racial profiling

[miko2d]

SaburoS: Wasn't the bomb that destroyed the PanAm flight that blew up over Scotland carried on by a white woman (who was manipulated by her boyfriend)?
 Racial profiling would be useless in another similar case.

 In fact exactly such an attempt was once thwarted by Israeli El-Al guards who thoroughly checked the bag of an innocent pregnant european girl after learning that it was packed by her palestinian boyfriend / fiancee.

 That 'stupid' question "who helped you pack your bags" which is being discontinued in american practice as useless is apparently not so stupid after all.
 Of course that method probably works better when there are motivated jews asking the question and judging the responce rather then our unionized "diversity" specimen.

 If PanAm security profiled more, rather than less thoroughly and subjected that white woman to search based on who her boyfriend was, the tragedy could have been prevented, couldn't it?


How many Hindus and Sikhs are going to have to be searched and detained because they were mistaken for arabs?

 Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.


weazel: Please explain to us all how 3 of the reportedly Islamic hijackers in the 9/11 attack have been found alive in their home countries?

 The real hijackers used documents of real people? Nah, they wouldn't stoop so low as to steal someone else's identity in perpetrating their plot, would they?
 So we don't know who the three of the guys really were. What's the big deal?

 miko

[Thrawn]

Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Hmmm, what's unreasonable?  Being searched before a flight?  Being searched because of your race, before a flight?

[weazel]

What's the big deal?

The government lying to us?

I know it's no big deal to a lot of people...but it matters to me.

[miko2d]

It is accepted that any person can be searched when borading a flight. There is proably a clause to that effect printed on tickets somewhere. That some people are not searched does not violate rights of people that are, however arbitrary the selection process.

 Unlike many other issues, Constitution is all-or-nothing here, black and white, no gradations. If a search is unreasonable, it is unreasonable no matter what else is going on and whether or not anyone else is being searched for whatever reason.

 Constitution is about State and Individual rights - not group rights.
 If any search of any individual would be unreasonable because of Constitution (which may well be the case, for all I know), all of them would be, even if performed 100% randomly or on every passenger with no exceptions.

 miko

[miko2d]

weazel: The government lying to us?
I know it's no big deal to a lot of people...but it matters to me.

 It's a necessary attribute of a democratic system, especially socialist democratic system.
 A politician who is not lying just does not get elected. There are quite a lot of philosophical research dedicated to this question. Basically, it's the principle of nature, like gravity. Nothing specific to our culture or customs or quality of our people.

 miko

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Close, a couple more perposterous statements from the left like the one Sen.Patty Murray recently said....and its set--match.

?? I guess I missed that. What are you talking about Rip?


edit... nevermind, found it.

[Gunthr]

Quote: "
Searched - yes. Detained - for what reason? Big difference between those terms.

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Hmmm, what's unreasonable? Being searched before a flight? Being searched because of your race, before a flight? - Thrawn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Thrawn, when you decide to pay your money for a seat on an airliner, you agree to be searched.

Of course, you can refuse. Just step out of line and start walking... maybe take a bus or boat instead. Nobody is forcing you fly.  The searches are not necessarily unconstitutional - although obviously discriminatory searches could be a PR nightmare.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Thrawn, when you decide to pay your money for a seat on an airliner, you agree to be searched.

Of course, you can refuse. Just step out of line and start walking... maybe take a bus or boat instead. Nobody is forcing you fly.

Now I'm not convinced of the strenghth of my arguement, just trying to work it out at this point, so please bear with me while I shoot my mouth off for a bit.


In country A, you got purple people, who are the the majority.  You got green people who are the minority.  They live in Country A.

Some green people from Country B, killed some green and purple people from country A.

Security percautions are put in place.  Security isn't allowed any unreasonable searching.  Well is it reasonable to search people going on a plane?  Sure.  

Security searches a disproportionate number of green people.  

Green people say, "WTF?  My family has been here for 4 generations!  I don't even follow the religion of those other green people.  Why am I being singled out?"

Purple people say, "Then don't fly."

Green people say, "Thanks for the marginalization."



I don't know, there is something wonky here.  But, I'm not sure where yet.

[Eagler]

and the purple ppl say "You're Welcome"

[miko2d]

Thrawn: the fact is that anyone searched who is an innocent will have hurt feelings or at least be inconvenienced. Let's say 100,000 have been searched since 9/11 and not a single terrorist found.

 How is it worse that 50% of those innocent were green versus 5% or 1%? Unless the unreasonable procedure compromises the chance of success, which is not an issue here - someone is going to be arbitrarily and "unreasonably" searched anyway.

 Last month they were searching for a white guy with a crew cut and a sniper rifle. Tomorrow they may search for blue-eyed guys or for guys with russian accent or for southern guy or for a hawaian guy.
 As long as the plane does not leave without me and I am not detained without evidence, the search would not be illegal. Inconvenient maybe, but not really harmfull.

 Why should I care more about a 4-generation green american rather than a purple one being inconvenienced?

 I split humanity into "my family" and "strangers". Your arbitrary divisions may make a lot of sence to you but not to me. Quite possibly that the screeners have a set of rules very different from yours and mine.

 miko

[Gunthr]

Quote: "Now I'm not convinced of the strenghth of my arguement, just trying to work it out at this point, so please bear with me while I shoot my mouth off for a bit.


In country A, you got purple people, who are the the majority. You got green people who are the minority. They live in Country A.

Some green people from Country B, killed some green and purple people from country A.

Security percautions are put in place. Security isn't allowed any unreasonable searching. Well is it reasonable to search people going on a plane? Sure.

Security searches a disproportionate number of green people.

Green people say, "WTF? My family has been here for 4 generations! I don't even follow the religion of those other green people. Why am I being singled out?"

Purple people say, "Then don't fly."

Green people say, "Thanks for the marginalization."



I don't know, there is something wonky here. But, I'm not sure where yet."


__________________

Ok, Thrawn, maybe this will help make things clearer.

In your example, race (color) appears to be the sole factor in profiling the passengers boarding the plane. In your example you say that a "disproportionate" number of greenies are searched. By that I infer that a larger percentage of greenies are searched in comparison with the percentage of purple people searched.

If the factor used in profiling the passengers is soley color - that is, if the intelligence says only that a terrorist attack is iminent and the suspect is green - you would certainly be searching more green passengers in addition to your random searches.

In today's world, all people will have to accept this reality... if you want security.

The goal is not fairness. The goal is not equality for all people. The goal is security. I think its an educational issue... that is until we resort to total measures like searching every single bag and every single person.

[miko2d]

The proof of discrimination is not what proportion searched but what proportion is detected.

 If 1 of every 100 whites searched proves to be a terrorist and 1 of every 100 arabs searched prooves to be a terrorist, that would mean no discrimination even if few whites are searched and many arabs.

 Having found 1 terrorist among 1000 whites and 1 terrorist among 100 arabs would actually show discrimination of whites. That makes it clear why while arabs complain of being discriminated based on total percentage of searches, whites are also complaining of discrimination based on total likelihood. My elderly aunt was seriously pissed off when she had to undergo thorough search recently - she was sure she was discriminated for being white.

 If all terrorists were whites but security still harassed mostly arabs, that would be discriminatory and counterproductive.
 As it is, no one, not even arabs protest searching and detecting arab terrorists. What everyone protests is searching innocents. That is understandable but the security do not know in advance who those innocents are.

 miko