Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 109
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002

    honest to god, people, what the hell do you propose we do to prevent anyone from bombing our airplanes to kingdom come?

    .
    Americans could be capable of defending and policing themselves. Let everyone who chooses to board an aircraft the option to bring a handgun on the flight.

    I don't think random bag searches at the subway station would prevent bombings. They (emphasis on they) would just adapt and wait until the wee hours when no one was around to see them plant an explosive.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    Americans could be capable of defending and policing themselves. Let everyone who chooses to board an aircraft the option to bring a handgun on the flight.
    I hope not! Most gun owners don't receive the training they should for operating a gun, let alone have enough common sense to follow safety precautions.

    But I do think most of us Americans are too complacent when it comes to national security and in thinking that 'someone else will protect me'. We all need to be on our watch all the time.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    That is why I would be in favor of searches if everyone was searched (not just certain groups.) It is quite easy for a white male to say "I wouldnt mind being singled out and searched every single time I get on a plane" because 'we' as a group, have not really felt racial discrimination nor have we really (as a group) been profiled before.
    I say search everyone too, but that just isn't going to happen on our public transportation systems like trains and buses. Too expensive and would be too hard to police and control even if it could be put into place. There are just too many bus stops and train entrances (thousands just in NYC).

    This may be a good time for some enterprising engineer to invent a larger scale xray/scanning system...one like we see in scifi movies that could xray entire crowds.
  4. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #64  
    hmm... interesting development, no?

    tony blair vows to deport any radical islamists preaching violence toward britain....
    .

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/4747573.stm

    .... imagine that..

    now THIS is what I've been talking about!! bravo. blair is getting serious about this, and this is the policy we should have had all along too!!!!!
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/06/2005 at 07:10 AM.
  5. #65  
    Here are some more details:

    U.K. Gov't Defends Crackdown on Extremists

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164932,00.html
    http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8BQAVH00.html

    LONDON Prime Minister Tony Blair's (search) government on Saturday defended its plans to crack down on extremist Islamic clerics who preach hate, as critics warned the measures could further alienate British Muslims.

    Charles Falconer (search), the lord chancellor, said the deadly July 7 attacks in London showed the government must act against people "who are encouraging young men who are becoming suicide bombers."

    ---------------

    On Friday, the government announced plans to deport foreign nationals who glorify acts of terror, bar radicals from entering Britain, close mosques linked with extremism, ban certain Islamic groups and, if necessary, amend human rights laws. The measures appear to have cracked the spirit of consensus.

  6. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #66  
    GOOD FOR BRITAIN! Now lets put that policy into effect here in America, too!!!

    Way to go, Tony Blair!!
  7. #67  
    On Friday, the government announced plans to deport foreign nationals who glorify acts of terror, bar radicals from entering Britain, close mosques linked with extremism, ban certain Islamic groups and, if necessary, amend human rights laws. The measures appear to have cracked the spirit of consensus.
    VW: don't we already have a policy like this (i.e. immigration)? Don't we already control who comes into this country and for what purpose?

    I do see a potential problem if we start down the road of limiting free speech. I'm not talking about speech that encourages violence but rather 'unpopular' speech (like support for AQ or Iraq).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #68  
    I believe the ACLU is a great organization. I also believe that some common sense should be used sometimes as well as the law. I received this email sometime ago. I don't necessarily agree with profiling, but if you're looking for a majority of terrorists, sometimes you have to profile. Here is the email. I am just posting a copy of the email.

    Please take a moment, reflect back, and take the
    following Multiple Choice test.... no need to keep
    score. The events are actual cuts from past
    history. They actually happened!

    Do you remember?

    1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

    a. Olga Corbitt
    b. Sitting Bull
    c. ArnoldSchwarzeneger
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    2. In 1979, theU.S.embassy in Iran was taken
    over by:

    a. Lost Norwegians
    b. Elvis
    c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    3. During the 1980's a number of Americans
    were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

    a. John Dillinger
    b. The King of Sweden
    c. The Boy Scouts
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    4. In 1983, the U.S.Marine barracks in Beirut
    was blown up by:

    a. A pizza delivery boy
    b. Pee Wee Herman
    c. Geraldo Rivera
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was
    hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was
    murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

    a. The Smurfs
    b. Davy Jones
    c. The Little Mermaid
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at
    Athens, and a U.S.Navy diver trying to rescue
    passengers was murdered by:

    a. Captain Kidd
    b. Charles Lindberg
    c. Mother Teresa
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

    a. Scooby Doo
    b. The Tooth Fairy
    c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    8. In 1993 theWorld Trade Center was bombed
    the first time by:

    a. Richard Simmons
    b. Grandma Moses
    c. Michael Jordan
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    9. In 1998, theU.S.embassies in Kenya and
    Tanzania were bombed by:

    a. Mr. Rogers
    b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from
    Wild Bill's women problems
    c. The World Wrestling Federation
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    10. On9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked;
    two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade
    Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the
    US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by
    the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

    a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and
    Elmer Fudd
    b. The Supreme Court of Florida
    c. Mr. Bean
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan
    against:

    a. Enron
    b. The Lutheran Church
    c. The NFL
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped
    and murdered by:

    a. Bonnie and Clyde
    b. Captain Kangaroo
    c. Billy Graham
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? I guess we can add the London bombings to this as well, and quite a few others.

    So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly
    fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret agents who
    are members of the President's security detail,
    85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of
    Honor winning former Governors, and leave Muslim Males
    between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of profiling.

    As the writer of the award winning story
    "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid
    does."
    Last edited by RickMG; 08/06/2005 at 06:51 PM.
  9. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    VW: don't we already have a policy like this (i.e. immigration)? Don't we already control who comes into this country and for what purpose?

    I do see a potential problem if we start down the road of limiting free speech. I'm not talking about speech that encourages violence but rather 'unpopular' speech (like support for AQ or Iraq).

    What im trying to say here is that we need to take a much bolder stance... as Britain has done right now. unpopular speech is fine. there`s no problem with aligning oneself with alternative points of view, as long as they are free from any allegiances to the support of terror in any way.
    the iraq war speeches may be unpopular with some, but they are not made with the intent of doing harm to those who are simply trying to live their lives.

    If an individual advocates financial support, or reports sensitive or classified information about our general infrastructure to al qaeda or anyone else who trains terrorists, they are to be deported, along with the leader of their mosque, if that is the place from which they preach. Finally, that mosque or whatever structure being used as a platform for such speech should be shut down promptly.

    Yes we have the immigration system, but how effective is it right now? Is our immigration system as strong as it can be? I mean we have thousands of illegal immigrants streaming across our borders at broadbands speeds every day, and what are we going to do about those illegals once they are here?

    Immigration works for those who try to get into the US legally, but what about those who come across illegally?

    You may say our immigration system works fine while our border patrol issues are the reason for the illegal influx, but even with that argument, shouldnt our immigration policy be more aggressive in trying to target those who have made it here illegally that way? how many are here without immigration having a clue about it?

    i know the majority of these people cross our borders for work, not terror. but still, in todays state of affairs, we need to hold everyone accountable even thought we know the majority comes here for a better life, not with the interests of terror in mind.
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/06/2005 at 11:08 PM.
  10. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG
    I believe the ACLU is a great organization. I also believe that some common sense should be used sometimes as well as the law. I received this email sometime ago. I don't necessarily agree with profiling, but if you're looking for a majority of terrorists, sometimes you have to profile. Here is the email. I am just posting a copy of the email.

    Please take a moment, reflect back, and take the
    following Multiple Choice test.... no need to keep
    score. The events are actual cuts from past
    history. They actually happened!

    Do you remember?

    1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

    a. Olga Corbitt
    b. Sitting Bull
    c. ArnoldSchwarzeneger
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    2. In 1979, theU.S.embassy in Iran was taken
    over by:

    a. Lost Norwegians
    b. Elvis
    c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    3. During the 1980's a number of Americans
    were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

    a. John Dillinger
    b. The King of Sweden
    c. The Boy Scouts
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    4. In 1983, the U.S.Marine barracks in Beirut
    was blown up by:

    a. A pizza delivery boy
    b. Pee Wee Herman
    c. Geraldo Rivera
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was
    hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was
    murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

    a. The Smurfs
    b. Davy Jones
    c. The Little Mermaid
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at
    Athens, and a U.S.Navy diver trying to rescue
    passengers was murdered by:

    a. Captain Kidd
    b. Charles Lindberg
    c. Mother Teresa
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

    a. Scooby Doo
    b. The Tooth Fairy
    c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    8. In 1993 theWorld Trade Center was bombed
    the first time by:

    a. Richard Simmons
    b. Grandma Moses
    c. Michael Jordan
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    9. In 1998, theU.S.embassies in Kenya and
    Tanzania were bombed by:

    a. Mr. Rogers
    b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from
    Wild Bill's women problems
    c. The World Wrestling Federation
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    10. On9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked;
    two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade
    Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the
    US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by
    the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

    a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and
    Elmer Fudd
    b. The Supreme Court of Florida
    c. Mr. Bean
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan
    against:

    a. Enron
    b. The Lutheran Church
    c. The NFL
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped
    and murdered by:

    a. Bonnie and Clyde
    b. Captain Kangaroo
    c. Billy Graham
    d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
    ages of 17 and 40

    Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? I guess we can add the London bombings to this as well, and quite a few others.

    So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly
    fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret agents who
    are members of the President's security detail,
    85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of
    Honor winning former Governors, and leave Muslim Males
    between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of profiling.

    As the writer of the award winning story
    "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid
    does."


    priceless.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    What im trying to say here is that we need to take a much bolder stance... as Britain has done right now.
    I thought that was what you were saying but is it really analogous? I mean, we try to control immigration, don't they (or did) have an open door policy on immigration? The reason why I don't think it's the same situation is because...(see below)
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    We will deport you if you are found to be voicing support for violence against Americans and anyone else for that matter.
    In Britain you can because they arent really British citizens right (just living there). I don't think its the same situation here...if U.S. citizens voice support, offer financial support, etc...then charge them with the correct crime and incarcerate them. They have due process rights here. Plus, why deport them (unless you argue to do that after they have finished thier incarceration?)
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    If you advocate financial support, classified information, or report sensitive information about our general infrastructure to al qaeda or anyone else who trains terrorists, again, you are to be deported, along with the leader of your mosque, if that is the place from which you preach.
    Whoa! The leader of the mosque...so what law did he break by just being the leader of the mosque (unless HE was the one doing the illegal things.) This 'guilty by association' thing seems a bit to far and definitely would not be supported under the current reading of the constitution (even with Roberts )
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    Yes we have immigration, but how effective is it right now? Is our immigration system as strong as it can be? I mean we have thousands of illegal immigrants streaming across our borders at broadbands speeds every day, and what are we going to do about those illegals once they are here?
    Good point...but I have been advocating securing our national borders since we have started these discussions on Iraq.
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    Immigration works for those who try to get into the US legally, but what about those who come across illegally?
    The argument for a stronger immigration policy/enforcement is a good one (especially viewed in the light of increasing our security). It's been beat to death in the other thread but I think the bottom line is that 'we' profit from illegal labor and businesses (and politicians) aren't ready to tackle that issue.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #72  
    "In Britain you can because they arent really British citizens right (just living there). I don't think its the same situation here...if U.S. citizens voice support, offer financial support, etc...then charge them with the correct crime and incarcerate them. They have due process rights here. Plus, why deport them (unless you argue to do that after they have finished thier incarceration?"


    - t2gungho


    yes we could incarcerate them, but why should our taxes have to go toward the incarceration of those plotting against our country? there is something about that idea that is just wrong in my opinion.

    sure, they pay for incarceration of other criminals, but terrorists? after all the money already devoted to the efforts to search them out and identify them, why should we lose more money paying for their food, facilities, etc while they are in jail indefinitely? Since they were plotting against our country, they should be removed from it, even if they are citizens.


    "Whoa! The leader of the mosque...so what law did he break by just being the leader of the mosque (unless HE was the one doing the illegal things.) This 'guilty by association' thing seems a bit to far and definitely would not be supported under the current reading of the constitution (even with Roberts )"

    -t2gungho


    the leader of the mosque is responsible for all that is represented within. if he allows such speeches to be made within his mosque, and does nothing to prevent it, then he is to be removed. something as venomous as a "death to america speech" is not to be tolerated. they dont want anyone preaching violence against them, so they should ensure that nothing of the sort takes place within THEIR places of worship. we shouldnt take chances by giving mosque leaders the benefit of the doubt when violence is advocated inside their mosques. if they know the consequences are severe, then they will be more motivated to take a proactive stance.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    Since they were plotting against our country, they should be removed from it, even if they are citizens.
    Well I guess I can't ever agree with that. If we are going to remove citizen's rights, then we should always allow for due process...otherwise, just burn the constitution and start martial law.
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    the leader of the mosque is responsible for all that is represented within.
    How do you know this or is it just your opinion? If I equate it to a church, then a priest or pastor is responsible for all the messages given in the church even if he isnt giving them (i.e. the sunday school teacher accidently says that _________?
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    if he allows such speeches to be made within his mosque, and does nothing to prevent it, then he is to be removed.
    In this country, there are very few circumstances where you have an affirmative duty to act. By your standard, if the leader of the mosque was sick, on sabattical, vacation, or just not in the same room as an associate leader promoting hate, ...then someone could argue that he should be departed. Also, you leave room for him to do something, but not enough, and then he could still stay (I underlined the part that seems very subjective).
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    if they know the consequences are severe, then they will be more motivated to take a proactive stance.
    No doubt about that.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #74  
    "..then charge them with the correct crime and incarcerate them. They have due process rights here. Plus, why deport them (unless you argue to do that after they have finished thier incarceration)"


    -t2gungho


    thinking on this again, however, deportation could be the sentence to those preaching but not actually "doing" the acts.
    incarceration, which should be followed with capital punishment should be the sentence to those who "acted" on those preachings, attempting to kill americans by stockpiling explosives, planting bombs, etc.
    I see your point. why deport this type of individual when we know they will simply regroup somewhere else and attack again after deportation? so I would support the incarceration & capital punishment of those who try to carry out the terrorist threats, and the deportation of those who "preach violence" but haven't acted on it yet.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  15. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #75  
    "in this country, there are very few circumstances where you have an affirmative duty to act. By your standard, if the leader of the mosque was sick, on sabattical, vacation, or just not in the same room as an associate leader promoting hate, ...then someone could argue that he should be departed. Also, you leave room for him to do something, but not enough, and then he could still stay (I underlined the part that seems very subjective).

    -t2gungho


    well if the leader, imam or whoever was on sabbatical, and the event took place on another's watch, then whoever was presiding over that mosque at that time would be held responsible.

    the returning leader, after sabbatical, would be held under close observation since the situation took place in his mosque.

    also, let's eliminate the question of a subjective element altogether then. either he puts a stop to the violence speeches or he doesn't, and if he can't put a stop to it, he must report the quilty parties to the authorities or risk deportation himself by failing to do so.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For starters, what is the "the civil liberties union" versus the "ACLU"???

    Secondly, Chillig is exactly correct. When you remove randomness from searches you have just put a great big hole in it. You think violent male terrorist can't dress up like a little old lady. Come on. THINK!
    Israeli security forces, no stranger to terrorism, finds our non-profiling methods laughable. We avoid the profiling of people (for political purposes, not practical) and focus on profiling objects (backpacks, heavy coats, etc), something far more susceptible to sample bias than people. Israelis say, "objects don't bomb people, people bomb people". If your argument is that profiling would force a bunch of Arab looking males to put on blonde wigs and shoulder purses instead of backpacks, well, I'd take my chances on picking that odd looking fellow out of a crowd than some backpack. Also, if your argument is that the suicide bomber's would then resort to recruiting their blond girlfriends to do their dirty work, well, I'd like my chances there too. Do you really think all the Arab looking males would just sit on the bench and rely on their extensive network of available and willing blond female suicide bombers? Again, I'd like my chances far more in this case, as well.

    The question isn't wether profiling based on phenotype in a crowded subway station is the solution to preventing suicide bombs, but whether profiling should be added to the investigative repetoire of our security forces. No single method for detecting these people will solve the problem, but limiting the available solutions is irresponsible.

    I'd also like to see the report others are citing that concludes profiling would not be fruitful, since the best airline security force, El Al (with a perfect record for preventing suicide bombers and hijacks) would disagree. I'd question the political affiliations of that "report", which if they are so wary of selection bias, they should mention.
    Last edited by nunoste; 08/08/2005 at 01:34 AM.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    vw...would you be offended if I asked you what your ethnicity was (if you choose not to, I take no offense)? The reason why I bring it up is because some different ethnic groups, who have been profiled or singled out before, would probably (Im only speculating because I am a caucasian male and can't speak from personal experience) object to being searched because of their past experiences at being profiled or discriminated against.
    I'm of Mexican heritage and I have some arab features. That the security forces at the airport don't give me a second or third look as I pass the little old barefooted lady getting frisked, always makes me nervous. I'd search me if I were airline security. I don't know what their problem is. But then, maybe they have already screened my name, birthplace, etc. One can hope.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    vw...would you be offended if I asked you what your ethnicity was (if you choose not to, I take no offense)? The reason why I bring it up is because some different ethnic groups, who have been profiled or singled out before, would probably (Im only speculating because I am a caucasian male and can't speak from personal experience) object to being searched because of their past experiences at being profiled or discriminated against.
    I am labeled "black" or "african-american"
    I am aware of others so classified who are opposed to "racial profiling" because of past experience. However, there is a significant difference in harrassment based on ethnic bias of the authority, and legitimate suspicion based on demographic trends of perpetrators

    When ever I see a news report indicating a suspect is "black" I jokingly say to my wife that I will have to stay home, even when the suspect is a 5'4" and 200 lbs female because of racial bias (I'm 6'0", 175). However, when the suspect's features are really close to my own, I am prepared to answer for my whereabouts, because there is a legitimate cause for further questioning me.
  19. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Israeli security forces, no stranger to terrorism, finds our non-profiling methods laughable. We avoid the profiling of people (for political purposes, not practical) and focus on profiling objects (backpacks, heavy coats, etc), something far more susceptible to sample bias than people. Israelis say, "objects don't bomb people, people bomb people". If your argument is that profiling would force a bunch of Arab looking males to put on blonde wigs and shoulder purses instead of backpacks, well, I'd take my chances on picking that odd looking fellow out of a crowd than some backpack. Also, if your argument is that the suicide bomber's would then resort to recruiting their blond girlfriends to do their dirty work, well, I'd like my chances there too. Do you really think all the Arab looking males would just sit on the bench and rely on their extensive network of available and willing blond female suicide bombers? Again, I'd like my chances far more in this case, as well.

    The question isn't wether profiling based on phenotype in a crowded subway station is the solution to preventing suicide bombs, but whether profiling should be added to the investigative repetoire of our security forces. No single method for detecting these people will solve the problem, but limiting the available solutions is irresponsible.

    I'd also like to see the report others are citing that concludes profiling would not be fruitful, since the best airline security force, El Al (with a perfect record for preventing suicide bombers and hijacks) would disagree. I'd question the political affiliations of that "report", which if they are so wary of selection bias, they should mention.
    absolutely right, nunoste! im with you on every point you made, particularly when you mention how the israeli security forces consider our profiling methods laughable. it IS irresponsible to limit the available solutions to eliminating the problem - you hit the nail right on the head.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Israeli security forces, no stranger to terrorism, finds our non-profiling methods laughable. We avoid the profiling of people (for political purposes, not practical) and focus on profiling objects (backpacks, heavy coats, etc), something far more susceptible to sample bias than people. Israelis say, "objects don't bomb people, people bomb people". If your argument is that profiling would force a bunch of Arab looking males to put on blonde wigs and shoulder purses instead of backpacks, well, I'd take my chances on picking that odd looking fellow out of a crowd than some backpack. Also, if your argument is that the suicide bomber's would then resort to recruiting their blond girlfriends to do their dirty work, well, I'd like my chances there too. Do you really think all the Arab looking males would just sit on the bench and rely on their extensive network of available and willing blond female suicide bombers? Again, I'd like my chances far more in this case, as well.

    The question isn't wether profiling based on phenotype in a crowded subway station is the solution to preventing suicide bombs, but whether profiling should be added to the investigative repetoire of our security forces. No single method for detecting these people will solve the problem, but limiting the available solutions is irresponsible.

    I'd also like to see the report others are citing that concludes profiling would not be fruitful, since the best airline security force, El Al (with a perfect record for preventing suicide bombers and hijacks) would disagree. I'd question the political affiliations of that "report", which if they are so wary of selection bias, they should mention.
    You just emphasized my earlier point about profiling. The reason why Israeli profiling is so effective is because it is done by professionally trained profilers as well as backed up by massive intel - two things still lacking in our infrastructure. Israeli forces were able to successfully pick out the pregnant irish girlfriend (who was clueless that she was being used) because their intel connected her with a man who was suspected to have terrorist ties. We do not have that kind of intel system in place, nor do we have the professionals. All we have are overworked, underpaid contract workers doing the screening. The best that they can do would be more random screening to throw off the would-be terrorists who may find ways to beat the "profiling" system.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions