Much like Kerry, even liberal papers flip-flop on their beliefs...

[Justin_stacy]

NY Times: Bush Should Have Used Racial Profiling to Prevent 9/11

Don't look now, but the oh-so politically correct New York Times has just endorsed racial profiling as a critical tool in fighting the war on terrorism.

In fact, says the Times, if only President Bush had ordered airports to use "threat profiling" to screen out suspected Muslim terrorists after receiving a CIA warning in August 2001 that al Qaeda was preparing to hijack U.S. airplanes, the 9/11 attacks might have been prevented.

"After receiving that briefing memo entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'," says the Times in Monday's lead editorial, Bush should have departed from his vacation in Crawford, Texas and "rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

Of course, since all the terrorists mentioned in the August CIA memo were Middle Eastern radical Muslims, passengers of Middle Eastern appearance would have "fit the airline's threat profile."

Hence, under the Times plan, Muslims by the thousands would have been yanked from airport ticket lines for thorough investigation.

But there's a reason that, even after 9/11, anti-terrorist racial profiling is verboten. It's because newspapers like the Times have spent the last 20 years demonizing law enforcement officials who even hint that racial profiling can be an effective way of ferreting out the bad guys.

The anti-profiling taboo has gone so far that often the Times and other like-minded news outlets will leave race out of the mix when describing a criminal suspect who's on the loose.

Alas, had the Times and the brethren not gone off the deep end on racial profiling, perhaps a sensible profiling program would have been in place at Boston's Logan Airport on the morning of 9/11.

[yeat182]

wow. that is unbelievable.

[hXc_pwnage]

I think that is horrible. They shouldn't screen only muslims or other races. They should have screened everyone. They should have tightened up security. They should have done a lot...but they didn't.

[yeat182]

they should screen anyone that is suspicious or a from a region that is a "threat", i have no problem signaling out anyone if it makes it safer for everyone else. there is no reason to screen everyone, that is just PC bullshit (for lack of a better term)

[Justin_stacy]

I think that is horrible. They shouldn't screen only muslims or other races. They should have screened everyone. They should have tightened up security. They should have done a lot...but they didn't.

why waste, already limited, resources looking at those you know don't fit the CIA warning? There is only so much you can do with the money and people avilable and wasting it on trying to be "political correct" wouldn't have done any good...


This would be like the police, after a shooting, stopping every person they came to in the immediate area of the shooting, black, white or brown, even though they knew the shooter was brown......yes this would be the "politically correct" thing to do....but it wouldn't help them find the killer and in all reality would have probably allowed the killer to get away…

[hXc_pwnage]

why waste, already limited, resources looking at those you know don't fit the CIA warning? There is only so much you can do with the money and people avilable and wasting it on trying to be "political correct" wouldn't have done any good...


This would be like the police, after a shooting, stopping every person they came to in the immediate area of the shooting, black, white or brown, even though they knew the shooter was brown......yes this would be the "politically correct" thing to do....but it wouldn't help them find the killer and in all reality would have probably allowed the killer to get away…
There is a difference. In a shooting or crime, if there is a description and race is given, then there is nothing wrong with that. You have someones testimony (I guess you would call it that) of them. They described them. You aren't just ASSUMING it.

If we get to a point where we screen certain races, people are going to hate us even more. Not every white person is bad, not every black person is bad, not ever Muslim is bad, etc etc. They should just have a machine that checks your fingerprints and sees if you have a criminal record of any sort. Or, I believe, that if any weapon of a sort is found you should perform a background check.

[Justin_stacy]

There is a difference. In a shooting or crime, if there is a description and race is given, then there is nothing wrong with that. .
.
The CIA report stated that the people were of "middle eastern decent"....

[hXc_pwnage]

The CIA report stated that the people were of "middle eastern decent"....
What people? All terrorists?

[Justin_stacy]

What people? All terrorists?
the cia report gave sex and race......and the "terrorists" were those that were state in this particular report about al queda and airplanes.....

[hXc_pwnage]

the cia report gave sex and race......and the "terrorists" were those that were state in this particular report about al queda and airplanes.....
If they have information on them, and the race is included, that is ok. I just believe doing it just in general of race...with no information to back you up...is wrong.

[Justin_stacy]

I just believe doing it just in general of race...with no information to back you up...is wrong.
well in that case i absolutely agree with you...

[hXc_pwnage]

well in that case i absolutely agree with you...
Wow...I think we have a breakthrough.

:p

[open mind]

racial profiling is stupid,if we can't do auctual investigations and have to rely on labeling an entire race of people a problem,we need to get some better investigators.

[mirtizzle]

how about screening everyone, that way you weed out ALL potential threats
or i guess the security of our homeland isn't worth all that work.

you have extremists in every race and state of mind, let's not forget the oklahoma city bombing

[Justin_stacy]

Wow...I think we have a breakthrough.

:p

i would say this is also quite a breakthrough, when compared to your previous stance....
If they have information on them, and the race is included, that is ok...... :wink3:

[hXc_pwnage]

i would say this is also quite a breakthrough, when compared to your previous stance....
...... :wink3:
But when you screen a race as a whole, just because you have some feeling they are bad...that is wrong. If you screen certain people, and it may be based on race, but you have hard evidence that a group of people are going to do something wrong and part of the evidence includes race, that is justifiable. I don't care if you are white, Asian, black, Australian, Muslim...or whatever. As long as you have hard credible evidence on it, then go ahead.

[Justin_stacy]

But when you screen a race as a whole, just because you have some feeling they are bad...that is wrong. If you screen certain people, and it may be based on race, but you have hard evidence that a group of people are going to do something wrong and part of the evidence includes race, that is justifiable. I don't care if you are white, Asian, black, Australian, Muslim...or whatever. As long as you have hard credible evidence on it, then go ahead.

thats the whole point, no one is calling for blind profiling of people without cause, they are caling for profiling based on reliable reports that are as specific as can possible be expected.....that is why at the end of the article it said this...
Alas, had the Times and the brethren not gone off the deep end on racial profiling, perhaps a sensible profiling program would have been in place at Boston's Logan Airport on the morning of 9/11....

[hXc_pwnage]

I guess I should have read the whole thing... :lol2: