From: Ascmjk@aol.com
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 20:10:20 BST
In a message dated 8/7/2005 1:09:07 PM Central Standard Time,
dmbuchanan@hotmail.com writes:
Yes, quite possibly. And its courageous of you to admit that. But I have to
say I agree with Paul on this point. The biological factors that are used in
racial profiling simply have nothing to do with the ideology of terrorism.
Those patterns are more difficult to detect, but are far more important in
terms of finding out who is dangerous and who is not. The idea that such
behaviour can be known on the basis of race is pretty much the definition of
racism. Am I saying that a person HAS to be a racist in order to be in favor
of racial profiling? You can bet your ass I am. Otherwise the word has no
meaning.
Jon jumps in randomly:
It seems dangerous to me for authorities not to consider race when trying to
formulate answers with the available evidence. If certain models of cars were
predominately used for suicide attacks, it would be reckless not to watch
those models with a higher degree of scrutiny.
Now, I'm not talking about getting to the roots of terrorism or
understanding the mindset. Certain authorities have to do that, and other authorities
have to be out there at the checkpoints. Security guards are not philosophers or
lawmakers. If their boss tells them to do random searches so the company in
question can conform to political correctness, that's why retired five star
generals and little old ladies have to get strip searched from time to time.
It is ridiculous, but understandable when you consider how quickly any number
of civil rights groups are out there will their lawyers armed with label guns
cocked, ready to slap on the racist label.
It's a reflection of our times that corporations fear the racist label more
than they do outright terrorist attacks. In a very real way, that's a good
thing. It's not "okay" to be a racist in today's world, and that is reflected in
most corporate policies.
But consider the car analogy again. If, for whatever number of seemingly
simple reasons, a certain model were used over and over again (let's say a 1996
Ford Mustang) it would be reckless not to take this into consideration when
formulating ways to stop them before they strike, perhaps at the last minute.
Last minute stops have actually been successful in Iraq and Israel, where the
terrorists have been strapped with explosives and stopped before reaching
their target. We should study what works. And what doesn't work.
I think we should take the race of the potential terrorists in mind for the
same reason we should take the type of potential targets in mind. Clearly, we
have beefed up security around places that have been hit in the past
(airports, transit systems, etc.). We have to focus on what types of places have been
hit, and what types of people do the hitting.
Clearly, all races are subject to certain stereotypes, fair or unfair. When
you discuss serial killers, you usually have to point out that they are almost
always white males. Yes, other races and genders have been guilty of serial
killing, but you have to focus on the statistics when conducting an
investigation. It's an important way of narrowing down the search for the killer.
Clearly, this has its flaws too. No one expected the DC sniper to be black.
The question we have to ask is, what is more important? Doing everything we
can to avoid hurting people's feelings, or doing everything we can to stop the
killers? Certainly, "within reason" applies to both answers. We decide who
to vote for. The people we vote for are the ones who decide what the answer
is.
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 23:49:23 BST