Skip to main content

Oh, the expertise of some people





While catching up on Best of the Web, I clicked over to the Washington Post editorial, Just the Facts, Mr. Ashcroft. Written by Jean AbiNader (managing director of the Arab American Institute) and Kate Martin (director of the Center for National Security Studies), it as slanted as an editorial can get, and demonstrates a marked lack of understanding simple, basic police work. For instance:



Rather than build investigations based on what is known about al Qaeda and the hijackers, the attorney general has directed the roundup and jailing of hundreds of individuals and compilation of dossiers on thousands of individuals and groups -- a dragnet targeted at the Arab American, Muslim and immigrant communities. While no one of any rational persuasion denies that Arab Muslim males perpetrated the horrific terrorist acts of 9/11, that fact hardly serves as justification for the racial profiling that characterizes initiatives coming out of the administration.
And...



Feeding volumes of data into computers, inviting the participation of untrained civilians, targeting groups on the basis of ethnicity, religion and political interests and tasking law enforcement officials with dubious interrogation duties, are not effective use of the limited, through rapidly expanding, enforcement resources.
Yet much of these actions are exactly appropriate. "Based on what is known about al Qaeda" is the precise reason initial investigations have focused on Arabs, Muslims, and immigrants. All of the 9/11 hijackers were immigrants (legal, illegal, or otherwise). More precisely, that same criminal (or, dare we say it, enemy) profile draws our attention to Saudis, since the majority of 9/11 particpants were from that specific country, where there is apparently a lack of people of "any rational persuasion," given the number of theories floated in that neck of the woods about how Israel and the CIA blew up the World Trade Center.



While it is true that Ashcroft & Co. has more information than they know what to do with, that is not a reason to stop collecting information. And it certainly sounds like a "focused investigative strategy" when you concentrate your resources on those people who match the profile of those who committed the 9/11 atrocities.



Let me shout it again: This is not racial profiling! Racial profiling, in its original and true meaning, deals with police who focus on people as potential criminals on the sole basis of their race. "Look," says Officer #1, "that driver is breaking the law." "How so?" asks Officer #2. "He's black!" explains Officer #1. That (very broad) example of racial profiling.



HOWEVER, if my suspect profile is for a black male, approximately six feet in height, driving a silver Lexus, last seen wearing tan shirt, blue jeans, possible ball cap, etc., then you'll note that the "black" portion is only one aspect of the total suspect description and profile.



All of the 9/11 hijackers were of Middle Eastern origin. They fell within a given age range, they shared a common religion, they were of a given ethnicity. They also shared a number of other common features, and when all that is combined that forms the profile.



And that's why that profile should be worked, if need be to the exclusion of other profiles, because doing otherwise does indeed squander resources, nevermind the scattered notions of AbiNader and Martin.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.