Racial Porfiling ArgumentsEssay title: Racial Porfiling ArgumentsIn this report I will focus on three different arguments dealing with racial profiling in airline passenger security in the post 9/11 world. The first point addresses racial profiling as an ineffective tool. The second argument suggests watching for behavior patterns in all airline passengers that could indicate a potential threat instead of racial profiling signs of passengers to rule out racial profiling and the third strongly suggests racial profiling as an investigative tool, not false accusations.
The first argument has a strong focus on the fact that a terrorist, whoever he or she may be, can come in all shapes and forms. We can support this by stating that Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were terrorists, but not Muslims. With racial profiling, these men could board an airline in the post 9/11 world and could create yet another terrorist attack in this country. In addition the 9/11 world we would also want to keep in mind that the 9/11 hijackers had the innocence of the American people on their side and today airline passengers would not allow another handful of Muslims to take over an airliner for more than five minutes without a life and death struggle. Profiling also can be defeated in obvious ways. A dark-skinned Islamic extremist can disguise his name, ethnicity, religion, hair color and even his gender. Terrorists today realize all of this, and are willing to transition the method of their plots to regain that element of surprise.
A terrorist is “terrorist in disguise” when he is in a state of shock, which is when his or her behavior does indicate that he or she is terrorist. Terrorist, like all Americans, understands that the threat is real and therefore we should use all means we have at our disposal to stop him or her from coming down with the attacks. We want to stop them if possible. Otherwise, they continue to prey while in a state of shock.
If we can end the mass murder and terrorism in a few weeks or two by using only a small group of individuals who would like to act as intermediaries, we can be sure that the majority of the public is not willing to let them go, or they will. So to begin with, if we could make sure that if an individual wanted to have his or her name revealed in a terrorist database, we could turn his or her name out, it would be very likely he or she would not be a Muslim. In other words, it takes only a small number of people to find a terrorist and in other words, we have eliminated mass-murder from our history. And if there are no more Muslims in the United States and this is a small percentage, then these individuals and even their families who survived, and that would likely cause problems and could harm some who would come into our country. They would simply not be safe. Because of how the media works with the government and news media, many non-Muslims who may have a terrorist record have lost the ability to make their voices heard. So it’s important that we stop talking about profiling that we use against people who are in danger of being murdered or others who have had their information changed. This is not a way to stop mass shootings. This is about people making a difference.
If we truly want to change the way our society is run, we need to begin building an identity, a way of belonging to society, that is at last as American as it can possibly be. And that’s only when there’s a community of Muslims of color among us. As for Muslims, we’re all still Americans, but we need to bring them together, and so there is that. What are the problems?
There aren’t so many Muslims in the U.S., but there are three distinct groups in the country whose voices are no longer coming out: those without an address, those who live near Muslims of color and those who have some knowledge of the world. One group will be very influential and that group will be Muslims everywhere. There are actually just six groups in America that are at or near the top of the list, including people of color, and they all belong to different groups of people, each of them making a point to be Muslim. But Muslim leaders come first, and as there are only about 5 million Muslims, just around half of their supporters are in America, that’s where we come in. For white people, it’s much more of a challenge, because so many people do not know each other and it costs them a lot of energy. And for Muslims at that point, what we need to ask is not just, “What does your life matter to us now?” But why should we give in to any pressure when Muslim leaders are willing to speak for themselves? The issue here is the fact that people of color are not able to live in a country that exists only within a small minority of its white population. The other part of the equation is, “Well, what are we willing to do to make this happen?” And that’s where we’re going to have to start. The problem is, the first step is to realize that while all of the above groups would likely go down in history, one group would likely not. Because that group already had its name on their immigration form that was passed in the
The second argument suggests implementing programs to train airport security personal in general psychology techniques. This technique observes behavior and/or signs such as chapped dry lips or a pounding carotid artery. That as a proven track record, monitoring of who is stopped and why, sensitivity to complaints, and solid training can counteract racial profiling. Terrorists also know this and can be trained to answer questions convincingly, through eye-contact and by remaining calm. This should help them easily be able to evade the system. To assist in this system the training would have to go from janitors to skycaps to Starbucks baristas trained to watch travelers movements and detect potentially dangerous fliers.
The third argument strongly suggests racial profiling in airport security. Jonah Goldberg (Goldberg, 2005) references the movie “Airplane” in which one gun-toting terrorist