NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there anything wrong with racial profiling? I'm serious, it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West. I know that this has probablly been done before but oh well, I'm doing it again. Do you feel it is necessary? Are you against it? Why are you for it? Or, Why are you against it?

It's right sometimes. Take 'randomly' searching people who are carrying luggage on the way through airports and subways. An 85 year old white woman is less likely statistically to be an arab terrorist than a 25 year old middle eastern man. That's not racism, that's a fact, and we should stop pretending that that isn't the case.

Is there anything wrong with racial profiling? I'm serious, it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West. I know that this has probablly been done before but oh well, I'm doing it again. Do you feel it is necessary? Are you against it? Why are you for it? Or, Why are you against it?

I see the logic behind it, I just don't like it. People need to understand that these terrorists are members of the extreme-wing of their faith. The majority wants nothing more than peace.

Going after an entire creed of people to get one person out of the million is like attacking a fly with a SAM.

Way to repeat, in a condensed form, exactly what George Will/Charles Krauthammer said yesterday. It must take talent to take a multi-paragraph colum of idiocy and condense it down to a single sentence of idiocy.

Way to repeat, in a condensed form, exactly what George Will/Charles Krauthammer said yesterday. It must take talent to take a multi-paragraph colum of idiocy and condense it down to a single sentence of idiocy.

You talkin' to me?

No, to the guy who started this. Sorry for not quoting correctly.

Is there anything wrong with racial profiling? I'm serious, it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West. I know that this has probablly been done before but oh well, I'm doing it again. Do you feel it is necessary? Are you against it? Why are you for it? Or, Why are you against it?
Racial profiling is wrong on its face. However, profiling in general is not. If the profile of a terrorist involves a particular race or races, that's coincidental. As usual, the "politically correct" idiocy has tried to frame the issue incorrectly.

Going after an entire creed of people to get one person out of the million is like attacking a fly with a SAM.

Considering how SAMs work, you're more likely to hit a passenger jet than the fly too. And that's an anology that can be applied to the topic.

Is there anything wrong with racial profiling? I'm serious, it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West. I know that this has probablly been done before but oh well, I'm doing it again. Do you feel it is necessary? Are you against it? Why are you for it? Or, Why are you against it?
I'm against it. For obvious reasons:
An 85 year old white woman is less likely statistically to be an arab terrorist than a 25 year old middle eastern man. That's not racism, that's a fact, and we should stop pretending that that isn't the case.
Thanks for making my point for me. It is racist. That's a fact. And you should stop pretending that that isn't the case.

The guy that started this is a Republican Nazi for wanting racial profiling.

I'm against it. For obvious reasons:

Thanks for making my point for me. It is racist. That's a fact. And you should stop pretending that that isn't the case.
So calling a terrorist a terrorist is racist. Oh, that's great reasoning. :rolleyes:

Racial profiling is wrong on its face. However, profiling in general is not. If the profile of a terrorist involves a particular race or races, that's coincidental. As usual, the "politically correct" idiocy has tried to frame the issue incorrectly.

As far as profiling the criminal goes narrowing down the list is fine. Looking for a specific terrorist; Arab descent, dark hair, wearing glasses.

What I'm asking for is a list of descriptors that can narrow down the search. There should be no reason for searching through a family and their belongings just because they are wearing traditional Islamic garb...that is if our inteligence services are as good as they say they are...<_<

I see the logic behind it, I just don't like it. People need to understand that these terrorists are members of the extreme-wing of their faith. The majority wants nothing more than peace.

Going after an entire creed of people to get one person out of the million is like attacking a fly with a SAM.

...except that if that fly survives the fly-swatter, it can eat hundreds or thousands of people.

Racial profiling is horrible when it involves pulling over minority people under the suspicion that they've got illicit drugs in the car.

It is never good... if there's another way to catch criminals/terrorists, that way should be used.

As long as people understand that we are after terrorists and NOT Islam, maybe it's more palatable.

But Average Joe sitting in an airport watching cops search an Arab guy shouldn't think, "Wow, I hope they put that terrorist in jail." We should never assume that the Arab person we cross on the sidewalk is a terrorist, because that is incorrect. I don't know the percentage -- might not be knowable -- but likely a tiny, tiny percentage of Muslims are engaged in what could be deemed terrorist activity.

So if we're going to assume anything when we see an Arab/Muslim, we should quickly assume that he is not a terrorist.

That said, if this is the only way to reliably catch terrorists in airports, we need to realize that maybe saving lives is worth a quasiracist policy and asking a group of people, 99% of whom are nice, a bunch of stupid questions.

The guy that started this is a Republican Nazi for wanting racial profiling.
"Republican Nazi." How very ... disingenous of you. Let me see if I have your alleged thought process correct on this:

* Profiling does not help apprehend terrorists.

* Any sort of profiling is automatically "racial."

* Only Republicans want profiling which may or may not include race as one identifier.

* The Nazis used racial profiling.

Therefore: Anyone advocating profiling in any form is a "Republican Nazi."

Right. :rolleyes:

I suggest you have your headspace and timing checked.

While we're at it, we should allow cops to randomly stop young males of African descent and search them for drugs, guns, and/or large sums of cash. Oh wait, I forgot - we already do that. Or round up all the 'Islamists' in America and put them into camps, like we did with the Japanese.

We've got to keep the 'coloreds in check', don't we?

@~Freebs

Racial profiling is somewhat negative but we should not pretend that our enemies tend to share certain similarities that tend to be race based. I would say that racial profiling is not so much good as it is an evil that can be used to create good results. We just need to make sure that we do not offend the populations that we profile while we do so.

But Average Joe sitting in an airport watching cops search an Arab guy shouldn't think, "Wow, I hope they put that terrorist in jail." We should never assume that the Arab person we cross on the sidewalk is a terrorist, because that is racism.

That is what I am ultimately afraid of.

That is what I am ultimately afraid of.

yah, if we're going to do it, we need to go on a massive information campaign so that upon seeing an Arab/Muslim being questioned... John Q thinks, "I bet that's not a terrorist... most of them aren't. I hope he has a good day..." instead of "I bet he's a terrorist, since most of them are terrorists, and why don't we shoot him and get it over with."

Yeah, we do not want to actually be racist. Maybe we could balance out racial profiling with attempts to encourage islamic interests in the media. Really, we want these people to know that we are on their side and that they are on our side(therefore no concentration camps)

Well, the question is flawed in the first place... when we hear 'terrorist' nowadays, the image that comes to mind is that of a hook-nosed, screaming 'sand ******', wildly waving a Koran above his head with his left hand and ready to press the trigger on the C-4 strapped to his chest with his right. We automatically assume the equation: terrorist = Muslim = Arab

But what about the Earth Liberation Front? The eco-radical group that the FBI ranks as the "#1 domestic terror group"? What about Timothy MacVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? White guys, all of them. All of them committed terrifying acts of terrorism. But did we see white people get 'profiled' all of a sudden? Are Oklahomans suddenly considered 'dangerous'? Are Polish math professors from Berkeley now considered 'terrorists, waging a war on the West'? No.

Why not?

@~Freebs

i'm not saying we should be wimps about it... if we're going to do it, we should go at it with vigor.

But we need everyone to know that the assumption will be on innocence and that questions will be asked only in the attempt to root out terrorism... not to antagonize good people.

It stands to reason that most people who are questioned will be law-abiding citizens on their way to visit an aunt, uncle, son, mother, grandma, etc., or simply the beach. It would probably piss me off to be stopped and asked questions.

So:

a)Info campaign to ensure that everyone, everyone knows why we're doing it, why it's necessary (if it is).

b)Info campaign to ensure that everyone understands that the vast majority of Arabs/Muslims are law-abiding citizen (as folks are in most any culture/nation/people), that there is a presumption of innocence and that a person must show terrorist tendencies before the authorities put him/her in that light.

(cripes, I'm just blabbering. hehe. well let's hope we don't have to do this and if we do, that we do it right.)

Well, the question is flawed in the first place... when we hear 'terrorist' nowadays, the image that comes to mind is that of a hook-nosed, screaming 'sand ******', wildly waving a Koran above his head with his left hand and ready to press the trigger on the C-4 strapped to his chest with his right. We automatically assume the equation: terrorist = Muslim = Arab

But what about the Earth Liberation Front? The eco-radical group that the FBI ranks as the "#1 domestic terror group"? What about Timothy MacVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? White guys, all of them. All of them committed terrifying acts of terrorism. But did we see white people get 'profiled' all of a sudden? Are Oklahomans suddenly considered 'dangerous'? Are Polish math professors from Berkeley now considered 'terrorists, waging a war on the West'? No.

Why not?

@~Freebs

I prefer using the epithet towelhead.

hehe j/k

It stands to reason that most everyone is a good, law-abiding citizen, and that only a tiny, tiny percentage of the whole population is likely to become raving, bomb-building lunatics. What is wrong is when people start blaming the actions of the lunatics on an entire demographic group - when people start singling out minority groups to assign the blame. The fact we have to face is that, out of all society, we don't know who might turn out to be crazy and violent.

@~Freebs

Does racial profiling help end extremist hatred of the West? I doubt it. Seeing their own people being treated like second class citizens would make them angrier wouldn't it? I believe the only way to stop these terrorists is to take away their recruiting ammo. The conversation now is "America is SATAN! Join me and kill the Americans!" and people scream in agreement and join. If however the West (not just the USA, it's everyone's responsibility to help) started helping these people pressure their regimes to allow more freedom (diplomatically, not through war) and start building up their infrastructure the conversation would be like this "America is SATAN! Join me and kill the Americans!" and then people would start laughing and say "What do you mean the Americans helped build the school my children go to!"

We really should wait till its too late so no one is offended I guess.

We should learn from past experience and act in accordance with those facts.

It shouldnt be based on ignorant prejudices, but rather details that we have already learned the hard way and for which some of us have already paid a very high price.
To ignore these lessons for the sake of not offending people is criminal.

If thats profiling, then so be it. If I fit a specific profile being scrutinized harder than other people based on this, I wouldnt have a problem.

I have flown a dozen times since 9/11- each time, my carry on luggage has been thoroughly searched and I've had to remove my shoes and belt-besides the metal detector , I've been efficiently patted down AND had a flouroscope run over me.
I've had the same entering a court house on several occaisions.
To me, this is a minor inconvienience, I'm not offended. I have nothing to hide.

Does racial profiling help end extremist hatred of the West? I doubt it. Seeing their own people being treated like second class citizens would make them angrier wouldn't it? I believe the only way to stop these terrorists is to take away their recruiting ammo. The conversation now is "America is SATAN! Join me and kill the Americans!" and people scream in agreement and join. If however the West (not just the USA, it's everyone's responsibility to help) started helping these people pressure their regimes to allow more freedom (diplomatically, not through war) and start building up their infrastructure the conversation would be like this "America is SATAN! Join me and kill the Americans!" and then people would start laughing and say "What do you mean the Americans helped build the school my children go to!"
That is exactly what we need to do. :D I commend you on your excellent point.

Well, the question is flawed in the first place... when we hear 'terrorist' nowadays, the image that comes to mind is that of a hook-nosed, screaming 'sand ', wildly waving a Koran above his head with his left hand and ready to press the trigger on the C-4 strapped to his chest with his right. We automatically assume the equation: ist = Muslim = Arab

But what about the Earth Liberation Front? The eco-radical group that the FBI ranks as the "#1 domestic group"? What about Timothy MacVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? White guys, all of them. All of them committed terrifying acts of ism. But did we see white people get 'profiled' all of a sudden? Are Oklahomans suddenly considered 'dangerous'? Are Polish math professors from Berkeley now considered 'terrorists, waging a war on the West'? No.

Why not?

@~Freebs
Ummm I think I know why... could it be because 75 percent of the population is white?

Racial (or, more precisely, ethnic) profiling has been implemented in Russia, especially in Moscow. It doesn't work very well here, although it helps our policemen to extort money from the 'blacks'. It is undeniable that a 85-year-old Russian grandmother is less likely to be a suicide bomber than a 25-year-old Chechen woman. Our granny is also less likely to produce a portrait of Benjamin Franklin when accosted by the police...

"Republican Nazi." ...
Actually, that's most likely true. The NAS Rebels' signature proclaims that he is an authoritarian Republican, and...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9043358#post9043358
I'm just curious, is there anyone else on these forums who believe in Facism (yes i know i misspelled it, my computer won't let me spell it the correct way...stupid parental filter..), besides me? I apologize if this thread has been done before, as you can see by my post count I am new to this forum.

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9259536#post9259536
i only have one thing to say: Democracy is Anarcy with a less shocking name.

Fa$cism Forward!

It's right sometimes. Take 'randomly' searching people who are carrying luggage on the way through airports and subways. An 85 year old white woman is less likely statistically to be an arab terrorist than a 25 year old middle eastern man. That's not racism, that's a fact, and we should stop pretending that that isn't the case.

And a 25 year old black man is statistically less likely to own a Lexus than a 45 year old white man. So we should pull over all 25 year old black men driving Lexuses because they're probably stolen, right?

I'm against it. For obvious reasons:

Thanks for making my point for me. It is racist. That's a fact. And you should stop pretending that that isn't the case.

Ok, it's racist, and although I advocate it without personal prejudice against Muslims, I'd much rather be called racist than . Our problem right now lies with radical Muslims of Arab descent. Every ist so far supporting our enimies has been a Muslim of Arab descent. Therefore would it not make sense to be extra weary of muslims of Arab descent?

Itis GREAT for us white people. We should just start locking up people of color, or, even better, shooting them in the head seven times, before they ever even have a chance to break the law in the first place! Or, we can get them all off of welfare by putting them in camps and utilizing thier labor!!!! :rolleyes:

racial profiling is not. People seem to forget that there are plenty of different "races" that follow Islam and plenty of individuals assumed to be Muslim are, in fact, not.

However, intelligence could identify specific suspects which would give the impression of being racial profiling, much as if a suspect had blonde hair.

What does a Muslim look like anyway, or for that matter a Christian or Atheist? Unless someone is wearing obvious religious paraphenalia how can you tell religion on sight?

You really think some middle eastern guy with a beard and a heavy arabic accent is going to destroy stuff? If I was a terrorrist (which i'm not) I would get people from other ethnicities to do my bidding. The worst part of racial profiling, is that sometimes, we profile people from the wrong race.

it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West.

Lol. Muslims vs Infidels. Racists bastards.

You really think some middle eastern guy with a beard and a heavy arabic accent is going to destroy stuff? If I was a terrorrist (which i'm not) I would get people from other ethnicities to do my bidding. The worst part of racial profiling, is that sometimes, we profile people from the wrong race.

Just to add, bag searches and the like were going on before the recent PC blunder. My white, female. American colleague had her bag searched before entering the underground, my Sri Lankan, male, 23 year-old colleague has not.

And a 25 year old black man is statistically less likely to own a Lexus than a 45 year old white man. So we should pull over all 25 year old black men driving Lexuses because they're probably stolen, right?

That's retarded. What does that have to do with my point about islamic terrorists? I didn't say racial profiling was right in all cases.

A better way of putting it would be, 'If there were a bunch of bombings committed by a terrorist group who are 98% 25 year old black men who drive lexuses, then should we be wasting resources on checking 85 year old white women who don't own cars just as hard in order to be politically correct?'

Do islamic terrorists tend to be young men of middle eastern descent or not? Simple question. And if the answer to that is, 'yes', then why should we pretend otherwise? I'm not saying we shouldn't check suspicious people of any background, but people who fit the profile are a better bet to be terrorists than people who aren't.

Now that doesn't mean, 'Young men of middle eastern descent tend to be islamic terrorists' so lets not have any half-ass misinterpretations here. But if we're looking for islamic terrorists, maybe old age homes in some white neighborhood in Maine isn't a good place to start.

Let's turn it the other way. Most dangerous members of the IRA are white men. Should the Brits have checked people who just immigrated there from Saudi Arabia just as hard as white men with thick Irish accents because they're statisically just as likely to be members of the IRA?

It's right sometimes. Take 'randomly' searching people who are carrying luggage on the way through airports and subways. An 85 year old white woman is less likely statistically to be an arab terrorist than a 25 year old middle eastern man. That's not racism, that's a fact, and we should stop pretending that that isn't the case.

Just out of interest, the four July 21 bombers are:

1 from Somalia (originally)
1 from Erutrea (originally)
1 from Ethopia (originally)
1 original nationality unknown.

Aren't these all African, rather than Middle Eastern countries?

Thats why I said, 'search all suspicious people'.

How many of them were 85 year old white women, by the way?

Actually I consider the whole 'War on Terror' to be a farce used to take away our civil rights and allow Bush to do what he wants globally. But if we're gonna try and legitimately stop bombings then lets be as effective as possible within reason.

Racial (or, more precisely, ethnic) profiling has been implemented in Russia, especially in Moscow. It doesn't work very well here, although it helps our policemen to extort money from the 'blacks'. It is undeniable that a 85-year-old Russian grandmother is less likely to be a er than a 25-year-old Chechen woman. Our granny is also less likely to produce a portrait of Benjamin Franklin when accosted by the police...


Actually, that's most likely true. The NAS Rebels' signature proclaims that he is an authoritarian Republican, and...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9043358#post9043358


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9259536#post9259536

Wow! How far back did you have to go to find THOSE?! Anyway, I have changed my viewpoints, I am no longer a Fa$cist, I am instead, as my sig says, an Authoritarian Republican. Basically I believe in keeping our economy the way it is now, with slightly less regulation, and having a one party state involved ONLY in the society and geo-political things. You can try and call that Fa$cism, but its not, I have changed my views.

"Republican Nazi." How very ... disingenous of you. Let me see if I have your alleged thought process correct on this:

* Profiling does not help apprehend terrorists.

* Any sort of profiling is automatically "racial."

* Only Republicans want profiling which may or may not include race as one identifier.

* The Nazis used racial profiling.

Therefore: Anyone advocating profiling in any form is a "Republican Nazi."

Right. :rolleyes:

I suggest you have your headspace and timing checked.

Psst. Eut. Nas Rebels specifically stated racial profiling, not just profiling. So it is racially biased.

If you fly at all often, you've probably heard the following announcement over the loudspeakers in airports many times:

"Please report any suspicious persons or activities to airport security personnel."

Sounds reasonable, right? Stop to think about it for a moment, though. What makes a person suspicious if it's not their activities? I've only come up with one answer. Everyone I've pointed this out to has only come up with one answer. If you can come up with a different one, I'll be impressed. (Lately, a few airports seem to have taken out the "persons" part, which I'm very glad to hear, but I can't help but feel that it should never have been there in the first place.)

On one of the more recent flights I took, I ended up in line next to a nice man and struck up a conversation with him while we waited to board the plane. I learned that his mother was Egyptian, his father was descended from one of the Mayflower's passengers, he'd never left the U.S. in his life, he was a devout Catholic (sporting a crucifix, incidentally), he had two siblings in the army fighting in Iraq, he flew cross-country for business about every two weeks, and in his past fifty flights, he'd been searched on all but one.

He was a little annoyed by this. To say the least.

This is the problem with racial profiling. It's one thing to look for people who fit the descriptions of known terrorists. It's quite another to have this sort of knee-jerk reaction to brown skin. It's not particularly effective, and it greatly offends many people while reinforcing stupid racist stereotypes. If someone could persuasively argue that searching the same nice, non-Muslim, patriotic American 49 times accomplished something for our safety, then racial profiling might serve a purpose - but I really doubt anyone can.

I live in Canada, and yesterday I was listening to the radio on my drive home, and they were talking about racial vs, random profiling. I think it is ok, and in a sense only logical. Currently peace enforcers are watching out for terrorists. They were searchiong a 76yr old lady, I am pretty damn sure that Grandma is not packing heat. I know it is racist, but come on, a terrorist group form lets say Pakistan is going to be composed of wow get this PEROPLE FORM PAKISTAN. I am not saying that everyone form Pakistan is in the terrorist group, simply that if you are looking out for terrorists, you should probably check everyone who even looks like they could be associated with a terrorist group: better safe than sorry. We are not doing it because we dont trust them, we are doing it because we dont trust terrorists.

Now for the angry replies :)

he flew cross-country for business about every two weeks, and in his past fifty flights, he'd been searched on all but one.

Ummmm, arn't all passengers searched at the security checkpoint?

Way to repeat, in a condensed form, exactly what George Will/Charles Krauthammer said yesterday. It must take talent to take a multi-paragraph colum of idiocy and condense it down to a single sentence of idiocy.



I thought idiocy would be searching the least likely suspect instead of the most likely suspect in the name of political correctness? ;)

Racial profiling is a good thing. It makes no sense whatsoever not to profile by race if the targeted persons (Islamic terrorists in this case) are almost all Mideastern young men

But if I don't convince you, maybe Michelle Malkin will:

RANDOM IDIOCY

By MICHELLE MALKIN

WHAT'S the point? In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in London, Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD announced plans to conduct random searches of packages and backpacks carried by subway riders.

"Random," of course, is a synonym for blind. And we all know what it means when you put blind bureaucrats in charge of homeland security: Grannies and toddlers, prepare to be on heightened grope alert.

Reassuring al Qaeda operatives everywhere, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly pledged that his officers would not engage in "racial profiling." He also emphasized that passengers would be free to "turn around and leave" instead of consenting to a search.

Combined with New York City's inane sanctuary policy, which provides safe haven for illegal aliens, these new security-in-name-only measures prove that political correctness still trumps public safety.

A few weeks ago, I noted the vapidity of the trite phrase "heightened alert." New York's response yesterday underscores the point. It is madness to pretend that no profile exists of possible Islamist bomb plotters. It is reckless to prevent law-enforcement authorities from taking obvious national-security profiling factors (racial, ethnic, religious, nationality, behavioral or otherwise) into account. And it is deadly to refuse to enforce immigration laws in a manner that results in, yes, profiling.

"Look for things that are unusual," Commissioner Kelly implored. "Look at things through the prism of 9/11." Uh-huh. But don't dare note the obvious:

The 7/7 London terrorist bombers were young Muslim men — all but one of them of Pakistani origin.

All of the 1993 landmark-bombing conspirators were Muslim men from the Middle East or Sudan.

All of the '93 World Trade Center terrorist bomb plotters were young Middle Eastern Muslim men — five of them, illegal aliens.

The '97 New York subway-bomb plotters were also young, Middle Eastern Muslim illegals.

The terror-plotters' ability to take shelter in the city's non-profiling, non-immigration-enforcement sanctuary bears repeating: One of the '97 plotters, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996 and '97. He claimed political asylum based on alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond (posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien) then skipped his asylum hearing after calling his attorney and lying about his whereabouts.

In June 1997, after his lawyer withdrew Mezer's asylum claim, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave the country on a "voluntary departure order." Mezer ignored the useless piece of paper and disappeared into New York City's illegal-alien safe haven. He joined the N.Y.C. bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off police. His co-conspirator was another untouched illegal alien, Palestinian Lafi Khalil.

More:

All three of the Millenium bomb plotters were young Muslim male illegal aliens from Algeria.

Four of the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa were Middle Eastern Muslim men.

Look, too, at the Islamist subway bomb plotters arrested last summer in a conspiracy to attack the Herald Square subway, three police stations on Staten Island, a prison, and the Verrazano Bridge. One of the men in the August 2004 plot, Shahawar Matin Siraj, was a 22-year-old illegal alien from Pakistan based in Jackson Heights. The other, James Elshafay, was a young, Jew-hating American man of Egyptian descent.

The usual civil-liberties absolutists are already complaining about the city's non-crackdown crackdown and warning of unconstitutional racial discrimination. Minority set-asides for public construction projects to ensure "diversity" in Brooklyn? No problem. Common-sense profiling to stop Islamist terrorists? Call in Amnesty International.

Yesterday's attacks in London, however inept, show that Islamists and their sympathizers aren't playing games. Meanwhile, we're playing eeny-meeny-miney-mo on New York's subways, buses, and trains.

Remind me: What's the point?

E-mail: malkin@comcast.net.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/50165.htm

I see the logic behind it, I just don't like it. People need to understand that these terrorists are members of the extreme-wing of their faith. The majority wants nothing more than peace.

Going after an entire creed of people to get one person out of the million is like attacking a fly with a SAM.
I don't think anyone really likes it, except maybe racists. But it's a necessary security measure. As whas been said, some demographics are more likely to commit crimes than others. It's logical to look to those demographics first. Mind you, I'm against just dragging people away to jail just for their race, that's no justice.

Going after an entire creed of people to get one person out of the million is like attacking a fly with a SAM.
I think its better than going after ALL creeds of people, don't you? Should men get checked for ovarian cancer so women don't feel so singled out?

I have just one message to suicidal idiots who say racial profiling is wrong. The next time terrorists blow up a bunch of people (and we can be sure THERE WILL BE next time), I sincerely hope that all the victims are opponents of racial profiling. And we should apply racial profiling broadly. E.g. Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate into the US. It's just common sense.

I definitely think that it has benefits, it is only logical to see that racial profiling can increase efficiency. However, we much decide whether the precedent racial profiling creates is worth the efficiency we gain.

I don't usually use a slippery slope argument, but in this case, if we allow governmental norms to change, it can really come back to bite us if and when social and moral norms change.

If it is allowed, it is only another step towards the holocaust that may happen soon.

If it is allowed, it is only another step towards the holocaust that may happen soon.


As opposed to the holocaust that could occur if it isn't allowed?

And a 25 year old black man is statistically less likely to own a Lexus than a 45 year old white man. So we should pull over all 25 year old black men driving Lexuses because they're probably stolen, right?

...or because drug money was used to buy it.

stereotypes are horrible.

Well, I voted no because of the question on the poll.

Racial profiling is not 'right' but it can be 'good'.

Although it may not be the right thing to do, in a time of suspicion (like directly after 9/11), racial profiling might just be what'll filter out the good guys and the bad guys in a specific group. Giving extra attention to is of the Islamic faith at an airport might be helpful. We aren't seeing radical Jews trying to go at war with the United States, we're seeing radical Muslim fundamentalists going to war with the United States.

Take it from a minority citizen.

stereotypes are horrible.

Actually no. Stereotypes are part of the natural survival mechanism. There's no way homo sapiens could survive if they did not constantly use stereotypes. Because they are EXTREMELY useful in making split-second decisions (without them the brain just could not process all the complexities of all available information fast enough).

Anybody who approves of racial profiling has never experienced it first hand. Me being a dark skinned male in America has exposed me to it. It was only two years ago I was arrested for being an African American male in broad daylight, because I happen to "fit the description". The same thing happened to my father in the 80's but I didn't want to believe him until that shit happened to me. It's a humiliating, dehumanzing, frustrating, and angering experience.

Anybody who approves of racial profiling has never experienced it first hand. Me being a dark skinned male in America has exposed me to it. It was only two years ago I was arrested for being an African American male in broad daylight, because I happen to "fit the description". The same thing happened to my father in the 80's but I didn't want to believe him until that shit happened to me. It's a humiliating, dehumanzing, frustrating, and angering experience.
I'm in the NYPD and I know that a lot of this happens. I've intervened in some racial profiling by my fellow officers a few times (and boy, did they get a big boot). The problem persists but I think we're making advancements.

It was only two years ago I was arrested for being an African American male in broad daylight, because I happen to "fit the description".

So? A LOT of people get arrested because they fit the description. That's how crimes get solved, ya know. It's awful when you get confused with some criminal, but shit happens. I don't even see any "racial profiling" in arresting people who fit specific description of a particular criminal at large.

Is there anything wrong with racial profiling? I'm serious, it would be extremely useful to do this for ending the Islamists war against the West. I know that this has probablly been done before but oh well, I'm doing it again. Do you feel it is necessary? Are you against it? Why are you for it? Or, Why are you against it?It's good for a start, but like anything else, it can be carried too far.

Anybody who approves of racial profiling has never experienced it first hand. Me being a dark skinned male in America has exposed me to it. It was only two years ago I was arrested for being an African American male in broad daylight, because I happen to "fit the description". The same thing happened to my father in the 80's but I didn't want to believe him until that shit happened to me. It's a humiliating, dehumanzing, frustrating, and angering experience.Arrested? what were the charges?

or was this during an investigation and you fit the general description of the perp?

I'm in the NYPD and I know that a lot of this happens. I've intervened in some racial profiling by my fellow officers a few times (and boy, did they get a big boot). The problem persists but I think we're making advancements.

Advancements to WHAT?! More terrorist atrocities? I predict that it will take at least two (one will not be enough) nuclear explosions in US cities for most Americans to finally realize that we are at war.

So? A LOT of people get arrested because they fit the description. That's how crimes get solved, ya know. It's awful when you get confused with some criminal, but shit happens. I don't even see any "racial profiling" in arresting people who fit specific description of a particular criminal at large.

Look at it from my perspective. I'm a good person. I've never broken the law, I study and work hard, I never give my parents or the people around me any trouble.

To have unholstered weapons pointed in your direction by people you don't even know and to be manhandled and restrained by a metal device and then thrown into a back of a car and transported to a station where potential criminals are contained and to be treated like one of them and having to call your family and tell them that you've been arrested is not my idea of a good time. I feel as if there's a stain on my record that can't be erased even if I didn't commit any crime. It's just one of those things you have to experience to understand.

Advancements to WHAT?! More terrorist atrocities? I predict that it will take at least two (one will not be enough) nuclear explosions in US cities for most Americans to finally realize that we are at war.
Umm... advancements as in there's less racial profiling going hand-in-hand with violent racism and hate.

Arrested? what were the charges?

or was this during an investigation and you fit the general description of the perp?

Some guy had robbed a convience store and they were looking for him, and I fit the description of the perp.

Some guy had robbed a convience store and they were looking for him, and I fit the description of the perp.
You wouldn't believe how many times I heard a description as vague as "A tall, black man."

You wouldn't believe how many times I heard a description as vague as "A tall, black man."

I'm not even all that "black looking". I'm racially mixed (African American and Caucasian) and most people say I look dominican but the dude that robbed the store was African American.

your all taking this racial profiling to the extreme it obviously doesn’t make anyone think or act differently as we are the same species (that if affected by culture and upbringing) but there are obvious attributes that make that particular races have an edge in a particular environment e.g. dark skin for the hot African climate or a short fat body to cope with the cold weather in the far north this is what I think the thread starter had in mind its not racist to make small phone boxes in a nation were the majority are small its common sense

It's too likely to be abused at some point. Didn't it say somewhere that we were meant to be equal before the law?
Furthermore, who's saying that AQ can't find a white disaffected teenager to blow himself/herself up?

Some guy had robbed a convience store and they were looking for him, and I fit the description of the perp.

OK, it's awful that it happened. But what exactly do you suggest? That police do NOT look for people who fit the description of the perp? I understand that you felt very bad about it - as you should have. But just think what's on the balance. Suppose police came upon the actual perp rather than you but did not detain him because did not want to offend him if he was innocent (and unless the description is very detailed, chances are someone fitting it is innocent). And then he went on and robbed another store. Or even worse, freaked out and shot it up. And imagine that YOU just happened to be there and got shot. How would you feel about it? Suppose further that you were just wounded and later learned that the police actually saw the guy shortly before he shot you but did not detain him because they did not want to be accused of profiling. How would you THEN feel about it? It really depends on perspective.

You wouldn't believe how many times I heard a description as vague as "A tall, black man."

Here I would say police should really exercise their judgement depending on circumstances. It's one thing when they are looking for a pickpocket and another thing when several people have just been killed in a drive-by shooting.

:sniper: i'm a terrorist, and i'm a preppy white kid. so if the goal of racial profiling is to nab anyone who could possibly be a terrorist, it isnt very effective. if you want to be completely safe (and/or completely egalitarian) you have to thoroughly search everyone.

What are the chances the young muslim you search just happens to be carrying some incriminating evidence?

OK, it's awful that it happened. But what exactly do you suggest? That police do NOT look for people who fit the description of the perp? I understand that you felt very bad about it - as you should have. But just think what's on the balance. Suppose police came upon the actual perp rather than you but did not detain him because did not want to offend him if he was innocent (and unless the description is very detailed, chances are someone fitting it is innocent). And then he went on and robbed another store. Or even worse, freaked out and shot it up. And imagine that YOU just happened to be there and got shot. How would you feel about it? Suppose further that you were just wounded and later learned that the police actually saw the guy shortly before he shot you but did not detain him because they did not want to be accused of profiling. How would you THEN feel about it? It really depends on perspective.

I see what angle you are coming from, but the bottom line is that should have NEVER happened. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's crap, I shouldn't be held responsible just because of the color of my skin that I was born with. I shouldn't have to live through life looking over my shoulder because I'm parionoid that the police will jump out of the bushes and arrest me for being black. It shouldn't be that way, period. They need to find a way to get better intelligence about the person, don't just go around arresting people randomly just because their skin is dark, that's not the way to go about it.

OK, it's awful that it happened. But what exactly do you suggest? That police do NOT look for people who fit the description of the perp? I understand that you felt very bad about it - as you should have. But just think what's on the balance. Suppose police came upon the actual perp rather than you but did not detain him because did not want to offend him if he was innocent (and unless the description is very detailed, chances are someone fitting it is innocent). And then he went on and robbed another store. Or even worse, freaked out and shot it up. And imagine that YOU just happened to be there and got shot. How would you feel about it? Suppose further that you were just wounded and later learned that the police actually saw the guy shortly before he shot you but did not detain him because they did not want to be accused of profiling. How would you THEN feel about it? It really depends on perspective.

Also, should I carry around a gun and shoot a white person who is walking too close behind me because they MIGHT be apart of the KKK or some other white supremist group and they might want to kill me? I mean, there's no way to be sure right? So I might as well shoot him, because if I don't I could get killed right? Can't take any chances.

Racial profiling maybe tempting but it will be counter productive in the long run.

You can check the Arabs, but the Pakis will slip in. Pakis and Indians look the same, most of them share the same ethnicity too - Punjab and Sindh - there are Indian Punjabis and Indian Sindhis who are just like Paki Punjabis and Paki Sindhis and not to forget the Indian immigrants to Pakistan.

How are you going to profile them without affecting and offending Indians, who are a major immigrant group in both the UK and the US ?

And even if this happens as planned, terrorists will evolve new tactics and they will shift to white muslim terrorists.

Remember John Walker Lindh - The American who fought alongside Taliban ?

Remember Willie Brigitte - The LeT trained Australian who plotted to blow up in Australia ?

Bosnian muslims can pass for whites too. And there are plenty of Black muslims too who can be recruited. Jamaicans, Somalis, Eritreans, Sudanese..

Remember John Reid - the shoe bomber ?

Pretty soon the racial profiling will settle down to religious profiling which is what the salafists and islamists want.

You will be playing RIGHT into their hands.

It's too likely to be abused at some point. Didn't it say somewhere that we were meant to be equal before the law?
Furthermore, who's saying that AQ can't find a white disaffected teenager to blow himself/herself up?

We are not anywhere near that point. And what on earth does it have to do with equality before the law?! And your final point is truly moronic. So far they have not. And even though they theoretically could (although how many white teenage Muslims are out there?!), the chances are very low and we should apply our quite finite resources in the most effective way. Which means searching people the most likely to be terrorists. And the simple fact is that a young Arab Muslim man is statistically a million or so times more likely to be a terrorist that a white teenager.

I really don't think banning any races from entering your country will help neither will keeping an eye on anyone who's race has a history you have to solve these problems by looking for a source e.g.

Q) terrorism is mostly made of by Saudi’s why?

A) because the high amount of unemployment has led to many people bored and desperate combine this with madmen who blame there problems on the west and you get a brainwashed army who are willing to die for there leaders course

or

Q) why are blacks more likely to commit a crime than whites?

A) because the years of discrimination they suffered caused many to sink into poverty and a known fact of poverty is that once your family is poor it is very difficult to drag yourself out and as you will know the poorer the individual the more likely they are to commit a crime

in maybe a few decades are society’s will of hopefully become fully integrated meaning that a Mexican child will have just as much chance as a white child of going to college

It's too likely to be abused at some point. Didn't it say somewhere that we were meant to be equal before the law?
Furthermore, who's saying that AQ can't find a white disaffected teenager to blow himself/herself up?


Eh, I'd rather have an occasionally abused profiling system and be alive than the converse scenario ;)

Also, should I carry around a gun and shoot a white person who is walking too close behind me because they MIGHT be apart of the KKK or some other white supremist group and they might want to kill me? I mean, there's no way to be sure right? So I might as well shoot him, because if I don't I could get killed right? Can't take any chances.


You're taking his statements out of context.

I shouldn't have to pay for other people's crap

Ideally, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. And we all sometimes pay for other people's crap. Often we don't even know it - e.g. you may not get a job simply because the employer previously had a bad experience with someone who graduated from your school, and the employer may not even realize it himself (it may be at the subconscious level). Your girlfriend may not completely open up to you because in the past her feelings got hurt by another man, someone may be rude to you in traffic because someone else has just made him angry etc.

We are not anywhere near that point.
And that is a good reason to give Government Powers to act based on Racial Selectation?

And what on earth does it have to do with equality before the law?!
The Police is obviously tied in with the law. If anyone in society is treated differently (without any evidence or reasonable belief for doing so, might I add) by the law/police, then in my interpretation that goes against the principles our countries are built on.

And your final point is truly moronic. So far they have not. And even though they theoretically could (although how many white teenage Muslims are out there?!), the chances are very low and we should apply our quite finite resources in the most effective way. Which means searching people the most likely to be terrorists. And the simple fact is that a young Arab Muslim man is statistically a million or so times more likely to be a terrorist that a white teenager.
David Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks)? Would David Hicks, if he wanted to blow himself up, be detected?
Do you think it would be difficult to get the next best drug addict, or goth or whatever to blow himself up? All you have to do is offer some money for the family. It works in Afghanistan for people who aren't the slightest bit religious.

Pretty soon the racial profiling will settle down to religious profiling which is what the salafists and islamists want.

Really?! I've always thought they want sharia rule all over the world...

Anyway, what's wrong with religious profiling?

Ideally, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. And we all sometimes pay for other people's crap. Often we don't even know it - e.g. you may not get a job simply because the employer previously had a bad experience with someone who graduated from your school, and the employer may not even realize it himself (it may be at the subconscious level). Your girlfriend may not completely open up to you because in the past her feelings got hurt by another man, someone may be rude to you in traffic because someone else has just made him angry etc.

All of those are pretty harmless, I can get shot by the police if they think I'm doing something they think is suspicious.

I was arrested earlier this year for matching the description of a tall white male sure I was stopped in the middle of the street, put into the back of a police car, had to phone my parents up and held for an hour at the station but I didn't care I got an apology and the guy was caught I could of been the criminal they didn't know that

I was arrested earlier this year for matching the description of a tall white male sure I was stopped in the middle of the street, put into the back of a police car, had to phone my parents up and held for an hour at the station but I didn't care I got an apology and the guy was caught I could of been the criminal they didn't know that

I didn't get an apology. That's why I'm so bitter about this.

If the world were communist and normal i would say no, but considering how it is, yes.


More whites rape than blacks.
More blacks steal than whites.
More Blacks commit drive-bys than whites.
More whites embezel corporate funds(GOOD!) then blacks.


No difference really, but as for terrorists, juust look at most of them on the FBI most wanted site.... how many whites, how many blacks, and how many chinese are there or how many others compared to the hardcore middle-eastern islamic guys?

Eh, I'd rather have an occasionally abused profiling system and be alive than the converse scenario ;)
You're still more likely to be struck by lightning.
And if I were you, I'd stay away from cars. Forever.

I really don't think banning any races from entering your country will help neither will keeping an eye on anyone who's race has a history you have to solve these problems by looking for a source e.g.

Q) terrorism is mostly made of by Saudi’s why?

A) because the high amount of unemployment has led to many people bored and desperate combine this with madmen who blame there problems on the west and you get a brainwashed army who are willing to die for there leaders course

or

Q) why are blacks more likely to commit a crime than whites?

A) because the years of discrimination they suffered caused many to sink into poverty and a known fact of poverty is that once your family is poor it is very difficult to drag yourself out and as you will know the poorer the individual the more likely they are to commit a crime

in maybe a few decades are society’s will of hopefully become fully integrated meaning that a Mexican child will have just as much chance as a white child of going to college

Do you really belief the crap you wrote?!!!

The Saudis are terrorists because they are Wahhabists. They just want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the world.

Poverty has nothing to do with crime. Too many blacks have a very destructive subculture. Too many young men are very irresponsible - they sire children and never give a damn about them. Illegitimacy rate is huge, and fatherless chidlren of all races are much more likely to commit crimes. That's all part of the subculture that I've just referred to. Part of the same subculture is the idea that actually studying at school is "acting white" and should be avoided etc.

The Saudis are terrorists because they are Wahhabists. They just want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the world.
Someone obviously doesn't understand Wahhabism.

I didn't get an apology. That's why I'm so bitter about this.

you could easily just go to the station and ask for one from whoever was involved I am sure there sorry for having to detain you because you matched a description

you could easily just go to the station and ask for one from whoever was involved I am sure there sorry for having to detain you because you matched a description

If they were they would have said they were in the first place, and by now I don't even think they remember me, and by the way I look NOTHING like the guy.

David Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks)? Would David Hicks, if he wanted to blow himself up, be detected?
Do you think it would be difficult to get the next best drug addict, or goth or whatever to blow himself up? All you have to do is offer some money for the family. It works in Afghanistan for people who aren't the slightest bit religious.

SO FAR this has never happened. So stop talking about hypotheticals. Anyway, we can never stop all terrorists. I guess stopping 99% is not good enough for you? By your logic, if we can not stop all, we should not even try to stop any?!

By your logic, if we can not stop all, we should not even try to stop any?!
All anti-terrorism measures are pointless because they are not complete. If they were complete, then one could argue, but even the small chance of being blown up makes it a bad trade to give up many of your civil liberties.

And yes, as I said before
a) The chance to be killed by a terrorist in your home town is about as great as the chance to be killed by a Volcano in your home town.
b) The best way to counter terrorism is to invest money into emergency services, as they have shown good work in London, better than all those cameras for example.

Someone obviously doesn't understand Wahhabism.

Speaking about yourself? BTW, it's a no-brainer that all Wahhabists should be deported from the US. After, of course, they serve their full prison terms. Seriously, any non-native born Wahhabist in the US is a criminal and the government should treat them as such. As a bare minimum, they are all guilty of perjury. When they came in, they all swore they did not advocate overthrowing US government. Yet their beliefs regarding sharia clearly contradict those statements.

-they are unholy devils ramble-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Anyone who says that racial profiling is wrong and immoral is a fool. Racial profiling is an essential tool used to fight both national and international crime and it is completly based on numericle statistics. Racial profiling gives information based on certain paterns that are followed by offenders, there is no bais person tryin opress the mases, its just sheer facts. Lets face it the 60's and 70's are over martin luther king did have a dream and has anyone heard of affirmative action? its alright to give people racial leverage when they want to get into a college or a job but when it comes to saving property, familys and countries its illegal go figure?

Do you really belief the crap you wrote?!!!

The Saudis are terrorists because they are Wahhabists. They just want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the world.

if every Saudi was a terrorist do you really think the west would still be around?

Poverty has nothing to do with crime. so when was the last time you was mugged by a tycoon?

Too many blacks have a very destructive subculture please explain why the Black cultural music of rappers like "Snoop Dog" are less destructive than that of white cultural music "slipknot" if anything whites have the most destructive culture

(for your knowledge I am white)

Anyone who says that racial profiling is wrong and immoral is a fool. Racial profiling is an essential tool used to fight both national and international crime and it is completly based on numericle statistics. Racial profiling gives information based on certain paterns that are followed by offenders, there is no bais person tryin opress the mases, its just sheer facts.
The thing here is that terrorists do not follow a hard-and-fast rule based on what the majority of terrorists do. They are adaptive beings rather than just a collection of facts.

I am going to try to argue this without bringing the morality of racial profiling into this.

If we increase racial profiling, there is a bit of a problem. The more we focus on race, the less we focus on other things.
What, then, would prevent a terrorist from recruiting somebody who is a member of the group that is statistically the group with the least terrorists? That terrorist would have an easier time getting in and to his target than if they did not focus on race.

What a ridiculous notion. The vast majority of Arabs will be totally innocent. It wouldn't narrow the field in any significant sense. It would be like saying since the last three terrorists that were caught were wearing green, all terrorists must wear green.

Well, yeah, some percentage of them may wear green during the act. But targetting people who wear green won't narrow the field at all.

Why not focus on indicators that actually, you know, narrow the field?

racial profiling only works if its along the lines of "he's a tall black man because he comes from Kenya" anything else is due to the culture and situation of a nation e.g. if your an airport security officer in the U.S.A you would watch a Saudi more carefully than an Israeli not because Saudi's are likely to be Islamic but because most Israeli’s are happy with America whereas a very small amount Saudi's blame there problems on the west

I voted yes because it doesn’t make sense to make your doors large enough to fit an Ethiopian when your in Korea

What a ridiculous notion. The vast majority of Arabs will be totally innocent. It wouldn't narrow the field in any significant sense. It would be like saying since the last three terrorists that were caught were wearing green, all terrorists must wear green.

Well, yeah, some percentage of them may wear green during the act. But targetting people who wear green won't narrow the field at all.

Why not focus on indicators that actually, you know, narrow the field?

To say that picking out those of Arabic decent doesn't narrow the field is completely untrue. At this point, the percentage of Arabs that are terrorists or terrorist affiliates, which is quite small, is still much smaller than the percentage of Europeans that are terrorists or terrorist affiliates.

Young dark skinned male of middle eastern descent = terrorist? i think not.

Does anyone need to be reminded that the 2nd most devastating terrorist attack in US history was committed by.........



.......a young white man named Timothy.... :(

in maybe a few decades are society’s will of hopefully become fully integrated meaning that a Mexican child will have just as much chance as a white child of going to college

Well I have good news for you! A mexican child now has more of a chance of getting in to college than a white child thanks to a little thing called affirmitive action.

We are not anywhere near that point. And what on earth does it have to do with equality before the law?! And your final point is truly moronic. So far they have not. And even though they theoretically could (although how many white teenage Muslims are out there?!), the chances are very low and we should apply our quite finite resources in the most effective way. Which means searching people the most likely to be ists. And the simple fact is that a young Arab Muslim man is statistically a million or so times more likely to be a ist that a white teenager.

That may be so but maybe their using an improbabilty generator like the one in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy so that all the terr orists will henceforth be white suberban christian soccer moms. Bet you didn't think of that did you?!?!?!?

I have just one message to suicidal idiots who say racial profiling is wrong. The next time terrorists blow up a bunch of people (and we can be sure THERE WILL BE next time), I sincerely hope that all the victims are opponents of racial profiling. And we should apply racial profiling broadly. E.g. Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate into the US. It's just common sense.

Uh-huh. And Christians should not be allowed to emigrate from the U.S. :rolleyes:
I converted to Islam while in the 1st Marine Division back in April 2003. I will give you a guess as to where in the world we were at the time... should I have to renounce my citizenship because of it?
By the way, want to buy a tin-foil hat? It really helps to keep out those messages from Elvis.

Anyone who says that racial profiling is wrong and immoral is a fool. Racial profiling is an essential tool used to fight both national and international crime and it is completly based on numericle statistics. Racial profiling gives information based on certain paterns that are followed by offenders, there is no bais person tryin opress the mases, its just sheer facts. Lets face it the 60's and 70's are over martin luther king did have a dream and has anyone heard of affirmative action? its alright to give people racial leverage when they want to get into a college or a job but when it comes to saving property, familys and countries its illegal go figure?

Umm... you spelled 'numerical' wrong..... :fluffle:

I think the issue before is is profiling specifically - it just happens that race and religion figure into it under the current circumstances. The civil rights implications of this are apparent, but might be set aside and be argued as a separate political issue.

Profiling should never be seen as a 100% solution to preventing or solving crimes. Its intended purpose is to increase the probability of finding the target of the investigation. There's been considerable argument about whether it's effective or not. I think the question for law enforcement specialists is "to what degree is it effective?". I think it's safe to say that it is at least somewhat effective.

This raises some new questions, for instance whether the enemy will use deception to circumvent the profiling - use caucasians to carry the bomb, for instance, in a form of racial camouflage. This should not be a problem unless law enforcement is so foolish as to think that profiling is 100% effective. Profiling should change (or be abandoned) as new tactics are implemented, it's a flexible tool that past experience has shown to be effective to a degree.

Part of the problem is that we expect to design a 100% effective system that solves all our problems, and profiling is not it. It's just one tool in the arsenal, and probably a small one at that. I have no problem with profiling if it's implemented correctly as a law enforcement tool and not as an agent of political discrimination.

Edit: I didn't vote because I am not for racial profiling, just profiling as a law enforcement tool.