DOJ set to greenlight racial profiling of terror suspects?
posted at 8:48 pm on July 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The details are vague but it sounds like they want a two-tiered standard of “probable cause,” one for solving crimes after they happen and another, lower standard for their new mission of preventing attacks before they occur.
Or maybe they just want the lower standard to apply across the board. As I say: vague.
Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.
Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race or ethnicity…
The changes would allow FBI agents to ask open-ended questions about activities of Muslim- or Arab-Americans, or investigate them if their jobs and backgrounds match trends that analysts deem suspect.
It’s an AP story so I’ll leave the quoting at that. Eavesdropping and pulling personal data would still be off limits unless and until a formal investigation is launched; as of right now, the FBI can build “threat assessments” of individuals based on public records, but apparently there’s some distinction between that and the “preliminary investigation” that the new policy would allow that I’m not grasping. Presumably the current policy doesn’t authorize questioning suspects based on the threat assessment. Whether that means the new policy would authorize arresting them too, I can’t tell. (As I say: vague.) The feds naturally insist this wouldn’t let them do anything they can’t already do, but what you’re seeing here is the same thing you’re seeing on an even grander scale in Britain with house arrests of known terrorists who clearly pose a public threat but can’t be locked up because there’s not enough hard evidence to convict them under traditional western criminal standards of proof. The solutions thus far are novel, hybrid legal devices like control orders over there (which don’t always, or even often, work) and maybe two-tiered probable cause over here, in the highly unlikely event that five members of the Supreme Court are willing to sign off on that. Prediction: The policy will be abandoned once the election-year microscope is turned on it and the inevitable uproar ensues. And then it’ll be reintroduced and reconsidered after the next attack. Exit question: Be on the lookout for English-speaking caucasians with light-colored eyes?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Thank God I am white and do not work at 7/11, otherwise I would be worried.
muyoso on July 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Can anyone in political power in the West build “threat assessments” based on 1,300 years of historical and theological knowledge? That would be a start.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM
I’ve always thought, that to gain entry into the country, you need to be slapped in the head with some bacon. If you don’t mind, you’re in. Otherwise you are out. It’s fun and effective!
lorien1973 on July 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Sizzlin’ idea!
SouthernGent on July 2, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I highly doubt this. The “Reno 911″ cops at the DOJ and FBI who have been pushing “diversity training” won’t allow it, at our peril.
MB007 on July 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM
There will be screaming. And then when the next attack is sucessful, there will be screaming. Catch-22.
I’d hate to be charged with the defense of this country.
VolMagic on July 2, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Only if you get to eat the bacon afterwards. :)
MB007 on July 2, 2008 at 8:57 PM
The key here are the words “taken together”. If they were just stopping people because they had brown skin, then that wouldn’t be right.
SoulGlo on July 2, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Bout time.
shooter on July 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM
I think we need to retask the Department of Homeland Security so that instead of just being a hodgepodge of agencies actually does anti-terror. Leave criminal investigations to the FBI.
I don’t know, as far as catching terrorists and preventnig attacks, it seems to have been working for the Brits.
apollyonbob on July 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Err, to actually complete my thought – it works for the Brits because their anti-terror unit has a completely different set of rules, as they are not concerned with evidence or trying to prosecute the guys, just stopping the attack. If I remember correctly, I could be wrong on that one.
apollyonbob on July 2, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Ok….. Now we’re talking….. and the Israelis can teach us how it’s done.
MNDavenotPC on July 2, 2008 at 9:08 PM
What would it cost to employ the security staff of El Al to train our Department of Homeland Security training staff?
Whatever it would be… do it!
Scribbler on July 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I take it you’re not Arab.
crr6 on July 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Its because they’ve been dealing with terrorism for so long. The repulsive, evil IRA bombed Britain repeatedly 1970s/80s.
But I would criticise the Brits and especially Thatcher – whose reputation for toughness is not wholly justified – for not going far enough.
To taken for example even just the Brighton bomb (without all the other stuff) several members of Thatcher’s Tory government were deliberately murdered that day. If several members of the Bush Administration were murdered by the IRA, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would be dead.
Thatcher essentially treated the Northern Ireland situation as a police action.
But yes the Brits have tough anti-terror laws (how could they not?) as people will often forgo liberalism when it reaches the point where it clearly means the destruction of their society.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Now! the DOJ is doing this now!?
Bingo. This is like the sudden lame duck cry of energy independence through drilling. What happened to switch grass? So now is the right time to do this? Oh well, I guess at least a few months of common sense policy is better than none.
Weight of Glory on July 2, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Maybe hes an Arab Christian who is opposed to Islamic terrorism?
crr6, your attempts to win every argument by pretending your opponents are racists don’t amount to anything. You’re the intellectual equivalent of amoeba passing in the night.
If you ever deign to offer an honest argument then we’ll all be happy to debate you.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 9:21 PM
77,000,000 flights after 9/11.
Good to know they had a good sample of practice runs to get their profiling straight.
Limerick on July 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM
If I was a Muslim, I would have no problem with profiling. Assuming I hadn’t been radicalized, I would be disgusted by the way terrorists have spit on my religion and used it for disgusting acts of violence. Anything to stop them, I’d say.
jimmy the notable on July 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM
As Michelle Malkin has pointed out many times, it is threat profiling.
DAT60A3 on July 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM
The only thing you should be worried about is being declared an imbecile and locked up. And keep that “white” thing hush-hush; we don’t need more pansy stereotyping.
Jaibones on July 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM
I’m not Muslim and I’ve been profiled at an airport. Big whoop.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Wow. The security lines at airports ought to be a thing of the past now.
I might start flying again.
And just for the record, crr6, I’m a swarthy Arab with a towel wrapped around my head and I’ve never showered.
But the way I see it, better screening will cut the hassle factor for you white, black, and yellow people, AND us swarthy, stinky Arabs.
misterpeasea on July 2, 2008 at 9:27 PM
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.” Sura 8:60 (Yusuf Ali’s Translation)
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 9:29 PM
slapped in the head with some bacon..
lorien1973 on July 2,2008 at 8:51PM.
lorien1973:Are you mad,HRC in Canada might think your
besmirching Canadian bacon,tread carefully!
or,
The ACLU might slap with a cease and desist
order on besmirching the “pig”!(im kidding)
hahahah—–:)
canopfor on July 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM
The bible is a pretty violent book as well. I know that argument doesn’t hold water, but claiming that every Muslim lives their directly from the Quran is equally as naive as thinking that all self-proclaimed Christians wait until marriage to have sex. I know that argument doesn’t make any sense either, but I’m just saying.
Look at the articles Michael Totten has done lately, from the Balkan region. The countries there have significant Muslim populations whose women are completely westernized and very few of them wear head scarves.
I know this doesn’t jive with what I said about being okay with profiling, but I’m sorry, I’d be more concerned with the potential loss of human life that a minor inconvenience such as being profiled is a small price to pay for a supposed insult to my religion.
jimmy the notable on July 2, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Citizens arrest!! Citizens arrest!! Pay the fine, AP.
BacaDog on July 2, 2008 at 9:36 PM
It is a book with lots of passages that describe violence. It doesn’t say go out and kill people for all time until they surrender to your religious doctrine. Nowadays this is considered a subtle difference but really it is the difference between living in Iowa and living in Neptune – its not comparable.
Robert Spencer calls it the difference between descriptive and prescriptive violence.
In any case I do not understand opposition to violence as a concept of human existence. Violence exists, man did not invent it.
I didn’t say that every Muslim lives their life directly from the Quran.
You said:
You above statement that not every Muslims follows their religion to the letter is an implicit admission that Muslims who do engage in terrorism are not spitting on their religion but in fact observing it to the nth degree.
Its an important distinction as the propaganda campaign – waged by Muslims and Western politicians alike – to convince us that Islam is a religion of peace is a house of cards that ought to be knocked down. Muslims refrain from terror in spite of Allah’s alleged revelation to Mohammed to convert, subjugate or kill the infidels.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 9:49 PM
It’s about damn time.
If people don’t like it, they can drive to wherever they need to go. Flying is not a right.
madmonkphotog on July 2, 2008 at 10:06 PM
It was the Irish. They attacked us on 9-11.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 10:10 PM
To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are.
Holmes on July 2, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I didn’t call anyone racist. I was just making the point that a legitimate discussion on this issue would probably need to include somebody who might be potentially discriminated against by racial profiling. Like someone of Arab descent.
But my apologies for bringing up the tired subject of race in a topic on racial profiling.
crr6 on July 2, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Most Germans were not NAZI’s, but they were silent until it was too late. Most Muslims are not radical, but they are silent. I hope that they speak out before it is too late.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 10:16 PM
But we were attacked by the Irish.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 10:19 PM
“I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Quran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam,” jailed Islamic scholar Abu Qatada said almost six years ago. “Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Quran?”
No. He’s just leader of the Free World — a Free World that has become less free and more dhimmified on his severely myopic watch.
Nearly six years after September 11, nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming ‘Islam is peace’, Mr. Bush has learned nothing.
- Diana West
MB4 on July 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn hunting.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
- A_Plague_on_Both_Houses (JihadWatch)
MB4 on July 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Hahaha. Okay that is a clever and fair statement. :)
If you were interested in a legitimate discussion on this issue you might have said this in your first comment.
However your first comment read:
The implicit question here is how dare one suggest the implementation of racial profiling? It might hurt the feelings of Arabs.
There is no racial problem with Arabs as a race but the fact that a vast majority of Arabs embrace a violent, supremacist religion is a massive problem. Muslim Arabs can and should be identified racially for this reason.
And if this policy should cause one or more innocent Arabs to be unfairly delayed (as I, a white non-Muslim have been stopped at an airport in the interests of fairness) what then?
Cry yourself to sleep.
The idea that a Government’s duty to protecting the lives of its citizens ought to forgo its responsible because it might cause emotion distress to Muslims or Arabs is perverse and totally immoral.
The idea that the leaders should – or even have the right – to abdicate this responsibility is the reason why trust of Western politicians is at an all-time low and liberals such as yourself are not merely opposed but reviled.
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Worth repeating.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Great idea…sucks that it took this long. Anybody want to start a pool on how long before a suit is brought and the Supreme Court throws it out?
austinnelly on July 3, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Kind of like Hillary did back under the Clinton co-presidency.
labrat on July 3, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Soooo…they would be the consenters…right?
Exactly!!
jerrytbg on July 3, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Arab Muslims have profiled themselves. We’re just now noticing it.
Mojave Mark on July 3, 2008 at 2:04 AM
now if only they would stop releasing them!
homesickamerican on July 3, 2008 at 5:50 AM
Better get going guys, we’ve got about 6 months to Obamanation, then kiss it goodbye…
max1 on July 3, 2008 at 10:00 AM
MB4
You know, I think we see this elsewhere also, not just in the Muslim community, the removing of extremist. Obama for 6 years after 9/11 watched his church pastor and I would venture, some members, do some very extremist things and extremist rhetoric. Also, we seen an extremist on video yesterday, that hijacked a song, and hijack a celebration, to push her agenda. Everyone there did nothing, and even applauded her.
My point is, there are some very extreme things happening, and people are staying silent, so I dont completely blame those in the mosques, they may not agree with it, but they are not saying anything also.
WoosterOh on July 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM
WoosterOh on July 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM
wow. just wow. were there beheadings that i haven’t heard about in Obama’s church? I had no idea!
max1 on July 3, 2008 at 10:09 AM
From a non-Bible thumping, gun toting old fart.
Bible:
Book of stories written by man. open for interpretation. cherry picked by church. possibly re-written. Top 10 key elements pretty tame, tolerant and sane.
Koran:
Transcription of Alla’s word. no room for interpretation. verbatim from day one. Pretty darn scary for a white man.
So, when the Koran says, “kill the infidel”, I take that as some serious shit…
rgranger on July 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I saw a headline on another website today that basically said:
and said absolutely nothing about:
So now all the lefties are going nuts by claiming Bush is doing something they claimed he didn’t do enough of prior to 9/11.
The BDS in this country is going to walk us right into another 9/11.
‘
cntrlfrk on July 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Being Irish, I must correct. It was 7-11; at the 7-11, to be precise. /sarc
IrishEyes on July 3, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Comment pages: