by the way, definitely not. but i take this all as a learning experience. and often people post things slamming certain authors without comprehending their stances, or without providing backing to their claims. really all i'm trying to do is get all the information and thoughts out there so i can better formulate my thoughts. aren't we all trying to learn here?

Harris says middle easterners should be the target of ethnic profiling, as they are the group most likely to be terrorists. If this is the case, how can middle eastern governments use ethnic profiling against their own citizens? They're all middle eastern!

not all middle easterners are muslims who engage in certain religious and ritualistic behaviors. what he's saying is that we know terrorists are coming from the middle east, and foreign governments should be aided by these moderate muslims in finding them. like i said, i imagine the u.s. already does ethnically profile, and i'm really not sure i have a problem with it in this instance. harris says moderate muslims shouldn't either, and should practice it themselves in the aiding of those forces.

Profiling based on behavior is not ethnic profiling. Harris repeatedly uses the term "ethnic profiling."

middle eastern location is the first part of it. being muslim is another part of it. then, certain behavior patterns is another.

So Muslim extremists belong to a different ethnicity then the average middle-easterner? Really ceeb, that's stretching the definition of the term pretty far.

a different ethnicity, no. but what i was getting at is that ethnic profiling isn't such a terrible thing in this situation when as i pointed out we're not ethnically profiling and then going after all muslims: just those that display certain traits. why should we waste time on other ethnicities when we know where terrorists are coming from?

here's the line of logic:

1 we all know who are carrying out terror attacks: muslims
2 we all know that it's mostly muslims from the mideast (then we break it down further with certain fundamentalist behavior patterns and links to certain people/mosques/etc.)
3 because of the first two, muslims in the mideast must accept that foreign officials are targeting muslims in the mideast; it is simply common sense
4 but further, harris says moderate muslims and their governments must accept this, condone this, and even practice it on their own for the sake of humanity; he's asking them to wake up and smell the fundamentalists, and reclaim their religion

Do we? I would then hope we'd also target all South American people, since drug-related terrorist activity is an epidemic in many places down there and has spread across the border into the US. Colombia and Mexico lead the world in kidnapping, and MS13 has been making inroads throughout the US for some time now. For most of the 90's, white Christians from the midwest commited some of the biggest terrorist acts in the US. Clearly these are people who need to be profiled as well, correct?

please read.

*all South American people who "display certain traits."

has it really become an issue in the u.s. yet? i think california is cracking down hard on this from what i read, but i could be mistaken. when it claims 3,000 lives in a matter of hours then perhaps the government will start paying attention. i'm not sure what your point is, though. no, we're not going to target every single person in latin or south america. just as officials don't target every single person in the middle east. they use indicators -- which we like to call ethnic profiling at a very broad level -- to define where they should start looking.



are you talking about tim mcveigh? he may have been an agnostic, or a very lazy roman catholic from what i've read. if you mean situations like attacks on abortion centers, should declared atheists really be included in the police's profiling work?

What indicators should they use?

Does the person in question have a great interest in aircraft flight, but very little when it comes to landing?

I think that would just be normal attentiveness on the part of the gov't, not ethnic profiling.

Oh no, I don't mean ethnic profiling, I just mean indicators of suspicious behavior. Since when do I actually contribute 'round here?

comparing the scope of islamic terrorism to that of christian fundamentalists or drug gangs is laughable, bart d.

here's an interesting piece on the issue:

http://www.cato.org/research/terrorism/ ... 11002.html

Ethnic Profiling: A Rational and Moral Framework
By Robert A. Levy

A recent Gallup poll indicates that 60 percent of Americans want Arabs to undergo more intensive screening at airports. The Federal Motor Carrier Administration, which inspects trucks carrying hazardous materials, has announced that it "will be looking closely at the drivers, and if the person looks to be of Arab descent that would be enough" for stepped-up scrutiny. Those are just two instances of ethnic profiling now urged on us in the aftermath of September's horrific events.

But can ethnic or racial profiling ever be justified? After all, national security is a legitimate function of the federal government. Even hardcore civil libertarians concede that it would be foolish to treat civil liberties as inviolable when the lives of innocent thousands are at stake. So, what is to be done?

The Constitution guarantees all persons, including non-citizens, due process and equal protection of the laws. Yet those rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court has insisted that the government pass a rigorous two-part test if it intends to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin. First, government must show that it has a "compelling interest" in employing its discriminatory scheme. Surely, protection against the kind of terror that we experienced on September 11 would qualify as compelling. But second, government may not discriminate unless it adopts means that are "least restrictive" when compared against alternative approaches to accomplish the same ends. That second principle will ultimately control disputes over ethnic profiling.

Where, then, should we draw the line? That's a tough question to answer. But there is an analytical framework that can be applied in determining whether ethnic profiling should be condoned. To some, that framework will seem too quantitative, even though it deals with factors that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to quantify. The goal is not to reduce the factors to a cost-benefit calculus. Rather, the goal is to frame the issues so that both practical and moral considerations can be assessed in a structured, systematic manner.

First, the easy part: At one extreme, we should reject uncompromising views of national security. Ethnic profiling cannot be defended simply by asserting that some people will be more secure. When Rep. John Cooksey (R-La.) vented his spleen - "If I see someone [who] comes in that's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around the diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over" - rational people condemned such drivel. At the other extreme, civil liberties cannot be allowed to trump national security despite overwhelming evidence that ethnic profiling could, on balance, safeguard individual rights. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of New Zealanders were terrorists and 90 percent of terrorists were New Zealanders. Only a fool would forbid New Zealand nationality to be added to a composite profile of suspected terrorists.

Unhappily, we are left with a vast number of tough cases that require more nuanced analysis. Toward that end, I propose the following standard, which combines two tests centering on individual rights and a third test that is explicitly utilitarian. Ethnicity may be included as one factor in a multi-factor profile if, and only if, all three of these criteria are met:

First, the addition of an ethnic factor must significantly improve the effectiveness of the profile in ferreting out the guilty. Thus, if one in a hundred truck drivers who transport hazardous materials is likely to be a terrorist, and one in a hundred Arabic truck drivers who transport hazardous materials is likely to be a terrorist, the government obviously may not initiate stepped-up scrutiny because "the person looks to be of Arab descent." People who are similarly situated must be treated the same. The key, here, is evidence, not guesswork, that the profiled class is indeed different.

Second, there must be reasonable suspicion to believe that a meaningful portion of the profiled ethnic class is guilty. Otherwise, the profile will be unduly over-inclusive - vesting the sins of the guilty on the innocent. In the truck driver context, it may be that Arabs are 10 times as likely to be terrorists as non-Arabs. But if only one tenth of one percent of hazardous materials truck drivers of Arabic descent are terrorists, the addition of ethnicity to the profile cannot be justified without violating the rights of 999 out of every 1,000 persons. That seems clearly excessive to me, although I might reconsider if the government could find a way to compensate those innocent persons whose rights are abridged.

Third, the benefit of including ethnicity must exceed its cost. On the benefit side, two dynamics enter into the equation: First, the chance that addition of an ethnic factor will prevent a terrorist incident that would not otherwise have been prevented. Second, a measure of the likely harm if the incident were to have occurred. The product of those two terms tells us the value of profiling ethnicity. Again, evidence rather than conjecture must control. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an advisory warning that future terrorist attacks might come in the form of hazardous materials trucks used as rolling bombs. If substantiated, that report must certainly weigh heavily in assessing the possible damage.

On the cost side of profiling are potentially grave impositions on innocent persons, triggered by their membership in a targeted ethnic group. Naturally, a vital consideration is the scope of the imposition. We should not object if police use ethnic profiling simply to limit their investigations. Even the questioning of profiled suspects raises few concerns if the suspects are free not to answer and free to leave. But subpoenas, custodial interrogations, and extended detentions are another matter. And, of course, the number of profiled suspects is of paramount importance. It's one thing for government to stop a dozen Arab truckers of hazardous materials. It's quite different to detain all Arab non-citizens unless and until it can be proven that they pose no threat.

No doubt that framework raises more questions than it answers. The devil is in the details. Still, in light of recent events, all three branches of government could be asked to tradeoff precious civil liberties against the prospect of grievous losses to innocent civilians from terrorist acts. That tradeoff cannot be based on seat-of-the-pants speculation, or knee-jerk invocation of theories that refuse to yield despite the exigencies of the moment. We face a new and unprecedented evil, which we must defeat without abandoning the liberties that set us apart from every other country in the world. That difficult task calls for logic, not emotion; for evidence, not rumor; and for a structured approach that weighs the competing interests rationally and morally.

Robert A. Levy is a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

Yeah, I dug myself into a hole on that one.

I don't know about that. Paramilitary groups in South America have killed and dissapeared thousands, and the Oklahoma City bombing was the most deadly attack on US soil before 9/11. I think Muslim terrorists try to pull off bigger attacks, being that they are terrorists, but the South American groups especially are no joke.

Honestly I just don't feel like arguing about it.