The "No Fly" List, an efficient and error free way of keeping us safe.

[heretic888]

"Profiling" of one sort or another has been going on since forever....

I should point out it is a logical fallacy to assume a particular practice is valid solely on the basis of it being commonplace or traditional:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Common Practice

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Tradition

You prevent all that by using profiles as "indicators", you use them as cues for further investigation, not as reasons for enforcement.

Regardless of how they are supposed to be used, the reality is that they are utilized as reasons for enforcement quite commonly...

Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply. Evangelical White Christians are rarely, if ever, singled out for questioning or denied access to a lawyer whenever, say, an anti-Semitic "hate crime" has recently occured.

You're right about one thing: "profiling" does go far back. In fact, it predates civilization as we know it. My guess is it has the same psychological origins as a belief in slavery or "evil".

All correlational, mind you, but significant nonetheless.

 

[Tgace]

Regardless of how they are supposed to be used, the reality is that they are utilized as reasons for enforcement quite commonly...

Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply. Evangelical White Christians are rarely, if ever, singled out for questioning or denied access to a lawyer whenever, say, an anti-Semitic "hate crime" has recently occured.

Really? Which fallacy in your favorite web page does that assumption fall under?

Save your links. I wasnt supporting the negative aspects of profiling, I was saying lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When I observe a carload of white teenagers going into an area known for drug dealing and drive out 10 min later. Stop them for an improper lane change. I find that they are all from an affluent suburb miles away. When asked where they were coming from I get a lie. The passengers story doesnt match up with the drivers. I see the tobacco from a hollowed out cigar on the floor boards.....eventually I make the arrest for marijuana possession. What do you think I employed there?

Note this is not the same as saying "I know you white kids just bought drugs, get out of the car and empty your pockets". Which is the connotation most people place on profiling. Oddly I find that the residents of the depressed area support the scenario above. I have heard "keep thoes suburban kids out of here. They are the ones that cause all this drug dealing here." Which isnt really entirely true, but is a factor.

 

[heretic888]

Really? Which fallacy in your favorite web page does that assumption fall under?

Can you identify a particular trend (not isolated instances) in which Whites are singled out for interrogation just because they're White?? How about Christians being singled out for interrogaiton just because they're Christian??

When I observe a carload of white teenagers going into an area known for drug dealing and drive out 10 min later. Stop them for an improper lane change. I find that they are all from an affluent suburb miles away. When asked where they were coming from I get a lie. The passengers story doesnt match up with the drivers. I see the tobacco from a hollowed out cigar on the floor boards.....eventually I make the arrest for marijuana possession. What do you think I employed there?

At a guess, I'd say a situational analysis derived from several bits of information pointing to a converging conclusion. This is hardly the same thing as "racial profiling" (in which there is little or no "evidence" besides the suspect's race by which to single them out). In fact, their race doesn't seem to have been a significant factor in the arrest at all.

Something tells me perhaps we are confusing definitions here. Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

When I see a carload of white kids going into that area it attracts my attention moreso than if they were black and I wait for them to come out and look at their vehicle for a traffic infraction....what does that mean?

 

[heretic888]

When I see a carload of white kids going into that area it attracts my attention moreso than if they were black....what does that mean?

"Attracting attention" or "arousing suspicion" is not the same thing as "singling out for questioning and interrogation".

 

[Tgace]

Splitting hairs. I know from experience (arrested quite a few people using the "roadway interdiction" technique above) that white kids going into that part of the city quite frequently do so to purchase marijuana. The fact that I stop them for a valid traffic infraction on the pretext of finding out if they just purchased marijuana is perfectly legal (google "pretextual traffic stops legal" if you dont believe me). So in effect I have "singled them out". Now if the story was "i just picked up my friend" and the friend is in the back seat and all stories match, the "interrogation" ends and I decide to write a ticket or not and they are on their way. If I cannot find a valid reason to stop the car they drive on, there will be plenty of other opportunities and its not worth an illegal car stop.

 

[heretic888]

"Splitting hairs" is important when a significant distinction is being made.

A major difference, in this context, is the presence of the so-called "legal prextext". This is a far cry from isolating and interrogating an Arabic man because his skin is brown and he carries a Quran, not even giving him access to an attorney.

In the example you gave, you had reason (based on situational factors) to believe the "white kids" in question were buying pot, and you confirmed your suspicions using a legal pretext. This is not the same thing as denying a man access to his attorney because his name appears on a list.

 

[Tgace]

No...not at all. However when it comes to air security, whats wrong with say, randomly asking the "where are you coming from, going to?" questions from random passengers but ALL Arabic ones? Same with baggage checks etc.

Denying anybody their rights or subjecting them to someting that you wouldnt do to anybody else is wrong. That technique above is an example where race is only an indicator, one among many, if that were the only reason I proceeded with an investigation I would be wrong.

Even in my example, if it were a middle aged housewife that I stopped and she lied about where she was coming from, my radar would go off and I would start digging further.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The REAL logical fallacy, heretic (and others making this argument), is ignoring the overwhelming empirical evidence and appealing to emotion instead. 95% of all terrorists who have attacked the US in the last 20 plus years have been Middle Eastern men between 18 and 35.

But lets ignore the racial element. 99.9% of those involved in terrorist attacks around the world have been men between 18 and 35 of whatever race. That's statistically significant on a scale so as to be absurd to attempt to argue against it's relavence.

To make the argument that we need a random system of searching (who's only benefit is the illusion of fairness), with the argument that we might catch that terrorist who represents less than .1% of total terrorists, is completely asinine. It's like vaccinated for malaria before your trip to Antartica.

It's a lot like going to the dentist with a toothache, and he decides to check your feet and get a chest X-Ray. We know what they problem is, lets work toward a solution.

Again, random searches only serve the motive of the appearance of fairness, and are built on a foundation of complete stupidity. There is no slippery slope present.

What's more, I fit the profile, and i'm alright with that, because I know I fit the profile. So, put me in line, and give me extra scrunity, because it is a guy my age who is going to hijack my plane, not the 82 year old lady down the way.

Nuff said

 

[ginshun]

Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply.

When police are serching for a serial killer, who do they look for?

I'll give you a hint, its not black women over 50.

Why is that? Oh ya, its because 95% of serial killers are white males between 20 and 40 years old. It would be stupid to just look at a random cross section of people when you are 95% sure what the person is going to look like. But you still can't forget about the other 5%.

Looking for a terrorist is exactly the same.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When police are serching for a serial killer, who do they look for?

I'll give you a hint, its not black women over 50.

Why is that? Oh ya, its because 95% of serial killers are white males between 20 and 40 years old. It would be stupid to just look at a random cross section of people when you are 95% sure what the person is going to look like. But you still can't forget about the other 5%.

Looking for a terrorist is exactly the same.

It's because most of the country has gotten conditioned by the mainstream media to simply respond to certain words with a positive or negative emotion, devoid of any real denotation. We don't even try to understand those words anymore, the simple connotation apparently is now enough.

"Profiling" has been one of those words that the media has conditioned people to think, "Bad...bad, bad, bad", about, even though they don't have the slightest flipping clue what it really means. They've just been conditioned over the whole "racial" profiling mythology of the last 10 years to respond with an emotional response.

Hey, that's fine, but policy decisions shouldn't be made by people who are simply responding emotionally to subject matter that they don't really know the first thing about.

It's really more intellectual laziness on the part of the public and the media, than any real conspiracy, though. Instead of actually educating themselves on these types of topics, people have become content to simply say to the media "Just give me a word for a phenomenon, and tell me in very short terms how to respond when I hear it", thus, we have "Profiling...bad, bad, bad". Pathetic. We should have more respect for ourselves as a nation.

 

[Makalakumu]

Question...how would you profile every single arabic male between 18-35 in the country?

 

[Xequat]

Just a few quick points here. Not much time, so I was really just planning on lurking.

Some helpful info on bypassing the no-fly list. Book with your middle initial. For example, and especially if you're usually singled out, book your reservation as John X. Smith rather than John Smith. The list is trying to target individuals in particular, so if they're looking for a John A Smith and you're John X, then you should be fine. But once the reservation is made and you get selected, then you can't change it because both you and the airline employee will get into some real trouble for bypassing security measures or some such thing.

Two-year olds are no longer to be selected. If you are traveling with a two-year old, and s/he is selected, then get the kid exempted. You might still be selected, but the kid shouldn't. There are other criteria than the traveler's name which can cause security problems. Also, if you are selected, just go to faa.gov and fill out some forms and you can probably get taken off of the list within 45 days.

El Al is an Israeli airline that has been around for a while, so it's an obvious target; but, somehow, they are among the safest, most secure airlines in the world. Why? Because they don't just look for bombs, they look for people who might carry bombs. You can have all the x-ray screening you want, but if someone is determined enough, then they will either find a way or keep trying. So they look for individuals; that is the key. Interviews, profiles, etc. So maybe the no-fly list is a step in the right direction, and maybe some degree of profiling does work, even though it's annoying and we are all in some great hurry when we step into the airport. Does it profile members of a certain race? Not really, because it looks for specific names that have been entered by the government, I believe. It's not the seemingly random selection process that is used for added security, although that's another part of the big picture. There are are what's called selectee passengers, but I think the government works on the airlines' software to select passengers who fit into that category, so it's either random or we just aren't allowed to know how those people get selected.

Hope that helps.

 

[ginshun]

Question...how would you profile every single arabic male between 18-35 in the country?

I don't think anybody has suggested that we do. What we are talking about is having a profile of someone more likely to be a terroist than the general population and having those people checked closer when ingaging in activites that have an inherent risk to terrorism i.e. flying on a plane.

How many times in the last 20 years has a 45 year old Asian women commited an act of terrorism? Not very many. So why bother checking people of that profile?

It doesn't have to be only arabic males. If people are getting on a plane, 90% of the people that they are pulling aside and thouroghly checking over should be males between the age of 18 and 35. Males of all races. To pick people completely at random is just plain stupid.

Why check people at random, when you know with close that close to a 100% of the time, a terrorist is going to be a male between 18 and 35.

How dense does someone have to be to not understand this concept?