Given that the "inspections" for which some are singled out entail pulling people aside, taking off their shoes and belts and perhaps underwear, and completely emptying their luggage, the prospect of inspecting "ALL" airline passengers "the same" would bring air travel in this nation (and hence, the economy) to a virtual standstill.
Is that worth it? Just so we can all pat each other on the back for being so racially sensitive?
ALL should go thru screening.
ALL do (we ALL go through those metal detectors, remember? Not to mention those oh-so-useful questions at the desk like "do you intend to blow up this plane?" or whatever). What we are talking about is additional, intensive screening for things like explosive residue and perhaps hidden James Bond-y stuff. It's simply impractical to do this to ALL passengers. I guess what you are saying, then, is that it should be done to NONE. Even if it means a few planes are blown up. Wouldn't want to hurt the terrorists' feelings, after all.
Tim McVeigh ring a bell? What foreign country was he from
So because employing a profile would not catch a hypothetical Tim McVeigh-like airplane suicidal hijacker/bomber (something we haven't actually seen yet, keep in mind; neither McVeigh nor Kaczynski actually killed themselves for their "causes", like Islamofascists do), it should therefore not be done at all? Yeah, that's logical.
(Let's try it out-- If seatbelts don't prevent 100% of road deaths they should not be worn at all... )
do them right, and there's no need to profile.
This is false. You see, we have finite resources and a finite amount of time in which to check people thoroughly enough to stop anything other than an Uzi in the overcoat. How to use those finite resources? "Check everyone equally"? That means nothing more than what was done prior to 9/11 - the metal detector, the stupid questions. "Check everyone thoroughly - shoes off, belt off, everything?" That means: Country shuts down.
Can't we do something in between, by intelligently focusing our screening efforts onto those we think more likely to, well, actually be terrorists? If not, why not?