>The problem is, random searches do absolutely nothing to catch a terrorist.
>
>The random person you stop is a 94 year old grandmother with no bags. The
>next guy is a 20 year old white male sweating profusely with a huge
>backpack with wires barely visible and a serious attitude. Guess which one
>I would rather the police stop and search?
>
>While they are searching the first person, they cannot be vigilant and
>watch for those people most likely to be dangerous.
>
>I truly don't give a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about racial profiling when it comes to
>terrorism. If someone is more likely to be a terrorist, they should be
>more likely to withstand scrutiny. The only issue I have with it is when
>the police in their various forms target the wrong group due to lingering
>prejudices.
>
>I agree that when the profile changes to include middle age white men with
>blue eyes, or 14 year old redheaded girls, the job is going to be more
>difficult. But racial and age clues should never be the only factor in
>profiling. But it should be one of them.
>
>Jerry Johnson
Soon after 9/11, Bloomberg Radio had a guest on. I wish I could remember
his name but essentially he compiled some data and his conclusion was this.
He wasn't against racial profiling on the basis that it infringes upon some
rights but that it wasn't the most effective tool. Security guards
concentrate too much of race and fail to key on more pertinent clues like a
gun sticking out of someone's bag. He also mentioned that there may be a
drawback of becoming to predictable. IE, a terrorist org creates a
diversion with someone that fits the classic profile while the true threat
slips by in the commotion. He didn't have any data to back up, but it's
not the most ludicrous idea I've heard.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
