Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFILING IN WAR ON TERROR (Lonsberry) ^ | 08/01/05 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 08/01/2005 9:01:15 AM PDT by shortstop

In the war on terror, there’s nothing wrong with profiling.

By race, by religion, by national origin.

In fact, it only makes sense.

And most Americans would agree.

So would the Constitution.

That’s not what the activists will tell you. And it’s not politically correct. But it’s true. And arguments to the contrary endanger you and your family and our national freedom.

First, let’s dispense with the nonsense that profiling is unconstitutional as a tool against terrorism. The portion of the Constitution that applies is the Fourth Amendment.

Which reads, in its entirety: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That relates to when and under what circumstances the government can search you, seize you or search your home or property. It applies to profiling as it speaks of Americans “being secure in their persons.”

And the operative word is “unreasonable.”

We cannot be searched or taken into custody if doing so is “unreasonable.” Meaning, in this instance, that we can’t have our backpack searched as we board the subway if doing so is “unreasonable.”

And “unreasonable” roughly means “doesn’t make sense.”

But inasmuch as profiling potential terrorists by race, religion or national origin makes complete sense – it is completely reasonable – the Constitution seems to have no trouble with it.

Now, we’re not talking about African Americans being hassled when they drive through a predominantly white neighborhood. That is not reasonable. Common sense says that is unfair and wrong and not a good way to fight crime, as people of all races have significant rates of criminal activity.

Terrorism is different.

Terrorism, as faced by the world today, is motivated by religion and is committed almost exclusively by people of certain races or national origins.

So highlighting that religion and those races and national origins is not discrimination, it is good police work. And inasmuch as doing so is good common sense, and therefore not “unreasonable,” it is allowed by the Constitution.

Look at the pictures of the men involved in the London subway and bus bombings. They have clear and obvious similarities. As they have fled or been aided, their accomplices and cohorts have also had those clear and obvious similarities.

The same is true of the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11th.

They all share a religion, and belong to one or two general racial groups.

Does that mean that everyone from that religion or those racial groups should be suspect? Of course not. But does it mean that investigation and screening should focus largely on that religion and those racial groups? Of course.

Not as a form of discrimination, but as a form of protection.

To ignore, in the name of political correctness, your enemy’s defining characteristics and motivations is to be complicit in your own destruction. And those who argue and protest against profiling do so at the peril of the safety and freedom of the United States and its people.

This is not a case of freedom being sacrificed in the name of safety. This is a case of a lawful and prudent approach being scuttled by the harping of those who attack free speech with their shrill liberal orthodoxy.

How does this apply?

When police started screening passengers coming onto the New York City subway system, they should have searched the bag of every young Muslim- or Arab-looking man who boarded. Others may have been searched as well, but those passengers should have been searched particularly.


Because all the terrorists so far – in America, England, Spain, Egypt, Italy, Indonesia and Iraq – have been young Muslim- or Arab-looking young men.

And the argument that Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were white Christians doesn’t hold water. For each of them, there have literally been thousands of young Middle-Eastern or African Muslims engaged in terror and jihad. It’s possible for anyone to be a terrorist, but the overwhelming likelihood is that terrorists will be of a clear religious, racial and national origin profile.

And that profile should apply at airports.

It is a lingering and obvious insanity that elderly black and white women are patted down and frisked while young Arab men are waved through.

Again, none of this is to presume guilt or to pit people against one another. It is, however, to use the information we have about known terrorists to protect ourselves and our society.

This will keep us safer. All of us. Including those who are searched. It will take away some of the flexibility of the terrorists who seem to be working among us.

There should at least be a national debate on the issue. It should not be dismissed out of hand.

In the war on terror, there is nothing wrong with profiling on the basis of religion, race or national origin.

We all know that, but are afraid to say it. We are that frightened of the lash of political correctness.

But fear will not protect us. It will only enslave us.

It is time to use every tool to protect our nation and its people.

Including profiling.

TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lonsberry; profiling; wot
To ignore, in the name of political correctness, your enemy’s defining characteristics and motivations is to be complicit in your own destruction. And those who argue and protest against profiling do so at the peril of the safety and freedom of the United States and its people.
1 posted on 08/01/2005 9:01:18 AM PDT by shortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Profile away. Being politically correct is not only stupid but will get people killed.

Muslim-looking men between the ages of 17 and 40 should be a good start.

2 posted on 08/01/2005 9:10:26 AM PDT by kevinm13 (The Main Stream Media is dead! Fox News Channel Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop; All
Look at it this way...

Just the reduction in costs by using the logical method of separating the wheat from the chafe. Every politically correct based search choice costs MONEY!!!

3 posted on 08/01/2005 9:40:59 AM PDT by olde north church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Gee, if we didn't have these attacks this discussion wouldn't even be necessary!

4 posted on 08/01/2005 10:57:35 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson