Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Are you saying ethnicity "should" not be the sole factor in an investigation, or are you saying that legally it "cannot" be the sole factor? If the latter, our government can absolutely single in on a particular ethnic group, or persons of a particular national origin, if they have reason to. See my prior post on dudes from Iraq.

Yes. As we all know from law school, the Supreme Court approved of such an approach in Korematsu.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
What about the IRA/UVA? ETA? Tamil Tigers? Chechens? The Shining Path? FARC? Or are you limiting the percentage to those who would try to attack the US?

I am saying that when you have a finite amount of resources in the FBI, it makes sense to focus those resources at the groups most likely to present a threat to the US. That doesn't mean that you ignore all other potential threats.

The FBI and CIA don't have unlimited resources. Their efforts have to be allocated in a way that best achieves the goals of protecting the US. Making them investigate all people in flight schools takes valuable resources away from other investigations. If they could have just focused on muslims in flight schools or arabs in flight schools, they might have prevented 9/11. But they didn't have the resources to investigate all 200,000 people in flight schools when they were alerted by the FBI agent in Pheonix about the Arabs in flight school. And they felt they were prevented from only investigating the muslims or arabs because it was racial/religious profiling.

Originally posted by Not Bob
Race or ethnicity can properly be a factor in investigations, but not the sole factor.

When the FBI agent in Pheonix noticed non-American Arab males in flight school, would investigating only non-American Arab males have been wrong?

Originally posted by Not Bob
Otherwise, you end up strip searching saintly old Dr. Mazzari the brain surgeon, while some natural born (WASP or black or Asian) citizen who happens to be a National Guard sergeant who converted to radical Islam passes by in a car full of C-4.

So focus on muslims and you get the National Guard guy. That still sucks for the brain surgeon guy, but it sucks to die when muslims fly airplanes through your workplace. I think preventing the brain surgeon guy's feelings from getting hurt is a a lower priority than preventing terrorist attacks.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
What about the IRA/UVA? ETA? Tamil Tigers? Chechens? The Shining Path? FARC? Or are you limiting the percentage to those who would try to attack the US? (And if so remember that the IRA used to work and train with the PLO and the Lybians -- maybe Seamus McIrish would do the job on a contract basis in return for some cash or weapons for his comrades in Belfast.)

Race or ethnicity can properly be a factor in investigations, but not the sole factor. Otherwise, you end up strip searching saintly old Dr. Mazzari the brain surgeon, while some natural born (WASP or black or Asian) citizen who happens to be a National Guard sergeant who converted to radical Islam passes by in a car full of C-4.

The usual discussion of Arab racial profiling arises in the context of airport security, national security (or at least that's where I've seen it most often) and also immigration, I suppose. While the IRA, ETA, Chechens (don't know anything about the Tamil Tigers -- sorry), Shining Path (also don't know anything about FARC) are undoubtedly a threat to their intended targets, that's not what we were talking about, I don't think. Hell -- I was given the "extra-special once-over" by El Al when I was traveling back to the US from Israel by myself , because I fit whatever "profile" I fit (actually, I remember reading an article recently that young females traveling alone are targeted because a common Arab "plan" is to befriend/seduce a naif and plant explosives in her suitcase, so I'm guessing that's what triggered the search) -- and could not have been more pleased. Whatever it takes, man. What do I care that I fit a profile and was given extra scrutiny?

I would similarly not think it wrong-headed for a Spanish police force to "racially profile" Isaskun Ximun (just a very Basque name -- not a real person, as far as I know) either -- as probably 100% of ETA violence is committed by Basques (no idea about the numbers, but you catch my drift, I'm sure) or for the British police force (Scotland Yard? That sounds much more Miss Marple, so I'll go with that.) to "racially profile" Belfast youths.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now by targeting the Arabs that doesn't mean that you don't investigate the Swedes if evidence turns up that the Swedes are terrorists.

What was Timothy McVeigh's ancestry? Terry Nichols? Should we target white American males with short haircuts and NRA stickers on their pickups?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
And they felt they were prevented from only investigating the muslims or arabs because it was racial/religious profiling.

While this is what they said, given what we all know about the FBI it is at least as likely that they sat on their ass for various other reasons (sloth, other priorities, bureaucratic turf wars, etc.) and raised this as a pretext later.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
...al Qaeda would figure out to use a few non-Arab Muslim extremists..

Well, yeah, but that's easy...find a Persian Muslim,

a British Muslim: ,
even an American Muslim,

,...whatever. But could Al Qaeda as easily find a non-Muslim?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What was Timothy McVeigh's ancestry? Terry Nichols? Should we target white American males with short haircuts and NRA stickers on their pickups?

Yes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I think the type of profiling being discussed is profiling that could result in a greater chance of Muslims being searched, questioned, tracked, whatever than non-Muslims. And, yes, in some cases, someone might in fact be questioned, tracked, etc., merely because they are Arab or Muslim, or even from a particular country.

There's a big gulf between these sentences. If the police are looking for a suspect in a bank robbery who was described as American Indian, I have no problem with focusing on American Indians, even though this results in a greater chance of American Indians being searched, questioned, tracked, etc. OTOH, I don't believe that the police should be able to pick up someone on suspicion of being a terrorist simply because they are of Arab descent.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Seems to be exactly what that means. Until your ethnic group blows up a few buildings, you don't get investigated.

No that isn't what it means. It means that if your racial/ethnic/religious group blows up a few buildings (notably killing 3000 people and injuring countless more - ever see the woman whose face got burned off in the WTC?), members of your group can be investigated simply because they are members of your group. Members of other groups can and should be investigated as the evidence indicates.

Profiling doesn't mean the FBI devotes all its resources to investigating one group. Profiling is a matter of allocation of finite investigative resources. When it makes sense to investigate on the basis of race/ethnicity/religion the FBI should be allowed to do it. It makes sense to not bother investigating the Swedish atheists in flight school.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
On the other hand, looking exclusively at Arabs in flights schools would be a mistake -- if only because, eventually, al Qaeda would figure out to use a few non-Arab Muslim extremists.

So look at muslims in flight school then.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
If they could have just focused on muslims in flight schools or arabs in flight schools, they might have prevented 9/11.

That's comparable to saying that if the FBI had focused its resources on white male militia members, they could have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing. Hindsight is helpful for determining future policy, but only to an extent.

But they didn't have the resources to investigate all 200,000 people in flight schools when they were alerted by the FBI agent in Pheonix about the Arabs in flight school.

If I remember the nature of the alert correctly, it wasn't simply "we've got Arabs here." There were other reasons for concern raised; that the people involved were Arabs should have been a factor, but FBI resources would easily be exhausted by questioning all (or even a very small portion) of Arabs in the US. So, again, it's a matter of degree. Some people think that the FBI should resources without even considering race or ethnicity, but I view that as unrealistic to the point of being goofy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OTOH, I don't believe that the police should be able to pick up someone on suspicion of being a terrorist simply because they are of Arab descent.

Should the FBI be able to investigate people in flight schools simply because they are muslims?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
that the people involved were Arabs should have been a factor, but FBI resources would easily be exhausted by questioning all (or even a very small portion) of Arabs in the US.

That wasn't what was proposed. They didn't have the resources to investigate all students in flight schools. Pre-9/11, they did have the resources (according to journalists who quoted former FBI agents) to investigate all Arabs in flight schools but believed that would be racial profiling and so it wasn't done.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Are you saying ethnicity "should" not be the sole factor in an investigation, or are you saying that legally it "cannot" be the sole factor?

"Should" -- I have no idear on legality (I'm just a mere slip-and-fall defense lawyer; we don't deal with constitutional issues all that often), so I didn't mean "cannot." Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Should the FBI be able to investigate people in flight schools simply because they are muslims?

Yes.

But terror networks may come up with new tactics. And there are a whole lot of Muslims in the US -- far more than the FBI can investigate. So racial profiling is effective only to a point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
There's a big gulf between these sentences. If the police are looking for a suspect in a bank robbery who was described as American Indian, I have no problem with focusing on American Indians, even though this results in a greater chance of American Indians being searched, questioned, tracked, etc. OTOH, I don't believe that the police should be able to pick up someone on suspicion of being a terrorist simply because they are of Arab descent.

Well, there's a big gulf between what you're describing there, too. If we have credible intelligence that says a person of arab descent is plotting a terrorist attack, why is interrogating every arab (in the area, if so limited) any different from interrogating every American Indian in the bank robbery case?

The fundamental question is, as I thought you posed earlier, is how much information beyond a person's race is necessary to make them sufficiently suspect that they may be stopped, searched, interrogated, arrested, etc.? Obviously it's more than nothing, but is it a lesser amount for terrorists than for anything else?

There are two ways to approach things. One is individualized suspicion, which is basically what we do now, at least when adhereing to the law. That is, an individual must be doing something or fit the description (incl. racial descriptors) of someone whom we know or believe to be committing or planning to commit a crime. The other is group suspicion, which is suspicion of all members of a racial group because members of that race are more likely to be committing a crime. IF that's what we're doing with terrorists, then it's not different in principle than stopping blacks becuse they're more likely to be trafficking drugs.