Profiling is an Effective Tool

[Warph]

All law enforcement investigation work starts with profiling. The first 48 hours are crucial.  This important time frame is when hot tips and leads can produce results before the trail goes cold.  Resources, such as investigative man-power, must be spent judiciously, and wisely.  This is not a game of Clue.  Mrs. Peacock and Colonel Mustard aren't trying to bomb airplanes.  Maybe, the odd lead pipe in the conservatory from time to time, but it was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; on the plane; with the PETN BVD's. The day they pull Mrs. Peacock off an airplane with PETN sewn into her panties, is the day when the law enforcement profile should change from young Muslim men, to include white, middle-aged senator's wives, and not before.

Could anybody be a terrorist with a bomb?  Sure, anything is possible.  It's just more likely that young Muslim men best fit the profile of a terrorist with a bomb.  To act otherwise requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

Shouldn't we be looking at what the Israelis practice. They have the most effective air security procedures in the world; if that is the case, what do they know that we do not, and what are they doing that we are not?

I nominate the Dog Whisperer for Secretary of Homeland Defense.  Seriously.  Or, more tongue in cheek, Chauncey "Chance" Gardiner.  For that matter, both would be quicker studies than the fatuous dupe now occupying the position.  


Something I read sometime back that made a lot of sense:
"Discrimination is good when it recognizes natural inequality and bad when it recognizes un-natural inequality.  Some things are naturally unequal, while some things are naturally equal – such recognition represents good discrimination.  The hard-working individual (American middle class) is naturally un-equal (better) than the lazy individual (Marxist proletariat).  The Judeo-Christian values of our American Declaration of Independence are naturally un-equal (better) than the totalitarian/murdering values of Islam found in the Quran and Hadiths.  Good is naturally un-equal (better) than evil.

The American Revolution established equality before the law resulting in natural inequality of economic outcomes.....  natural equality and inequality, whereas Marxist revolutionaries believe in government enforcement of un-natural equal outcomes which can only occur under un-natural inequality before law..... un-natural equality and inequality.

Free enterprise discriminates against the lazy and for the hard-working; Marxism discriminates against the hard-working and for the lazy.  Free enterprise represents natural discrimination whereas Marxism represents un-natural discrimination."   ...Warph




In Defense of Profiling
By Chuck Hustmyre  

Let's get one thing straight right up front: Profiling is an effective tool.

We do it with serial killers all the time. Why not terrorists? Because it's discrimination. Therefore, it must be evil.

Wrong.

According to my World Book dictionary, discriminate means "to see or note a difference; (to) make a distinction."

When I choose steak over fish, I discriminate. When I decide to see one movie and not another, I discriminate. We make discriminating choices all day, every day. Discrimination is nothing more than the implementation of personal experience.  

I want airport security personnel to discriminate between terrorists and non-terrorists.

The reason discrimination has gotten a bad rap is because we, the silent majority of clear-headed, right-thinking Americans, have permitted the American Left to control our language. We have allowed the Left to imbue certain words with so much negative connotation that we have, in effect, added them to the late comedian George Carlin's list of words you can never say.

Discrimination and profiling are two of those words.

The attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 by an al Qaeda-linked Muslim terrorist highlighted obvious weaknesses in airport security screening. However, instead of addressing the real security problems, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, under the direction of the woefully unqualified Janet Napolitano, is busy issuing a string of new directives that will harass and inconvenience millions of travelers but will actually accomplish nothing.

Already we know that international passengers will henceforth have to remain seated with nothing in their laps for the last hour of their flight. NOTE TO TERRORISTS: Initiate detonation 90 minutes before landing, or anytime after takeoff. The new rule sounds too stupid to be true, but it is just one of many coming to an airport near you.

Out of the billions of airport security screenings conducted in this country since 9/11, how many terrorist bombs or weapons have been found? I'd wager the answer is—not one. I certainly haven't heard of any bombs or guns being discovered during a routine bag or body search that were in the possession of an actual terrorist who was planning on blowing up or hijacking an American airliner.

I did hear about the failed attempt by shoe bomber Richard Reid, who successfully smuggled explosives onboard an airliner only to have those explosives fail to detonate. Now we've learned about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian with alleged ties to al Qaeda, who, but for an equipment failure and a quick thinking, aggressive Dutch passenger, would have downed another commercial jetliner and murdered the 288 other people aboard it.

Profiling may not have stopped Reid or Abdulmutallab, but one thing is certain: We are wasting our finite security resources by spreading them out equally over the approximately 700 million passengers who travel on U.S. airlines each year.

If we stopped treating terrorism as a social problem and instead treated it as a mathematical or statistical problem, the solution would be obvious.

It is an inarguable fact that the vast majority of terrorists operating today are young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent. Even Richard Reid, a British convert to Islam, adopted the affectations of an angry young Muslim.

In the 1980s an anti-government, neo-Nazi group called The Order committed a string of deadly bank and armored car robberies in the Pacific Northwest. All of the members of the group were white men. Had the police and FBI squandered their investigative resources by including black men, Jews, and members of the Swedish bikini team in their search for members of the white supremacist group, the investigators could have rightfully been accused criminal negligence.

What is absurd is to pretend that profiling doesn't work at all and that the mere mention of it is racist.

While it is possible that a 50-year-old man in a business suit might pull a gun and rob a convenience store, it is much more probable that a 20-year-old man in a hooded sweat jacket will do it. And if a store clerk casts a more wary eye on the 20-year-old than on the 50-year-old, is he discriminating? Is he profiling? The answer to both is yes. But is it reasonable? Is it justified? Again, the answer to both questions is yes, because the collective experience of tens of thousands of convenience store robberies is that a young man in a hooded sweat jacket is much more likely to be an armed robber than an older man in a business suit.

Profiling isn't a panacea. It's a tool. And it works, especially if it's used in conjunction with other investigative techniques. The danger in profiling is that investigators may lean too heavily upon it, and may exclude, without further consideration, anyone who doesn't meet the profile's basic parameters.

Here's a situation. Two people are trying to pass through security to board a plane. One is a 60-year-old Danish woman carrying a Bible and traveling abroad for the first time. The other is a 28-year-old Muslim man carrying a Quran and a passport indicating he recently returned from Pakistan. Both are traveling alone on one-way tickets.

On whom do you cast a more wary eye?

If you don't believe that there exists a statistically higher probability that one of them is a terrorist and legitimately deserves more scrutiny than the other, then you are either grossly delusional or you believe that a certain number of deaths by terrorism is an acceptable trade off for not offending anyone.

If you believe the latter, then you are also qualified to be the director of Homeland Security.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18369

[jerry wagner]

Wow.... you are very fond of your own works aren't you?

[srkruzich]

Wow.... you are very fond of your own works aren't you?

I take it you didn't understand it by your inadequate response.

[jerry wagner]

I take it you didn't understand it by your inadequate response.

I understood the article just fine... the intro by Warph was overdone was the point of my post.  Perhaps before you comment you should understand?

[srkruzich]

I understood the article just fine... the intro by Warph was overdone was the point of my post.  Perhaps before you comment you should understand?

His  post wasn't overdone. It was pretty good.  Made a good point that everyone discriminates in all things, and that since profiling is only assigning certain traits to a particular group identity and the discrimination comes in when you redirect individuals to that group or another group.  Makes perfect sense to me.  In fact it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever not to profile or discriminate when dealing with enemies.

[Anmar]

its not only overdone, its ignorant....

typical warph style.

[Varmit]

Ignorant??...Overdone?....ya'll gonna back those statements up or just make baseless accusations again?

[Anmar]

well, lets start with Warphs reference to the Israeli airport security.  Yes they profile.  No, they don't profile on race.  They train their screeners to complete an psychological profile.  Profiling would not have caught the nigerian guy, or richard reid, or many others.

Frankly, i no longer have the will to banter with someone so close minded as you.  You're stubborn, and set in your ways.  you are unwilling to see things from anothers shoes.  You are not good to your neighbors, you don't practice what you preach, and you are not a kind, nor generous person. 

I'm reminded of a scene from Lawrence of Arabia, in which Omar Sharif turnes to Peter O'toole, and repeats a line made earlier in the movie.  Something along the lines of, The arabs will never amoutn to anything because they will always be a greedy people, a silly people, barberous and cruel.  In the context, its an ironic line because the british officer ordered the slaughter of retreating (and surrendering) wounded soldiers.

At any rate, carry on with your hate filled and negative rants....

[Warph]

Aw Jeez..... here's Jerry and Anmar doing there "Dumb and Dumber" show for us again.... getting old, guys.

[Varmit]

well, lets start with Warphs reference to the Israeli airport security.  Yes they profile.  No, they don't profile on race.  They train their screeners to complete an psychological profile.  Profiling would not have caught the nigerian guy, or richard reid, or many others.

Maybe...Maybe not.  However, if our screening practices would focus more on, oh I don't know, lets says muslims traveling from other countries, we may have been able to stop some.  Even if we were only able to stop 1 it would be worth it.  Either way effective profiling is conducted using multiple key points, not just one. 

Frankly, i no longer have the will to banter with someone so close minded as you.  You're stubborn, and set in your ways.  you are unwilling to see things from anothers shoes.  You are not good to your neighbors, you don't practice what you preach, and you are not a kind, nor generous person. 

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!!  Stubborn...set in my ways, yeah.  You don't know any of my neighbors so you can't qualify that statement.  I DO practice what I preach but like every other human on the planet I'm not perfect.  I AM kind and generous to those that deserve it.

I'm reminded of a scene from Lawrence of Arabia, in which Omar Sharif turnes to Peter O'toole, and repeats a line made earlier in the movie.  Something along the lines of, The arabs will never amoutn to anything because they will always be a greedy people, a silly people, barberous and cruel.  In the context, its an ironic line because the british officer ordered the slaughter of retreating (and surrendering) wounded soldiers.
At any rate, carry on with your hate filled and negative rants....

Well, I have never seen Lawerence of Arabia so I just have to take your word for it.  However, I would have to agree with the British Officer, thats how you fight a war.  You destroy your enemy, You don't let them regroup, heal up, and live to fight another day. 
Since your into movie refrences I am reminded of a line from Conan.  The Warlord asks Conan to define the best things in life, Conan replies "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamenting of their women."

Oh, and speaking of hate filled and negative rants,...how many times have you accused Warph and others of being "small minded...ignorant...racist"?  Not to mention your better than thou attitude. 

One more question, are you ever going to answer my question from the "military defends Bible verses" thread?  Well, maybe you didn't see it...so again, what branch were you in Basic for, What MOS, Where did you attend Basic?