Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ariel Sharon


and Oscar the Grouch



eta: conspiracy theory take: Sharon is just Bush's puppet

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the more sophisticated and complex your filters - i.e., the more factors you are subdividing by, like swart, time in-country, recent purchases of explosives, tirades at neighbors about how their corrupt infidel society is going to be QUITE SORRY next Tuesday morning at nine, so you don't really care if they play their goddam redneck Jewish music so loud, but maybe if you could turn it down a little - once you start doing that, you are identifying more and predicting based on protected areas less.

I agree that it all depends on the other evidence that leads you to look at that group in the first place. It is just that the PC crowd has so bashed this idea of racial profiling, as if it is only ever used illegitemately, that intelligence and law enforcement is afraid to engage in any legitimate uses of race/religion as an identifier.

That is what happened pre-9/11 if that journalist is to be believed. They were afraid to focus their investigation on Arabs in flight schools because it might be perceived as racial profiling. Yet there was plenty of other information available that would lead someone to suspect that non-American Arabs in flight schools were up to no good.

Originally posted by bilmore
We have decided, as a society, that, in order to avoid future unfair misuse, we will forego what might possibly be useful ID tools, and accept that drop in efficiency, in order to avoid more racial/religious/sexual/nationalistic strife.

We need to re-evaluate this policy and start talking more about it. What has happened is that people label any use of race/religion/ethnicity racial profiling and this term carries with it the connotation that it is not legitimate to do. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate to do.

BTW - I am not talking about after a crime has been committed and you have some information (like a witness) to lead you to believe that the perp is black or white or male or female. Of course that is legitimate to focus your investigation on those who fall into those categories.

I am talking about BEFORE a crime is committed and the legitimate use of race/religion/ethnicity to focus an investigation on likely suspects.

eta - well technically, the crime of conspiracy will have already been committed or you wouldn't be able to arrest them.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Just to stop the racial profiling thread from being a "You're right"/"No, you're right" love-in that's so unbecoming of this board, consider this little exercise in racial profiling.

A Southern police chief is approaching hundreds of black men in town, telling them they've been reported as "potential suspects" in a serial rapist case because they were "acting suspiciously," and suggesting that they could easily clear themselves by giving a DNA sample.

• "The suspect is a black man, and he needs to be caught," Turner said. "But the way the police are conducting this investigation, because the suspect is a black man, every black man is a suspect."

That about sums it up.

'DNA Dragnet' Makes Charlottesville Uneasy
{Spree: Today's WaPo. For-profit newspaper. Reg. required.}

AG - did you miss the posts about how polls show that blacks support racial profiling of Arabs/muslims for homeland security purposes?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
At least they have a sense of humor about it.

Did you try calling the phone number they posted?

No. Why?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
AG - did you miss the posts about how polls show that blacks support racial profiling of Arabs/muslims for homeland security purposes?

No, I didn't miss them. I just wasn't interested in them, because I found them unsurprising. It's always wisest to get the oxen vote in between gorings, if you're running on a pro-goring platform.

[Gattigap]

In an interview John McCain did with Juan Williams of NPR this week, which was mostly about McCain's upcoming book on Courage, McCain near the end of the interview stated that he will not run as a VP on the Democratic ticket, and that he's supporting Bush for reelection (no real surprise on either front).

However, he alllllllmost suggested that Bush take responsibility for 9/11.

John McCain: A funny thing about Washington nowadays is everybody is responsible, so therefore nobody is responsible. It's rather interesting that not one single person has lost their job as a result of nine-eleven.

Juan Williams: Well do you think somebody should have lost their job?

McCain: Sure.

Williams: Who?

McCain: One of my earliest--I don't know because I don't know--I'd wait until I see the nine-eleven commission's findings and recommendations. One of my earliest recollections as a very young boy was when the captain of the battleship Missouri was asleep in his cabin, the navigator ran the battleship aground near Norfolk. The captain was gone from the ship within two hours. He was responsible.

Williams: Senator McCain, thank you very much.

McCain: Thank you.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Oscar the Grouch

Reminded of that Chappelle bit:

Kid: "Oscar, you are a grouch."

Oscar : "Bitch, I live in a fucking trash can! I'm the poorest motherfucker on Sesame Street! And you call me grouchy"

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the more sophisticated and complex your filters - i.e., the more factors you are subdividing by, like swart, time in-country, recent purchases of explosives, tirades at neighbors..you are identifying more and predicting based on protected areas less.

Well, when you talk about adding more "filters" then it simply becomes less "profiling Muslims". I mean, an angry Swede threatening that we'll be sorry Tuesday at nine after purchasing explosives......at that point, do we care if he's a Swedish Muslim? Or even a Jewish Swede, or a swarthy one for Chrissakes?

Anyhow - I think the case for profiling becomes stronger not necessarily because there is an extra "filter" in the profile, but when the perceived accuracy of the profile gets stronger. Take the "profile" for a potential drug smuggler - there's a few profiles, not all one gender, race, etc. Why a few? Because who knows who's REALLY going to smuggle drugs at any given time (could even be a lucky-hat-wearing gal from Rockaway carrying a baby). But if the profile (or Jeopardy Question) is, "Someone will blow themselves up in the name of religion", you'd better have your money (and your investigators) on "Who is MUSLIM, Alex"? And as more Muslims blow themselves up, and more Muslims tell pollsters they approve of this, I would say we are hard pressed not to jettison (or at least rethink) our views on profiling.

We have decided, as a society, that, in order to avoid future unfair misuse, we will forego what might possibly be useful ID tools, and accept that drop in efficiency, in order to avoid more racial/religious/sexual/nationalistic strife.

I would be interested in your examples of the instances where law enforcement knows that if a certain crime takes place, it will most likely have been committed by a particular group that falls in a protected class, but law enforcement declines to utilize the protected class as a factor in their attempt to either prevent the crime (or investigate it to find the perpetrator). And do any of these instances involve overwhelming likelihoods that the crime would have been committed by the particular protected class?

PS - It's gotta be a serious crime, so don't say something like, "cops know that if a public drunkenness/peeing in public/disorderly conduct charge is issued on St. Patty's day, the accused is most likely an Irishman."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I would be interested in your examples of the instances where law enforcement knows that if a certain crime takes place, it will most likely have been committed by a particular group that falls in a protected class, but law enforcement declines to utilize the protected class as a factor in their attempt to either prevent the crime (or investigate it to find the perpetrator). And do any of these instances involve overwhelming likelihoods that the crime would have been committed by the particular protected class?

But no one is suggesting that law enforcement should decline to utilize the protected class as a factor. (Maybe the ACLU said this, but it seems silly to everyone here.) Some consideration of it seems OK. What people object to under the rubric of "racial profiling" is when it's the sole factor, in theory or practice.

And no one -- except maybe Not Me -- thinks that there is an "overwhelming likelihood" that terrorism is likely to be committed only by the class in question here. There are a lot of terrorists around. Mohammed and Malvo, anyone? Richard Reid? Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? Eric Rudolph?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No bombs, but take a look at what Shape Shifter just posted, which includes comments critical of racial profiling. It's from the Cato Institute, that hot-bed of Democratic policy-making.

Nice catch. [Cato critical of racial profiling in the context of cops nailing drug dealers in the US]. What a shame. Cato, which of course promotes the government staying out of our wallets, bedroom, bongs, etc., should have highlighted its main goals by saying the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect us, especially from international threats and especially as we lie helpless in our beds smoking really good dope.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But no one is suggesting that law enforcement should decline to utilize the protected class as a factor. (Maybe the ACLU said this, but it seems silly to everyone here.) Some consideration of it seems OK. What people object to under the rubric of "racial profiling" is when it's the sole factor, in theory or practice.

I don't think that is what happened at the FBI pre-9/11. It wasn't the sole factor. There was plenty of other information to back-up investigating the Arabs in flying school. Yet the fact that they were concentrating on Arabs worried the FBI that it would be perceived as racial profiling.

That is your definition of racial profiling that it must be the sole factor. Many other people scream racial profiling anytime race is a factor at all.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And no one -- except maybe Not Me -- thinks that there is an "overwhelming likelihood" that terrorism is likely to be committed only by the class in question here. There are a lot of terrorists around. Mohammed and Malvo, anyone? Richard Reid? Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? Eric Rudolph?

I think suicide attacks that result in the mass murders of strangers are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by muslims (not talking about domestic disputes where father kills wife and kids and then kills himself). All the other terrorist attacks that I can think of weren't suicide attacks-mass murders. The only other suicide attack-mass murder that I can think of was Columbine.

I think the suicide-mass murder attacks are the hardest to protect against and the most worrisome.

Richard Reid was a muslim.

[Not Me]

I am not citing this article in support of any arguments. I just found it interesting and informative. It makes it even more clear that Moussaoui should have been tried as an enemy combatant.

It is written by Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing.

The Intelligence Mess: How It Happened, What to Do About It

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=11704013_1

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Just to stop the racial profiling thread from being a "You're right"/"No, you're right" love-in that's so unbecoming of this board, consider this little exercise in racial profiling.

A Southern police chief is approaching hundreds of black men in town, telling them they've been reported as "potential suspects" in a serial rapist case because they were "acting suspiciously," and suggesting that they could easily clear themselves by giving a DNA sample.

• "The suspect is a black man, and he needs to be caught," Turner said. "But the way the police are conducting this investigation, because the suspect is a black man, every black man is a suspect."

That about sums it up.

'DNA Dragnet' Makes Charlottesville Uneasy
{Spree: Today's WaPo. For-profit newspaper. Reg. required.}

Does this post count as a Dem on this board criticizing another Dem? Yes? No? You Decide.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But no one is suggesting that law enforcement should decline to utilize the protected class as a factor. (Maybe the ACLU said this, but it seems silly to everyone here.) Some consideration of it seems OK.

It would appear even the ACLU agrees that immutable characteristics can be "a factor," so long as it isn't used as the only factor (i.e., we have no other leads; let's pull all the files on all the black people in town). From Diane Keaton's post, with her emphasis:

• According to the ACLU, "Targeting people for investigation, interrogation or detention based on immutable characteristics like national origin, ethnicity or religion alone is, we believe, unconstitutional and inappropriate in all circumstances. (emphasis added)

Now, the same sentence, with my emphasis:

• According to the ACLU, "Targeting people for investigation, interrogation or detention based on immutable characteristics like national origin, ethnicity or religion alone is, we believe, unconstitutional and inappropriate in all circumstances. (emphasis added)

So I think the ACLU, bless their bleeding hearts, is saying that it's improper to interrogate every black person in a movie theater because your complaining witness said the guy throwing popcorn was black. One could quibble with the idea that the complaining witness might instead say that the perp was "very dark-complected" and accomplish nearly the same result, catching also the George Hamiltons of the world in the dragnet, but the ACLU's position is not as absurd as we're making it out to be. Rather, it smells a bit like the pretty standard totality of the circumstances probable cause analysis with which we're familiar. As long as "interrogation" doesn't mean the cops are prevented from using their judgment to focus non-detention, informal witness interviews on black witnesses when the perp is described as black, I'm pretty okay with the ACLU, surprise surprise.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCain: A funny thing about Washington nowadays is everybody is responsible, so therefore nobody is responsible. It's rather interesting that not one single person has lost their job as a result of nine-eleven.

Juan Williams: Well do you think somebody should have lost their job?

McCain: Sure.

Williams: Who?

McCain: One of my earliest--I don't know because I don't know--I'd wait until I see the nine-eleven commission's findings and recommendations. One of my earliest recollections as a very young boy was when the captain of the battleship Missouri was asleep in his cabin, the navigator ran the battleship aground near Norfolk. The captain was gone from the ship within two hours. He was responsible.

Williams: Senator McCain, thank you very much.

McCain: Thank you.
_________________

This truly is one of the most anti-intellectual approaches to life that military thought brings us, and you want to perpetuate it just so you can feel good that someone has been sacked? Incredible.

Yes, captains who are sleeping are regularly sacked when the officer on watch makes a screwup, because "the captain was in charge." Does this have anything to do with fault? No. It simply allows us to focus on an easy demon.

If that's what you're about, have at it. But, don't expect respect for your position.