.—do you attract inordinate attention at airport security, or is my husband’s name on some list?
Cathyf, don’t tell anyone!!
I’m a dark-looking Italian, but I don’t think I ever attracted particular attention in all my flights from Italy to London and within the UK. Well, one time the fiscal police searched my luggage when I disembarked in Italy, but it wasn’t about terrorism; they were looking for drugs and similar stuff.
My favoured steel-toed boots and belt with a largish metal buckle tend to attract the attention of metal-detectors, tho.
This is already starting to galvanize opinion, indicating that it meets an unmet need. On the face of it, PC appears harmless–why hurt someone’s feelings?–so most people are prepared to let it pass unremarked. There is, however, a limit, and it’s been reached. When faced with a choice between life or lies, sane people will pick life.
Prepare to be slandered as ‘nazis’, though.
I hope we start moving in the correct direction. It’s long overdue. If we continue to allow the debate to be framed by the usual suspects who have done an excellent job of controlling the language of the debate, we will get nowhere.
The real test for me is whether Bush will continue to refer to Islamic facism, and perhaps slowly move towards even stronger language that no longer contains that “religion of peace” appeasement. His rhetoric needs to be firmer.
I’m having trouble believing that an Italian guy wrote that.
Jeff, I think one of the reasons they can actually talk about doing this (nothings implemented yet)is that the UK and countries in Europe, while fully immersed in the multicultural diversity project, are not necessarily as free as the U.S. What I mean is that those countries in Europe hove no qualms about passing laws to eliminate racism. Racism is basically a thought crime. If you are prepared to arrest people for thought crime then its not too far a step to assume certain people think in certain ways and therefore they can start isolating those folks for inspection. They just need a reason to make the thought illegal. This is the root of multiculturalism after all right? To indoctrinate. Once they go through what will be a loud protest from the Islamist community, they’ll be able to go right ahead.
This type of thing wouldn’t be possible in the US. The US is a counrty that I have argued to many on the left here is far more free than Europe. The ACLU and other organizations, like the Supreme Court (even thought the ACLU and the Current iteration of the SC may not always see eye to eye), would most likely block any attempt at this. The Europeans and the British don’t necessarily have to worry about this stuff. Their culture is steeped in hatred, you just need a reason to mark a certain people off the priviledged list.
I am on the fence about the profiling thing. I think the random searches are idiotic and I think asking peoples religion when the buy an airplane ticket is too intrusive. So I think profiling by several criteria (age, sex, national origin) are very good ways to mitigate the risk of attack while remaining true to our principles.
Don’t you guys understand?!? If we hurt their feelings then it’s our fault when they commit mass murder.
Next you’re gonna tell me that the sky is up.
That would be consistent with the rest of your pro-terrorist positions, including supporting the Iraq War, staying out of Israel/Lebanon conflict, warrantless wire-tapping, and otherwise diverting the resources needed to apprehend OBL. Is there anything you won’t do to strengthen those intent on harming us.
I used to get singled out for special attention every time I flew. I am a lily-white 40-something female. I mentioned it once while I was being inspected and they told me my boarding pass was flagged as someone who had bought the ticket on the Internet. Which is where I purchase all my flights.
…and otherwise diverting the resources needed to apprehend OBL. Is there anything you won’t do to strengthen those intent on harming us. [sic]
Because once we get OBL, we win!
Just like we won when we offed Zarkawi, right?
We off OBL, we get a temporary lift in morale, but the war will grind on as before. With Iran as a major player in this little drama, OBL is chump change.
BTW, if we lose the war but never tap another line without a warrant, do we get to claim a moral victory? If the West falls but has its hands pristine clean because it didn’t violate any of its lofty principles, will that mean we don’t have to pay jizya? Will the historians lavish praise on us posthumously?
Single-value morality is useless, david. The trick is to know how to distinguish between the lesser of two evils, not to avoid evil altogether. Besides, the courts upheld the warrentless wiretaps. Get over it.
TW: hit
Oh God, here we go again–sigh.
Nothing helps terrorists like taking out one of their financiers and killing about 60,000 of them.
Okay, I’ll give you that one. We should’ve bombed Syria while Israel was pounding Hezbollah.
Yes, if you don’t obtain a warrant, the terrorists win.
So are you saying that al Qaeda is finished when we catch bin Laden? If we’d devote all our resources to bin Laden you accuse of going after a single figure instead of the root cause. Blaming the right isn’t an argument for you, it’s a pathology.
Yes. Vote Democrat.
C’mon, who’s the culprit? Admit it,
Ddavid has been an incredibly clever ruse. There’s NO WAY anyone could be that dense.OH hell yes. It’s those damned resources! How John Kerry’esq of you. It’s all so simple… and nuanced.
My eyes bled, just reading something that foolish. So fighting in Iraq helps the terrorists, while staying out of a fight in Lebanon helps them too. I guess we cannot fight them and we cannot not fight them. Doesn’t leave a whole lot of options, does it?
“Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.”
SB: take
one
I used to get screened all the time, but the last three for four times I’ve flown have been clear sailing. I stopped carrying the block of silly puddy that looked like C4 that might have done it.
I’ve always and will always welcome searches, for the simple reason that it’s designed to make us safer. If it keeps one cel from trying to blow up something then guess what, it’s worth it.
In an ideal world – well not ideal, just slightly less fucked up – this could be sorted out between the agencies who handle the screening of passengers and the airlines. The Airlines say, , “Either you take security measures which reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on our aircraft or we withold the exorbitant landing fees you charge us until you do. Or failing that we move our business to an airport that is serious about anti-terror measures, but will allow us to carry on our business without undue delay”
In fact there is circumstantial evidence that this has happened in Britain. After the plot was scotched and the draconian security measures were put in place, BA and a couple of other airlines made puplic noises about moving and cutting flights and I suspect plenty others made private noises.
Last week’s exercise proved that airlines can’t operate if every passenger is strip searched and every item of baggage is thouroughly inspected, and this week we get tentative talk of “sophisticated” security measures, which may include some tiny little smidgeon of ethnic and/or religious profiling.
The big stumbling block is going to be how the courts handle it, and since the court in question for Britain will be the European court of human rights, how the Govenment and the airlines handle the rejection.
TW. Of course the passengers might want some say in this as well.
Understanding the position of such folks is quite simple. They’re against whatever is. Had a different choice been made, they’d be against that, too.
Of course, there’s always the chance that what
dDavid means is that we should have jumped in on the side of Hezbollah. Judging by the rallies the last couple of weeks, that appears to be a much more popular position than I’d like to think.Funny, I’ve long thought that they were designed to make it look like the government was “doing something.”
Swiss-army knives, knitting needles, handguns, screwdrivers, box cutters, throwing stars, samurai swords—I don’t see why we screen for those at all any more. “A pack, not a herd” still means something.
Explosives and the like are another story, as they take effect before the other passengers have a chance to react and neutralize the threat.
Speaking of which, can we get six-year-olds added to the prohibited list? ‘Cuz the little bugger sitting behind me on the ORD-MSP flight was a friggin’ menace:
Thanks, Dad, for teaching me that magic phrase. It works every time!
You all are intentionally obtuse, aren’t you? You can’t still be clinging to the Saddam/terrorist connection or pretending Baathist soldiers/insurgents are terrorists, can you. You sound silly, now.
And, yeah, not getting warrants means terrorists win. We toss the constitution at the first sign of trouble? I disagree with you, we are not a nation of bedwetters willing to trade our societal foundation of law for dry underpants.
And Kerry was right about the resources, they are not limitless and they are being squandered. I disagree with you, we are not better off with Osama and Zawahiri still at large. And please don’t start with that “our military is gaining valuable battle hardness” crap, you’ll just look even stupider.
As for Israel, we should have pulled them off and allowed them to keep their invincible image (we already dumped ours in Iraq), it was a valuable deterrent, squandered by your stupid ideas about solving everything with bombs and bullets.
When will you people learn?
I will be stealing this. Repeatedly.
“Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!”
And then Gregory Walcott decks him.
Y’know, dDavid, up ‘til now I had actually thought you were a real lefty, but it’s obvious you’re a provacateur writing parody. I mean, dude, so over the top!
Good parody, though! You’ve had me (and everyone else here) going!
TW: writing just like a liberal air head.
You’re right, David. We should let all our problems be solved with happy thoughts, hugs, the UN, the fundamental sense of honor among our enemies, and the skillful diplomacy of the French.
Then everything would be just ducky, and nobody would ever be sad or angry ever again!
But did you come hear with an open mind, David? Who knows, maybe we could change it.
There are several instances where authorities are allowed to search without warrants. Have the terrorists won because the police can search my car without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that I have someone in my trunk? Come on.
So you’re saying that Ba’athist aren’t terrorists? They attack high profile yet militarily valueless targets, usually civilians, in order to scare the population out of supporting the population. What the hell is your definition of terrorism. And do you still cling to the notion that Saddam, a secularist, would ever have anything to do with al Qaeda, even after al Qaeda endorsed Hezbollah, a shia organization?
So you want us to invade Pakistan? We can put all the resources in the world in Afghanistan and it won’t help us if OBL and Zawahiri are still in Pakistan. Pakistan, at the same time, very clearly doesn’t want our troops on the ground there, so what exactly are you proposing to do with more resources? Solutions are much harder than criticisms, and consequently the left only excels at the latter.
Yeah, nothing projects an image of invincibility like allowing a terrorist organization to attack your country with impunity. Do you actually think about this stuff before you type it? Once again, you’re a better critic than a problem solver.
Oh God. David, David, David. Please tell me you’ve heard of 9/11, right? We looked a little damn less than invincible that day.
I’m sorry, are the facts threatening my paranoid world view?
<blockquote>the dangerous PC notion that “random†checks (which amounts to “random†law enforcement, something that one could argue runs more afoul of the Fourth Amendment than does, say, the NSA domestic surveillance program)”
But random search victims don’t have a civil rights advocacy group to seethe and whine on their behalf! Seems like fertile ground for a lawsuit to me, along the lines of suits filed alleging reverse discrimination. The airlines would probably file a brief in support of their position–if they are now allowed to have a meaningful process of elimination for searches, they will go bankrupt and the terrorists will have truly won. Everybody I know already avoids flying because of the security hassle, and the current mess will discourage more.
Damned annoying, isn’t it, when people insist on clinging to facts.
Some names for you:
Abdul Rahman Yasin
Black September
Abu Nidal
If you’re not a sock puppet run as a sick joke, you’re as ignorant as you are annoying.
Not to mention the Beirut barracks, Khobar Towers, and the big one the left loves—Vietnam.
So, does that mean that you’re in favor of the profiling of the sort mentioned in the links at top?
That would be consistent with the rest of your pro-terrorist positions, including supporting the Iraq War, staying out of Israel/Lebanon conflict, warrantless wire-tapping, and otherwise diverting the resources needed to apprehend OBL. Is there anything you won’t do to strengthen those intent on harming us.
Well, do tell us General exactly how many “resources” (about which you know zero and can not quantify) are need to “apprehend” (um, how about killing him?) OBL?
You can’t still be clinging to the Saddam/terrorist connection
Um, there is no need to “cling” to something that is indeed a fact.
Even the Clinton Administration knew this.
And, yeah, not getting warrants means terrorists win
Really?
How?
Further, what evidence do you have warrants are not obtained?
Finally, please do explain the over 5,000 FISA warrants obtained since 2001.
We toss the constitution at the first sign of trouble?
Huh?
Um, every court ruling on the matter has said there is no 4th Amendment issue.
Ever hear of Article II?
And Kerry was right about the resources, they are not limitless and they are being squandered
Where?
How?
I disagree with you, we are not better off with Osama and Zawahiri still at large
Goalpost with wheels.
For you ignorants “success” is “whatever has not been yet achieved.”
Hilarious.
. And please don’t start with that “our military is gaining valuable battle hardness†crap, you’ll just look even stupider.
You “support the troops” though, right!?
Um, how would you know?
Branch & rank, please?
David, I’ve got something for you.
I think I just figured out the problem, here. You people have no sense of scale. Things you are afraid of are blown out of all proportion. Tiny data points become airtight cases, when you need them to. I mean really, equating the damage to our standing caused by a successful sneak attack to the abject failure of a massive military engagement conducted on terms of our choosing? How do you do that without some sense of embarrassment?
You call that “terrorist connections”? Do you have no threshold for materiality? Apparently not, if expedience dictates.
What court ruling?
This is getting tiring. You all need to start getting your news somewhere other than the Fox and the O’Hannity Factor. This is really pathetic.
BWAH HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!!
you sooooo have us pegged…. read here much?
i’m off to go catch my breath… whoooo.
What court ruling?
Um, –United States v. Duggan for starters.
Of course you’re ignorant.
You call that “terrorist connections� Do you have no threshold for materiality?
Do you?
I mean you, ignorant, get to define that, right?
Again:
Branch and rank, please?
Things you are afraid of are blown out of all proportion.
How would you know?
Again,
Branch and rank, please?
You all need to start getting your news somewhere other than the Fox and the O’Hannity Factor.
Don’t worry idiot, everyone reading knows you’re typing this in the absence of an actual argument.
Funny how you’re doing that, huh?
You call that “terrorist connections�
Well, yes.
See, Abu Nidal was the most wanted terrorist in the world at the time of his demise and Ramsey Usef bombed the WTC in 1993.
So the question is, what are you so silly?
Won’t this unsavory obsession with profiling swarthy denizens of the Levant leave us dangerous exposed to the soulless blond killers of the Swedish Liberation Front?
TW “fire” as in “Fire when you see the browns of their eyes…”
You call that “terrorist connections�
Maybe you could explain to the class what this means exactly:
That is the Afghan section of the Directorate of Counterintelligence (M5) to the head of M5 dated September 15th, 2001
Please note:
Your reply will be “LoL, if that were true BushCo would be talking about it endlessly” assigning your juvenile motives to actual adults.
Then stop getting everything 100% wrong.
You’l find your eye feels much better when you stop jabbing it with a pointy stick. I mean, just because us eeeeevil neocons have been telling you doing that was a bad idea, doesn’t make it a good idea.
Your point? A lot of people told a lot of other people things they wanted to hear to get things they wanted, none of which was confirmed or corroborated. As we say in Hebrew, Mah Nishtana…
Of what?
Your point? A lot of people told a lot of other people things they wanted to hear to get things they wanted, none of which was confirmed or corroborated
Hilarious.
See idiot, that isn’t a response to the fact Saddam and AQ were collaborating.
Fact.
Of what?
Thanks for the laughs, dumbass.
Your point?
You mean other than the fact Saddam was involved with terrorism?
Of what?
Of the branch of the military you are serving in or have served it.
And the corresponding rank.
I mean, since you’re here spouting off about military strategy and everything, I’m assuming you’d like to tell everyone.
And, given you haven’t served, you a) may want to think about what that means in light of your continued dipshit comments and b) rethink what you’re typing.
lot of people told a lot of other people things they wanted to hear to get things they wanted, none of which was confirmed or corroborated
Really?
Prove this.
Further, please debunk the translation’s going on by the US military.
Or, you have evidence of this silly assertion, correct?
none of which was confirmed or corroborated
This is what you ignorants tell yourself about facts you don’t like.
As I said idiot, even the Clinton Admin knew Saddam and AQ were working together.
See, this wasn’t really a controversial matter until you ignorants decided to make it a political issue.
Does it bother you that your political opinions are formed by ignorance?
There you go again. Ace’s world: uncorroborated statements from unreliable witnesses about inconsequential tangential non-events = airtight case for killing tens of thousands of people and trashing American moral superiority and endangering our security. Why? Because he is afwaid.
And, yeah, I was in the military, not that it’s any of your business.
david:
Yes, the “you get all your info from FOX NEWS” claim is both tiring and pathetic. Oh sorry, should I be oh-so-kewl and call it “Faux” News?
And, yeah, I was in the military
Lie.
uncorroborated statements from unreliable witnesses about inconsequential tangential non-events
How is it “uncorroborated” exactly?
Who is the “unreliable” witness?
How is it “inconsequential” that Saddam was involved with al Qaeada when you brought the topic up?
airtight case for killing tens of thousands of people and trashing American moral superiority and endangering our security
More statements that you can’t provide evidence for and of course false.
Funny, huh?
Again, doesn’t it bother you that your political opinions are formed by ignorance?
—
You can’t still be clinging to the Saddam/terrorist connection
Then:
about inconsequential tangential non-events
You’re too dumb to see the incongruity.
I guess Saddam and AQ planning to bomb American targets is “inconsequential” when you’re out of silly, dipshit lies.
http://70.168.46.200/allFiles.aspx
You can lead someone to facts, but you can’t make them think.
Uh, davey. Let me list those names again:
Abdul Rahman Yasin
Black September
Abu Nidal
All official guests of Saddam’s government. All living openly in a police state so thorough one fellow spent years literally inside the walls of his parents’ home to escape arrest.
All of them terrorists who attacked the US.
You wanted terrorist connections. I gave them to you. Then you picked up the goalposts, tugged them down the field and said “not good enough”.
I know this won’t be enough—nothing will be enough; because you’re not interested in facts—but here’s some more:
Arab Liberation Front
Hamas
Palestine Liberation Front
All groups given funds, aid, training, or shelter by Saddam’s government.
How about Abigail Litle, killed by a Palestinian “martyr” who walked onto a bus full of civilians and detonated the bomb strapped to him. The bomber, Raghib Ahmad Izat Jarradat, is on a list of “martyrs” Saddam’s government “subsidized”.
How about Leon Klinghoffer, pushed—in his wheelchair—off the Achille Lauro by Abu Abbas’ PLF. Abbas at the time was holding an Iraqi diplomatic passport, and used it to claim diplomatic immunity when captured by NATO forces in Sicily.
Of course, none of it’s enough. You know the “facts”, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind, is it?
Well, when they don’t want to think, what can you do?
TW: mind. Scary.
uncorroborated statements from unreliable witnesses
From the crowd that uncritically accepts the idea a missle hit the Pentagon, the Jews/Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and Bush bombed the Taliban (but you chickenhawks supported that one!) over an oil pipeline.
Surreal.
Ace, you are pretty much a dick. Aren’t you? You seem to be the only one doing this at the moment and you are not worth the typing effort. Bye.
I was a marine, dipshit.
Ace, you are pretty much a dick. Aren’t you?
Awww.
Do you want your binkie now?
I’m just getting warmed up, champ!
You seem to be the only one doing this at the moment and you are not worth the typing effort. Bye.
Those who have no substance complain about style.
It is worth noting everything you typed was demonstrated to be incoherent and/or false.
TW: which
Which of wittle davie’s comments were the dumbest?
The proclamation that those who disagreed with him got all their info from Fox News.
TW: Well, that’s my vote.
For me, it was
After Ace pointed out that Saddam was, well, connected with terrorists.
This is amazing. Here’s a guy who not only doesn’t want facts, he absolutely ignores them when they are shoved up his ass. Dave, I salute you. You are probably the most ignorant troll I have ever seen here..
You know, there are logical arguments against the war in Iraq, but you certainly have never butted heads with any of them. What a maroon…
Sorry I didn’t preview that, but what I meant to say, dave, is that you are not a marine – you are a maroon – as any marine who is reading this will no doubt confirm.
So, survey question for all of you people out there who look Muslim but aren’tâ€â€Italians, Greeks, Sephardic Jews, Arab Christians, etc.â€â€do you attract inordinate attention at airport security, or is my husband’s name on some list?
i don’t look muslim and i’m not male, but every flight i’ve been on since 9-11, i’ve been pulled out of line and been the subject of extra searches. maybe my name’s on a list somewhere . . . or maybe they’re using 100lb fair skinned caucasian girls like me to prove these searches really are random.
i say bring on the racial profiling. it’ll make my life a lot easier.
Yes, that you mindlessly troll here and then pretend to be thoughtful and open minded when you get called out for it. Not only that, but as the above suggests, you assume that those who disagree with must simply be crazy or brainwashed, and then you work backwards from that conceited notion to “analyse” the sort of madness that would ever bring mere mortals to challenge your superior intellet.
Tiny data points? 9/11 was the result of years of backing down from the challenges of Islamic extremists. Do you remember the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa, the first WTC bombing? What exactly did we do about those attacks? Damn near nothing. And so how do you suppose that terrorists and rogue nations thought us invincible when they could attack us with seeming impunity?
How do you keep coming back with this lame act without any sense of embarrasment? Oh, yeah, narcissism.
What I don’t get is how the left can dismiss racial profiling but then support affirmative action. Isn’t affirmative action a form of racial profiling?