View Full Version : Article on Political Correctness and profiling
OneGuy67
09-18-2010, 10:58
I wanted to share this article with the members of the forum. It is the lead editorial in Police magazine (www.policemag.com (http://www.policemag.com)), a law enforcement publication. Obviously, not a wide swath mainstream, social wide publication like Time or Newsweek and is geared towards law enforcement, but I thought this guy hits the point right on the head and it should be shared.
Death by Political Correctness
Do we have the national will to prevent terrorism, even if it requires us to profile?
by David Griffith -
A lot has changed since 9/11. But one thing remains the same: There are a lot of bad people out there who want to make us bleed. And as discussed in this issue of Police, the United States is still a very soft and juicy target.
One of the primary reasons that we are still sitting ducks is political correctness. We are afraid to take the steps that would be necessary to prevent future attacks because we are terrified of being labeled Islamophobic or, God forbid, racist.
In contemporary American society, one of the worst things you can call someone is "racist." It's right up there with "child rapist."
No one wanted to be fitted with that scarlet "R." The fear of being labeled racist prevents many Americans from asking why the borders can't be secured, it prevents us from asking why we can't keep a tighter watch on what's going on in the local mosque, and it prevents us from profiling people who may be hostile.
Now I will be the first to say that probably 95 percent of foreign Muslims in our country have no desire to commit acts of violence. But I'd sleep a lot better at night if we had the political will to check up on that other five percent, even if it meant inconveniencing some folks who are totally benign.
I know, I'd feel different if I was one of the innocent folks who was inconvenienced. And that's true. But let me be clear on something here, I'm not talking about rounding up folks and shipping them off to a new Manzanar. I'm talking about a little extra scrutiny.
Here's an example of the kind of thing that bothers me. Last month I was in the main concourse of a major airport hub. There I observed a young (maybe 25 to 30 years old) Pakistani man do something a little weird. He took out a small point-and-shoot digital camera and snapped a shot of a restaurant/bar. There was no one posing for a holiday snap in front of the bar. He just took a shot of the bar, then he pocketed the camera, and moved on.
Now I can think of several innocent reasons why a Pakistani guy might snap a picture of an American airport bar. Maybe he just bought the camera and wanted to try it out. Maybe he worked in the restaurant business and he wanted to steal some of the décor for his joint. Maybe he wanted to show people back home what an American airport bar looks like.
But I can also think of some really sinister reasons he might have snapped that photo. And I can envision it being sent home via e-mail to some guys who might be calculating blast radius and kill zones.
Either way, he moved on before I could bring his presence to the attention of a TSA agent. And even if I had mentioned it to TSA or even the police, what could they have done? Nothing. They would have looked at me like I was racist or paranoid.
But as a college professor told me long ago, "Paranoia may be just a higher state of enlightenment." And this guy's behavior was just odd enough to get my Spidey senses tingling. And is it really racist to note someone's ethnicity when people of that ethnicity are actually trying to kill you?
Honestly, this guy's behavior would have been odd if he was a red-headed Irish dude. So somebody should have asked him what he was doing.
We need to start asking questions in this country. We need to know the answers to things like: Why is that guy taking photos of the airport restaurant? Why is that adult man walking into the local elementary school without showing some kind of ID and demonstrating a reason to be there? Who is screening the backgrounds of the taxi and limo drivers who drive right up to the entrance of the local airport? Did anybody investigate the folks who service the planes at the local airport?
We need to start asking these questions, even at the risk of being thought racist. And political correctness be damned. That's the only way we are really going to make this country safer.
At the recent POLICE-TREXPO East (http://east.trexpo.com/), one of the highlights was a panel discussion (http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/Articles/2010/07/POLICE-TREXPO-East-Takes-on-Terrorism-and-Border-Unrest.aspx) about crime on the U.S.-Mexico border that featured sheriffs and other law enforcement officers who deal with the chaos every day. At the end of the session, the panel took questions from the audience. When asked, "Why don't we just build a wall down there?" one of the sheriffs replied, "We don't want to offend anybody."
Trying not to offend anybody is a good life philosophy for an individual. But it can't be the national security policy for a great nation. If it is, it might as well be our epitaph.
Thanks for passing this along.
Perhaps we need airport security a bit more like the Israelis... the young Pakistani man would have been asked some pointed questions...
A red headed irishman would be suspicious if taking a photo of a bar? I doubt it...
In all seriousness though this article is on point and I think we have almost reached a point of no return as far as: "You aren't allowed to offend anyone, anywhere, ever, no matter the cost, no matter how good you're intentions are". I would rather raise the alarm a million times and be labeled a racist than not point something funky out and have it be the time something really horrible happened.
68Charger
09-18-2010, 16:25
A red headed irishman would be suspicious if taking a photo of a bar? I doubt it...
From outside it? [ROFL1]
good article... you can be sure that the other side is using PC to their advantage, even trying to advance it...
Byte Stryke
09-18-2010, 17:24
A red headed irishman would be suspicious if taking a photo of a bar? I doubt it...
In all seriousness though this article is on point and I think we have almost reached a point of no return as far as: "You aren't allowed to offend anyone, anywhere, ever, no matter the cost, no matter how good you're intentions are". I would rather raise the alarm a million times and be labeled a racist than not point something funky out and have it be the time something really horrible happened.
Agree... a Red-headed Irishman taking a foto from outside of a pub with none of his Mates about is mighty peculiar t' say the least!
OneGuy, I Say this all of the time.
Just because everyone says you're paranoid doesn't mean that there's not someone out there trying to get ya!
I think we should start using the lib-tard arguments against them.
"well if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind us tracking your movements and monitoring your explosives purchases."
:D
theGinsue
09-18-2010, 21:53
Thank you for sharing that article. I took that exact same position at work about a month or so back.
While all of my co-workers claim to be conservative and pro-security, etc. every one of them either made comments or at least gave me looks to the point of being a racist, paranoid, an isolationist, etc. All of us have served and we currently work in a defense dept. facility and the .mil is out customer.
Until someone is in THEIR face making THEM a victim they won'y see the need to scrutinize specific demographics that have proven to count amongst their numbers the highest degree of terrorists or criminals.
Right after 9/11 our government was TELLING us to report anything that seemed suspicious; to remain ever vigilant. Today, if we were to do just that, our government and populace alike would brand US as potential risks.
I'll continue to say that somewhere in t he last 10 years our nation has completely turned itself around backwards. What was once RIGHT is now WRONG and what was WRONG is now RIGHT. What was illegal is now LEGAL but what was LEGAL is now ILLEGAL. I don't know what happened, but I'm not comfortable with the world standing on it's head.
StagLefty
09-19-2010, 08:00
Well said Ginsue !
Seamonkey
09-19-2010, 10:22
+1
In contemporary American society, one of the worst things you can call someone is "racist." It's right up there with "child rapist."
Fucking bullshit! A child rapist necessarily hurt a child who's unable to defend itself. A racist believes a concept. There is no way those are equatable. GFTO
probably 95 percent of foreign Muslims in our country have no desire to commit acts of violence...if we had the political will to check up on that other five percent
Yes, this idea is completely rational. We'll check up on the 5% of Muslims in the US that have a desire to commit acts of violence... there are 2.8M Muslims living in America, so if we know exactly which 5% are out to do us harm, we only need to keep tabs on 140,000 of them. Considering we've plowed billions into privatized national security, it should be doable. Small problem with this is those 140k don't really mention that fact, so it's a bit difficult to spot them. That's ok though, because of that 140k, only what, a dozen or less have tried to do anything?
...even if it meant inconveniencing some folks who are totally benign. I know, I'd feel different if I was one of the innocent folks who was inconvenienced. And that's true.
An admission that you'd feel differently in somebody else shoes. Reason it away as, "Oh, it's only some inconvience that I won't feel, so it's OK to take away someone else rights -- It's not like we're throwing them in jail!"
Here's an example of the kind of thing that bothers me. Last month I was in the main concourse of a major airport hub. There I observed a young (maybe 25 to 30 years old) Pakistani man do something a little weird. He took out a small point-and-shoot digital camera and snapped a shot of a restaurant/bar. There was no one posing for a holiday snap in front of the bar. He just took a shot of the bar, then he pocketed the camera, and moved on.
How the fuck is this weird? I snap pictures of random shit all the time. The whole "Terrorists are taking pictures of targets" hasn't be proved, and doesn't mean we give up our rights to take photos. The rent-a-cops who try to prevent people from taking pictures from public property need to be schooled in American law. Probably why they're mall jockeys to start with. The fact that people associate taking pictures of things as terrorist related is what's weird.
Why is that adult man walking into the local elementary school without showing some kind of ID and demonstrating a reason to be there? Did anybody investigate the folks who service the planes at the local airport?
These two are legit security questions that aren't being answered because we're too concerned with security theatre, in worrying about things which pose no threat like someone taking pictures. What about scanning air-freight cargo that goes onto passenger aircraft?
We need to start asking these questions, even at the risk of being thought racist. And political correctness be damned. That's the only way we are really going to make this country safer.
There's no correlation to racism and security. If you are targeting someone because of their race, you're doing security wrong. Here, read what an actual security expert has to say on the subject:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html
H.
I also thought that the picture taking example was pretty weak. We live in an age where people take pictures of their breakfast and tweet about their poops. Picture taking is as common place as passing gas.
We live in an age where people take pictures of their breakfast and tweet about their poops.
[ROFL2][ROFL3]And those people should be locked up as well
OneGuy67
09-19-2010, 12:25
Hey Hoosier! Thanks for your opinion. I looked up your guy; he has some non-traditional thoughts as well.
The purpose of the editorial is to make people think. Sorry you disagree with the whole premise.
Hey Hoosier! Thanks for your opinion. I looked up your guy; he has some non-traditional thoughts as well.
The purpose of the editorial is to make people think. Sorry you disagree with the whole premise.
I disagree that racism is the cause of insecurity. I think "common sense" is to blame. Just because something seems to be obvious and correct, doesn't mean it is. The problem needs to be studied, tested, theories created and tested until the best result is achieved. I know you didn't write it, so don't take my response personally. I just get tired of people whining about being labeled a racist. It's legal to be a racist, if someone wants to take that view they're totally welcome to it. Just don't act shocked when you get called out on it.
Bruce Schnier does have some non-traditional thoughts, but that's what you get when you look into security factors in depth. Many times the initial assumption is very wrong. For example, I've seen people complain that grandma got randomly selected out of the line for extra screening. Their contention seems to be that an old lady isn't a security threat, and thus should be exempt from extra screening. In reality, if old women were exempted, a new security hole is created, which would eventually be exploited. So what seems to make sense ends up producing vulnerabilities.
H.
KevDen2005
09-19-2010, 13:23
A red headed irishman would be suspicious if taking a photo of a bar? I doubt it...
Yes, he IS Irish!!!
Troublco
09-19-2010, 13:41
The only thing I have about when Hoosier disagrees with something (which he has every right to do) is that he always gives it that "I'm right, you're wrong, and why the hell can't you see that?" twist. Then he explains what he meant, and it makes some sense.
We have to balance preserving our liberties with trying to prevent terrorism. I don't think that we're ever going to do that by relying on the Government and Police; there's no way they can do it all. But the way our society is today, if you happened across something suspicious and reported it I agree that you'd probably be the one doing the explaining, at best. I agree with Ginsue and I think PC-ness is going to be what kills this country. Political correctness is NOT the same thing as tolerance.
The only thing I have about when Hoosier disagrees with something is that he always gives it that "I'm right, you're wrong, and why the hell can't you see that?" twist. Then he explains what he meant, and it makes some sense.
I don't mean to come off that way, I just get tired of the same stuff being repeated endlessly. I want us to be secure, and I think a lot of efforts we put into it are hurting more than helping. And the costs of it are staggering.
We have to balance preserving our liberties with trying to prevent terrorism.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
This pretty much sums up my point of view. There's no way to live in a free society and be perfectly safe. We spend billions on countering a threat which has claimed 4000 American lives, and ignore the real problems which impact so many more. So much of the security that really affects us, like airport security, provides little to no real benefit. Every passenger and bag going on a plane is screened; but the cargo freight that gets loaded on isn't. We won't see Al Queda repeat the attack vector of Sept 11th, not because of extra screening or no-fly lists. The reason they can't use this method again is now all 150 passengers on the plane know the end game. Before Sept 11th, the hijackers wanted to go to a different destination. They weren't using the aircraft as bombs, and so the passengers didn't resist. Any mf'er who starts shouting Allah Ackbar on a plane today is going to have to get through every other passenger on that plane to breech the cockpit door.
They will attack (or attempt) to attack us again, and it will be against another relatively soft target. In fact if they're smart, they'll attack something simply because securing it is incredibly expensive. Train tracks, gas pipelines, you name it. As a response we'll poor more wealth into defending that soft target, and they'll move on to another. Our response has done more damage (economically) than their attack.
H.
OneGuy67
09-19-2010, 16:16
In that explanation, I do agree with you, Hoosier. The heightened security isn't and was never meant to stop another attack, it was meant to make the general public "feel safer". The federalizing the airport security ala TSA was an expensive 'warm blanket and cup of chicken soup' for the public, to make them feel safe in flying again, and to keep our airlines from permanently financially crashing. It had nothing to do with safey.
I agree if another attack is to come, it won't be through the use of the airlines, it will be done some other way. Frankly, we cannot harden our country to the point of being impenetrable without the loss of a lot of liberties, that many, including myself, are not willling to give up. We will have to endure additional attacks when they come and we will have to accept losses.
Oh, and I agree with the poster who stated you come off a little "I'm right and you're wrong." You say it isn't meant that way, but your writings are very much an aggressive stance on your part. While the editorial isn't my writing, I posted it here for others to read and I agree with the writer. Right now, being labeled a racist is the trump card for the other side to shut up people who disagree with their positions, their legislation, their attacks on our society.
My $.02
Troublco
09-19-2010, 17:06
I'm not saying we should give up ANY liberties while trying to maintain security. What I'm saying is, we can't let one trump the other. Giving up our liberties in exchange for the illusion of security is no security at all. We can't have our society the way it is and expect to be safe all the time (Although millions of people do every day, in their ignorance) but PC isn't the way to get it any more than trampling on everyone's rights. I remedy this for me and mine with my CCW. If the sheep expect the cops to protect them, good luck.
As long as we have lazy, ignorant people who like to armchair quarterback every action taken to protect them (like the Navy SEALS who might have smacked that one scumbag terrorist and then got charged for it) expect to keep their liberties while others bear the burden of providing them, I don't see things getting better.
and that's my $.02
Profiling, stereotypes, etc exists for a reason whether people want to admit it or not. It's not paranoia..... It's proven not to be a bunch of white girls on a ski team from Norway who are committing "acts of violence and terrorism".
Right now, being labeled a racist is the trump card for the other side to shut up people who disagree with their positions, their legislation, their attacks on our society.
There's no reason this should be so. If you aren't a racist, then someone shouting it at you shouldn't matter. The ideologues on both ends of the spectrum hurl insults. There certainly are racists who hate Obama just for being black... but I don't think it's a very large percentage. I'm sure there were racists who hated Bush for being white... also not a very large percentage. Anyone who has a reasoned explanation for disagreeing with the efforts of the Dems -- not a racist. So don't even sweat this canard.
H.
Profiling, stereotypes, etc exists for a reason whether people want to admit it or not. It's not paranoia..... It's proven not to be a bunch of white girls on a ski team from Norway who are committing "acts of violence and terrorism".
What proof? Just because none from those subgroups have attacked yet, doesn't mean they're incapable of it. And more to the point, if you make an exception for female Norwegian ski teams, then it behooves the terrorists to convert one, or get one of their own into whatever group has a free pass through security.
The only way to "win" is to increase screening for everyone. This carries a cost though, in that everyone is additionally hassled. The real truth here is the axiom that "Security is equal to one over convenience."
H.
OneGuy67
09-20-2010, 09:44
I certainly agree with that Hoosier. However, taking an example from our local headlines, look at the guys in Boulder who are screaming racism and alleging Boulder is a racist city due to an altercation with guys from a different race. Its the headline in the tv news and print. Especially since we the public, are only getting one side of this argument and of course, every argument has two sides. What actions or statements did the African guy say or do? I'm not buying he is innocent in this. Interviewing the head of the black caucus at CU and him stating CU is a racist university. Really? How did that help the situation? Or do we use that sound byte to add validity to the victim's story?
That's what I refer to. it is the trump card used that gets headlines, that gets people to back away, that gets attention because no one wants to be thought of as not taking racism seriously, of not believing the victim of racisim, of not investigating thoroughly due to the allegation of racism, due to not being villified in the news media.
I'm not racist, but I do shrink from being called a racist. It does stop me from vocalizing certain thoughts and beliefs on our immigration policies, of dealing with certain crimes, and to an extent while I was on patrol, to giving more leeway or courtesy in order to keep me and my agency out of the media for an alleged incident or contact. Is it right? Hell no.
What proof? Just because none from those subgroups have attacked yet, doesn't mean they're incapable of it. And more to the point, if you make an exception for female Norwegian ski teams, then it behooves the terrorists to convert one, or get one of their own into whatever group has a free pass through security.
The only way to "win" is to increase screening for everyone. This carries a cost though, in that everyone is additionally hassled. The real truth here is the axiom that "Security is equal to one over convenience."
H.
Proof that the Norwegian female ski teams hasn't committed any crimes? ... ok, well they have nothing on record as a group or individually!!
My point was simply stating that profiling and sterotypes exist for a reason. If the terrorists wanted to convert a female Norwegian skier, then let 'em try. That wasn't the point. My point was that even though ever ethinicity/skin color/etc has some agregious and atrocious crime/genocide/whatever on their hands, sterotyping/profiling serves a purpose. In that, how many white Americans or even Illegal Mexicans do you see hijacking planes or blowing themselves up in market places, etc?
It's just a different side of thought. My personal thought is that the only way to "win" is not to increase screening for everyone. It's to wipe the "problem" off the face of the Earth without mercy... The whole "live and let live"... but then we get into the whole problem of "turn the other cheek and forgive"...and that opens a whole other paradox/conundrum/fight that I won't even get into as it seems some people on here tend to get a little viscious about certain topics...
The only way to "win" is stow political correctness, then seek out the extremists and kill them wherever they are.
theGinsue
09-20-2010, 18:52
Now that's a plan I can get behind.
Byte Stryke
09-20-2010, 19:29
The only way to "win" is stow political correctness, then seek out the extremists and kill them wherever they are.
You know its gonna be a long week when you agree with the "ElHuero"
:D
Troublco
09-20-2010, 19:53
The only way to "win" is stow political correctness, then seek out the extremists and kill them wherever they are.
Now that's a plan I can get behind.
You know its gonna be a long week when you agree with the "ElHuero"
:D
When you're right, you're right.
This is one of those problems best fixed with large amounts of high explosive and belt fed automatic weapons. [M2]
theGinsue
09-20-2010, 19:57
This is one of those problems best fixed with large amounts of high explosive and belt fed automatic weapons. [M2]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAhVmjptZMI
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.