Religious Profiling. What's your opinion?

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Religious Profiling. What's your opinion?

According to AP, the City of Los Angeles Police Department has begun work on a plan to map the City's Muslim Communities.  Read the story here.  Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing is on the record stating that this program will help determine which parts of the city (which people) are susceptible to "violent, ideologically based extremism."  "We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities," said Downing, who heads the counterterrorism bureau.

Now, regardless of what you believe Mr. Downing to mean when he says "reach out to those communities," there's a bigger question here.  The majority of Americans believe that profiling based on age, race, or gender is wrong, but what about religion?  We are born into our gender and race, and we have no control over our age.  Religion, however, is a different matter.

We atheists must be careful of this issue.  I admit that my gut reaction to this story was that profiling based on religion is not necessarily bad.  After all, it's safe to say that very few Scientologists bomb abortion clinics, and precious few Amish take flying lessons for terrorist attacks.  We can effectively isolate entire segments of the population based solely on their religion, and have virtual certainty that future crimes stemming from that religion will be committed only by people in that group.  Add to that the notion that religion is a choice, and you have a very strong case for religious profiling.  Unfortunately, many of the atheists on this very site have stood behind me and other RRS writers when we've opined at length that the biggest danger of religion is that when it's indoctrinated early in childhood, it becomes like a mental disorder, and people are not really free to leave.  That's why we fight it, right?  That's why Dawkins is so vehemently opposed to labeling children by their parents' religion.

If I stand behind religious profiling, I must provide enough evidence that it is different from racial, gender, or age profiling.  The biggest difference I can see is that religion is not something we acquire at birth.  It is ostensibly something we choose.  Yet, we have an incredible amount of data suggesting that defection to either atheism or another competing religion is very, very uncommon if the religion has been practiced since early childhood.  So, what is the answer?

Should law enforcement use religious profiling to help them find criminals?  

Should they use it to try to prevent crime?

Is religious profiling different from age, gender, or race profiling?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I have a serious problem

I have a serious problem with allowing profiling of any sort for the very reason demonstrated by your post. When you allow any profiling policy you must attempt to set borders of what profiling is or is not allowed, or who is or is not included within a certain group, and it becomes very easy to allow this or that group to be included. I think in these situation, much as in situations such as the domestic surveillance that was being so thoroughly discussed not long ago, the slope is far too slippery to be traversed.

Even if we don't consider the dangers of slippery slopes we can look at this by adopting the perspective of the affected. Just as a thought experiment, if we saw a group of atheists that started commiting acts of violence in an effort to push some agenda, say they were misguided into thinking it was possible to bring down religion in such a manner, would you  be okay with being under heightened scrutiny, profiled  (whatever that might entail)because of their actions?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Should law

Quote:

 

Should law enforcement use religious profiling to help them find criminals?  

 

No.

 

Terrorists attack for a reason. They let their purpose known or that defeats the purpose of the attack.

 

No profiling is required, the terrrorists will tell you what to look for.

 

For example, the London bombings called for the U.K withdrawl from Iraq. They didn't do it for fun and let law enforcement guess, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the attack.

 

They state their reasons for attack. Unless they're complete psycho paths.

 

Quote:
 

Should they use it to try to prevent crime?

 

 How does profiling stop crime?

 

Quote:
 

Is religious profiling different from age, gender, or race profiling?

 

No.  Because it isn't based on the facts. Terrorism is a diverse field.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Pineapple wrote: We promote

Pineapple wrote:
We promote freethinking, as long as people arrive at the same conclusions we have reached.

You can be such a prick sometimes.

Anyway, I truly don't have a fully formed opinion on this question.  I'm trying to demonstrate some critical freethinking, contrary to Pineapple's kind assessment of us.

 Pineapple, suppose there are some terrorists who want the U.S. to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government.  They begin targetting civilians, and each time they kill civilians, they leave a bright banner saying, "We did this because we want you to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government.  We are Islamic Fundamentalists."

No real argument about what they want, or who they are, right?  So, America is not going to do what they want, and they're not going to stop terror attacks, right?  What's the answer?  Each time there's a terror attack, we send squad cars to all the different neighborhoods?  Obviously not.  We send them to the Muslim part of town.  That's profiling, but it's not blind profiling.  We know something about the criminal, and we've narrowed our search parameters.

The question of profiling seems to be one of preemption, not actually profiling.  After a crime has been committed, we profile the criminal, and then look for him.

So, let's talk about a different crime for perspective.  Suppose there was a series of robberies, and no arrests had been made.  The onlly thing that had been learned was that there were three robbers who seem to come from this one neighborhood, and they were hispanic.  Now, there are unsolved crimes that have been committed, and profile information available.  Are the police justified in doing extra patrols through that neighborhood?  What about stopping groups of three hispanic men?  What about if one was carrying a TV?

You see what I'm getting at?  Profiling isn't as well defined as the politicians would like us to believe.  All law enforcement uses it.  Saying, "Profiling is always wrong" is sort of like saying "Don't use science to catch criminals."

 


 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Pineapple wrote:
We promote freethinking, as long as people arrive at the same conclusions we have reached.

You can be such a prick sometimes.

 

You have a complete lack of humour sometimes. I've seen some sigs that poke fun at religion, so I'm poking fun at freethinkers.

 

 

Quote:
 

 

Anyway, I truly don't have a fully formed opinion on this question. I'm trying to demonstrate some critical freethinking, contrary to Pineapple's kind assessment of us.

Pineapple, suppose there are some terrorists who want the U.S. to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government. They begin targetting civilians, and each time they kill civilians, they leave a bright banner saying, "We did this because we want you to convert to an Islamic fundamentalist government. We are Islamic Fundamentalists."

No real argument about what they want, or who they are, right? So, America is not going to do what they want, and they're not going to stop terror attacks, right? What's the answer? Each time there's a terror attack, we send squad cars to all the different neighborhoods? Obviously not. We send them to the Muslim part of town. That's profiling, but it's not blind profiling. We know something about the criminal, and we've narrowed our search parameters.

 


Nothing wrong with sending squad cars. However, once they start kicking down doors, than it's a whole new kettle of fish.

 

You don't even send squad cars to terrorist investigation. That's a Federal matter (FBI).

 

They decide where to send the cars and who to arrest based on evidence. 

 

See below. 

 

 

Quote:

The question of profiling seems to be one of preemption, not actually profiling. After a crime has been committed, we profile the criminal, and then look for him.

So, let's talk about a different crime for perspective. Suppose there was a series of robberies, and no arrests had been made. The onlly thing that had been learned was that there were three robbers who seem to come from this one neighborhood, and they were hispanic. Now, there are unsolved crimes that have been committed, and profile information available. Are the police justified in doing extra patrols through that neighborhood? What about stopping groups of three hispanic men? What about if one was carrying a TV?

 

Can you at least glance over the consitution?

 

You need evidence. You can't just stop three hispanic men, do you know how many hispanics there are?

 

Even if you could, what the fuck are you suppose to do with them?

'Hey guys, rob any banks lately?'

 

 

If they had a description of the suspect, then yes, then can stop you if you fit that description.

 

As for if he was carrying a T.V, that depends of the situation. Was he carrying out through a broken window of a house? Was he just walking down the street.

 

Do you know what 'probable cause' is? 

 

 

If the bank robbers were white males, would you be okay with the cops stopping you for no other reason?

 

Quote:
 

You see what I'm getting at? Profiling isn't as well defined as the politicians would like us to believe. All law enforcement uses it. Saying, "Profiling is always wrong" is sort of like saying "Don't use science to catch criminals."

 

 Like Vessel said, what if a group of atheists cause trouble?

 

 

The president of the Muslim association at my university was detained at the U.S border for 12 hours (He was from Lebanon). He wasn't a terrorist . How is that consitutional? How is that not profiling?

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You have a complete

Quote:
You have a complete lack of humour sometimes. I've seen some sigs that poke fun at religion, so I'm poking fun at freethinkers.

Poke away.

Quote:
You don't even send squad cars to terrorist investigation. That's a Federal matter (FBI).

This is closer to the reason I think you're a prick sometimes. You know perfectly well what I was saying, but you felt it was important to say this, just so you can prove something... what, I truly don't care to guess.

As for the rest of your post, you've not really addressed anything I was saying. Imagine that. Opine more if you like, but every time I try to have a conversation with you, I remember why I keep swearing off of trying to have conversations with you.

Quote:
The president of the Muslim association at my university was detained at the U.S border for 12 hours (He was from Lebanon). He wasn't a terrorist . How is that consitutional? How is that not profiling?

That's what I'm asking, Pineapple. If you'd get off your horse for a second and recognize that I was asking questions, not making an argument, you might realize that you're simply re-asking all the questions I've already asked, or implied (for those who don't need everything spelled out for them).

If you'd like to demonstrate your keen grasp of the questions involved in profiling again, please feel free, but I'm much more interested in educated answers.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
The biggest problem with

The biggest problem with profiling is that it has a lot of very strong arguments for it.  If used properly with the proper controls in place it helps a lot, just like data mining and surveillance.  The problem is all this is just in theory, it gets corrupted/abused way to easily.  As per one of hte best lines in The Simpsons "In THEORY, communism works". That's where it all breaks down.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Everyone is

Everyone is fine/indifferent to racial/religious profiling until it's their race/religion that is being profiled.

 

While the points Hamdy made are valid, I've never met an Amish person even remotely interested in flying, I think allowing them to profile Muslims will only make it easier for them to start profile others.

 

How close to the Muslims do you think we are on their list?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The biggest problem

Quote:
The biggest problem with profiling is that it has a lot of very strong arguments for it.

So, maybe the question should actually be, "How do we solve the problems of abuse such that profiling can be used benevolently?"

Like I mentioned earlier, I think profiling is poorly defined in the public discourse.  Once a crime has been committed, profiling is literally how we find the criminal.  We are looking for a profile that fits the data that we have, and we are looking for patterns to extrapolate from known data.  For instance, if we know that a white, thirty-something housewife has been killed in a trailer park, we save an awful lot of time by looking at her immediate family before we look at any Muslim terrorists.

What causes all the public stir is preemptive profiling.  When someone is stopped at an airport simply because they're Muslim, we say it's profiling.  Similarly, stopping random groups of three hispanic men in a hispanic neighborhood is profiling, but stopping a group of three hispanic men with a TV after suspicious activity was reported a block away might not be.

What I'm really interested in is knowing where people think the boundaries ought to lie, and more importantly, why that's where they should be.  

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How close to the

Quote:
How close to the Muslims do you think we are on their list?

For terrorism, not very close at all.

For selective harrassment, close.  We're dangerous because we don't trust FAUX News, and we tend to value facts.  Not only that, we have a dangerous tendency to be less patriotic simply because we happen to have been born here.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:   What

Hambydammit wrote:
 

What I'm really interested in is knowing where people think the boundaries ought to lie, and more importantly, why that's where they should be. 


Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

 

oh BTW:

 

Quote:
Quote:

You don't even send squad cars to terrorist investigation. That's a Federal matter (FBI).
 

 

This is closer to the reason I think you're a prick sometimes. You know perfectly well what I was saying, but you felt it was important to say this, just so you can prove something... what, I truly don't care to guess.

 

 

 I said that to be a prick.

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: What

Hambydammit wrote:

What I'm really interested in is knowing where people think the boundaries ought to lie, and more importantly, why that's where they should be.

I would have to say I think the boundaries should lie where preemptive profiling starts. I just don't think it can be allowed. It could probably be a useful tool in thwarting terrorist attempts, but it is at the sacrifice of freedoms like privacy and presumed innocence, and as much as it sometimes sucks and, to an extent, puts us in a more vulnerable position that we have to try and maintain these ideals, I think they are very necessary for a free society.

There are many things that would be beneficial for certain aspects of society that we simply should not allow because of the precedents they set and the paths down which they can lead. This is where profiling falls, in my mind.  

If we are interested in preemptive actions to lower incidents of terrorism I think education programs specifically geared towards these high risk communities, doing more to raise the global standard of living, working as many here do to champion the benefits of rational thought and reality based worldviews are avenues that should be persued. Of course, in the interim it would probably be effective to preemptively profile, but just because it is effective tool does not mean it is one that should be employed.   

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Muslim profiling is

Muslim profiling is justified.

Quote:

Types of Attacks

As was the case in 2005, in 2006 most attacks were perpetrated by terrorists applying conventional fighting methods that included using bombs and weapons, such as small arms. However, technology continues to empower terrorist and effective methods of attack continue to be developed by them to offset countermeasures. Terrorists continued their practice of coordinated attacks that included secondary attacks on first responders at attack sites, and they uniquely configured weapons and other materials to create improvised explosive devices.

  • While bombing incidents increased by 30 percent from those in 2005, the death tolls in these incidents during 2006 rose by 39 percent and injuries by 45 percent. The use of suicide bombing attacks overall fell 12 percent, most notably in the use of suicide car bombers. However, suicide bombers operating outside of vehicles increased by 25 percent, and the ability of these attackers to penetrate large concentrations of people and then detonate their explosives probably accounted for the increase in lethality of bombings in 2006.
  • A new CBRN terrorist attack method in Iraq emerged in 2006. According to an Iraqi Interior Ministry explosive expert, a large vehicle-borne IED (VBIED) attack that included chemicals in Sadr City on 23 November signaled a dangerous strategic shift in tactics for 2007 that features the use of chemical weapons.

Victims and Targets of Attacks

As was the case in 2005, Muslims again bore a substantial share of being the victims of terrorist attacks in 2006.

  • Approximately 58,000 individuals worldwide were either killed or injured by terrorist attacks in 2006. Based upon a combination of reporting and demographic analysis of the countries involved, well over 50 percent of the victims were Muslims, and most were victims of attacks in Iraq.

Open source reporting identifies approximately 70 percent of the 58,000 killed or injured victims of terror as simply civilians, and therefore actual tallies of significant types of victims cannot be specifically determined. However, the reporting does yield some insights about the demographics of these victims.

  • Government officials such as leaders, police, department personnel, paramilitary personnel such as guards, were reported 20 percent more often, rising from approximately 9,500 in 2005 to just over 11,200 in 2006. More specifically, police victims were reported more often, their total rising more than 20 percent, from over 6,500 in 2005 to over 8,200 in 2006.
  • More killings of educators were reported in 2006; 148 deaths were highlighted in 2006 reporting as compared to 96 last year. Reporting of student victims increased over 320 percent to over 430 either killed or injured in attacks, and reports of teachers as victims also increased by over 45 percent reaching 214 either killed or injured in attacks.
  • Children were also reported more often as victims in 2006, up by more than 80 percent, with over 1,800 children either killed or injured in terrorist attacks.
  • More attacks involving journalists were reported, an increased of 5 percent, yet in those attacks more journalist deaths and injuries were reported in 2006, an increase of 20 percent.

In addition to the human toll, 19,500 facilities were struck or were the target during terrorist attacks last year. For both 2005 and 2006, the most common types of properties damaged or destroyed during an incident were vehicles and residences, which were hit in about 27 and 12 percent of the incidents in each year, respectively. The percentage of incidents that included other types of property damage or destruction, such as those associated with energy, transportation, education, government, and other enterprises, remain unchanged at single digit levels with a few notable exceptions.

  • Approximately 350 Mosques were targeted or struck during an attack in 2006, in most cases by Islamic extremists, representing over a three-fold increase from 2005. The attack against the Shia Golden Dome Mosque in Iraq, attributed to al-Qaida in Iraq, triggered a watershed of escalating sectarian violence in Iraq.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I would have to say

Quote:
I would have to say I think the boundaries should lie where preemptive profiling starts.

Easy to say, but is it that easy to delineate?  If a group of Muslim looking young men with big jackets walked into a meeting of Atheists for the Liberation of the Middle East From The Evil of Islam (IFLMETEI), would it be reasonable to ask the security guard to give them a quick pat down before they were allowed to approach the table with the top twenty atheist activists in the world?

Before you answer that everyone is being checked, remember that they're not.  We're good at saying that we do stuff like that universally, but we don't.  The guy wearing the "Jesus can go Fuck his Mother" T-shirt gets less attention than the Muslims.  

It's profiling, and it's preemptive.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I would have to say I think the boundaries should lie where preemptive profiling starts.

Easy to say, but is it that easy to delineate?

Delineate between what is preemptive and what isn't? Well, it is the way law enforcement, presumably, operates presently. Of course there are abuses and the lines get blurred and crossed but that is a matter for the courts. The laws that are presently in place to prevent profiling should include religious profiling under the same protection as racial profiling. I just can't justify encroaching upon civil liberties. 

Quote:
If a group of Muslim looking young men with big jackets walked into a meeting of Atheists for the Liberation of the Middle East From The Evil of Islam (IFLMETEI), would it be reasonable to ask the security guard to give them a quick pat down before they were allowed to approach the table with the top twenty atheist activists in the world?

I think if you aren't checking everyone, or randomly, then, though your suspicion may be justified, you cross a line by acting on it without justifiable probable cause. There are no perfect answers and, at times, we have to sacrifice some things. When it comes to protecting freedoms and civil liberties I think safety risks are often acceptable.

Great acronym by the way. How exactly is that pronounced? 

Quote:
Before you answer that everyone is being checked, remember that they're not. We're good at saying that we do stuff like that universally, but we don't. The guy wearing the "Jesus can go Fuck his Mother" T-shirt gets less attention than the Muslims.

It's profiling, and it's preemptive.

Yes, it is and I think its wrong. Of course, I have been called an idealist from time to time so, yeah, that is what it is. I'd like to find a way for these ideals to peacefully cohabitate with reality, and I think they can, but I don't expect everyone else to hold to such optimism. I just do what I can to try and convince people to.

In the situation you've described above there's always the chance I'd end up dead because of my ideals but I don't know how to rightly justify persecution or discrimination and I can't see preemptive profiling as anything else.

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Can you at least glance over the consitution?

 

You need evidence. You can't just stop three hispanic men, do you know how many hispanics there are?

Wrong, police can stop and question anyone they think is suspicious or out of place. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects you from being questioned by a police officer.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Even if you could, what the fuck are you suppose to do with them?

'Hey guys, rob any banks lately?'

The usual questions every police officer asks of everyone. What are your doing, where are you headed, blah blah blah. Haven't you ever been questioned by a cop?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Do you know what 'probable cause' is? 

Probable cause only matters when it comes to doing physical searches or actually detaining an individual beyond routine questions. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have the power to ask routine questions of anyone and not answering or being beligerent can qualify as probable cause to search.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If the bank robbers were white males, would you be okay with the cops stopping you for no other reason?

Yeah. Might be a little pissed if I was in a hurry.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Like Vessel said, what if a group of atheists cause trouble?

Then the cops might want to look at the atheist club where all the known atheists hang out. Or maybe the Darwin Fish on the car might be someone you want to question.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The president of the Muslim association at my university was detained at the U.S border for 12 hours (He was from Lebanon). He wasn't a terrorist . How is that consitutional? How is that not profiling?

People who are not citizens of America have no Constitutional rights especially before they are on American soil. Can you at least glance at the Constitution?

Come to think of it, I was detained at the US border for 6 hours and I'm white and a citizen with a passport, in the military at the time and hadn't broken any laws that I remember.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving, I actually

Beyond Saving, I actually agree with Hamby, that there must be a line drawn, but the question is where?

For example, you mentioned 'routine questions', and yet haven't set a parameter of what steps out of 'routine', or the criteria for going beyond 'routine questioning.' 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Like Vessel said, what if a group of atheists cause trouble?

Then the cops might want to look at the atheist club where all the known atheists hang out. Or maybe the Darwin Fish on the car might be someone you want to question.

 I somewhat agree. But first, they should collect the evidence from the crime scene. Start question people in the neighbourhood where the crime took place (in case they're witnesses) etc...

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The president of the Muslim association at my university was detained at the U.S border for 12 hours (He was from Lebanon). He wasn't a terrorist . How is that consitutional? How is that not profiling?

People who are not citizens of America have no Constitutional rights especially before they are on American soil. Can you at least glance at the Constitution?

If he wasn't on American soil, American authorities have no juristiction.

I'm pretty sure the border is considered American soil.

 

 

Quote:

Come to think of it, I was detained at the US border for 6 hours and I'm white and a citizen with a passport, in the military at the time and hadn't broken any laws that I remember.

 

And what reason did they give?  


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, I'm surprised you

Hamby, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet:

 

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

(for those who don't need everything spelled out for them).

 

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

What I'm really interested in is knowing where people think the boundaries ought to lie, and more importantly, why that's where they should be.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

 

 

That comment didn't give you a clue?

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pinapple wrote: Beyond

Cpt_pinapple wrote:

Beyond Saving, I actually agree with Hamby, that there must be a line drawn, but the question is where?

For example, you mentioned 'routine questions', and yet haven't set a parameter of what steps out of 'routine', or the criteria for going beyond 'routine questioning.' 

Yeah, there is a line and it has been pretty well marked out by the Supreme Court. This is about as settled as Constitutional Law gets. As far as questioning is concerned you are not dealing with a constitutional issue. The Fourth Amendment says nothing about police asking questions. Those limits are in place through regular law. The Constitution only comes in for search and seizure or detaining an individual beyond questioning. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

This site is a good one for researching the subject because it has links to relevent cases. The case that has mde the most difference in this area of the law is United States v. Montoya de Hernandez where the Supreme Court created what is referred to the Terry standard. Which requires reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis. A rather vague standard but then most constitutional law is vague. Basically, a police officer can detain you if they can state particular reasons why they thought you were lying or suspicious. For example, a cop might say I thought something was wrong because his hands were sweating and his voice was high pitched.

Quote:

If he wasn't on American soil, American authorities have no juristiction.

I'm pretty sure the border is considered American soil.

The border is actually rather fuzzy. Yes it is under American control but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution applies differently to the border. The government has the right to search anyone or anything coming across the border without probable cause or extended demonstration.

Quote:

And what reason did they give?  

None at first. They thought I looked suspicious and thought I might have drugs on me. Probably because I was a bit of a smartass to the customs agent.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
To finally get around to

To finally get around to responding to the OP, I believe profiling is not a bad thing all the time and is an integral part of law enforcement even when based on race, age or gender. Now before everyone starts calling me a biggot, let me explain there is a huge difference between profiling and harrassing a sector of the population. Like it or not, certain crimes are committed more often within some demographics then others.

For example, there is a lot of statistical data that shows robbery is more common in poor communities. In America, there are more african americans and latinos in poor communities than whites. Therefore, to solve the problem of robbery, police need to patrol poor communities more often than wealthy communities. This means cops are patrolling african american communities more than wealthy white communities. Is that profiling? Yes. But it is absurd to suggest that it is wrong. The cops know where the crime is happening and know that the perpetrators are predominantly african american or latino young males. If a cop is driving around and sees a group of these young men the cop is perfectly justified in stopping to ask them some questions and check them out because they fit the demographic that is likely to commit the crime. Especially if the group is in a place where they are not likely to be on a daily basis, such as a rich white community. It is not the cops fault that certain demographics commit particular crimes more often than other demographics. If you have a problem with profiling you should focus your attention on the culture that perpetuates poverty in these groups which in turn perpetuates crimes such as robbery. It would be a waste of a cops time to patrol a gated wealthy community looking for robbers because rich people are far less likely to commit robbery on a regular basis. Just like it would probably be a waste of time for someone looking for white collar crimes to go patrol the projects.

Now harrassment of a certain segment of the population is different (and is not a Constitutional issue). If a police force is consistently coming down hard on a particular segment of the population but allowing another segment to get away with the same crime you have a problem. Perhaps the simplest example is speeding. I am not aware of any study that has shown any segment of the population speeds more than others. If cops are pulling over african americans for speeding and writing them tickets but allowing other groups to go without a ticket there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Now to specifically address the news article, the LAPD is walking a tightrope. Everyone was quick to get mad that the government did not identify the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11 but then we get mad when they take steps to find potential terrorists. I'm not clear on exactly what the LAPD is doing or why some moron went public with a press release. I would not be opposed to the LAPD recruiting informants or inserting undercover officers into the communities whose role would be to watch for anything suspicious that might be plans for a terrorist attack. It would certainly be more worthwhile than using undercover agents to bust prostitutes which we do all the time. If an undercover agent or informant goes into a Mosque and everyone there is saying that all Americans should die then yes, those individuals should be put under surveilance. Note, the government has done the same thing with militias in Montana and Idaho and has actually prevented violent attacks by monitoring white crazy assholes.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

This site is a good one for researching the subject because it has links to relevent cases. The case that has mde the most difference in this area of the law is United States v. Montoya de Hernandez where the Supreme Court created what is referred to the Terry standard. Which requires reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis. A rather vague standard but then most constitutional law is vague. Basically, a police officer can detain you if they can state particular reasons why they thought you were lying or suspicious. For example, a cop might say I thought something was wrong because his hands were sweating and his voice was high pitched.

 

 

I'm actually Canadian, so that site is helpful 

 

Quote:
 

Quote:

If he wasn't on American soil, American authorities have no juristiction.

I'm pretty sure the border is considered American soil.

The border is actually rather fuzzy. Yes it is under American control but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution applies differently to the border. The government has the right to search anyone or anything coming across the border without probable cause or extended demonstration.

It shouldn't take 12 hours to search someone.  

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

And what reason did they give?

None at first. They thought I looked suspicious and thought I might have drugs on me. Probably because I was a bit of a smartass to the customs agent.

Did you 'get the glove?'

Those guards were pricks then, as were the other ones. They shouldn't abuse their authority. 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Did

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Did you 'get the glove?'

For the love of God, please don't answer this.  Seriously. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy

shelleymtjoy wrote:

For the love of God

huh?


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: shelleymtjoy

aiia wrote:
shelleymtjoy wrote:

For the love of God

huh?

I was being sarcastic.  Thus why I added the "seriously" bit onto the end.  I found the glove question disturbing and off-topic and I was hoping this wouldn't derail into the ins and outs of searching someone.

 As far as the OP.  I don't have a problem with religious profiling.  As stated, people choose their religion and people actually do *act* on their religion.  You don't rob a store BECAUSE you are black or BECAUSE you are young... but we've all seen how religion condones certain criminal hateful activites.

That being said, I see many flaws in profiling.  Specifically that it causes law enforcement to overlook others and religion isn't apparent when you aren't wearing a jesus piece, burka, etc...


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote: I was

shelleymtjoy wrote:

I was being sarcastic. Thus why I added the "seriously" bit onto the end. I found the glove question disturbing and off-topic and I was hoping this wouldn't derail into the ins and outs of searching someone.

Cavity searches are never off-topic.

 

But I do feel I am discussing the topic that is the limits of the profiling. 

 

Quote:
 

As far as the OP. I don't have a problem with religious profiling. As stated, people choose their religion and people actually do *act* on their religion. You don't rob a store BECAUSE you are black or BECAUSE you are young... but we've all seen how religion condones certain criminal hateful activites.

 

Like somebody else said:

Quote:

Everyone is fine/indifferent to racial/religious profiling until it's their race/religion that is being profiled.

 

 

So if an atheist group starts bombing churches, would you support profiling atheists? 

 

As for this

Quote:

That being said, I see many flaws in profiling. Specifically that it causes law enforcement to overlook others and religion isn't apparent when you aren't wearing a jesus piece, burka, etc...

 

Anybody can wear a cross/burka etc...

People aren't stupid. Your point about law enforcement overlooking others is a good one, because how hard would it be for a non-Muslim to leave behind inscriptions of Allah etc.. to throw law enforcement off track? 

 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: So if

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So if an atheist group starts bombing churches, would you support profiling atheists?

 

If the bombing of churches directly coorelated with atheism, then yes.  Profile away.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I do see the point of

I do see the point of 'routine questioning', it's a matter of extremes on both ends.

On one end, we don't want to be too extreme, on the other, we want to actually catch the damn criminals, and not worry about a lawsuit or the case getting thrown out if the police question/search someone they have a legitimate reason to.

 

 

shelleymtjoy wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So if an atheist group starts bombing churches, would you support profiling atheists?

If the bombing of churches directly coorelated with atheism, then yes. Profile away.

 

 

How far would you let them go?

Warrentless searches? Wire taps?

Would you support that treatment to profiling of other religions? 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm actually Canadian, so that site is helpful 

 

Than explains a lot.

Quote:

It shouldn't take 12 hours to search someone.  

That is what happens when you have government bureaucrats doing things. Although most of the time for me wasn't searching. It was spent running an FBI background check. I imagine it was the same for him. Piece of advice if you come to the border. Keep your mouth shut and only speak when questions are asked. The answer that comes to mind first should be bypassed and make sure you have fully recovered from the effects of any tequila. 

Quote:

Did you 'get the glove?'

No. If I did I would probably have ended up shot. 

Quote:
Those guards were pricks then, as were the other ones. They shouldn't abuse their authority. 

Being a prick is somewhat a requirement to be a US Customs agent or to work for the TSA.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymous*Coward (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
On religious profiling: are you sure?

Religious profiling, of course would include profiling of atheists. This is a Christian nation (though not yet a Christian State). With the majority of Americans claiming to be Christians, it would not be hard with profiling atheists, ostensibly for the purpose of "monitoring crime" or some other such rubbish, to pull off the later. (CS Lewis, It Can't Happen Here)

CPT Pineapple, I enjoy both your photograph and reading your blog.