By Elizabeth Sherman
This morning, while in my annual post-holiday food coma on the couch, I flipped on ‘Good Morning America’ to check out what’s going on in the world. Instead of winding up informed, I wound up shocked, and disappointed. After the nearly catastrophic Christmas Day airplane incident, the debate is raging on about whether or not airports should be able to racially profile based on whether or not someone has an Islamic sounding name.
The more I watched, the more upset I got. The pro-profiling side essentially chalked it up to this : if someone is going to hurt America, it’s going to be Muslims, so let’s get them before they get us.
I’m sorry, has anyone bothered to read the constitution lately? Our first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” And while this isn’t a law, the practice of racial profiling goes directly against the constitution.
The speaker also rattled off a list of terrorists with Muslim sounding names. Have we forgotten people with names like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; or Adam Pearlman (now Adam Yahiye Gadahn), a staunch Christian American from Orange County, CA now working high up for Al Qaeda? Ted Kaczynski, a Berkley professor; or Timothy McVeigh, a member of the American army? These people have all harmed, tried to harm, or wish to harm America, would they wind up in the Muslim name screening line at the airport? I think not.
If nothing else, let us use American history as an example. We segregated people based on the color of their skin. In the 1960’s, MLK fought against segregation, and in 2009, the United States swore in Barack Obama; our first black president. For us to entertain the possibility of treating people differently in airports because of their name or religion is an enormous step in the wrong direction.
I’m sure this debate will continue in the coming weeks. Regardless of what everyone says, the important thing to remember in the Christmas Day case is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was on a watch list, and that his father had tried to warn officials at the US embassy in Nigeria. This was the fault of terrorists, and to treat Muslims, nearly twenty percent of the world’s population, as criminals, is, in my opinion, extremely unjust.
Photo Credit: shazron
Elizabeth,
Great post. Although the profiling issue has been in the news only lately, I think it has been in practice since 9/11. Every time I fly in or out of the country I see Middle Eastern people being treated differently — checked more carefully, interrogated about every single detail of their trip, taken items away that one is allowed to bring to the airplane. I still remember one time, maybe 3 years ago, when the security people at the airport in Miami made one man take off his clothes at the security checkpoint. They didn't take him to a different place or whatsoever, just there, in front of everyone. I felt embarrassed and humiliated. I can't even imagine how he felt. It was an obvious violation of his human rights, but what was he supposed to do? Protest?
I understand the need for security measurement, but there should be a balance between such measurements and human rights.
Elizabeth, I am glad someone else agrees that people of Islamic culture are getting treated as sub-Citizens. Loved your counter-examples against racial profiling!
I totally agree with this post, but you gotta admit, the Muslims are nuts. Same with the Christians and every other religious cult on the planet. That said, I think the Muslims are especially bad because they don't seem to have splintered into sects. They are The Borg, a highly disciplined (in a lunatic fringe kind of way), deeply violent klan tied not by blood but by ideology. Thank Jesus (yes, I mean that in a scornful way) that they don't have cool space ships.
Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!
Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.
The Problem
Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.
The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” – all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.
All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:
1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!
2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.
3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh
The Solution
Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.
The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.
As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.
I find it amusing that this comment started with, “I totally agree with you.”
At the risk of being politically incorrect, I have to say that this has me torn. On the one hand, no group should be singled out as second class citizens.
On the other hand, isn't it only natural to be more suspicious of a group that you perceive a greater threat from? If you're in a room with twenty people, 5 of them have yellow shirts, 5 have blue shirts, 5 have green shirts, 5 have red shirts, and you're told that any given time any one of those people might walk by you and slap you across the face. You're also told that there's only one person from each group that might slap you, except for the red group, where there's two people that might slap you. Which group are you going to be more suspicious of? The three people in the red group who won't slap you are just as innocent as the four people from the blue group, and yet, you're going to be more suspicious of them.
That's a long winded way of saying that, yes, racial profiling is wrong, but it's also understandable, and from a certain perspective, mathematically understandable.
That being said, I have Muslim friends who have told me horror stories about airport security and I feel for them. Hell, with my skin tone and a tan, I'm often mistaken for Arab, so even I've felt the sting of profiling, but as long as whack jobs keep trying to fly planes into buildings, or blowing up their shoes, I don't think this will ever fully go away.
Good points, but profiling is inevitable. How are you going to figure out where to look? It's not nice but I can't see a way out of it.
As you can tell from my name, I'm as Muslim as they get. I pray five times a day. I was in college on 9/11/01 and on that day, as thousands of Americans (of all faiths and colors) died, not one person said anything derogatory to me. My friends were concerned about my safety. They needn't have bothered because there was nothing to worry about.
If those attacks had happened in Bangladesh, where I'm from, or rather, if say Christians or Hindus or whatever had attacked a Muslim Bangladeshi building, every Hindu or Christian or whoever would have been lynched. It is that simple.
In the past decade, there have been atrocities committed by everybody. The American government has committed a large portion of them, all over the world. But within America's borders, Muslims are safer than in anywhere else in the world. So are all other ethnic groups. It's the beauty of the American system, and the kindness of the American people. Let's not forget that.
Well thank Allah we have a genius like you to clarify things.
Why?
Arafat, c'mon, that's the best reply you'ver got? A glib little piece of snottiness? What would your professor say? F.
Adam, the point here isn't profiling, it's prejudice an it's rightly illegal because it's un-Constitutional (sorry folks, can't discriminate).
But I still maintain that Muslims and ALL other religious groups are whacko.
Arafat, sorry, but there is a way out of it. It's called culture. And while I think American culture is pretty advanced, we are not so far that we can't let human nature get the best of us on occasion.
As for your professed religious views, here's mine: I'm an atheist. I point that out just so you don't think I hold one form of lunacy superior to yours.
By the way, I have to ask: do you really think Muhammad, Allah's personal messenger and scribe, according to your view of history, would get bent out of shape if someone drew a cartoon of him?
Jeff
I don't think Muhammad would care. But then again, he was Jewish.
Re: culture, all I'm saying is that America, within its own borders, reacted with more sanity and kindness than any nation than I can think of. I gave an example of the country where I grew up which I know for sure would have a different reaction. In most other nations, Muslim or not, there would be a terrible backlash. In America, we worry about profiling. That's a testament to the natural kindness of the American people for their fellow humans.
I don't think there is ever a complete escape from human nature, which tends to be bloodthirsty. But profiling is a tiny thing. It inconveniences frequent fliers. But it's not the end of the world, and it's a very small and measured reaction.
Playing the devil's advocate, I guess you could say that America did have an extreme reaction, since 9/11 let directly to the complete devastation of two countries. But even warmongering Dubya had the intelligence to limit atrocities to _outside_ of America. Which you gotta admit, is good governance.
Another thing. I mention this though it seems obvious–most Muslims aren't like the few rabid fanatics you see on TV proclaiming the death of the Western world, just as most Catholic priests aren't pedophiles, most black people aren't criminals, etc. You know how stereotypes work!!!!!
I don't think that post deserved better, because
a) dismissing all religions out of hand makes you the kind of absolutist you claim to disdain,
b) your ignorance about Islam and its many sects, and
c) your assertion that Muslims can't think for themselves.
Errr sorry, I clicked on post accidentally. I meant that “I don't think that post deserved better, because OF ITS” etc.
Arafat, thanks, you make some great points and I appreciate your taking the time to reply. I agree with (b) and (c) and I apologize for being a bigot! As for (a), this is tricky. You're right, I do dismiss all religions, but I'm not sure that makes me an absolutist in the derogatory sense. My reason for dismissing all religions is that I do not believe in deities, period, because there is overwhelming evidence against their existence and zero for. In other words, if religion is one way we seek to understand our world and science is another, I like science.