Michael Smerconish on NRO
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was over at National Review Online today and stumbled upon this article: Michael Smerconish on John Lehman & Airlines. Your Maximum Leader does wonders why this was not reported on in more detail by other news outlets? Here is an unspoken question, Did the 9/11 terrorists know about this policy? Your Maximum Leader doubts if we will ever be able to discover the answer to that.
Your Maximum Leader understands why racial profiling is contraversial. And to an extent your Maximum Leader acknowledges that profiling can be abused by certain officials. But, wouldn't it make sense to follow a profile if it reasonably fits?
This whole question causes us to examine a difficult issue in our society. At what point to we sacrafice privacy for "security." It also causes us to examine items such as race, sex, and religious affiliation which are hot button items. As a matter of course, we as Americans want to be tolerant of other people. People of all religions, sexes, and races deserve basic civil respect. So profiling according to these characteristics alone strikes many Americans as intolerant and even bigoted.
But at what point to we come to realize that in some cases (and so far not a demonstrable majority of cases) these characteristics may in fact be useful tools for raising suspicions? As has been said many times before, the 9/11 terrorists were all youngish, male, arab, muslims. From what we can gather, many of those who seek to do great harm to our nation fit that basic profile. Thus, those characteristics, added with others (like one-way tickets paid in cash on short notice), seem to be part of the basis of a sensible profile to use as a guide to segregate (used the word deliberately) some people from others in sensative areas for screening by legitimate authorities.
Ultimately, it seems to be a reasonable trade-off. Some people are, genuinely, disadvantaged by application of a profiling policy. But the application of the policy provides some reasonable measure of security to many others. Profiling, at least in airports and train stations (marine terminals?), is a sensible policy.
Carry on.
Your Maximum Leader understands why racial profiling is contraversial. And to an extent your Maximum Leader acknowledges that profiling can be abused by certain officials. But, wouldn't it make sense to follow a profile if it reasonably fits?
This whole question causes us to examine a difficult issue in our society. At what point to we sacrafice privacy for "security." It also causes us to examine items such as race, sex, and religious affiliation which are hot button items. As a matter of course, we as Americans want to be tolerant of other people. People of all religions, sexes, and races deserve basic civil respect. So profiling according to these characteristics alone strikes many Americans as intolerant and even bigoted.
But at what point to we come to realize that in some cases (and so far not a demonstrable majority of cases) these characteristics may in fact be useful tools for raising suspicions? As has been said many times before, the 9/11 terrorists were all youngish, male, arab, muslims. From what we can gather, many of those who seek to do great harm to our nation fit that basic profile. Thus, those characteristics, added with others (like one-way tickets paid in cash on short notice), seem to be part of the basis of a sensible profile to use as a guide to segregate (used the word deliberately) some people from others in sensative areas for screening by legitimate authorities.
Ultimately, it seems to be a reasonable trade-off. Some people are, genuinely, disadvantaged by application of a profiling policy. But the application of the policy provides some reasonable measure of security to many others. Profiling, at least in airports and train stations (marine terminals?), is a sensible policy.
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 4/15/2004 09:02:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home