I get your point, but I don't like using the term "terrorist" to describe the Boston Strangler or including him in this comparison. Also, he wasn't a bomber. Rudolph would have been a better choice. Lumping the Strangler together with "real" terrorists would allow him to be labeled "an enemy combatant" and he'd be thrown into jail without any rights. If every law enforcement agency in the land starts using the term terrorist willy-nilly to describe anyone that is very bad man, then our legal system would fall apart.

The point isn't that the Boston Strangler is a terrorist-- it's that appearances lie.

The example has shock value only if you use someone whose photo people may not recognize.

Here's something perverse: If I was looking for a serial killer whose M.O. was sexual assault and strangulation of women, I'd never give someone like Mohammed a second look. In fact, I'd zero in on white men within a particular age group. DeSalvo would probably fit the bill as a suspect.

Yes, I know that's not related to your reason for including the picture, and I don't mean to assert that racial profiling works. It's just that this entry made me realize that I have my own specific race and age profile for serial rapists/stranglers.

Scanning and remote detection of bombs would be the best way to thwart some of this threat, though there are still various logistical issues to cover, like in what areas to deploy countermeasures as it will be impossible to safely cover all civilian traffic areas in a city. No system is perfect and a relentless enemy will resort to some ingenious means of circumventing any technology. For what it is worth, the most common (yes, there have been exceptions ) profile of a serial killer is a Caucasian male (90%). So profiling can be successfully used. I doubt any non-Muslim is a follower of Ayman al-Zawahiri's teachings...

This incident of an Israeli soldier committing an act of terrorism on a bus in Israel supports the point Manish is making pretty directly.

Vikram - but do you know what a Muslim looks like? And are the only terrorists that you want to worry about Muslim ones?

This incident of an Israeli soldier committing an act of terrorism on a bus in Israel supports the point Manish is making pretty directly.

Yes it does. I read that earlier today and was thinking "it was just a matter of time." I wouldn't at all be surprised if we see a rise in Jewish terrorism in the next couple months.

Ennis:

To clarify what I mean by profiling is that one cannot ignore the religion aspect in building a profile of the person being tracked. Just like there aren't any Black Aryan Nation members since race determines a specific trait of Aryan Nation members. In this context, it is not race, but religion.

And yes, I am most concerned about Muslim terrorists right now. Till another religious terrorist group kills more than 3000 Americans in a single day , I daresay most people in this country will agree with me.

If I was looking for a serial killer whose M.O. was sexual assault and strangulation of women, I'd never give someone like Mohammed a second look. In fact, I'd zero in on white men within a particular age group.

Then you wouldn't have caught Derrick Todd Lee who haunted southern Louisiana for a good while. Especially read where profiling didn't help the profilers.

I doubt any non-Muslim is a follower of Ayman al-Zawahiri's teachings...

How does this help, say, Turbanhead and ANNA, who got searched despite their not being Muslims? Also, tell this to the family of the Sikh gentleman who was gunned down after 9/11.

I'm with Manish on this one: look for the bombs, not the people. Profiling is marginally useful and works really well only to create hysteria.

How does this help, say, Turbanhead and ANNA, who got searched despite their not being Muslims? Also, tell this to the family of the Sikh gentleman who was gunned down after 9/11.

Yes, they got searched, just as much as non-inebriated people have been stopped in drunk driving checks just because they left a party or a bar. It would be a problem if they were jailed or otherwise held without a charge being made.

Am not sure what you mean about "tell this" to the Sikh gentleman. He was not killed by a police officer but by some some nut. It has no relevance in that sense to profiling from a law enforcement perspective, which is what I think we're discussing here.

I'm with Manish on this one: look for the bombs, not the people. Profiling is marginally useful and works really well only to create hysteria.

Since the bomb delivery system being used is people, you cannot stop looking for people. Till there is some technological break through to detect explosive material, I don't see profiling in some form going away.

Wow. Some random killing act of an odd israeli is jewish terrorism?

Till there is some technological break through to detect explosive material...

Already exists.

Already exists.

Yes, but how and where will it be deployed. If the explosive is detected on a person and they are already in a crowd, how will they be accurately identified and neutralized before they set it off ? The second half of detection is safe removal of the threat. Since most of the bombers are just looking for mass casualties, there is no specific target that these sensors can surround to protect. And this technology is still untested in actual field conditions of fast moving crowds. It is not like a controlled single file baggage check in an airport bomb detection system. Facial recognition software was also touted as being helpful in detecting wanted people, but the field tests proved a complete failure . Excessive dependence on unproven technology is not a solution to this problem.

I don't see profiling in some form going away.

I don't think you have much to worry about.

But to the topic at hand, I don't buy the argument that, 9 times out of 10, a global Salafi bomber is going to look like a White 20 year old blond woman, much less a 90 year old grandmother from Missouri. Most of them have been young men of Southeast Asian, South Asian, or Arab descent (although Arabs are "Caucasian" according to the census so so much for the census). If there is a Bosnian cell or a cell from Xinjiang, then I would hope that intelligence officers would be figuring that out and if they don't, then it's the intelligence that built the profile that's at fault, not the profiling (although, yes, the intelligence is part of the overall system). And of course, if it's done, it would be moronic for it to be exclusiely race-based--it should include gender, appearance, attire, behavior, etc. A person in a kurta is the last person they should be checking if they're actually profiling effectively because Al Qaeda and similar groups are not that stupid.

Let's be honest and say that while the terrorists may generally not look White or female or old, a better reason for not profiling is that it 1) breeds a reliance by law enforcement on profiling and we don't trust our intelligence enough to be able to figure out in advance what the people are going to look like 2) is probably ineffective in practice given that there are always loopholes at that late stage 3) doesn't spread the emotional and psychological costs of the searches out across the population to make sure that the so-called balancing of "liberties" and "security" and will therefore lead to both oppression and bad policy 4) is currently illegal (in NY according to the police, at least) 5) reinforces existing stereotypes 6) is likely to alienate the communities that are profiled, breeding far more dangerous consequences like insularity and reluctances to come forward with information (or call in fires) in addition to dangers 7) is likely to lead back into other forms of profiling that have nothign to do with protecting people (i.e. of Latinos and Black people) 8) as someone pointed out, there are other people that may use this opportunity to commit crimes--e.g. the Anthrax mailer 9) say they do nonrandom checks and catch 2 out of 4 suicide bombers and the other two who are operating simultaneously manage to get on trains--that still kills what--20-30 people.

Anyway, I still contend that, even if you don't care about any of the morality or psychological damage of profiling, there are better uses of police resources than what seems like a half-baked measure that's not going to work. If you do a full survey of where counterterrorism resources are allocated and how, I would suspect that this is probably not going to prevent or deter very many bombings.

Yes, but how and where will it be deployed.

At entry gates.

... most of the bombers are just looking for mass casualties...

They're looking for a tightly enclosed space (higher casualties) and transit systems specifically (economic damage to a city). An explosion at entry gates wouldn't have nearly as much of an impact.

... this technology is still untested in actual field conditions of fast moving crowds.

As I understand, it actually has been tested in those conditions:

The scanners can spot the waistcoat bombs usually worn by suicide bombers and automatically send an alert to nearby officers. Unlike other scanners, they can cover crowded entrances without the need for people to be stopped for individual checks… the advantage of millimetre wave was its ability to scan large numbers of people simultaneously and produce an instant moving image…

Regardless, it's clear the need for this kind of countermeasure is inevitable, so the sooner we get to installing, testing and improving it, the better.

Some random killing act of an odd israeli is jewish terrorism?

Well, considering there was a religious figure that called for Sharon's death today who had previously done so a month before Rabin was assassinated and some of the settlers are reportedly willing to take up arms against the government if they're evicted (which they're about to be), it seems fairly okay to draw an analogy.

The International Police lobby/union/machine is taking racial profiling to an absurd level. They are promoting lethal force solely on a "reasonable basis"....

I dunno if someone brought this up in one of the other gigantic threads, so sorry if its a repeat. (Been busy with work as of late)

Actually come to think of it, I'm sort of glad the came out with this policy. Why?
A) because it cannot possibly be implemented in any law-abiding country, and
B) it will show the stupidity...or rather, lack of "intelligence" shown by police profiling.

Of course, it could all horribly backfire. *shudder*

Just to be clear....all you apologists for racial profiling, lets be clear. We are not talking just about being annoyed and harrassed a bit more than the average joe. There is a PALPABLE RISK of getting capped in the head, much like the unfortunate Brazilian. Stakes is high.

Just to be clear....all you apologists for racial profiling, lets be clear. We are not talking just about being annoyed and harrassed a bit more than the average joe. There is a PALPABLE RISK of getting capped in the head, much like the unfortunate Brazilian. Stakes is high.

Um... one person has been "capped" incorrectly (and it was more to do with his not following directions from law enforcement: running away is usually a bad idea in such situations) versus the thousands killed by Muslim terrorists over the last couple of years. Nobody is apologizing for anything. Randy Weaver's wife and son were killed in the botched Ruby Ridge siege. And he did win a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the FBI.

hmm, that black guy is really cute.

hmm, that black guy is really cute.

Yeah, it would have been great to have been eviscerated in his particular suicide bombing, your intestines intertwined with his guts and decapitated head etc etc - sexy wow

I came across this editorial today in support of profiling. It basically argues that because the US has treated non-white people so well, that we are expected to put up with profiling and whatever else. It seemed like just another white man supporting profiling. However, I later learned that the author was a Computer Science professor who had been targeted by the Unabomber and suffered severe injuries to his face, hands, and abdomen in the attack. Yet he is still more scared of us and would feel safer profiling them.

"You might argue that dark-skinned people are a special case, given the way the United States has treated them. I agree — we have treated them so solicitously, and worked so hard to suppress racial prejudice, that dark-skinned people owe their country the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. doesn't deserve gratitude for not doing wrong. But no nation in history has ever worked harder to correct a fault than the U.S. has to end racial prejudice. We've earned the right to expect everyone who fits a security profile to grin and bear it."

Just wait till Al Qaeda - whoever start deploying white suicide bombers.

that is wrong on so many levels its jaw-dropping

Just wait till Al Qaeda - whoever start deploying white suicide bombers.

I reckon it is inevitable.

Then we can stare at white people on the tube hahaha

"But no nation in history has ever worked harder to correct a fault than the U.S. has to end racial prejudice."

Haha, it's good to have a laugh on a Saturday afternoon. I couldn't read the rest, but I don't like much of the excerpt you posted.