Jump to content

Terror Attempt on Delta Flight


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Macrosan, how do you think airport security should parse Muslims for special screenings? Let's say airports in the U.S..

 

Doesn't their national ID state their ethnicity and religion?

 

What about you, how do you think profiling should be done in airports ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it should be done using google. it certainly works for expertise on all kinds of matters online.

 

i am not in favour of profiling but i can think of all kinds of ways in which it could be done, from the less intelligent (pull all brown people aside and check their rectums) to the more intelligent (for example, people with ties to anti-western organizations* and recent trips to jihadist hotbeds and/or one-way tickets and no luggage) to something coming out of a more nuanced, cross-checked collection of intelligence data (one which would not assume the entire population of the world was equally a threat).

 

unfortunately, no matter how well it is done, and how far away it gets from "racial/religious profiling" in the bluntest sense you're always only fighting the previous incident, and in the process dehumanizing the vast majority of people who fit the profile in the most general sense.

 

*by which i mean not every non-american organization in the world but religious fundamentalist organizations with an easygoing attitude towards mass violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrosan, how do you think airport security should parse Muslims for special screenings? Let's say airports in the U.S..

 

I'm not sure how one parses a Muslim :unsure: If you're asking how security identifies whether or not someone is a Muslim, there are a variety of ways, ranging from the inelligent one that Mongo has suggested above to the pretty blunt statistical method of selecting people from Muslim countries as being more likely to be Muslim than those from non-Muslim countries.

 

If, further, you're suggesting that parsing Muslims is a singular feature of profiling, then that's not what anyone on my side of the argument is suggesting. The range of profiles to be applied has to be the range of profiles which historically terrorists and their agents have represented, plus the range of profiles which intelligence suggests might be used in the future. Whatever those profiles are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Blovie and I were pulled out of line at LAX last night - I received a body pat down and Blovie was patted down and questioned. I think we were selected because I took this photo while we were waiting on line:

 

4267390336_e3ed45c54d.jpg

 

I just found the Thank You line so ridiculous, I needed to document it. It's not like I have choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Blovie and I were pulled out of line at LAX last night - I received a body pat down and Blovie was patted down and questioned. I think we were selected because I took this photo while we were waiting on line:

 

4267390336_e3ed45c54d.jpg

 

I just found the Thank You line so ridiculous, I needed to document it. It's not like I have choice.

 

Cameras absolutely freak the TSA. There are posted warnings in Newark airport not to photograph anything or anybody in the screening area. There are other signs prohibiting photography anywhere in Newark Airport, these are issued by the Port Authority.

 

It's standard PANYNJ policy to forbid photography or sketching on their property. There are similar signs at the Bus Terminal and on the PATH system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Blovie and I were pulled out of line at LAX last night - I received a body pat down and Blovie was patted down and questioned. I think we were selected because I took this photo while we were waiting on line:

 

4267390336_e3ed45c54d.jpg

 

I just found the Thank You line so ridiculous, I needed to document it. It's not like I have choice.

That'll learn ya!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Information sharing between intelligence agencies** is a difficult matter. Setting aside the politics involved, an agency that runs across some piece of information needs to consider the sensitivity of the source, the certainty level of the information, the ability of the receiving agency to act on the information effectively, the legal ramifications*, etc.

 

Absolutely so. The Catch 22 is that the only people who can do the job of the security services are people you wouldn't want as your next door neighbour. They have to be willing to lie, cheat, assault, kill and all those other things that we don't like.

 

So of course it's dangerous to give them information about people, and if they don't get that information then they can't do the job we expect them to do. But if we do give them the information, we can't trust them to use it properly because they're the sort of people who lie, cheat, assault and kill.

 

We have to choose.

actually, they are fine neighbors. you just don't want to marry them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think my response is knee-jerk or hysterical. The discussion has been going on for several pages, so I'm not just responding to Macrosan's most recent post. I'm quite calm, I just tend to express myself passionately, but that can be about soup too.

 

ETA: reading my post again I only see this part "I find it absolutely appalling and unjustifiable that there's discussion of denying a full portfolio of human rights and rights of citizenship, because someone is merely suspected of "fundamentalism". Have you ever listened to right-wing Christian radio in Los Angeles? Scary shit" as something that can be read as "emotional". The rest is pretty straightforward in tone and style. And I'm not the one who brought up human rights issues initially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. profiling is not simply about pulling people out of airport security lines.

 

2. it is not simply about grabbing every muslim or brown person in sight (as a frequently unshaven brown man with a not very religious or ethnically-identifiable name i am quite aware of this every time i enter an airport).

 

3. has anyone said that being muslim is an ethnicity? and i'm not sure that anyone has even said that you look at a passport for the purpose of determining if someone is a muslim. looking at a passport is certainly a good way to look and see if someone has been to yemen or syria recently. not that that should be reason enough to proceed with any further action.

 

4. no one has said that muslims have obviously muslim names and that this should be part of profiling.

 

5. it doesn't make much sense to focus your intelligence gathering on only those countries/people you've had the longest experience of conflict with. it certainly makes sense to focus it on people you've had the most recent or ongoing conflict with. which again does not amount to sanctioning simple, blunt profiling.

 

6. can you point me to the discussion on the many pages of this thread where i might find people "denying a full portfolio of human rights and rights of citizenship, because someone is merely suspected of "fundamentalism""?

 

i may well be missing all of this--i confess i have not read every post in this thread as carefully as i might have. but i'm sure you can point me in the right direction if i'm in error.

 

eta: the scream has since deleted the post i was responding to, claiming conveniently now that it was misconstrued and twisted.

Edited by mongo_jones
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...