Muslims face extra airport checks [Archive]

Just thinking

15th August 2006, 03:15 PM

But this proposal is to stop a random selection of Red Mustangs, for an indefinite period, whether there has been a recent crime in the locality or not. I'm not saying that it's not justified (see above), I just think that your analogy doesn't stand up, at all.

How is it not analogous?

It would certainly constitute profiling -- so what if it is of a car? One could easily add to the description that they were black and wore beards. These two items would then be added to the profiling bias. Innocent people doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary would be stopped, detained and possibly searched beyond ordinary means just for having a car (and/or physical description) that fits the description of the killers. And far less effort would be used going after every other car/person on the road in a random manner in an attempt to apprehend them.

As long as the killing/robbing continued -- and the descriptions remained the same -- the profiling would remain in force. "Indefinitely" here depends merely on the time the robbing/killing continued or the suspects remained at large.

Tony

15th August 2006, 03:28 PM

Makes sense to me. Why subject granny to the same checks as a single Muslim male?

Unless they're wearing a turban, how do you know they're muslim?

webfusion

15th August 2006, 03:38 PM

Tony --- Inspection for circumcision? (khitan) (http://www.circlist.com/rites/moslem.html)

Tony

15th August 2006, 03:41 PM

Tony --- Inspection for circumcision? (khitan) (http://www.circlist.com/rites/moslem.html)

So, you want every male who is about to get on a plane to flash his dick to a screener so they can tell if he is muslim or not? Wow.

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 03:43 PM

So, you want every male who is about to get on a plane to flash his dick to a screener so they can tell if he is muslim or not? Wow.
As I noted above, I imagine the determination will be made more with reference to skin tone than to actual religious belief. Which is regrettable, but maybe justifiable under the circumstances.

webfusion

15th August 2006, 03:48 PM

So, you want every male who is about to get on a plane to flash his dick to a screener so they can tell if he is muslim or not? Wow.

Of course, this is the only way to do it.

However, quite a few jews will be taken aside this way, as well, so I don't know how beneficial this dick-inspection process will be ------ especially when you end up with a whole roomful of screened muslims and jews together, and fights start breaking out right there in the airport!

Tony, it was a joke.

fuelair

15th August 2006, 03:55 PM

Wow! Can you say "Straw Man"?

No, I 'cough,cough,strawman,cough' can't.

Tony

15th August 2006, 03:58 PM

As I noted above, I imagine the determination will be made more with reference to skin tone than to actual religious belief.

Since islam doesn't require a skin tone. What skin tone would you single out?

Which is regrettable, but maybe justifiable under the circumstances.

Justifiable? More like completely stupid. All the terrorists have to do to adapt is start using white Muslim dudes for their attacks. Hell, they could even use middle eastern looking guys to divert attention away from the white muslim with nefarious intentions. This "solution" is a simple PR move designed to give the impression that something is being done. Anyone capable of strategic thought will see the folly in this.

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 04:04 PM

Since islam doesn't require a skin tone. What skin tone would you single out?
Probably the skin tone of most terrorist suspects, which is a shade resembling Araby-brown, if I'm not mistaken.

Justifiable? More like completely stupid. All the terrorists have to do to adapt is start using white Muslim dudes for their attacks. Hell, they could even use middle eastern looking guys to divert attention away from the white muslim with nefarious intentions. This "solution" is a simple PR move designed to give the impression that something is being done. Anyone capable of strategic thought will see the folly in this.
I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof, or that there aren't ways of getting around it. I'm only slightly over the fence on the side of thinking it's a good idea. But I would be willing to bet that most members of al Qaeda fall within the ethnic parameters that will receive extra scrutiny under this program, so it seems like this could at least inhibit their effectiveness. All things considered, it seems to me like it's worth the cost.

RichardR

15th August 2006, 04:14 PM

Let's use as an example that the only valid information we have of a group of successful bank robbers/killers is that they escaped in a red late model mustang. Now, does anyone here object to the police stopping and searching (in a way not normally done in an every-day random stop) each late model red mustang that is on the highways relatively near the crime scene?
If the alternative is to stop every car and give it a full search, then yes I would stop every late model red mustang. Or at least, not search every single car - which is what is happening now (in this analogy).

RichardR

15th August 2006, 04:18 PM

As long as the killing/robbing continued -- and the descriptions remained the same -- the profiling would remain in force. "Indefinitely" here depends merely on the time the robbing/killing continued or the suspects remained at large.
If the klling continued, and the killers still used the red mustang, then I would say absolutely you have made the case - of course every red mustang would be stopped until you had the killers. Why on earth would you stop every car and search it?

RichardR

15th August 2006, 04:21 PM

As I noted above, I imagine the determination will be made more with reference to skin tone than to actual religious belief. Which is regrettable, but maybe justifiable under the circumstances.
I imagine the names would be a give-away. Anyone called Muhammad, for example. Or (in the case of people with UK passports) Pakistani names.

Rob Lister

15th August 2006, 04:25 PM

I see no problem with it. Profile away.

TragicMonkey

15th August 2006, 04:25 PM

I imagine the names would be a give-away. Anyone called Muhammad, for example. Or (in the case of people with UK passports) Pakistani names.

Like Richard Reid?

While security spends its efforts looking in one direction, it's failing to look in another.

Anyone else spend time in DC during the sniper attacks? We were all looking out for a white van. Boy, did we feel stupid when it turned out to be a red sedan. And the people shot while everyone was looking for white vans, well, I'm sure they'd understand the value of saving time in the name of security. We're all safer if we cut those corners, to maximize efficiency. A faster search is a more thorough search!

Search everyone. It's safer, as well as more fair.

RichardR

15th August 2006, 04:26 PM

I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof, or that there aren't ways of getting around it. I'm only slightly over the fence on the side of thinking it's a good idea. But I would be willing to bet that most members of al Qaeda fall within the ethnic parameters that will receive extra scrutiny under this program, so it seems like this could at least inhibit their effectiveness. All things considered, it seems to me like it's worth the cost.
Precisely!

Remember the article didn't just say they would single out Muslims. It said:

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.
Also:

Sir Rod Eddington, former chief executive of British Airways, criticised the random nature of security searches. He said that it was irrational to subject a 75-year-old grandmother to the same checks as a 25-year-old man who had just paid for his ticket with cash.
Also

Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant, said that profiling should focus on ruling out people who obviously posed no risk rather than picking out Asian or Arabs.

Ian Osborne

15th August 2006, 04:34 PM

Unless they're wearing a turban, how do you know they're muslim?
Turbans are worn by Sikhs, not Muslims.

RichardR

15th August 2006, 04:36 PM

Like Richard Reid?

While security spends its efforts looking in one direction, it's failing to look in another.
That's the only good argument against it, in my view. Clearly, you can't check only those with Pakistani (etc) names, or you miss Richard Reid and the terrorists with fake IDs. Most people have to be subject to possible search etc. But it seems silly to me to pretend that everyone presents the same risk, and that everyone has to be treated exactly the same.

Elind

15th August 2006, 04:37 PM

That's right. No harm has ever come from forcing people of a particular ethnicity/religion to go through special police interrogation or to cough up identification papers on demand.

Is that similar to saying that no harm has ever come from a particular ethic/religious group?

Elind

15th August 2006, 04:48 PM

Turbans are worn by Sikhs, not Muslims.

I think that's about the sixth time I recall that being pointed out here, although it's not strictly true as the headgear worn by Afghans could certainly be called a turban, even though it's a different wrap from the Sikhs.

Not that it's very likely one would see one trying to board a plane with that headgear these days.

TragicMonkey

15th August 2006, 04:50 PM

That's the only good argument against it, in my view. Clearly, you can't check only those with Pakistani (etc) names, or you miss Richard Reid and the terrorists with fake IDs. Most people have to be subject to possible search etc. But it seems silly to me to pretend that everyone presents the same risk, and that everyone has to be treated exactly the same.

I'm willing to put up with the silliness in exchange for increased safety. But then, when the stakes are blowing up, I tend to dislike any risk at all.

(I wouldn't mind if all passengers were chained to their seats, or knocked out with sleeping gas. Although that might be more because I'm an antisocial flyer than for security. Why the hell would I want to talk to a total stranger about her grandchildren instead of looking out the window from 30,000 feet? I'm insufficiently spoiled in that I am not blase about flying, I still think it's an amazing achievement, and I'm going to stare out the window at the clouds and landscape, dammit.)

Tony

15th August 2006, 04:58 PM

Turbans are worn by Sikhs, not Muslims.

Is this guy a Sikh?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/muqtada_sadr3.jpg

Ian Osborne

15th August 2006, 05:02 PM

No idea who he is, but as Elind pointed out, the Afgan head dress is not quite the same as a turban. Even if a select group of muslims did wear turbans, though, it would be academic as wearing of the turban isn't strongly associated with Islam.

If you see a guy boarding a plane in a Western airport, you can bet your next month's salary he's a sikh.

Elind

15th August 2006, 05:10 PM

You can also bet he won't get on a plane with a turban.

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 05:22 PM

Well, one can't screen muslims, a muslim can look like anything. You'd have to take them at their word. One can screen people with arabic last names, but it's not too hard to change one's name. One can screen for people who look arab, but functionally that will also mean screening many latinos, southern europeans, south asians, and mixed race folks. It may be worth it though, I'm not necessarily against looks-based profiling of swarthy men to insure air travel safety. It would certainly make terrorism more difficult for al queda and similar groups, and it would also improve consumer confidence in air travel safety.

Rob Lister

15th August 2006, 05:31 PM

I know that Israel profiles.

They seem to do well with it.

I think it is a good idea.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 07:15 PM

Wow! Can you say "Straw Man"?

Certainly. But I'd suggest you point out where it is before making pithy comments.

You want to screen Muslims? Great--now have fun implementing a policy that would identify Muslims and wouldn't be completely draconian. Good luck with that.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 07:21 PM

I know that Israel profiles.

They seem to do well with it.

They also don't bother with pesky things like civil rights when it gets in the way of said "profiling."

If you want to profile, you have to do it in such a way that it doesn't conflict with those inconvenient "due process" and "equal protection of laws" concepts. Again, good luck with that.

I think it is a good idea.

Well, wipe the shock off my face...

webfusion

15th August 2006, 07:23 PM

I know that Israel profiles.

They seem to do well with it.

I think it is a good idea.

Yeah, they just don't let guys like THIS (http://freund.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/palestinian_rocket_1.jpg) anywhere near Ben Gurion airport!

Elind

15th August 2006, 07:30 PM

They also don't bother with pesky things like civil rights when it gets in the way of said "profiling."

Would you fly El Al if they didn't? Do you think anyone with your attitude wouldn't ring the profile bells if you ever had to do it?

RichardR

15th August 2006, 07:31 PM

Certainly. But I'd suggest you point out where it is before making pithy comments. Glad to. It was the bit you wrote about passing legislation so that every Muslim has to have their religion marked on their passport or other individual ID, then, police would be empowered to demand said ID whenever they feel the need. Unless you can show me in the article I cited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html) where it says that, it was a straw man.

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 07:32 PM

They also don't bother with pesky things like civil rights when it gets in the way of said "profiling."

What civil right is at issue here? The right not to be searched at an airport? That can't be right, since no one has that right (or more precisely, no one may exercise that right and still get on the plane).

varwoche

15th August 2006, 07:34 PM

Understanding turbans (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/links/turbans_27.html)

KelvinG

15th August 2006, 07:37 PM

What civil right is at issue here? The right not to be searched at an airport? That can't be right, since no one has that right (or more precisely, no one may exercise that right and still get on the plane).

Exactly. If you have nothing to hide, then getting searched might amount to a bit of an inconvenience, and nothing more.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 08:21 PM

Glad to. It was the bit you wrote about passing legislation so that every Muslim has to have their religion marked on their passport or other individual ID, then, police would be empowered to demand said ID whenever they feel the need. Unless you can show me in the article I cited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html) where it says that, it was a straw man.

I suggest you read my post more carefully, or re-examine the definition of "straw man." I posted that as a sarcastic--albeit logical need if you want to do this sort of thing--response, saying "I have an idea!"

There is no strawman involved.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 08:23 PM

Exactly. If you have nothing to hide,

I have serious doubts that anyone who remotely considers themselves "critical thinkers" would actually debate civil liberties beginning with a phrase like that.

KelvinG

15th August 2006, 08:24 PM

I have serious doubts that anyone who remotely considers themselves "critical thinkers" would actually debate civil liberties beginning with a phrase like that.

Could you describe in more details what civil liberties are being denied by requiring searches at airports?

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 08:29 PM

Exactly. If you have nothing to hide, then getting searched might amount to a bit of an inconvenience, and nothing more.
I wouldn't go that far; I do think that the protection from unreasonable government searches is important to maintain, and it does serve a purpose beyond protecting the guilty.

However, in the context of airport searches, it is long established that the Fourth Amendment does not preclude a search of every passenger seeking to board a plane. Having established that, I don't think it's unreasonable, or a violation of any otherwise recognized civil liberty, for the government to give extra scrutiny to passengers who are, unfortunately for them, members of ethnic or religious groups that are statistically more likely to attempt terrorist acts. I would not extend this to supporting random searches of Arabic individuals on the street, or to the Muslim ID card referred to above. In the narrow context of an airport search, I think it's probably ok.

Edit: As usual, I'm speaking in terms of American constitutional law, which is what I'm most familiar with. I assume that the principles of U.K. law are similar, though I don't know the details.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 08:38 PM

Could you describe in more details what civil liberties are being denied by requiring searches at airports?

You mean, what civil liberties are being denied by treating every Muslim like a criminal waiting to blow something up?

Oh, let's start with:

Due process
Equal protection
Unreasonable search and seizure

That's of course not counting the fact that you're essentially creating a new version of Jim Crow, where those of a particular religion are treated like criminals.

Cleon

15th August 2006, 08:40 PM

I would not extend this to supporting random searches of Arabic individuals on the street, or to the Muslim ID card referred to above. In the narrow context of an airport search, I think it's probably ok.

How generous of you. Care to inform us how, exactly, you're going to pick people out on the basis of ethnicity or religion without resorting to draconian measures like a Muslim ID card?

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 08:42 PM

You mean, what civil liberties are being denied by treating every Muslim like a criminal waiting to blow something up?

Oh, let's start with:

Due process
Equal protection
Unreasonable search and seizure
None of those doctrines prevent government searches of passengers at airports. I don't see why they would prohibit subjecting some passengers to more scrutiny than others.

That's of course not counting the fact that you're essentially creating a new version of Jim Crow, where those of a particular religion are treated like criminals.
That's really the problem. It does seem that this runs the risk of turning Muslims into second-class citizens. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a little extra scrutiny in an airport security line is really comparable to the Jim Crow regime. It's certainly distasteful, though.

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 08:43 PM

How generous of you. Care to inform us how, exactly, you're going to pick people out on the basis of ethnicity or religion without resorting to draconian measures like a Muslim ID card?
By looking at them? I have the uncanny ability to pick members of a particular ethnicity out of a crowd. I'm thinking of applying for the Challenge.

KelvinG

15th August 2006, 08:55 PM

None of those doctrines prevent government searches of passengers at airports. I don't see why they would prohibit subjecting some passengers to more scrutiny than others.

That's really the problem. It does seem that this runs the risk of turning Muslims into second-class citizens. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a little extra scrutiny in an airport security line is really comparable to the Jim Crow regime. It's certainly distasteful, though.

What he said.

Mycroft

15th August 2006, 08:59 PM

Would you fly El Al if they didn't?...

Don't forget who you're talking to.

Elind

15th August 2006, 09:05 PM

Don't forget who you're talking to.

Daleks don't fly?:confused:

JamesDillon

15th August 2006, 09:09 PM

Thinking more about it, there might be a pretty close equal protection argument to be made here, if American airports were to implement a similar policy. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment basically prevents the government from discriminating irrationally in lawmaking, and applies different levels of scrutiny based on the type of classification in question. The basic level, which applies to "non-suspect" classifications, requires only that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The practice of scrutinizing Muslims or Arabs more closely easily passes that test; prevention of terrorism is at least a legitimate governmental interest, and the classification drawn is a rational one, since a statistically large number of terrorists fall within those groups.

However, religion and ethnicity are identified as "suspect" classifications, which means that in order to sustain a practice that discriminates on these lines, the government would have to show that the practice is necessary to achieving a compelling governmental interest. I think we can safely say that prevention of terrorism is a compelling interest. Whether discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity is "necessary" to that interest is a very close question. I think the Supreme Court would probably say that it is, but it's a tough call.

Mycroft

15th August 2006, 09:32 PM

You mean, what civil liberties are being denied by treating every Muslim like a criminal waiting to blow something up?

Oh, let's start with:

Due process
Equal protection
Unreasonable search and seizure

That's of course not counting the fact that you're essentially creating a new version of Jim Crow, where those of a particular religion are treated like criminals.

Even though I'm against the idea, I have to point out that it wouldn't violate these rights.

Due process? They're only being searched, not convicted of anything.

Equal protection? They would be equally protected from terror. They fly on planes too.

Unreasonable search and seizure? The whole point is that these searches are not so unreasonable.

Jas

15th August 2006, 09:43 PM

And as soon as Raelians start blowing themselves up, we can start screening them more carefully too.

While I don't agree with racial profiling, I think it's perfectly rational to view someone who's a devout Muslim with more scrutiny that you would someone who isn't. It's unfortunate, but it's there.

RichardR

15th August 2006, 09:46 PM

I suggest you read my post more carefully, or re-examine the definition of "straw man." I posted that as a sarcastic--albeit logical need if you want to do this sort of thing--response, saying "I have an idea!"

There is no strawman involved. No strawman? Give me a break.

You suggested that there would be legislation so that every Muslim has to have their religion marked on their passport or other individual ID, then, police would be empowered to demand said ID whenever they feel the need. And you have been unable to show me where in the article (or in anything anyone else wrote), where this was being proposed. Classic straw man – you made up an exaggerated or distorted position that was easy to refute or ridicule, assigned that position to proponents of the new policy, and then proceeded to ridicule it.

I suggest you need to re-examine the definition of straw man, and re-examine and change your own debating tactics, if you wish to be considered a critical thinker.

RichardR

15th August 2006, 09:49 PM

On the other hand, I'm not sure that a little extra scrutiny in an airport security line is really comparable to the Jim Crow regime. Exactly. Appeal to Jim Crow - false analogy, I believe.

Skeptic

15th August 2006, 11:47 PM

The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure; unfortunately, in this case, it's not unreasonable. Let us imagine that, instead of a religious or ethnic group, it somehow turned out that all plane hijackers were 6' 4" tall people with a mustache. Would it then be unreasonable to search them more seriously than others? Of course not. Would it mean all 6' 4" men are hijackers? Of course not.

Nobody forbids Muslims to fly on planes. Nobody says all or most Muslims are hijackers. The point is simply that because most hijackers are Muslim and, so far, we cannot tell the difference between hijacker- and non-hijacker Muslims without more checking, this means Muslims in general (actually, young Arab Muslims) must go through more thorough security checks.

The problem is not bigotry, it's lack of information. The one thing we KNOW is that the hijackers are likely to be young Muslim males. If we knew more--say, that they are always called "Ahmed"--we could dismiss checking more thoroughly all young Muslim males and only check those who are also named "Ahmed". But we don't, so we can't.

Skeptic

16th August 2006, 12:07 AM

I know that Israel profiles.

They seem to do well with it.

I think it is a good idea.

It has a downside. I know a famous philosophy professor who had the following discussion:

Security in BG airport: "And the purpose of your visit?"
Professor (telling the truth): "To give lectures proving there is no such thing as a 'law of science'".
Security: "Follow us, please."

brodski

16th August 2006, 12:40 AM

Is this guy a Sikh?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/muqtada_sadr3.jpg

Ok, it is mandatory act of religious observance for Sikhs to wear "the Holy Turban", second only to the observance of "the 5 K's", some Muslim traditions, or cultures which are predominately Islamic, have a tradition of wearing turbans, however for Muslims wearing turbans is not an intrinsic aspect of worship, and there is not the same taboo about removing the turban in front of strangers as there is with Sikhs, I am also not aware of any act of aviation terrorism carried out by a Muslim in a turban. Red bandanna's seems to be more of a risk indicator than turbans.

The Atheist

16th August 2006, 12:49 AM

The first, and most difficult problem has already been noted - identifying "muslims".

Is an English-born man with an Arab name automatically classed as "muslim" even though he may be an atheist or C of E? Is that a Pakistani or a Bengali? An Indonesian or a Bangladeshi?

Therefore, to ensure that genuine suspects are searched as necessary, all muslims need to be identified as such by use of microchipping, as is done with dogs and pot-plants.

We may need to concentrate all of the muslims in some type of camp to ensure that none get through the net before being implanted.

Problem solved.

brodski

16th August 2006, 12:49 AM

Oh, let's start with:

Due process
Which is protected in UK law, where exactly?

Equal protection
Again, this has no legal standing in the UK

Unreasonable search and seizure There's only going to be seizure if they find anything, which won't make it unreasonable, and the searchers are essentially voluntary, don't want to be searched, don't fly.
Perhaps you should understand UK law before commenting on proposals to enforce those laws.

That's of course not counting the fact that you're essentially creating a new version of Jim Crow, where those of a particular religion are treated like criminals.
We've done this before, pretty successfully, if history repeats itself, Abu Hamza should have a seat in Parliament in a couple of decades.

Jaggy Bunnet

16th August 2006, 12:51 AM

I think we have some more fundamental problems to address before worrying about profiling.

Maybe they should concentrate on checking the basics, like passports and tickets, before introducing new rules?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4796199.stm

"He could get through the whole lot including boarding the plane itself before anyone discovered that he hadn't got a passport, hadn't got a ticket, hadn't got a boarding pass, hadn't got an anything.

"It would be amazing any time and any place but in the present climate that really is amazing."

brodski

16th August 2006, 12:52 AM

The first, and most difficult problem has already been noted - identifying "muslims".

Is an English-born man with an Arab name automatically classed as "muslim" even though he may be an atheist or C of E? Is that a Pakistani or a Bengali? An Indonesian or a Bangladeshi?

Therefore, to ensure that genuine suspects are searched as necessary, all muslims need to be identified as such by use of microchipping, as is done with dogs and pot-plants.

You know, you're right, lets just take out the chips we placed in Irish catholics in the 70's and 80's top enable us to identify them, and put them into Muslims. Because it's impossible to make an educated guess about someones ethnic and religious background...

TragicMonkey

16th August 2006, 02:33 AM

You know, you're right, lets just take out the chips we placed in Irish catholics in the 70's and 80's top enable us to identify them, and put them into Muslims. Because it's impossible to make an educated guess about someones ethnic and religious background...

Only a Rastafarian Swiss like yourself would make such a statement!

Or...a Canadian Hindu with a Japanese grandmother!

Did I come close? I'm getting an "M"...

The Don

16th August 2006, 02:36 AM

I see no better way to convince the British Muslim population that they're "under attack" than subjecting them to a contunual regimen of stop and search.

The "disaffected youth" who are a fertile breeding ground for the radical Imams would be even easier to convince that they are foreigners in their own country.

While racial profiling may be a way to address the situation tactically, I'm sure that terrorists would attempt not to conform to the Arabby Brown, Bearded and hat or headscarf wearing sterotype. Then we'd have a double whammy, we're not effectively identifying terrorists and we're taking actions which may result in the creation of more terrorists.

brodski

16th August 2006, 02:39 AM

Only a Rastafarian Swiss like yourself would make such a statement!

Or...a Canadian Hindu with a Japanese grandmother!

Did I come close? I'm getting an "M"...
Sorry, I'm a fundamentalist, vegetarian, Quaker.
I'll be the one attempting to smuggle oats onto a plane, to commit acts of international porridge.
Unfortunately I'll be foiled by the "Pork and alcohol" test. L

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 02:48 AM

At the least we could improve efficiency by opting out some politically correct groups from being searched, such as:
1. All women over age 40.
2. All men over age 60.
3. All east asians.
4. All members of a gay couple that have adopted kids.

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 02:49 AM

Sorry, I'm a fundamentalist, vegetarian, Quaker.
I'll be the one attempting to smuggle oats onto a plane, to commit acts of international porridge.
Unfortunately I'll be foiled by the "Pork and alcohol" test. L

Quakers, always looking for an excuse to sow their wild oats. :rolleyes:

brodski

16th August 2006, 02:52 AM

3. All east asians.
Can you tell me which nation has the largest Muslim population?

TragicMonkey

16th August 2006, 02:58 AM

Can you tell me which nation has the largest Muslim population?

The United States. Our Muslims are 45% fatter than the Muslims of other countries.

Darat

16th August 2006, 03:02 AM

What civil right is at issue here? The right not to be searched at an airport? That can't be right, since no one has that right (or more precisely, no one may exercise that right and still get on the plane).

Wouldn't it be (in the USA) because you would be having to declare your religious beliefs?

brodski

16th August 2006, 03:07 AM

The United States. Our Muslims are 45% fatter than the Muslims of other countries.
:p
Ok, but which nation has the greatest representation of Muslims amongst their population…. Hang on, you're going to say "Denmark" aren't you?

The Don

16th August 2006, 03:11 AM

Can you tell me which nation has the largest Muslim population?
I think the "East Asian" reference was to Japanese (1.2m) Chinese (38m) Korean (0.5m), Vietnamese (0.8m) people rather than Indonesian people

Numbers of Muslims by country taken from here http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php

TragicMonkey

16th August 2006, 03:13 AM

:p
Ok, but which nation has the greatest representation of Muslims amongst their population…. Hang on, you're going to say "Denmark" aren't you?

The country with the greatest representation of Muslims amongst their population? The US. Hollywood is capable of portraying all sorts of Muslims in our blockbuster films, from the suicide-bombing Muslim to the aircraft-hijacking Muslim to the taxicab-driving Muslim. A rich tapestry of representation right there. Also, wasn't one of the guys on one of the Real World series Muslim?

The Fool

16th August 2006, 03:22 AM

Darat

16th August 2006, 03:37 AM

As usual I'm pragmatic about this - so if "racial/religious" profiling could work then it should be used.

However in the real world I think it would fail for many practical reasons, one is that I just don't think you could come up with a profile that would significantly decrease risk (and that is the reason for considering these types of proposals) and at the same time reduce the resources and inconvenience to others required to maintain a certain level of security. (If it doesn't reduce the inconvenience for the majority and cost less then there is no reason for using such an approach.)

Secondly would using such a profile actually reduce the risk of a successful attack? Wouldn't the terrorists just switch their tactics? Consider two of the people being held by police regarding the latest alleged terrorist plot in the UK (and of course we have to assume that they are innocent) they are recent(ish) converts to Islam - Don Stewart-Whyte & Brian Young. If these two were involved in a terrorist plot and we had shifted our major security efforts to a "profiled" approach I would hold that these two would have been able to walk straight through the "profiled security".

My concern is that whilst profiling may be workable in some circumstances the profiling as has been suggested in this thread would in fact provide nothing more than (at best) a false sense of security and would in fact increase the chances of an attack by a terrorist group being successfull.

(ETA - I say "alleged plot" not because I don't believe that something wasn't being planned etc. just that we have no level of confirmed detail or evidence yet in the public domain as to exactly what the plot was or who was behind it.)

brodski

16th August 2006, 03:44 AM

As usual I'm pragmatic about this
Agreed, and further to this, if they're going to profile people, for Ed sake don't tell us that they're doing it, why would we want to give the terrorists a handy guide on how not to get identified?

The Don

16th August 2006, 04:09 AM

Depending how crude the profiling is, they may be able to work the profiling rules for themselves.

Fengirl

16th August 2006, 04:22 AM

Agreed, and further to this, if they're going to profile people, for Ed sake don't tell us that they're doing it, why would we want to give the terrorists a handy guide on how not to get identified?

Agreed. If you intensify security efforts on a particular group, and correspondingly reduce the scrutiny of other less suspicious groups you immediately open up new loopholes for terrorists to exploit.

Maybe its unlikely that Al Qaeda will start recruiting white, Scottish grandmothers to blow up airliners…but as long as it’s possible, I want grandma searched as thoroughly as anyone else is.

Cleon

16th August 2006, 04:26 AM

None of those doctrines prevent government searches of passengers at airports. I don't see why they would prohibit subjecting some passengers to more scrutiny than others.

You mean, you can't see why a little thing like "equal protection under the law" would prohibit the government from discriminating on the basis of religion or ethnicity? Are you really that myopic, or are you just trying to phrase this in a way that makes you feel more comfortable with a repugnant idea?

That's really the problem. It does seem that this runs the risk of turning Muslims into second-class citizens.
Only in the same sense that driving to work runs the risk of actually getting you there.

Cleon

16th August 2006, 04:28 AM

By looking at them? I have the uncanny ability to pick members of a particular ethnicity out of a crowd. I'm thinking of applying for the Challenge.

Do I really have to explain why this is stupid?

Cleon

16th August 2006, 04:30 AM

No strawman? Give me a break.

You suggested that there would be legislation so that every Muslim has to have their religion marked on their passport or other individual ID, then, police would be empowered to demand said ID whenever they feel the need.

I sarcastically suggested it as an idea--albeit an idea that logically flows from such a ridiculous policy. I in no way claimed that this was part of the policy involved, and for you to suggest as much indicated you either didn't bother reading my post, or you're digging for a reason to dismiss it.

Either way, you're wrong.

Cleon

16th August 2006, 04:32 AM

Exactly. Appeal to Jim Crow - false analogy, I believe.

You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care. But when you legalize religious and ethnic discrimination, you wind up with Jim Crow. Or worse.

gumboot

16th August 2006, 04:47 AM

My own opinion...

I have no problem with security paying special attention to likely threats. If part of the definition of "likely threat" includes skin colour, so be it.

The problem is, does it? Maybe in the 1970's when Arab and Islamic Terrorism really became mainstream in the west, it would have been a useful tool. But Radical Islam has spread itself very far, and all you risk by racial/ethnic profiling is allowing security personnel to settle into a false sense of security "Oh there's no Arabs on this flight, it'll be safe".

If we've learned anything about Radical Islam, it's that these guys are clever, resourceful, and they adapt fast.

The real goal, IMHO is not to prevent terrorists getting onboard aircraft. A terrorist alone cannot harm and airliner, and especially not since 9/11 (any western passenger is going to go for the throat at the slightest sign of trouble).

The problem is what the terrorists put/bring on board the aircraft. This doesn't require profiling. What is needed is better security on baggage, both carry-on and check-in. And better security checks on airport workers.

These are the weak links. Look at this latest London bombing plot... they were going to waltz onto aircraft carrying their bombs in plain sight where everyone could see. Some of those involved were airport staff.

If the guy on the ground loading up your flight or pumping fuel into it is a terrorist, what does it matter how well the passengers are profiled? If the technology and systems don't exist to detect new innovative forms of explosives (hidden in softdrink bottles!) who cares how many passengers are "checked"?

-Andrew

mummymonkey

16th August 2006, 05:25 AM

I think the point is that while it's a bad idea to single out specific groups for special attention, it's surely possible to identify people on an individual basis who do not require a full going over.
Me for instance.

TragicMonkey

16th August 2006, 05:36 AM

If the guy on the ground loading up your flight or pumping fuel into it is a terrorist, what does it matter how well the passengers are profiled? If the technology and systems don't exist to detect new innovative forms of explosives (hidden in softdrink bottles!) who cares how many passengers are "checked"?

Am I the only one who suspects the stewardesses? Even if they aren't explodable jihadists, they might have boyfriends who are. They could easily poison the pilot and copilot, and then how would anyone get into the impenetrable cockpit to prevent a crash (or at least, try to)? I don't like to think air safety depends on underpaid and disrespected stewardesses. I've seen Mile High. Those people are capable of anything.

I also note with alarm that while there is all this wonderful technology for detecting things, there doesn't seem to be a) sufficient money being put toward buying much of it, b) much effort spent deploying what we've got, and c) training people to use the damn things. Because all of that costs money, and government and business unite in their preference for keeping costs as low as possible.

Lurker

16th August 2006, 05:36 AM

All the terrorists have to do to adapt is start using white Muslim dudes for their attacks. Hell, they could even use middle eastern looking guys to divert attention away from the white muslim with nefarious intentions. This "solution" is a simple PR move designed to give the impression that something is being done. Anyone capable of strategic thought will see the folly in this.

Ah, but their supply of white Moslem dudes willing and able to carry out these plots is probably fairly limited.

I used to be against racial profiling for terrorists but I just don't care to argue against it anymore.

bozothedeathmachine

16th August 2006, 06:29 AM

"The Cogito system assumes that all members of a terrorist organization have a common factor: fear of being caught."

Sounds like a dubious assumption to make. From a technological perspective, I don't see this as being any more viable than a polygraph "lie detector."

Agreed. Anyone sociopathic enough to blow up a plane is obviously operating on a different wavelength. As such normal definitions right/wrong/fear don't apply. Besides, it's Allah's will that the infidels die, so Allah will ensure them passage. What's to fear?

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 06:58 AM

Agreed. If you intensify security efforts on a particular group, and correspondingly reduce the scrutiny of other less suspicious groups you immediately open up new loopholes for terrorists to exploit.

Maybe its unlikely that Al Qaeda will start recruiting white, Scottish grandmothers to blow up airliners…but as long as it’s possible, I want grandma searched as thoroughly as anyone else is.

Al Queda doesn't have infinite resources. At a certain point, we create sufficient barriers so that they can't blow up planes. In fact, we seem to be doing that even without searching everyone except white Scottish Grandmothers. I don't see the need to search white Scottish Grandmothers -those resources could be better spent funding cancer research.

.13.

16th August 2006, 07:41 AM

Agreed. Anyone sociopathic enough to blow up a plane is obviously operating on a different wavelength. As such normal definitions right/wrong/fear don't apply. Besides, it's Allah's will that the infidels die, so Allah will ensure them passage. What's to fear?

They might have a fear of failure if not a fear of punishment.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 07:44 AM

Do I really have to explain why this is stupid?
Yes, you really have to explain why this is stupid. I'm eager to hear it.

You mean, you can't see why a little thing like "equal protection under the law" would prohibit the government from discriminating on the basis of religion or ethnicity? Are you really that myopic, or are you just trying to phrase this in a way that makes you feel more comfortable with a repugnant idea?
Neither; I suspect it's just that I know a fair amount more about equal protection than you do. I can't help noticing that you didn't bother responding to my subsequent post examining the equal protection argument in detail.

brodski

16th August 2006, 07:45 AM

Al Queda doesn't have infinite resources. At a certain point, we create sufficient barriers so that they can't blow up planes. In fact, we seem to be doing that even without searching everyone except white Scottish Grandmothers. I don't see the need to search white Scottish Grandmothers -those resources could be better spent funding cancer research.
My paternal Grandmother was Scottish, if you don't think that she was capable of horrific acts of terror, you must have never seen her when she was angry. ;)

brodski

16th August 2006, 07:46 AM

They might have a fear of failure if not a fear of punishment.
Or they just may be naturally sweaty, skin conductivity is a very poor way to tell if someone is a terrorist or not, or even whether someone has stolen a cookie or not.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 07:57 AM

I have no problem with security paying special attention to likely threats. If part of the definition of "likely threat" includes skin colour, so be it.

The problem is, does it? Maybe in the 1970's when Arab and Islamic Terrorism really became mainstream in the west, it would have been a useful tool. But Radical Islam has spread itself very far, and all you risk by racial/ethnic profiling is allowing security personnel to settle into a false sense of security "Oh there's no Arabs on this flight, it'll be safe".
Take another look at the pictures of the 9/11 highjackers, and read a list of the names (so far disclosed) of the prisoners at Guantanamo. The awkward fact is that most of these people are members of one particular ethnic group. That's not to say that all of them are, or that members of other ethnicities present no threat whatsoever. But it does, I think, justify giving extra scrutiny to passengers who fall within that group, while still maintaining the present level of vigilance that applies to everyone else (or an even greater level, if the stories about slipping through security and onto a plane without a passport or ticket are true. I can't imagine that happening in the U.S.)

Of course it's true that terrorist groups might seek to get around these measures by sending in recruits who don't fit the ethnic profile. But, as I think it's safe to assume that there are fewer of these individuals in al Qaeda than those who do fit the profile, it follows that a profiling system like this, however offensive it may be to our present ideal of color-blindness, would substantially inhibit the effectiveness of these groups. And that seems like a good thing.

The Don

16th August 2006, 08:11 AM

Of course it's true that terrorist groups might seek to get around these measures by sending in recruits who don't fit the ethnic profile. But, as I think it's safe to assume that there are fewer of these individuals in al Qaeda than those who do fit the profile, it follows that a profiling system like this, however offensive it may be to our present ideal of color-blindness, would substantially inhibit the effectiveness of these groups. And that seems like a good thing.
One of the elements fuelling the radicalisation of Islam is a (misgiuded) perception that their religion is under threat and that the West is targeting it. If we indulge profiling, all we're going to do is confirm that perception and breed another generation of radical muslims who see the West as a threat to their religion.

If we take a forceful approach to "sorting out the situation" we will create more terrorists. Despite the fact that Hezbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers, caused untold misery to be rained down on the population which harbours then and caused the death of over a thousand Lebanese by their actions, they seem to have consolidated their support. What can you do to fight against that kind of mindset ?

Despite the fact that the coalition in Iraq has deposed a leader who was responsible directly and indirectly for the death of millions of Muslims (Iraqi and Iranian), the coalition countries are still viewed as defilers of Islam.

What kind of action can the non-Muslim countries take which makes the situation less bad short of exterminating every single Muslim ? (not that I'm advocating anything of the sort).

What action do we need to take ?

Jaggy Bunnet

16th August 2006, 08:18 AM

Agreed. If you intensify security efforts on a particular group, and correspondingly reduce the scrutiny of other less suspicious groups you immediately open up new loopholes for terrorists to exploit.

Maybe its unlikely that Al Qaeda will start recruiting white, Scottish grandmothers to blow up airliners…but as long as it’s possible, I want grandma searched as thoroughly as anyone else is.

And of course terrorists are not clever enough to slip something into a white Scottish grannies luggage and then retrieve it airside.

Given that we can't currently stop a child getting onto a plane with no ticket, boarding card or passport at a time when security is at unprecedented levels, maybe we should try getting the basics right first?

.13.

16th August 2006, 08:21 AM

Or they just may be naturally sweaty, skin conductivity is a very poor way to tell if someone is a terrorist or not, or even whether someone has stolen a cookie or not.

I'm just pointing out that the terrorists may not necessarily be calm because they don't fear punishment. I'm not in anyway speculating whether the device actually works or not.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 08:26 AM

You mean, you can't see why a little thing like "equal protection under the law" would prohibit the government from discriminating on the basis of religion or ethnicity? Are you really that myopic, or are you just trying to phrase this in a way that makes you feel more comfortable with a repugnant idea? You mean, you can't see why a little thing like "political correctness" would prohibit the government from focusing security based on risk? Are you really that myopic, or are you just trying to phrase this in a way that makes you feel more comfortable with a stupid idea?

RichardR

16th August 2006, 08:28 AM

I sarcastically suggested it as an idea--albeit an idea that logically flows from such a ridiculous policy. I in no way claimed that this was part of the policy involved, and for you to suggest as much indicated you either didn't bother reading my post, or you're digging for a reason to dismiss it.

Either way, you're wrong.
[/font] You sarcastically suggested this was the next step and ridiculed that idea. Classic straw man.

For you to suggest it’s not indicates you either didn't bother to understand the straw man logical fallacy, or you're digging for a reason to dismiss my calling it out.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 08:31 AM

RichardR

16th August 2006, 08:31 AM

You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care. But when you legalize religious and ethnic discrimination, you wind up with Jim Crow. Or worse.Oh Please.

Giving extra attention, at airports ONLY, to Muslims – the known perpetrators of terrorism in most cases – is the same as laws requiring that public schools be segregated by race, and that most public places (including trains and buses) have separate facilities for whites and blacks. Sure. Classic false analogy. Totally overblown false analogy. Also appeal to emotion. Ridiculous – like all your arguments.

Darat

16th August 2006, 08:35 AM

Oh Please.

Giving extra attention, at airports ONLY, to Muslims – the known perpetrators of terrorism in most cases – is the same as laws requiring that public schools be segregated by race, and that most public places (including trains and buses) have separate facilities for whites and blacks. Sure. Classic false analogy. Totally overblown false analogy. Also appeal to emotion. Ridiculous – like all your arguments.

How will you know who is a Muslim and who isn't?

The Don

16th August 2006, 08:37 AM

A better practice, I think, would have been to quietly implement the policy without announcing it; much of the public-relations damage could have been avoided that way.
Until it leaks into the press and then all h3ll will break loose as the "secret" profiling happens. We either have to profile, be open about it and bear the consequences (because it's the lesser of two evils) or not profile at all

RichardR

16th August 2006, 08:39 AM

How will you know who is a Muslim and who isn't? That’s a good question, and one that has been discussed a lot above. I was just responding to Cleon’s ridiculous argument that this is the same as Jim Crow.

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 08:46 AM

One of the elements fuelling the radicalisation of Islam is a (misgiuded) perception that their religion is under threat and that the West is targeting it. If we indulge profiling, all we're going to do is confirm that perception and breed another generation of radical muslims who see the West as a threat to their religion.

If we take a forceful approach to "sorting out the situation" we will create more terrorists. Despite the fact that Hezbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers, caused untold misery to be rained down on the population which harbours then and caused the death of over a thousand Lebanese by their actions, they seem to have consolidated their support. What can you do to fight against that kind of mindset ?

Despite the fact that the coalition in Iraq has deposed a leader who was responsible directly and indirectly for the death of millions of Muslims (Iraqi and Iranian), the coalition countries are still viewed as defilers of Islam.

What kind of action can the non-Muslim countries take which makes the situation less bad short of exterminating every single Muslim ? (not that I'm advocating anything of the sort).

What action do we need to take ?

One can't profile muslims. The closest one can get is profiling swarthy people. I doubt that that policy will antagonize muslims. Nor do I think it will antagonize swarthy people, a dispersed group of people with large organizational barriers to self-advocacy. Plus quite a few will probably think it's a rational way to protect their safety.

The Don

16th August 2006, 08:54 AM

One can't profile muslims. The closest one can get is profiling swarthy people. I doubt that that policy will antagonize muslims. Nor do I think it will antagonize swarthy people, a dispersed group of people with large organizational barriers to self-advocacy. Plus quite a few will probably think it's a rational way to protect their safety.
Almost anything antagonises Muslims these days

Because we won't be looking for swarthy people, we'll be looking for muslims. This will inevitably be spun as "The West thinks all Muslims are Terrorists"

brodski

16th August 2006, 09:02 AM

Almost anything antagonises Muslims these days

Because we won't be looking for swarthy people, we'll be looking for muslims. This will inevitably be spun as "The West thinks all Muslims are Terrorists"
Is this message better or worse than "the west thinks that all Muslims are swarthy and that all swarthy people are Muslim terrorists"?

Cleon

16th August 2006, 09:04 AM

Yes, you really have to explain why this is stupid. I'm eager to hear it.

So you seriously think that discriminating against people on the basis of ethnicity, based on their looks, is a viable policy. Wow. OK.

Well, first, have you considered the fact that there's an awful lot of brown people out there who are neither Arab nor Muslim? Not to mention the fact that an awful lot of Arabs and Muslims are just as white as you are. Differentiation based on "looks" is not exactly a rational methodology, unless you adopt a policy that brown people get the shakedown, while white people walk on by.

While I'm sure such a policy would get a lot of support south of the Mason-Dixon line, it strikes me about as realistic as a judicial process based on "I can spot a guilty person just like *that*!"

Neither; I suspect it's just that I know a fair amount more about equal protection than you do.

You must not be a big fan of the concept, then.

I can't help noticing that you didn't bother responding to my subsequent post examining the equal protection argument in detail.

Yes, because I had %^&* to do. You'll have to excuse me for not devoting my life to debunking your support for racial discrimination.

Your claim to "know a fair amount more about equal protection" than I do is rather dubious, based on this statement:

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment basically prevents the government from discriminating irrationally in lawmaking, and applies different levels of scrutiny based on the type of classification in question

Hokay. Here is the complete text of Section 1 of that pesky amendment, which you find so inconvenient. (I'm assuming we're not all that concerned with how the House of Reps are apportioned, elected officials who've been involved in insurrections, or debts assumed from putting down said insurrections.)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now...I would like you to explain where exactly it lays out the exceptions. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I don't see any "buts," "althoughs," "excepts," or other qualifiers there.

Nor do I recall a SCOTUS case (that was not later reversed) that made it kosher to discriminate based on religion or ethnicity based on a vague concept of "compelling state interest." Hell, if there was, 40 years ago the South would've been all over that, trying to manufacture "compelling state interest" in keeping Jim Crow.

The Don

16th August 2006, 09:13 AM

Dunno, either way I don't wish to create fertile grounds for recruitment for Islamic fundamentalists

Of course the I'd be nice for the Muslim Council of Britain to make some suggestions about how to manage the situation but they have their own gallery to play towards

Mycroft

16th August 2006, 09:20 AM

Can you tell me which nation has the largest Muslim population?

I think that's Indonesia.

Mycroft

16th August 2006, 09:25 AM

As usual I'm pragmatic about this - so if "racial/religious" profiling could work then it should be used.

However in the real world I think it would fail for many practical reasons...

I tend to agree with everything you say, except this is really an issue that should be left to the police themselves. This really isn't something that should be micro-managed from the voting booth.

TragicMonkey

16th August 2006, 09:31 AM

I think that's Indonesia.

Indonesia does have the largest Muslim in its population. He stands nine feet eleven inches tall, and plays basketball for Kalimantan Central State College (go Probocis Monkeys! Wooooo!). He's a business major, and his ambition is to open a chain of car dealerships. He's a Pisces, likes romantic walks on the beach, and is currently single but looking for a nice girl. Ladies, if interested, reply to Ad #1117393A.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 09:32 AM

So you seriously think that discriminating against people on the basis of ethnicity, based on their looks, is a viable policy. Wow. OK.

Well, first, have you considered the fact that there's an awful lot of brown people out there who are neither Arab nor Muslim? Not to mention the fact that an awful lot of Arabs and Muslims are just as white as you are. Differentiation based on "looks" is not exactly a rational methodology, unless you adopt a policy that brown people get the shakedown, while white people walk on by.
So your point is that ethnicity is a fuzzy set, in which some individuals don't clearly fall into one of the major predefined classes? I'm sure you'll not be surprised that that's not news to anyone here. But I hope you're not making the absurd suggestion that in the case of most individuals, it's not possible just by looking at them to pretty accurately determine what part of the globe their ancestors were living in 5,000 years ago.

Since it is possible most of the time to determine the ethnicity of an individual simply by looking at them, it would be possible for airport security to implement a procedure of scrutinizing Arabs, identified by sight, that would be effective most of the time. The fact that there might be a few indeterminate cases does not undermine this point.

You must not be a big fan of the concept, then.
Would you mind dropping the ad hominems? Thanks.

Your claim to "know a fair amount more about equal protection" than I do is rather dubious, based on this statement:

Hokay. Here is the complete text of Section 1 of that pesky amendment, which you find so inconvenient. (I'm assuming we're not all that concerned with how the House of Reps are apportioned, elected officials who've been involved in insurrections, or debts assumed from putting down said insurrections.)
If all you know about the Equal Protection Clause is based on quoting the text, then yes, I do know a lot more about it than you do. My characterization is based on the interpretation given to the constitution by the courts, primarily the Supreme Court, and it is accurate.

Nor do I recall a SCOTUS case (that was not later reversed) that made it kosher to discriminate based on religion or ethnicity based on a vague concept of "compelling state interest." Hell, if there was, 40 years ago the South would've been all over that, trying to manufacture "compelling state interest" in keeping Jim Crow.
Then, once again, you don't know much about this area of law. Discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is permissible, as I said, so long as it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

The Equal Protection Clause ensures the equality of all individuals before the law by prohibiting all legislative acts that discriminate unfairly against any class of citizens. “[T]he general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” City of Cleburne, Tex., v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). However, where the statute in question discriminates along the lines of a suspect classification, such as “race, alienage, or national origin… [the law is] subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if [it is] suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Id. at 440. There also exists a classification of “quasi-suspect classifications,” most notably gender, which are subject to heightened but not strict scrutiny, but this class is irrelevant for present purposes. See, e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). While the Supreme Court continues to declare suspect classifications on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, Judge Norris of the Ninth Circuit has offered a three-prong test for the identification of suspect classifications:
whether the group at issue has suffered a history of purposeful discrimination… whether the discrimination embodies a gross unfairness that is sufficiently inconsistent with the ideals of equal protection to term it “invidious”… and whether the group burdened by official discrimination lacks the political power necessary to obtain redress from the political branches of government.
Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F. 2d 699, 724-726 (9th Cir. 1989) (Norris, J., concurring). Finally, noting that due to modern technological achievements even characteristics such as gender and apparent race are not “immutable” in the strictest sense, he argues that “immutability may describe those traits that are so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for the government to penalize a person for refusing to change them.” Id. at 726.

That the Equal Protection Clause permits racial or ethnic discrimination where such discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest is basic, first-year law school stuff. I do not know, offhand, of a case in which any state interest has been held sufficiently compelling, or the classification sufficiently necessary, to actually justify such discrimination. But the principle is sound, and I believe my application of it in my above post is reasonable. If you disagree, try arguing with the interpretation, rather than telling me I don't know what the law is.

Giz

16th August 2006, 10:03 AM

Almost anything antagonises Muslims these days

Because we won't be looking for swarthy people, we'll be looking for muslims. This will inevitably be spun as "The West thinks all Muslims are Terrorists"

Just because something will antagonise some "we are the real victims here" muslims does that mean we have to avoid that course of action. We should consider all the ramifications but we can't rule things out based on possible hurt feelings. I note that the recent wave of arrests in the UK prompted some Muslim spokesmen to complain that Muslim communities now felt targeted - should we the police no longer arrest people for fear of causing offence?

Cleon

16th August 2006, 10:06 AM

So your point is that ethnicity is a fuzzy set, in which some individuals don't clearly fall into one of the major predefined classes?

Not "some." "Most." If not "all."

I'm sure you'll not be surprised that that's not news to anyone here. But I hope you're not making the absurd suggestion that in the case of most individuals, it's not possible just by looking at them to pretty accurately determine what part of the globe their ancestors were living in 5,000 years ago.

I'm willing to bet if I put a Mexican, a Lebanese, a Maori, and a Native American in front of you, you'd have a much tougher time picking them out than you'd care to admit.

Since it is possible most of the time to determine the ethnicity of an individual simply by looking at them,

Any chance of some actual evidence of this? Or do we just get treated to the repeated assertion and the claim that it's "absurd" to think otherwise?

it would be possible for airport security to implement a procedure of scrutinizing Arabs, identified by sight, that would be effective most of the time. The fact that there might be a few indeterminate cases does not undermine this point.

No, the fact that there would be a screaming #$%^load of indeterminate cases, false positives, etc. would turn this into a policy of "brown people get the shakedown, white people walk on by."

Would you mind dropping the ad hominems? Thanks.

When you drop the endorsement of racial/religious discrimination, I'll drop the comments about your character deficencies. Inexplicably, I take such matters rather personally.

Then, once again, you don't know much about this area of law. Discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is permissible, as I said, so long as it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

The Equal Protection Clause ensures the equality of all individuals before the law by prohibiting all legislative acts that discriminate unfairly against any class of citizens. “[T]he general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” City of Cleburne, Tex., v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). However, where the statute in question discriminates along the lines of a suspect classification, such as “race, alienage, or national origin… [the law is] subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if [it is] suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Id. at 440. There also exists a classification of “quasi-suspect classifications,” most notably gender, which are subject to heightened but not strict scrutiny, but this class is irrelevant for present purposes. See, e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). While the Supreme Court continues to declare suspect classifications on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, Judge Norris of the Ninth Circuit has offered a three-prong test for the identification of suspect classifications:

Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F. 2d 699, 724-726 (9th Cir. 1989) (Norris, J., concurring). Finally, noting that due to modern technological achievements even characteristics such as gender and apparent race are not “immutable” in the strictest sense, he argues that “immutability may describe those traits that are so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for the government to penalize a person for refusing to change them.” Id. at 726.

That the Equal Protection Clause permits racial or ethnic discrimination where such discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest is basic, first-year law school stuff. I do not know, offhand, of a case in which any state interest has been held sufficiently compelling, or the classification sufficiently necessary, to actually justify such discrimination. But the principle is sound, and I believe my application of it in my above post is reasonable. If you disagree, try arguing with the interpretation, rather than telling me I don't know what the law is.

Well, your ability to recite case law is impressive, I'll give you that, and it does give me something to think about.

And, to your credit, you do admit that "I do not know, offhand, of a case in which any state interest has been held sufficiently compelling, or the classification sufficiently necessary, to actually justify such discrimination."

Which is essentially my point. The idea of it being ok providing "compelling state interest" is more theoretical than practical. The fact of the matter is that as compelling an interest as preventing attacks is, it does not justify racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. Had that been the case, segregationists would have loved to point to the Black Panthers and used them as an excuse to re-introduce Jim Crow.

Whether this is limited to airports or not is completely irrelevant--you can point to the Madrid or London bombings and use it as an excuse to implement the same policies outside of airports. It's the logic that's repugnant, not the locale.

Treating every Muslim or Arab (or, more realistic, every olive-colored person) as a criminal based on the actions of AlQaeda is just as despicable as treating every Black man as a criminal based on the actions of the Crips. There is no prettying this up with "compelling state interest"--this is simply racism, pure and simple.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 10:27 AM

Treating every Muslim or Arab (or, more realistic, every olive-colored person) as a criminal based on the actions of AlQaeda is just as despicable as treating every Black man as a criminal based on the actions of the Crips. There is no prettying this up with "compelling state interest"--this is simply racism, pure and simple. Insisting that everybody has to be treated exactly equally, despite the known fact that airborne terrorism is committed almost exclusively by young Muslim men, is political correctness gone mad.

The problem with political correctness is that it is a knee-jerk response given without any need for thought, without any need to examine the unique facts of a given situation and seeing if they really are the same as (for example) Jim Crow. You can see an example of this sloppy thinking in the above quote. Knee-jerk responses such as “this is simply racism, pure and simple” are dumb, miss the point, and are an insult to those who were actually the victims of real Jim Crow racist laws.

Muslims are the ones committing the terrorist acts – period. If we are not allowed to consider this obvious fact we are stupid. Whether it is possible to identify Muslims or not, and whether this will antagonize Muslims more are valid questions, and certainly should give us pause. But insisting we should not even consider profiling Muslims as a matter of principle, is just dumb.

pipelineaudio

16th August 2006, 10:40 AM

I call shennanigans

If this is to be based on ANYTHING that could identify one as a muslim, then it is complete horsecrap and will let thru the truly dangerous

Members of Takfir wal-Hijra, which it is believed by many that the 911 hijackers were, will readily engage in any sort of ruse, including eating pork, drinking alcohol, or any other "non-muslim" activity, specifically to fool suspicions against them.

These guys would go right by any of this sort of screening

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 10:50 AM

I'm willing to bet if I put a Mexican, a Lebanese, a Maori, and a Native American in front of you, you'd have a much tougher time picking them out than you'd care to admit.
No, because I'll freely admit that I'd have a hard time telling them apart. But that's just the fuzzy set problem again. There's no question that some people of Arabic ancestry would slip past security without being recognized, and that some non-Arabs would be falsely identified for additional screening. But the question isn't whether such a system would generate some false positives, the question is whether it would be generally capable of making a correct identification most of the time. Based on my own ability, most of the time, to look at someone and say, "Ah, an Arab!," or "Ah, a non-Arab!," I think this is really not the problem you're suggesting that it would be.

Well, your ability to recite case law is impressive, I'll give you that, and it does give me something to think about.
Thanks. That discussion was taken from my MA thesis, "Public Reason and Private Morality: A Rawlsian Perspective On The Fourteenth Amendment."

And, to your credit, you do admit that "I do not know, offhand, of a case in which any state interest has been held sufficiently compelling, or the classification sufficiently necessary, to actually justify such discrimination."

Which is essentially my point. The idea of it being ok providing "compelling state interest" is more theoretical than practical.
I guess you could make that argument, but I think a better one is simply that the court has not yet been presented with a situation in which racial or ethnic discrimination was really necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. That's a very difficult standard to satisfy. However, for the reasons discussed in my earlier post, I think that this situation presents at least the strongest case for the necessity of such a classification that has yet arisen. Whether the Court would ultimately uphold the practice of subjecting people of Arabic descent to additional security screening would ultimately determine on whether they find such measures "necessary" to protect the public from terrorism. I will say that, if the Court didn't uphold the practice of ethnic discrimination in this case, then there probably isn't a situation in which it would uphold it.

The fact of the matter is that as compelling an interest as preventing attacks is, it does not justify racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. Had that been the case, segregationists would have loved to point to the Black Panthers and used them as an excuse to re-introduce Jim Crow.
But Jim Crow laws involved segregation and denying blacks the right to vote. Airport screening is much more narrowly focused on eliminating the particular danger: Islamic terrorists blowing up planes. The only infringement on the equal protection rights of Muslims or Arabs is that they might have to go through a bag search every time they fly, rather than just sometimes like the rest of us. I really don't think a little additional screening at the airport is at all comparable to the life of an African American under Jim Crow, nor do I think there's a viable slippery slope from airport screening to Muslim ID cards.

Whether this is limited to airports or not is completely irrelevant--you can point to the Madrid or London bombings and use it as an excuse to implement the same policies outside of airports. It's the logic that's repugnant, not the locale.
But the application of the logic depends on context. You're probably right that the same logic could be applied to searching passengers in train stations; I don't really see a problem with that, because in both instances submission to the search is voluntary in the sense that you don't have to go through it unless you want to board the plane, or train. It's a large, and I think unjustifiable, conceptual step from there to compulsory searches of Arabs on the streets.

Treating every Muslim or Arab (or, more realistic, every olive-colored person) as a criminal based on the actions of AlQaeda is just as despicable as treating every Black man as a criminal based on the actions of the Crips. There is no prettying this up with "compelling state interest"--this is simply racism, pure and simple.
Despite your rather venemous efforts to polarize this discussion, I am very sympathetic to that point. My first point in my first post in this thread was that this approach demeans and insults every law-abiding Muslim citizen, and I have elsewhere acknowledged that implementation of this idea would deepen the divide between western Muslims and the societies in which they live. Those are very serious concerns, and maybe it's worth accepting a slightly higher risk of a successful terrorist attack in order to avoid making those people feel like foreigners in their own homes. I'm almost persuaded at this point that it is. But I also believe that reasonable people could in good faith decide that the unique circumstances of this situation present a compelling case for ethnic discrimination that lacks any historical precedent.

Tony

16th August 2006, 11:14 AM

[FONT=Verdana]Insisting that everybody has to be treated exactly equally, despite the known fact that airborne terrorism is committed almost exclusively by young Muslim men, is political correctness gone mad.

In otherwords, you can't come up with a counter argument and you're just going to dismiss something with which you disagree as vauge "political correctness".

The problem with political correctness is that it is a knee-jerk response given without any need for thought

Then why are you doing it?

Muslims are the ones committing the terrorist acts – period.

How are you going to identify whether someone is a muslim or not? No one has answered that question thus far.

But insisting we should not even consider profiling Muslims as a matter of principle, is just dumb.

I'm sure the same was said about Jews in Germany in 1938.

pipelineaudio

16th August 2006, 11:19 AM

I
I'm sure the same was said about Jews in Germany in 1938.

especially with all the Jews hijacking german planes and blowing up german embassies at the time

Elind

16th August 2006, 11:29 AM

As usual I'm pragmatic about this - so if "racial/religious" profiling could work then it should be used.

I think you, and some others, over analyse this concept. The issue is not so much whether one SHOULD racially/ethically/religiously profile, but whether one has to bend over backwards to seem that one is not.

I do think there is a difference. The words common sense come to mind.:boggled:

Tony

16th August 2006, 11:33 AM

especially with all the Jews hijacking german planes and blowing up german embassies at the time

:dl:

So you think "all the muslims" are hijacking planes and blowing up embassies?

shecky

16th August 2006, 11:50 AM

It doesn't seem unusual for authorities to focus on higher risk passengers.

This doesn't address the inherent nastiness involved with profiling. Nobody really comes out ahead. Not even in the long run, as terrorism doesn't actually take many lives outside the well known hotspots. Most of us are much more likely to be killed in an auto accident than by terrorism.

Insisting that everybody has to be treated exactly equally, despite the known fact that airborne terrorism is committed almost exclusively by young Muslim men, is political correctness gone mad.

I don't think so. Profiling is quickly picked up and compensated for by those wishing to do harm. If there's a will, it's only a matter of time before they find a way. Ultimately, to ensure safety, we'll have to bite the bullet and scrutinize everyone from the young Arab to the 80 year old nun. There just isn't any easy way to go about it.

Darat

16th August 2006, 12:02 PM

No, because I'll freely admit that I'd have a hard time telling them apart. But that's just the fuzzy set problem again. There's no question that some people of Arabic ancestry would slip past security without being recognized, and that some non-Arabs would be falsely identified for additional screening. But the question isn't whether such a system would generate some false positives, the question is whether it would be generally capable of making a correct identification most of the time. Based on my own ability, most of the time, to look at someone and say, "Ah, an Arab!," or "Ah, a non-Arab!," I think this is really not the problem you're suggesting that it would be.

...snip..

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that of the 24 people held at the moment suspected of planning terrorism in the UK none of them are "Arabic".

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 12:06 PM

I don't think so. Profiling is quickly picked up and compensated for by those wishing to do harm. If there's a will, it's only a matter of time before they find a way. Ultimately, to ensure safety, we'll have to bite the bullet and scrutinize everyone from the young Arab to the 80 year old nun. There just isn't any easy way to go about it.
How many 80 year old nuns do you think are likely to be carrying bombs for al Qaeda? No one is suggesting that other passengers face no scrutinty at all; the suggestion is that higher-risk passengers face higher scrutiny. Because there is an idenfitiable demographic of passengers who are more likely than other demographic groups to be in league with terrorist organizations, it is not irrational for airport security to pay extra attention to members of that group. Security resources are inevitably limited and should be expended in the manner most likely to achieve positive results-- in this case, stopping terrorism. You're right that terrorist groups would then be incentivized to use agents that do not belong to those demographic groups, but given what I imagine is the relatively low recruiting appeal of al Qaeda in non-Arabic areas, the necessity of using non-Arabic agents would pose a significant inconvenience to al Qaeda.

The reason this seems repugnant is that, most of the time (indeed, in every previous instance that I can think of), profiling based on ethnic stereotypes reflects nothing more than the ignorant prejudices of authority. In this case, however, there really are identifiable groups that are more likely to commit the sorts of acts that airport security is aimed at preventing. Therefore, the usual logic against ethnic profiling doesn't apply here.

Darat

16th August 2006, 12:06 PM

I think you, and some others, over analyse this concept. The issue is not so much whether one SHOULD racially/ethically/religiously profile, but whether one has to bend over backwards to seem that one is not.

I do think there is a difference. The words common sense come to mind.:boggled:

What has this to do with the part of my post you quoted?

Tony

16th August 2006, 12:17 PM

How many 80 year old nuns do you think are likely to be carrying bombs for al Qaeda? No one is suggesting that other passengers face no scrutinty at all; the suggestion is that higher-risk passengers face higher scrutiny. Because there is an idenfitiable demographic of passengers who are more likely than other demographic groups to be in league with terrorist organizations, it is not irrational for airport security to pay extra attention to members of that group. Security resources are inevitably limited and should be expended in the manner most likely to achieve positive results-- in this case, stopping terrorism. You're right that terrorist groups would then be incentivized to use agents that do not belong to those demographic groups, but given what I imagine is the relatively low recruiting appeal of al Qaeda in non-Arabic areas, the necessity of using non-Arabic agents would pose a significant inconvenience to al Qaeda.

You guys can't make up your minds. Do you want to profile Arabs or Muslims?

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 12:21 PM

You guys can't make up your minds. Do you want to profile Arabs or Muslims?
Tony,

If you read through my posts, you'll find that I've consistently said that it would be impossible (or impractical without unjustifiable infringements on civil liberties) to identify people on the basis of religion, and that ethnicity would have to be used as a proxy. In response to Darat, by use of the term "Arab" I didn't mean to precisely identify the specific category of demographic class that could reasonably be subject to heightened scrutiny; it would be broader than the "Arabic" ethnicity but I think we can reasonably identify the groups most likely to be involved in fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations based on past experience.

shecky

16th August 2006, 12:23 PM

Security resources are inevitably limited and should be expended in the manner most likely to achieve positive results

Thus the ironic folly of such high scrutiny. It's sort of like assuming on 9/10 that nobody would ever think of flying a jet into the WTC.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 12:28 PM

Thus the ironic folly of such high scrutiny. It's sort of like assuming on 9/10 that nobody would ever think of flying a jet into the WTC.

I don't see how making decisions on the basis of the best available information can be described as "folly." Information is never perfect, and predictions may prove inaccurate, but unless you have a better solution to offer than tailoring our security approach to our best understanding of the present threat, I don't see another option.

Darat

16th August 2006, 12:32 PM

Tony,

If you read through my posts, you'll find that I've consistently said that it would be impossible (or impractical without unjustifiable infringements on civil liberties) to identify people on the basis of religion, and that ethnicity would have to be used as a proxy. In response to Darat, by use of the term "Arab" I didn't mean to precisely identify the specific category of demographic class that could reasonably be subject to heightened scrutiny; it would be broader than the "Arabic" ethnicity but I think we can reasonably identify the groups most likely to be involved in fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations based on past experience.

From the UK experience the problem is that to be wide enough to cover all the people we know (or currently suspect) to have been involved in attacks and attempted attacks in the UK the profile would be "all males between the ages of 16 and 40".

Tony

16th August 2006, 12:35 PM

Tony,

If you read through my posts, you'll find that I've consistently said that it would be impossible (or impractical without unjustifiable infringements on civil liberties) to identify people on the basis of religion, and that ethnicity would have to be used as a proxy. In response to Darat, by use of the term "Arab" I didn't mean to precisely identify the specific category of demographic class that could reasonably be subject to heightened scrutiny; it would be broader than the "Arabic" ethnicity but I think we can reasonably identify the groups most likely to be involved in fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations based on past experience.

So then it's not muslims that are facing extra scrutiny, but Arabs, or atleast, Arab looking people. That begs the question, what does "Arab looking" look like? I've seen arabs that could pass as white people and I've seen mexicans who looked like Arabs. From a strategic stand point, it still seems foolish.

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 12:39 PM

So then it's not muslims that are facing extra scrutiny, but Arabs, or atleast, Arab looking people. That begs the question, what does "Arab looking" look like? I've seen arabs that could pass as white people and I've seen mexicans who looked like Arabs. From a strategic stand point, it still seems foolish.

I've already discussed this at length with Cleon in my earlier posts.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 02:07 PM

In otherwords, you can't come up with a counter argument and you're just going to dismiss something with which you disagree as vauge "political correctness".
In other words, you can't come up with a counter argument and you're just going to dismiss something with which you disagree as vague "dismissing something with which you disagree as “political correctness”".

Then why are you doing it?
I’m not. Why are you?

How are you going to identify whether someone is a muslim or not? No one has answered that question thus far.
Irrelevant to the question of whether it should be considered or not even in principle.

I'm sure the same was said about Jews in Germany in 1938.
Bwaaahahaha – I wondered who would be the first to demonstrate Godwin’s Law (http://www.answers.com/topic/godwin-s-law). I thought it would be Cleon – he came close with his appeal to Jim Crow – but I was wrong. Congratulations – this discussion is now officially over. (And apologies to Cleon.)

Btw – formally your argument was a false analogy. You should also lock your doors at night – it looks like the Hitler Zombie (http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekend-of-dead-hitler-zombie-escapes.html)has eaten your brains while you slept.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 02:10 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that of the 24 people held at the moment suspected of planning terrorism in the UK none of them are "Arabic".I believe they are all of Pakistani ethnicity.

mummymonkey

16th August 2006, 02:39 PM

There's a list of some of them here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4782343.stm

I'm sure I read that at least one of them was a recent convert to islam.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 02:48 PM

There's a list of some of them here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4782343.stm

I'm sure I read that at least one of them was a recent convert to islam.There's certainly no way you would have been able to identify any of those names as possibly Muslim. :rolleyes:

Tony

16th August 2006, 02:50 PM

In other words, you can't come up with a counter argument and you're just going to dismiss something with which you disagree as vague "dismissing something with which you disagree as “political correctness”".

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Writer's note: Notice how he thinks he has a point by plagiarizing another post and replacing the operative words with his. This is the second time he has done this in this thread. I guess he thinks no-one will notice his cowardice and his lack of a real argument.

I’m not.

Yes you are. Your poltically correct idea to profile muslims is an ill thought-out knee-jerk reaction.

Irrelevant to the question of whether it should be considered or not even in principle.

Dodge away. You still left the question unanswered.

Congratulations – this discussion is now officially over.

Then I trust you'll no longer be participating?

Btw – formally your argument was a false analogy.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact.

brodski

16th August 2006, 02:55 PM

There's certainly no way you would have been able to identify any of those names as possibly Muslim. :rolleyes: Changing your name is pretty easy. Which is why I oppose officially acknowledged profiling.

Tony

16th August 2006, 02:59 PM

Changing your name is pretty easy. Which is why I oppose officially acknowledged profiling.

There you go again, pointing out the deficiencies of right-wing politically correct knee-jerkism. You must hate America.

Giz

16th August 2006, 03:27 PM

From the UK experience the problem is that to be wide enough to cover all the people we know (or currently suspect) to have been involved in attacks and attempted attacks in the UK the profile would be "all males between the ages of 16 and 40".

And why not subject young males to a greater level of scrutiny than grandmothers?

brodski

16th August 2006, 03:32 PM

And why not subject young males to a greater level of scrutiny than grandmothers?
Do you think that they don't?
Let's face it, the story in the OP isn't about using profiling, it's about admitting that we use profiling, which I think would be a mistake.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 04:00 PM

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Writer's note: Notice how he thinks he has a point by plagiarizing another post and replacing the operative words with his. This is the second time he has done this in this thread. I guess he thinks no-one will notice his cowardice and his lack of a real argument. You don’t even get what I just did, do you? I’ll explain. I didn’t plagiarize; I used your own words against you – I just made a few minor changes and they applied just as well to you as to me (better actually). So if my words were cowardice and a lack of a real argument, you are describing your own attempts at an argument, not mine. Here’s the thing: you can only work that trick with content-free writing; you can’t do it with factual content backed by evidence (try it – it doesn’t work). So thanks for illustrating my point (again).

My original point did not dismiss something with which I disagreed as vague "political correctness". On the contrary, I explained exactly what was wrong with the PC argument here, namely that it is a knee-jerk response given without any need for thought, without any need to examine the unique facts of a given situation and seeing if they really are the same as (for example) Jim Crow. The fact is, you couldn’t refute that argument so you had to rely on vacuous words and logical fallacies. Thanks for playing though..

Yes you are. Your poltically correct idea to profile muslims is an ill thought-out knee-jerk reaction.
Nice try. Doesn’t really work though, does it?

Dodge away. You still left the question unanswered.
Not dodged at all – dealt with elsewhere. Try to pay attention: it was irrelevant to the point you were trying to dispute.

Then I trust you'll no longer be participating? Probably isn’t much point with you – your brains have been eaten by the Hitler Zombie.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact.It wasn’t a logical argument, true. It was a logical fallacy. Look it up.

Tony

16th August 2006, 04:12 PM

You don’t even get what I just did, do you?

I got what you thought what you were doing, but that delusion exists in your head, not in reality.

I didn’t plagiarize; I used your own words against you – I just made a few minor changes and they applied just as well to you as to me (better actually). So if my words were cowardice and a lack of a real argument, you are describing your own attempts at an argument, not mine. Here’s the thing: you can only work that trick with content-free writing; you can’t do it with factual content backed by evidence (try it – it doesn’t work). So thanks for illustrating my point (again).

Yes, believe that if it makes you feel better. The rest of us know your post was without substance.

The fact is, you couldn’t refute that argument so you had to rely on vacuous words and logical fallacies. Thanks for playing though.

There was no argument, just your crying about "political correctness".

Doesn’t really work though, does it?

No, it doesn't. Your idea is foolish and short-sighted. Good of you to finally admit it.

Not dodged at all – dealt with elsewhere.

No it wasn't. No one has tried to answer that question yet.

It wasn’t a logical argument, true. It was a logical fallacy. Look it up.

It wasn't that either. It remains a statement of fact.

Tony

16th August 2006, 04:13 PM

I've already discussed this at length with Cleon in my earlier posts.

Which ones?

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 04:14 PM

Which ones?
The ones in which we're talking about the issue you raised. I'm sure you can find them.

RichardR

16th August 2006, 04:15 PM

I got what you thought what you were doing, but that delusion exists in your head, not in reality. I’ll leave anyone else reading this to decide which one of us is deluded. Likewise the rest of your “rebuttals”.

Tony

16th August 2006, 04:21 PM

You did read the thread before deciding to criticize my position, right?

Most of it.

The discussion about recognizing members of certain ethnicities is pretty clear in my conversation with Cleon.

Then you should have no trouble letting me know which post # it is.

If you can't be bothered to read what I've already written, I'm not going to help you.

I've already read it, and no where did I see you adequately address that question. Why don't you tell me which post you thought you addressed that question?

Polaris

16th August 2006, 05:53 PM

Ah, but their supply of white Moslem dudes willing and able to carry out these plots is probably fairly limited.

I used to be against racial profiling for terrorists but I just don't care to argue against it anymore.

There are plenty of white jihadis - they're called Chechens. And they've proven themselves to be capable of horrors equal to the worst that Arab jihadis can do (airliners, apartment buildings, theaters and schools in Russia). Also, several of the terrorists involved in 7/7 and the Bojinka Redoux were black.

Polaris

16th August 2006, 06:15 PM

One of the elements fuelling the radicalisation of Islam is a (misgiuded) perception that their religion is under threat and that the West is targeting it. If we indulge profiling, all we're going to do is confirm that perception and breed another generation of radical muslims who see the West as a threat to their religion.

If we take a forceful approach to "sorting out the situation" we will create more terrorists. Despite the fact that Hezbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers, caused untold misery to be rained down on the population which harbours then and caused the death of over a thousand Lebanese by their actions, they seem to have consolidated their support. What can you do to fight against that kind of mindset ?

Despite the fact that the coalition in Iraq has deposed a leader who was responsible directly and indirectly for the death of millions of Muslims (Iraqi and Iranian), the coalition countries are still viewed as defilers of Islam.

What kind of action can the non-Muslim countries take which makes the situation less bad short of exterminating every single Muslim ? (not that I'm advocating anything of the sort).

What action do we need to take ?

I hate to say it but the best action against that kind of mindset IS to kill it. Jill Carroll asked a rhetorical question when describing the family that had kidnapped her (which included a wife that blushed with pride at the thought of being a suicide bomber, and a five-year old boy who called himself a mujahid) - something to the effect of "what do you do, kill the whole family?"

The answer, in this case, is yes. You do kill the whole family. You can't combat that kind of mindset with anything less than brutal Punic violence.

Much of Europe was much less militaristic and martial after millions of its young men were butchered on the battlefields - the Islamic world could stand a similar culling, particularly among Arabs, Pakistanis and Chechens.

Polaris

16th August 2006, 06:26 PM

Indonesia does have the largest Muslim in its population. He stands nine feet eleven inches tall, and plays basketball for Kalimantan Central State College (go Probocis Monkeys! Wooooo!). He's a business major, and his ambition is to open a chain of car dealerships. He's a Pisces, likes romantic walks on the beach, and is currently single but looking for a nice girl. Ladies, if interested, reply to Ad #1117393A.

"Seeking nice, subservient girl for forced arranged marriage by our parents. Like long walks on the beach, candle-lit halal dinner, and blowing up Australian tourists. We could get away for a while and behead some Christian adolescents, or watch the latest hanging of a drug addict - those shari'a courts are a real scream. Must not have a clitoris. Haram thoughts in advance.FATWA-CASANOVA."

Elind

16th August 2006, 07:48 PM

:dl:

So you think "all the muslims" are hijacking planes and blowing up embassies?

I'll answere that one. That is not what was said. What was implied was ONLY, not ALL. See the screwball difference?

Elind

16th August 2006, 08:07 PM

There are plenty of white jihadis - they're called Chechens.

Are they Muslims, pretend or otherwise? What does white or otherwise have to do with it?:confused:

Elind

16th August 2006, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Elind http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1849975#post1849975)
I think you, and some others, over analyse this concept. The issue is not so much whether one SHOULD racially/ethically/religiously profile, but whether one has to bend over backwards to seem that one is not.

I do think there is a difference. The words common sense come to mind.:boggled:

What has this to do with the part of my post you quoted?

Actually I didn't really quote any "part" of the post (#85 I think). I just commented to the effect (which I think is shared by many pundits these days;)), that it was too, shall we say, verbose, when the words common sense say the same thing much more concisely; even more than this sentence does.:D

JamesDillon

16th August 2006, 08:22 PM

Are they Muslims, pretend or otherwise? What does white or otherwise have to do with it?:confused:
I think Chechens are typically Muslim, actually. I don't know what involvement, if any, they have in international terrorism, though. Unless you count Russia as "international."

Elind

16th August 2006, 08:25 PM

The Chechens get the ones that really want to die soon, but that will probably change. Training grounds are similar to breeding grounds....as I've always said. Ask the Iranians.

Bjorn

16th August 2006, 10:19 PM

Are they Muslims, pretend or otherwise? What does white or otherwise have to do with it?:confused:We cannot profile based on skin color. Or can we?

If not, how can we profile based on religion - by asking people what they belive?

The Don

17th August 2006, 12:29 AM

It's them wogs innit ? All of them Muslims is wogs. I fink we should search all wogs as they get on planes.

Hang about, I fink we should we shouldn't let the f****** on the planes at all when they try to come back

Identifying a suspected Muslim if they have a typically Muslim name - easy
Identifying a suspected Muslim if they don't have a typically Muslim name - hard
Otherwise we're back to racial profiling which, if you're identifying all Middle Eastern, sub-contiental or South-East Asian as potential Muslims, is likely to be wrong quite a lot of the time. Nevermind the Pakistanis and Indians who look like Italians

Darat

17th August 2006, 02:09 AM

I believe they are all of Pakistani ethnicity.

Not at all.

Germaine Lindsay - one of the 7th July murderers.

The names and details of two of the people recently detained under suspicions of planning terrorist attacks are Don Stewart-Whyte & Brian Young - Stewart-Whyte is reported to have been a recent (less then 6 months) convert to Islam and coming from a Methodist family.

Darat

17th August 2006, 02:12 AM

And why not subject young males to a greater level of scrutiny than grandmothers?

As I said if profiling works it should be used.

Skeptic

17th August 2006, 02:39 AM

I really don't see what's the big deal here.

When a woman reports she was raped by a 6' 4" Asian male, the police looks for 6' 4" Asian males. Does this mean they think all such people are rapists? Of course not. Should 4' 10" little old ladies also be stopped and searched as potential rapists so that 6' 4" Asian males won't feel discriminated? Of course not.

When virtually all aerial terrorism is done by young mideastern / Asian Muslims, it makes sense to look at them more carefully at airports. Does this mean anybody thinks all such people are terrorists? Of course not.

I really don't see what the problem is here.

Darat

17th August 2006, 02:45 AM

...snip...

When virtually all aerial terrorism is done by young mideastern / Asian Muslims, it makes sense to look at them more carefully at airports....snip..

How will you tell who is a Muslim?

The Don

17th August 2006, 02:47 AM

Back in the '70s and '80s there was an approach to policing called stop and serach and was carried out based on a suspicion that the person may commit a crime. Unsurprisingly, most of those stopped were black. As a result, relations between the police and the black community deteriorated resulting in riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Blakelock) and an unwillingness for black communities to assist the police in any way.

Only with the full co-operation of the Muslim community can we hope to stop the radicalistion of Muslim youth and we need informers to identify potential terrorists.

If we lose what little support we have through heavy-handed security, we'll be moving backwards rather than forwards

GraculusTheGreenBird

17th August 2006, 06:45 AM

How will you tell who is a Muslim?

You can see if they look muslim. Yes, that involves skin colour, beards, clothing.

No, all Muslims dont have beards, carry the Koran, or wear the clothing, or even have dark skin. But if you look at the pictures of the 7/7 bombers, they simply 'looked' Muslim.

Yes, you will generate many false positives. Many, many false positives. However, you are still increasing your liklihood of a hit, regardless of these false positives.

If you know that terrorists are mostly of type C, and you have types A, B, C and D, and you can visually distinguish types A, B and C in one group, and D in another, then it makes sense to concentrate less on the D group, and more on the group who contain C.

No, its not remotely perfect, but it makes sense.

Darat

17th August 2006, 06:51 AM

brodski

17th August 2006, 06:53 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1851899,00.html
Some relevant commentary from a former junior minister in the Department for Transport (and former actress, in case that's relevant to anyone), I'm not sure if she ever had an responsibilities for transport security.

richardm

17th August 2006, 07:01 AM

No, its not remotely perfect, but it makes sense.

Does it still make sense if you take into consideration The Don's comments:

Only with the full co-operation of the Muslim community can we hope to stop the radicalistion of Muslim youth and we need informers to identify potential terrorists.

If we lose what little support we have through heavy-handed security, we'll be moving backwards rather than forwards

JamesDillon

17th August 2006, 07:54 AM

Yet the evidence so far is that type of profile would have missed at least one of the 7/7 murderers and at least some of the recent suspects.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1851636#post1851636

Meaning that it would have applied extra scrutiny to all but one of the 7/7 murderers and some (most?) of the recent suspects? As has been discussed previously in this thread, no one is saying that this system would be 100% accurate, or suggesting that we should let all non-Muslim males go through without any screening at all. But focusing extra attention on the demographic group most likely to be involved in terrorist activity seems a perfectly reasonable way to increase one's chances of catching terrorists.

Darat

17th August 2006, 08:17 AM

Meaning that it would have applied extra scrutiny to all but one of the 7/7 murderers and some (most?) of the recent suspects?

If we are saying "extra scrutiny" to all but one isn't that the same as saying "less scrutiny" for the one?

As has been discussed previously in this thread, no one is saying that this system would be 100% accurate, or suggesting that we should let all non-Muslim males go through without any screening at all. But focusing extra attention on the demographic group most likely to be involved in terrorist activity seems a perfectly reasonable way to increase one's chances of catching terrorists.

With regards to catching terrorist then of course profiling is very important however we're not talking about that we are talking about security measures to decrease the overall risk of a successful terrorist attack. Profiles as suggested by people in this thread would not (and of course it is just my opinion) significantly reduce that risk. I have formed that opinion because of what we know about the terrorists and suspected terrorists in this country.

JamesDillon

17th August 2006, 08:34 AM

If we are saying "extra scrutiny" to all but one isn't that the same as saying "less scrutiny" for the one?
Let's be a bit more precise with what we're talking about, lest the terms "less" and "more" become unnecessarily confusing. Right now, there's a baseline level of scrutiny that applies to all airline passengers, correct? Everyone has to go through a metal detector, have their bags x-rayed, and everyone has an ostensibly equal chance of being randomly chosen for additional screening, which involves a bag search and pat-down. So let's call this Baseline scrutiny. The proposal, as I understand it, is to subject certain ethnic/religious groups to heightened scrutiny, which I believe means something like Baseline screening, but with a 100% chance of additional screening (bag search and pat-down). Let's call this Heightened scrutiny. There aren't enough security personnel to apply Heightened scrutiny to everyone, and it would be impractical to implement for all passengers anyway, due to time restrictions and the volume of people passing through the major airports every day. So, under the proposal as I understand it, everyone continues to receive Baseline scrutiny, with the exception of certain groups identified as high-risk, who receive Heightened scrutiny. So, while it's true that passengers not identified as high-risk would receive less attention than high-risk passengers, no one would be subject to a lower level of security screening than the level that everyone receives now-- i.e., Baseline.

With regards to catching terrorist then of course profiling is very important however we're not talking about that we are talking about security measures to decrease the overall risk of a successful terrorist attack. Profiles as suggested by people in this thread would not (and of course it is just my opinion) significantly reduce that risk. I have formed that opinion because of what we know about the terrorists and suspected terrorists in this country.

But I don't see how this follows, since most of the terrorists (excluding IRA, with whom the present scheme is not concerned and who I believe are no longer an active threat anyway) active in Britain do fall within the demographic groups likely to be identified as high-risk, and would be subject to Heightened scrutiny. I don't see how the fact that a few don't fall into those groups means that the proposed two-tier level of security screening would not be more likely to identify most terrorists than the current system is.

The Atheist

17th August 2006, 12:32 PM

I hate to say it but the best action against that kind of mindset IS to kill it...... The answer, in this case, is yes. You do kill the whole family. You can't combat that kind of mindset with anything less than brutal Punic violence.

Thanks for that Polaris. I now have the exact answer to quote when people ask me why there are terrorists.

Polaris

17th August 2006, 03:48 PM

I think Chechens are typically Muslim, actually. I don't know what involvement, if any, they have in international terrorism, though. Unless you count Russia as "international."

Yes they are, and are more frequently becoming Wahhabist.

The US fought Chechens in Afghanistan, who went there for the jihad. That makes them international.

Polaris

17th August 2006, 04:00 PM

Thanks for that Polaris. I now have the exact answer to quote when people ask me why there are terrorists.

I'd love to hear a nice, nonviolent solution to Islamic extremism, but when children in those societies are raised to kill from the moment they can talk, I don't think it's possible.

Keep in mind that this jihad mindset deliberately derails peace negotiations (see Hezbollah and Hamas). You can't peacefully negotiate with people who seek divinely-inspired genocide.

Since these are people who, if I were to suddenly appear in downtown Baghdad or Grozny, behead me on sight, I'm not all that interested in giving them any leeway. I see jihadis as people who deserve nothing but death, because that's what they live and breathe for, and devote their entire lives to bringing to the human beings in the world in as large a dose as possible. They've forfeit their humanity, and deserve to die.

The Atheist

17th August 2006, 04:20 PM

Keep in mind that this jihad mindset deliberately derails peace negotiations (see Hezbollah and Hamas). You can't peacefully negotiate with people who seek divinely-inspired genocide.

You mean like George Bush and Tony Blair?

Polaris

17th August 2006, 04:30 PM

You mean like George Bush and Tony Blair?

Only Bush is a fundamentalist, and neither one wants genocide.

The Atheist

17th August 2006, 06:51 PM

Only Bush is a fundamentalist, and neither one wants genocide.

Nobody mentioned fundamentalists - you said "divine guidance" and Blair is on record as having had approval from his god.

As to neither wanting genocide, I am not prepared to bet on that fact. Given your previous posts, you appear to be in favour of it yourself, though.

demon

19th August 2006, 12:36 PM

A recent Gallup poll (27 July I think) produced results that two fifths of Americans think that:

quote:
Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some “prejudice” against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too “extreme.”

In every case, Americans who actually know any Muslims are more sympathethic.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002984956

Hardly suprising if you take a look at "Results: Tagged with Attacks on Muslims/Islam" at "Mediamatters for America" here:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topic..._muslims_islam

Worth remembering too the US media uproar (often, as it happens, from the same gutter rags that propagate anti-Muslim racism) over the deceptive claims that Jews in Iran were to be issued with yellow insignia to identify them.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...c66ad4&k=28534
This claim, was of course, shown to be untrue:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...e-bb91af82abb3
But even so, it was enough to get the lairs in high places jumping on the band wagon, for example:
"Howard compares Iran to Nazi Germany"
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...545562132.html

It was noticeable too that the Simon Wiesenthal Center was quite happy to assume the story was true without bothering to find out first. Yet the story was obviously a crock. Iran's not North Korea and things like this don't become law overnight without any previous discussion. CBS were quite right: it looked like a hoax from the start.

Two recent experiences in London, anecdotes granted:
I was talking to an Egyptian Muslim on the underground the the other day. He was very suprised I started talking to him, because, you know, there all "turrists" aint they?
He was wearing the long white loose clothes and an embroidered kufune. He has a beard. He lives monasticaly, he has memorised and recites the Koran, he prays 5 times a day for peace, and wishes the fighting in the Middle East would end.
(Yes he really really really is an evil bastard, the enemy within.
'im and his f00king kind should be made to wear a big yellow Crescent.)

There were police with sniffer dogs in the British Library tuesday just past. They stopped and searched a friend of mine in the middle of the public space for about 10 mins, and the receipt they gave him afterwards said they'd been looking for "items relating to terrorism." No idea what those could have been; he was in very slim jeans and a shirt. (He is also an Israeli Jew...self hating of course, that goes without saying; of course they probably guessed something else from his looks.)

Dave1001

19th August 2006, 11:34 PM

You can see if they look muslim. Yes, that involves skin colour, beards, clothing.

No, all Muslims dont have beards, carry the Koran, or wear the clothing, or even have dark skin. But if you look at the pictures of the 7/7 bombers, they simply 'looked' Muslim.

Yes, you will generate many false positives. Many, many false positives. However, you are still increasing your liklihood of a hit, regardless of these false positives.

If you know that terrorists are mostly of type C, and you have types A, B, C and D, and you can visually distinguish types A, B and C in one group, and D in another, then it makes sense to concentrate less on the D group, and more on the group who contain C.

No, its not remotely perfect, but it makes sense.

Profiling on the basis of beards, wearing the clothing, (or carrying the Koran?!) I think is silly. There's not much of a cost barrier for terrorists to discard those elements, so I think it would be a huge economic waste: you'd catch zero terrorists, and you'd waste resources searching and background checking non-terrorist muslims and others who fit that profile.

I think you could really only profile on the basis of skin color and facial features of ethnic groups demonstrated available to al queda as air terrorists. That could impose substantial operating cost barriers on al queda. Of course, other groups could be profiled (even grandmothers) at a much lower rate than they currently are.

Cylinder

20th August 2006, 12:59 AM

How will you know who is a Muslim and who isn't?

Muslim would be over-broad. The profile would be something closer to male, 16-40 year-old and of South Asian descent who have visited certain countries in the Mid East, South Asia and North Africa in the last 5 years.

X-COM

20th August 2006, 02:09 AM

Muslim would be over-broad. The profile would be something closer to male, 16-40 year-old and of South Asian descent who have visited certain countries in the Mid East, South Asia and North Africa in the last 5 years.

That may work for a while but fundamentalist scolars that live in western countries are mentioned quite often on the news. There are little need to travel to the middle east to "study" any more. It would also catch a lot of immigrants that have visited the old country, something they often do when they can safely return without facing whatever they fled from in the first place.

Anyway regarding profiling, I remember something the said on the news a year or two ago about a palestinean suicide bomber that had attacked all dressed up like a one of those easy to identify ortodox jews.

Cylinder

20th August 2006, 02:16 AM

It would also catch a lot of immigrants that have visited the old country, something they often do when they can safely return without facing whatever they fled from in the first place.

Certainly it's a balance and the profile will never be 1:1. If it was perfect, I (and I suspect many others) would be arguing for termination instead of extra scrutiny.

Polaris

20th August 2006, 10:39 AM

Nobody mentioned fundamentalists - you said "divine guidance" and Blair is on record as having had approval from his god.

As to neither wanting genocide, I am not prepared to bet on that fact. Given your previous posts, you appear to be in favour of it yourself, though.

First of all, Bush and Blair were reacting to mass murder committed by people who claimed Koranic bases for their horrors. The attacks on the US had the approval of at least one cleric (Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman). That's a far cry from what Bush and Blair may have said, and I'm waiting for proof on that from you.

Islamists have gone on record saying that Israel should be wiped off the map, and that Jews and Americans should be killed whenever they are seen by Muslims. Bush and Blair have never said - or even acted - like they wanted to destroy an entire ethnic group.

And neither have I. I said jihadis - and I stand by the statement that they should all be killed. Someone saying that all Nazis should be killed would not have been advocating the slaughter of every last German.

As long as we're making assumptions here, I think you'd assume we all just sit back and take the jihadi attacks against us because, well, they have a point and we're stronger anyway.

Ausmerican

21st August 2006, 04:40 AM

So this way Don Stewart-Whyte & Brian Young would get a pass but Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar would get searched? I feel safer.

brodski

21st August 2006, 09:33 AM

could really only profile on the basis of skin color and facial features of ethnic groups demonstrated available to al queda as air terrorists. That would pretty much include every single passenger.

Darat

21st August 2006, 09:44 AM

Eleven people have now been charged: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271998.stm

...snip...

Eleven people have been charged in connection with an alleged plot to blow up several transatlantic airliners.

Eight have been charged with conspiracy to murder and preparing acts of terrorism.

Two are accused of failing to disclose information and a 17-year-old faces a charge of possessing articles useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism.

One woman has been freed without charge and eleven people remain in custody, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

...snip...

JamesDillon

21st August 2006, 06:19 PM

And, to your credit, you do admit that "I do not know, offhand, of a case in which any state interest has been held sufficiently compelling, or the classification sufficiently necessary, to actually justify such discrimination."

Which is essentially my point. The idea of it being ok providing "compelling state interest" is more theoretical than practical. The fact of the matter is that as compelling an interest as preventing attacks is, it does not justify racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. Had that been the case, segregationists would have loved to point to the Black Panthers and used them as an excuse to re-introduce Jim Crow.

I'm a little late with this response, but I was just reading an article that reminded me of an obvious line of cases in which the courts have found a state interest sufficiently compelling to justify racially discriminatory practices, in the context of affirmative action in education and employment. Most recently (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan School of Law's race-sensitive admissions program, which was designed to encourage greater minority enrollment at the law school than would have otherwise been the case. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003). Of course, affirmative action programs are designed to remedy the lingering effects of prior discrimination against racial minorities, so they may be of limited relevance to an Equal Protection challenge against a government practice that targets an ethnic minority for heightened security screening, but it is not the case, as I suggested earlier, that no state interest has ever been held sufficiently compelling to satisfy strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.