A recent FOX News Saturday guest, retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney offered a solution to terrorism on American airliners, religious profiling: "If you are an 18-28-year-old Muslim man then you should be strip searched. And if we don't do that there's a very high probability we're going to lose an airline." McInerney's solution is many things (swift and decisive, for instance), but is primarily ignorant of the US Constitution.
The FOX anchor implied that such violations would, and rightfully so, cause unrest: "That's just not going to go over, not in this country," she told McInerney, who simply declared that religious freedom and protection from such profiling through illegal searches were "part of the problem".
The reasons why such comments from a person with so little influence over the federal government, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security, is so objectionable is that they come from a person with a military background; a background that should suggest protecting American citizens, not violating their personal freedoms for, ostensibly, their own good.
Furthermore, McInerney is making a sweeping judgment against, not just Muslims, but anyone of Arab descent: How can you tell who is Muslim and who is not? There are Arab Christians, Arab Jews, as well as "white" Muslims who typically come from places such as Turkey or other nations in the Mediterranean. To put his plan into action with any efficacy, he'd have to embark upon a Third-Reich style religious audit of every citizen and have them print their religious affiliations on an ID card. McInerney, clearly, seeks to turn a religion (Islam) into an easily distinguished "race", which he does by saying "Muslim".
A much more reasonable approach than racial or religious profiling, both of which already occur in unacceptable quantities as it is, would be behavioral profiling. Such measures exist, though they do not go far enough.
Currently, passengers are flagged for many reasons, but most commonly if they are traveling alone and/or without luggage, purchased a one-way ticket, purchased a ticket with Cash or anything that might suggest they are not flying to Washington D.C. to tour the National Archives. The TSA, through it's Secure Flight program, currently has a thugh passenger and baggage screening process, however, it seems more extensive measures like full body screening, may become necessary in light of the circumstances, pending some advancements in the technology. McInerney's plan for strip searches goes entirely too far, strip searches only become necessary is the most extreme of cases where a passenger is a real, verifiable security risk.
The full body scan, essentially a virtual strip search, is beginning to see widespread usage internationally for flights bound for the US, primarily in Nigeria and the Netherlands.
McInerney's comments that "we're going to lose an airline" unless these rights are violated are not only ignorant of those rights, but that these comments are part of a different problem; the arrested development of real measures that could accurately identify terrorists.
The Lt. General's comments further contribute to a culture of fear that does nothing but endanger Americans by stimulating bigotry and perturbing the equilibrium of social order that the tenuous stability of race relations in America has settled upon.
Furthermore, by limiting his own plan to 18-28 year olds, he only weakens his own misguided plan by forgetting that most men, Muslim or not, usually live to their seventies, on average. McInerney, apparently, does not believe zealotry exists at every age. Just another reason McInerney's assessment of the situation is completely off base.
In addition to the criteria mentioned earlier currently in use, the Federal Government could increase prevention of airliner-based terrorism by putting an emphasis on intelligence sharing; the recent attack on a Detroit-bound plane could've been much more than it was, and would have completely been prevented if myriad intelligence on this man, and his operation, had been shared between agencies. This is something even President Obama has acknowledged. If not for the bravery of that airline's passengers, this situation would be a lot more precarious.
The CIA vehemently defends it's intelligence on the matter, though without the requisite passage of information, the intelligence is essentially useless. A recent article attested that the CIA does not blame itself:
"After receiving the information, the CIA worked with the embassy to 'ensure he was in the government's terrorist database --including mention of his possible extremist connections in Yemen,' and forward his background to the National Counterterrorism Center, which is in charge of compiling and integrating intelligence from various U.S. agencies, said [CIA Spokesman Paul] Gimigliano"
"This agency, like others in our government, is reviewing all data to which it had access -- not just what we ourselves may have collected -- to determine if more could have been done to stop Abdulmutallab," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano.
President Obama, his National Security reputation saved by the foiling of this attack, is now attempting to correct this informational chasm between agencies, which is certainly more proactive than McInerney's fixation with profiling, which would be costly, from both an employee pay standpoint, and from the inevitable lawsuits that would arise.
The fact is that the intelligence on these people exists, and if they had been shared, Airport Security certainly never would've allowed that man on a plane, thus achieving the same goal as McInerney's plan, but without impeding the rights of innocent people.
The false syllogism that McInerney is applying to his plan is the biggest problem with his radical view of this problem, a view that is, unfortunately, shared by many in the US, however, they must remember that all terrorists are not Muslims, and all Muslims are not terrorists.
McInerney is deliberately using inflammatory and incendiary proclamations to incite hostilities.It is simply unacceptable and irresponsible for someone of his public profile to advocate such blatantly unconstitutional and socially dangerous rhetoric into the mainstream.This is especially true since the technology exists, and is beginning to see widespread use, that does exactly what McInerney is proposing without the aid of racial or religious profiling (a full body scan takes about 30 seconds). If everyone, equally, is exposed to such increased measures like full body scans, and increased personal screening, then statistically more terror will be prevented and more terrorists stopped from boarding planes.
The racial profiling McInerney proposes does not serve his intended purpose, but fulfills a much more treacherous one; the waves of hatred and fear-mongering threatening to infiltrate our decision making bodies that could make McInerney's off-handed comments into a dystopian reality of Orwellian portent.
Comments
are you crazy? radical view? you sound like a liberal idiot. why would it be a problem to strip search muslim men? they do this in Israel, no one has a problem and they've never had an incident - grow up, stupid.
The point I take issue with is the targeting of Muslims for such treatment, if McInerney had thought to strip search everyone, since terrorism is not a Muslim phenomenon, I might not object so heavily; Increased security is obviously needed, though as I mention, a quicker, and much more effective method of intensive screening is the full-body scan.
The practice is heavily protested in Israel, however, they do not have provisions in their laws explicitly protecting individuals from religious or racial profiling in the form that they appear in the US.
Israel, additionally, has considerably more terror-related casualties on the ground that are more than sufficient to discredit your claims.
Please refrain from lecturing me on maturity, then proceed to use weak invective to prompt discussion.
I'd guess there are on the order of 50,000,000 Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 28 in the world. That's a lot of strip searching!
Wouldn't you agree that if a machine could do, in 30 seconds, what a living person could in roughly 30 minutes, without racially profiling people to determine if they get screened, is a much better idea?
With the time, and personal freedoms, saved by full-body scans in airports, everyone who intends to fly, not just Muslims, could easily be scanned, and anyone, regardless of the race, determined to be a threat can be detained.
Sounds reasonable to me. I wonder what the author of this piece thinks of racial preferences/penalties. Those are a kind of profiling as well. Of course, you can't compare the severity of someone losing an opportunity to attend, say, Harvard with someone being inconvenienced while traveling internationally.
To reiterate my previous responses and the article, I don't disagree with heightened security, though I do feel Full body scans could be more effective and less invasive, but I do disagree with the singling out of Muslims, everyone should be subjected to heightened security for several reasons, but namely because religious profiling violates constitutional values of freedom of religion; you can't visually confirm someone is, in fact, a Muslim; and the simple fact that terrorism does not begin and end with Islamic extremism, it is simply one form of a global problem.
I assume you're referring to affirmative action when you mention "racial preference", and to answer your question, I feel it has a place when applied to cases where discrimination can be proved to have taken place, not as a measure to employ minorities, only to ensure fair consideration of their credentials in, what is most certainly, a somewhat hostile racial environment, given the context of the discussion we're having.
This is not a violation of the First or Fourth Amendments at all. Presuming you are referring to the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, there is no act preventing the Muslim men singled out by this policy from practicing their religion. That is what the clause protects. Not any and all discrimination against religion. As to the Fourth Amendment, there is no right to travel in airports. People who go through airports consent to searches or they can go home. So is this law constitutional? Hardly. It is almost certainly a violation of the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses.
Boy, there sure are a lot of commenters who are willing to let the terrorists take complete control of America. If religious freedom (which also includes freedom from discrimination based on religion) and equal protection under the law have become PROBLEMS, we might as well give up -- the terrorists have already won. Those arguing in favor of McInerney's tactics are revealing themselves as a terrorist fifth column.
I beg to differ with this Chap, First of all his prediction that terrorist will bring down an airliner. I hesitate to call this crotch bomber a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who does an action to terrorize. To inflict terror. He tried but failed. People on planes will no longer stay in their seats and do nothing. So they should be for warned, we the people will try [ and die trying ] to kick your ass if you try to bring down our plane. When are we going to realize that we make these { terrorist}. Gitmo, if you were not a terrorist when you got there, you sure as hell are one when you leave. Torturing people has a way of making them hate and want to kill you. If indeed we are going to target Muslims { due to radical beliefs } then we must also include Christians. Christianity has been responsible for a whole lot of bloodshed. As much or more than Islam. You want the terrorist leader, the one guy who creates the most extremist? Try DICK CHENEY. TERRORIST # 1
What about the females? Have we forgotten the femal bombers in Israel a few yrs. ago & currently in Iraq?
Search the females.....they are more dangerous cause no one wants to do this & they know it.
Until Muslims start to condemn terrorism every day vocally and passionately, I view them as in agreement with terrorist tactics. Why are Muslim leaders not on the news every day condemning these acts and disassociating themselves from them and encouraging other Muslims to do the same? I can only draw a single conclusion. Yes, we should profile, strip search and anything else necessary to stop the insane mentality that condones and commits terrorism.
I find it humorus that the one comment from the "chap" mentions dick chaney and how we should do something to him. Why not stay on topic. Dick Cheney aint no terrorist. these people coming into my country, that i have defended and bleed for. and you say this underwear guy aint no terrorist. Well im pretty sure he just caused awhole slew full of new laws there gonna try to pass after this case, so flying in america is gonna be even more of a pain in the ass.
Let's get something straight, fundamentalist or not, all Muslims believe in the Qur'an. That book, in numerous places calls all non_Muslims infidels and advocates the killing of them one way or another. If you are a Muslim you believe in the Qur'an and you believe infidels should die. it's as simple as that.
While I don't agree with the religious profiling proposed, let's drop the political correctness garbage for a minute and admit it; it's not Methodists or Anglicans who blow up airplanes or dance clubs. It's Muslims.
Anything that can be done to curb their religious zealotry of killing infidels I'm all for it.
important reporting by Marhee. another extreme view while we screen the haystack to find the needle. how about a stringent, and voluntary, safe traveler program and screen and profile all others? not surprised this view appeared on Fox...Brit Hume just said that Tiger Woods should turn to Christianity (not Buddism) for foregivenss and career redemption. Where are the moderate voices?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!