Kathleen Parker argues in a column on today’s Opinion pages that the government should reconsider its opposition to terrorist profiling at airports. "Instead of deciding to closely scrutinize airline passengers who fit the descriptions of a likely perpetrator — based not on bigotry, but on evidence, history and common sense — we frisk the elderly and confiscate toddlers’ sippy cups," she complains. And she argues: "Profiling isn’t aimed at demonizing Muslims; it’s aimed at saving lives, including Muslims." What do you think?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- george on Open thread 11/23
- sursum on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
52 Comments
Will the airport screen terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue and Timoty McVeigh? Then the Christians will complain that they are being persecuted because the government is targeting Christians as terrorists.
Of course age and ethnicity should be considered. We have a pretty solid profile. Those who fit the profile should receive additional scrutiny. Not to do so would be negligent.
What? Actually do something that makes common sense? Just who the hell does Kathleen Parker think she is? This is a war on terror; the decider decided that. And in a war on terror, common sense is thrown out with the bath water. Everybody knows that.
JM Walker,
Are you saying that if Bush would have authorized “profiling” that those here on the left and those in Congress on the left and the media wouldn’t be tearing him apart for it politically?
Just look at what you are doing because he is tracking terrorist financial transactions and intercepting their communications.
Just admit it already, those of you on the left spend more time hating Bush than you do caring about actually stopping terrorism.
Some of you here even think it is just a joke and routinely say that the war on terror is not real.
JR thinks the whole thing was set up…
Now you are going to sit here and say Bush is wrong for not profiling?
Give me a break.
You people care more about hating Bush than you do about protecting this country.
There’s no profiling in bush’s wiretap, just about anyone is spied on.
The terrorism plot to take down 10 airliners had two women, one was pregnant and one had a 6 month old baby.
Profile? Sure! But these Islamic Facist will find away around the typical young Arab men profile. They’ll use women, old people, white leftist, and basically any sympathizers to their cause. There are plenty of them out there in the world that aren’t young arab men.
Joe,
Even though they may overcome “profiling” it is something that deals with the problem we have now.
It will force the enemy to change their tactics.
In Iraq, the enemy uses more sophisticated IED’s, they try different things to overcome our SOP, they adapt and try to overcome our tactics.
Guess what? We do the same. It is a power struggle of changing tactics,learning, and adapting.
It doesn’t mean that because more terrorists are using cell phones to trigger IED’s that we stop trying to protect against the Garage door opener type of triggers.
Joe- You can also profile behavior instead of appearance and get results. That’s what’s done in Israel.
gster! It just seems like we are always a step behind the terrorist.
We need to get in front of them.
Joe Williams,
Don’t try to associate white leftists like me with Jihadists. Keep that shit up and there will be a flame war.
If you guys remember, I posted a while ago my plan for a “Profiling” system.
We would issue a national ID card that would be used as our identification around the country as well as around the world.
A national database would be created to rank every person a color of the rainbow. Every major aspect of a persons life would be looked at, things like your FBI file, where you were born, age, race, religion, number of times flown, number of times you have rented a car, etc…
The thing we look at here is statistics. If you are a Arab male, that just arrived from Egypt last week and you are purchasing a 1-way ticket to DC, and you have never flown in the United States before, guess what, he would be listed as a Ultra HIGH (or RED) security risk and that person should be strip searched, cavity searched and every inch of his luggage should be gone through.
This as apposed as say, a 90 year old great grand mother who has never left the US, lived in Wichita her entire life, flown hundreds of times, would probably be considered the least dangerous person to ever fly. I would run her throw a metal detector (which will probably go off because of her metal hip) and send her on her way.
You would have swipe your federal ID card at the ticket counter, the security checkpoint and boarding the air plane.
The airlines could also use this to track frequent flyer’s and make sure they have the right food on board, or also allow them to ban single persons from their airlines.
Cool Huh?
I tell the truth CF!
Get lost blog fly!
How about…
IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY, THAN SHUT THE F$#% UP!!!
God, im sick of all of the name calling and bitching that goes on in this blog…
Can I hear a AMEN..
Tony – while I can see your point in the ID card the idea personally makes me very very nervous. How easy would it be to hack into the computer and change info or create fake ID cards? Not only that but I don’t like the idea of anyone knowing that much about me – I’d be scared of it being used against me in some way. I know the gov’t tracks individuals and marketing firms keep track of purchases and all but having all that combined into one little card scares me.
Nathan
You don’t care about protecting this country or you being looking for a way out of this terrorism trap by making peace with the Arabs.
That can and must be done to protect this country.
Endless wars is not the answer.
The Israel experiment is a failure.
Joe Williams,
OK. You’ve made a factual claim denouncing white leftists (such as CF) as Jihadist sympathizers. Prove it. If this is indeed the “Truth” as you claim it is, it shouldn’t be too difficult. Produce evidence that a) people like me share the views of Islamic Jihadists and b) that people like me have actively conspired with such Jihadists to achieve their goals.
If you can’t produce such evidence, it would be appropriate to quit defaming the character and intentions of white leftists.
CF,
To be a “sympathizer” you don’t have to have
“…(P)shared the views of Islamic Jihadists and b) …actively conspired with such Jihadists to achieve their goals.”
Tony,
I really hope you were joking when you were talking about banning “single people” from airliners. Exactly how will that stop terrorism or improve air service. Or are the right-wing conservatives targeting “single people” after they finish bashing gays.
Peace Out
Nathan,
Sounds like you’re about to creatively redefine “sympathy” so that even those who aren’t aware of having any sympathies are now “sympathizers” by virtue of mutually oppositing some other third party–say, George W. Bush.
The whole problem with racial profiling (or, as Parker calls it, “ethnic profiling”) is that it discards evidence in favor of negative stereotypes. It’s a lazy, time-consuming way of doing things and is ultimately futile.
A popular right-wing meme over the past few years was “connect the dots” (usually used stupidly, alas, with data points that were vague or outright false). Still, as a principle of investigation, when used properly, I endorse it. A little specificity with a little converging evidence can go a long way.
Ethnic profiling by definition does not rely on specific information. One might as well detain everyone from Pakistan. It’s really nothing more than dressed-up racism.
but it sure makes ‘em feel better doesnt it?
Hey, AZLibert, I’m in Tucson. You a neighbor? You don’t have to say.
CF,
sympathizer:
To feel or express compassion, as for another’s suffering; commiserate.
“……..terrorists. We need to get in front of them.”
Yes Joe please do!
Well, that’s definitely the real Nathan.
“Sympathize” in this context means support for the same cause.
However, Nathan, if you’re saying CF merely feels sorry for those who throw their lives away in a such a fashion, that’s not a exactly a terrible accusation.
Sounds like compassion to me.
Not that CF has even suggested that much. As I recall, he was first one here to cheer the death of Al-Zarqawi.
“… a 90 year old great grand mother who has never left the US, lived in Wichita her entire life…”
Yeah, but she might be a leftist, which would make her a threat to civilization. Those leftists come in all shapes and sizes — we must be afraid, very afraid…
I see nathan is in no danger of being a compassionate conservative with his “kill ‘em all let god sort ‘em out” attitude.
or maybe I should have said “sympathetic” conservative.
By his own definition, he has no (pick one) empathy, compassion or sympathy for anyone but his fellow talibaners.
It must really piss him off to be sent to die for people like me.
heheheheheheheheheheheh
You know the news isnt good for the war mongers when even FUX news producers are quitting because of their biased coverage of the war.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×2782358
Rage,
In this instance I have not accused CF of anything.
I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of his narrowing down what a sympathizer was to only two choices.
Nathan,
First, you referred to the verb, whereas the word in question was a noun. More importantly, you should have included the SECOND two definitions from dictionary.com, since these are obviously the ones that are at issue:
2. To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: (sympathized with the goals of the committee).3. To be in accord; correspond
Second, and more importantly, even if we admit the definition of “sympathizer” you have introduced, Joe Williams still asserted that white liberals are “sympathizers” to the cause of Jihadism. This is a controversial claim that needs to be demonstrated. He’s claiming white liberals agree with and support Jihadism. He needs to prove it or take it back.
Try again, Nathan.
Nathan
Tell us oh judgemental one. Because I call the terror threat overblown and politically motivated am I a “sympathizer” too?
In all honesty, I think you give the terrorists hope.
I specifically think Ben is a terrorist sypmathizer in all meanings of the definition.
JR, I think your comments about Hezbollah and Israel pretty clearly indicate your support and siding with terrorists in this instance.
CF, I have not talked with you for so long… I have not seen anything yet.
Hezzbollah is only defending itself.
Oh and so now the definition of “terrorist sympathizer” is broadened to include anyone who dares question Israel or our policy towards it? Does this mean that your definition of a terrorist is based on the same criteria?
Do I give the terrorists hope? Uh no I don’t know any terrorists.
Policies I would be in favor of might reduce the numbers of people who feel the need to act out.
JoeW–
As a white leftist, I also want to call your sorry ass out your assertion that someone like me would blow up an airliner for Al Qaeda.
When we look at serial killers and mass terrorists, they are NEVER left leaning. You’d have to go back to the Weather Underground to find a contrary example and even then, they only blew up buildings and took pains to not kill people (which does not justify what they did).
Tim McVey, Terry Nichols, BTK, the Branch Davidians . . . these folks look a lot more like white CONSERVATIVES than anything else.
Good for you Nathan. Personally I think you are absolutely full of BS. Just because I oppose slaughtering women and children does NOT make me a sympathizer to the binLadin types. In fact, I’d like to come up with some novel ways to execute OBL if we ever got him.
I guess I now must specifically think that you like killing women and children for sport.
AZLibertarian06 and others…
Sorry, i didnt mean ban single people, i ment so the airline can ban a single person from that airline. say, someone who has abused a flight attendent, or started a fight or something to that extent, they can single them out and ban then…
Julie,
IF the system was built properly (I.E. not by the government) i think it could be secure system. The problem is that the government keeps putting these systems onto the Internet, that makes them vulnerable.
I don’t really have a problem with one card simply because, i can pull every inch of information about you with your social security number. I can pull all of your credit card histories, every home you have ever owned, every telephone that has ever been in your name…
So, like i said, we would be profiling, not just by race or religion, but by all aspects of their life which is the only FAIR way of profiling. I admit, i would probably end up a 5 or 6 on the list…
SteveYou are simply wrong.The NSA does have a “profile” — dont talk to terrorist on the phone and the NSA wont listen to your calls!
Paul:”You are simply wrong.The NSA does have a “profile” — dont talk to terrorist on the phone and the NSA wont listen to your calls!”
Paul? You know this how? The last I knew the operational details of the NSA program were SECRET!
You have some inside information? Or, are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth – once again? Forgive me, but I strongly suspect the latter.
Oh the hate!
Oh well! Keep it up!
I’ll still stand behind my statement that white leftist are sympathizers. It’s not all and it’s not liberals. Leftist are different from Liberals.
If you are a proclaimed Leftist, like CF and CaptAmerica, well, you’re opinion doesn’t sit well with the majority of America and your ideology is dangerous. But personally, you guys are wusses and so I don’t care what you have to say or your empty threats.
You’re in the minority like the rightist you proclaim. You’re in the same camp. Most Democrats don’t align with your thoughts.
I guess you believe that Bush ordered the planes to strike down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11 too.
Ridiculous! Must be nice to live off of your mamma’s trust and just spew crap all day.
Joe/Mathan,
Both leftists and jihadists have the following goal; both groups despise White Christian Civilization and they wish to see it destroyed. The jews and self-hating White leftists wish to destry our nations through massive third world immigration, “integration” and race mixing. The jihadists also favor their emigration into our countries and mass conversions, dhimmitude and/or the killing of White Christian infidels. Both groups share the same goal but differ and how to achieve it, that’s all.
The good nesw is that both leftists and jihadists are going to fail in their mission, big time! :):):)
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
I disagree with you Ian. The leftist are self-rightous wealth/power envy people who seek power to control our society.
The Jihadist want to kill you for being an infidel.
If the USA was a leftist nation, You and I would be killed by SS squads because we spoke our mind and went against them.
Just like at the anger and hate that CF and CaptAmerica have. They come in with threats, targeting people and cussing a storm. But don’t think for a moment that if they had the power and could get away with it, they would have me and you either in jail or in a ditch. I honestly believe that. They aren’t nice people!
Ben,
In the many discussions I have had with you, you have shown a real disdain for the American military while compasionately defending those who oppose us.
You attitude about many terrorist organizations is one of justifying their actions while blaming us.
You could seriously be a PR rep for Hezbollah. You might as well be doctoring photos of babies, you side with them so much.
Joe, am I a leftist?
XXX,
You are not conservative, you have not said much of anything good about the republican party. You regulary assume most every “left” posistion on this blog except guns and God…
Yeah I would say you are more left than right.
I don’t think you are XXX.
I seperate liberals, Democrats and leftist. I don’t think they are all the same.
I guess that can be confusing for people. Rush calls everybody that is left leaning, “liberals”. So many Conservatives equate liberals to leftist. But I think they are wrong.
I might need to rephrase what I say. It’s not too clear.
Maybe I should say Radical-Left. This is the wikipedia’s definition:
Since the early 20th century, Radical Left has been used as an umbrella term to describe those on the political left who adhere explicitly and openly to revolutionary socialism, communism, or anarchism. In this meaning it generally does not include democratic socialists, Social Democrats, liberals, trade unionists, or those working in electoral politics, since the “radical” qualifier tends in this case to denote nothing less than a revolutionary fervor.
—————————–
Do you believe in a revolutionary overthrow of our government? Do you believe in the assasination of our President? Do you believe the United States needs to rid itself of capitalism and capitalist? Do you believe in the state taking control of the means and production of our lives?
I doubt it.
You’re a progressive from what I know about you. But you’re not a leftist or radical left.
Well as long as we are tossing labels around.
I’d call Nathan a Christo fascist.
Paul? Paul is a bushie. Whoa to Paul when the bushie branch of the neocons comes to justice. With nothing left to shill for he will probably wander the streets ranting at buildings.
And Joe? Joe is what I call a Tarzan conservative. Joe beats his chest and yells “me conservative” because he thinks if he says it often enough someday he will have the money of a Republican.
Again? I don’t take any of the presidents efforts to “protect me” as honest. I fear him and his more than I do any scary terrorists.
Yet more doublespeak: They say the terrorist hate our freedom, but who is dismantling that very freedom?
No, I will not trade my freedom for the government’s notion of “security”. Better to die on your feet then live a lifetime on your knees. On principle alone it is wrong to do so; if we as Americans surrender our freedoms for whatever reason then the Taliban would be the victors! For making the people of the most powerful nation in the world live in fear of the likes of them!
Tony,
I appreciate you clearing that detail up. Sometimes I get a little too on the defensive.
Rage,
I currently reside in the Phoenix valley area. Right now though I try to go anywhere but there since it’s waaaay to hot for me.
Peace
Hehe! No kidding. It’s actually been pretty nice in the Old Pueblo.
I wouldn’t recommend going to Wichita, though, as recently they’ve had Phoenix-like temps with high humidity, the like of which has not been seen since 1980. Blech!