Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Do profile; don't tell
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What do you think of John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?



In the wake of last week's foiled terrorist plot to blow up 10 U.S. jetliners flying between Britain and the United States, sensible people are reconsidering our government's stubborn opposition to profiling.

Among the sensible elsewhere are officials of the British Department for Transport, who are proposing ethnic profiling as a means of more effectively identifying potential terrorists. The predictable chorus of opposition has chimed in on cue.

The Muslim Council of Britain has warned the government to think ``very carefully,'' saying that including ``behavioral pattern recognition'' in passenger profiling would lead to discrimination. A spokesman for the council said, ``Before some kind of religious profiling is introduced, a case has to be made.'' Challenge accepted.

Most terrorist acts of the past several decades have been perpetrated by Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40. A complete list would fill this space, but following is a partial Islamic terrorist resume:

Eleven Israeli athletes murdered at the Munich Olympics (1972); U.S. Marine barracks blown up in Beirut (1983), Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked and elderly, disabled American passenger killed (1985); TWA Flight 847 hijacked (1985); Pan Am Flight 103 bombed (1988); World Trade Center bombed (1993); U.S. embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania (1998); USS Cole bombed (2000); Sept. 11, 2001; Madrid and London train bombings (2004 and 2005).

Yet we are torn. Profiling seems both un-American and dangerous in an era of slippery slopes. The paranoid leap is that detention camps are just around the bend. Thus, instead of deciding to closely scrutinize airline passengers who fit the description of a likely perpetrator -- based not on bigotry, but on evidence, history and common sense -- we frisk the elderly and confiscate toddlers' sippy cups.

Critics of profiling insist that focusing on one group will distract us from other possible terrorists -- presumably all those Baptist grandmothers recently converted to Islam. They also invariably point to Timothy McVeigh, our own homegrown terrorist who blew up a federal office building in Oklahoma City. As if one white-bred misfit -- or the occasional Caucasian Muslim -- cancels out 35 years of Middle Eastern terrorists invoking Muhammad.

For a nation that laments its lapse in dot-connecting before 9/11, we are curiously blind when it comes to dealing honestly with certain people of a certain sort. Profiling isn't aimed at demonizing Muslims; it's aimed at saving lives, including Muslims.

We learned from investigators of the foiled London-based plot that Muslims played a key role in busting the conspirators, for which the world is grateful. But the idea that profiling young males of Asian or Middle Eastern descent now would alienate those who heretofore had been helpful, as some have argued, presumes that Muslims have no interest in self-preservation.

Or that they're all so belligerently ethnocentric that they'll cease cooperating if airport security officials suddenly start behaving competently. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: What's wrong with arm bands or tatoos?
Kathleen Parker (August 16, 2006) says “we can listen to sensible Muslims like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the al-Arabiya news channel, who wrote in the Arab News two years ago what our own officials struggle to say:”
“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.''
Before ‘sensible’ Americans begin nodding their heads in agreement with this Islamic Uncle Tom and his scribe, Ms. Parker, let us first agree on some definitions beginning with the word ‘terrorist’. It is so easy—so very, very easy—to think that time stood still on 9/11 and calendars need to be reset. For American’s that may be true. But putting that day into context requires more than a sound bite reminding us to be afraid. It requires bravery—the bravery, at least, of facing the truth. And who is not brave, if not an American?
Terror is fear. Terrorism is an act that brings about fear. It is the most popular topic of this current Administration. Our president can’t even talk about what he had for dinner without a reminder to fellow American’s to be afraid. In that respect, George Bush is no FDR. President Roosevelt told America that all we had to fear was fear itself. George Bush reminds us that terror and fear lurks every where (except for weather, forecasted, days in advance, in New Orleans, which doesn’t count) and never misses an opportunity to tell us that we need to be afraid, very afraid. Too afraid to question, too afraid to remember history and, for sure, too afraid to remember that America foremost, is the Land of the FREE.
Certainly American’s are too afraid to assert that the Constitution is still the Law of the Land—despite its evisceration the last 6 years with “signing statements” (GWB—No thank you, Congress. I will do what I want.), NSA spying (GWB—Nope, I gotta do whats I gotta do, “Law” be damned!), Torture, Rendition, Habeas Corpus, Gitmo (GWB—it’s those damn Muslim Freedom haters! We have to take away THEIR freedom to save OURS!)
Does this mean that George Bush is a terrorist? He is preaching fear, is he not?
But he is not a Muslim.
His being a terrorist would depend of course on your understanding and definition of the word “terrorist”. If you are an Iraqi citizen, relative of the 30,000 (minimum, George Bush account) or so innocent civilians killed after America started dropping bombs and shooting anything that moved where you lived, you might agree that George Bush is a terrorist.
What if you were a Lebanese citizen? Suddenly a neighboring country, Israel, started dropping bombs in your city. The Israeli government declared there were bad men, terrorists, living in your country. So, they had every right to destroy infrastructure (roads, homes, businesses). Citizens, well, if they ‘supported bad men, if they lived among bad men, too damn bad. Death rains down on you. You try to flee, but roads leading to safety are blown up before you.
Is Israel a terrorist Nation? They are most certainly NOT Muslim.
But let’s move outside the Middle East and America—to the rest of the world. What about Ireland? An online encyclopedia lists over 30 terrorist events perpetrated by the IRA since 1980. Buildings exploding, innocents dead or maimed, fear imprinted on the survivors. And the IRA is NOT Muslim.
No one in America is suggesting Irish Profiling. I doubt any Irishman would be asked to deplane because his race was ‘troubling’ to his fellow passengers. How foolish to think an Irishman was incapable of terrorism based on recent history and facts. Timothy McVey anyone?
History of course is a lost art. If it didn’t happen yesterday, then who cares? Even accounts of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, or America retaliating with an Atomic bomb that wiped out an entire country (not terrorism; not even the second bomb; just war business as usual) are not compelling enough for this generation of Americans.
A discussion of terrorist acts on foreign lands, by foreign rulers, in the past, will only ever be interesting if those lands suddenly discover oil. For now, their history of atrocities/terrorism is recorded only in libraries—libraries whose business it is to report to the Bush Administration what American is reading what book.
I suppose being that my last name is AL____ and if I were check out a book on TERRORISM to write this letter, I could expect a knock on my door from Homeland Security and a sigh of relief from Kathleen Parker that they were “checking up” on me.
God knows how seditious the facts of history could be in the hands of a MUSLIM! (or for the record, someone with an Arabic surname, religion not stated. Religion not cared for. No wait—Religion distained and scorned. And pretty white looking, too. Sneaky enough to slip past Muslim only lines at airports, Kathleen, I might even be on the seat next to you on your next flight and you wouldn’t even know it ...)
I won’t bore the reader with current accounts of terrorism from the continents of Africa or Asia, as their citizens are not white, not sitting on oil and pretty much a big YAWN despite reports of entire Nations being decimated by AIDS or Genocide. Not nearly as interesting as the 3000 + Americans who died when a handful of Muslims flew planes into some buildings.
I guess the real story there is how crafty those Muslims were, getting past NORAD and into the Pentagon, the most heavily guarded building on the planet, two hours after attacking New York. While our President sat in Florida. And then flew around the Country hiding. Of course, any thinking American might wonder, really, how that happened.
But seriously thinking about how that happened is so much harder than proposing special lines at airports for “Muslims”. By the way, what about blond haired, blue eyed Muslims? Granted, they are a minority, but still, it only took a dozen or so to hold this nation hostage on 9/11 for over 2 hours! What if they have a reserve on hand that LOOK LIKE US? How can we profile the enemy within?
And that, of course, is the point. Go on America--require Muslims to wear arm bands at airports. Make them stand in special lines. Have a color bar to distinguish them from those poor Hispanic sons of bitches (only here to Steal Our Jobs! Or wait, the jobs we won’t take because they won’t support my life style!) from the Arabic Muslims.
Don’t ask why Saudi Arabia is a “friendly nation” (best friends with GW!) despite all those terrorists on 9/11 being from KSA. They get to the front of the line, courtesy of Bust et al. Just like on 9/11.
Maybe there could even be an “Arian” line, quick pass, no screening, cocktails on the house, shooting range practice in the lounge, for an extra $50, ride with a real live Air Marshall!
Then a questionable line (“Swarthy/Foreign looking”) Italians, etc.
Blacks: “Just Because” would be good too, for an extra drug sniffing canine. Oh, and Columbians. (Or are we still even bothering with the War on Drugs now that we have the War on Terror?)
What about ½ breeds and all that? What percentage of “Muslim” blood would require someone to stand in your special line? Who would get pulled out? Genetic ½ Muslim “gave his heart to Jesus” and is reading “James Dobson” on his way to a Promise Keepers Conference, OR Raised Catholic and converted to Islam, ran off to Afghanistan, hand wringing mid western parents on hand...?
And finally the Real Deal: Brownish, Arabic Muslim Males. How about if we not only tag them with a required arm band, but have them fly naked? Totally, butt assed naked (with a numbered armband, of course), chained in a special “Muslim Male” class? (Cargo? Could we? Why not?)
Would the world really be safe then, Ms. Parker? Would you feel perfectly safe on planes with such a system in place?
Of course, we still wouldn’t screen baggage...but I am sure you understood the reality of that debacle when you peddled your “Grand Idea”. How could you profile baggage?
Would war end and world peace be at hand, once you segregated all the Muslims in lines at airports? I guess it depends on your world view and what you define as an act of terrorism, doesn’t it?
If your scope is no narrow that all you can see are some Muslim men on 9/11/01 holding America hostage, inexplicitly for over 2 hours, and that alone is your definition of terrorism—then perhaps your call for segregation, in that context, makes some sense.
But only if you are non-questioning, knee jerk, prejudiced idiot. And only if you somehow can overlook Saudi Arabia’s link to this White House.
A journalist might be asking a few more questions. Certainly American’s are.