Jihad Jane

[winmutt]

Did I miss the post about this one? How is profiling going to work again?

[Butthead]

are you seriously trying to make that argument?


Did I miss the post about this one? How is profiling going to work again?

[winmutt]

are you seriously trying to make that argument?


A Department of Justice statement said Ms LaRose and five others "recruited men on the internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad".

I will make the argument that it doesn't work. Finding terrorists is all about who knows who, you track the social links, not the color of their skin.

[Butthead]

not color of skin, nationality and religion.


I will make the argument that it doesn't work. Finding terrorists is all about who knows who, you track the social links, not the color of their skin.

[winmutt]

nationality and religion.
And if they are US citizens and they don't outwardly show their religion, how do you tell?

[Karl Hungus]

That dude that flew into the IRS building recently was American and didn't seem to be religious. He seemed pretty hostile to the Catholics in particular in his farewell diatribe.

[impalanar]

That dude that flew into the IRS building recently was American and didn't seem to be religious. He seemed pretty hostile to the Catholics in particular in his farewell diatribe.

Point? There are always going to be fringe cases that you cannot do anything about. So, because you cannot stop one bad apple from getting to market you should stop all quality control procedures?

[TarzanMan]

Point? There are always going to be fringe cases that you cannot do anything about. So, because you cannot stop one bad apple from getting to market you should stop all quality control procedures?

Ignoring the larger topic, this is a pretty silly statement that doesn't address the argument the OP is making

You're basically saying: "yes, the system I support isn't perfect, and has easily exploited flaws... but I refuse to improve it or alter it because its better than not screening anyone"

The OP isn't saying that no one should be screened. The OP is saying that when you focus your efforts in a tiny, easy-to-predict area that it makes you more vulnerable in all the other ones. Jihaad Jane, the american taliban, the anthrax mailer, the unabomber, tim mcveigh and the irs pilot are excellent examples of why your screening based is a bad idea.

If you can't admit that now, then you're too blinded by stubbornness or idiocy for logic to have any appreciable effect on your opinions. Why bother arguing at all if you're convinced your right in the face of any/all evidence to the contrary? Just to hear yourself talk?

[Jector]

You're basically saying: "yes, the system I support isn't perfect, and has easily exploited flaws... but I refuse to improve it or alter it because its better than not screening anyone"


I didn't see any line where he said he didn't think the system shouldn't be improved or altered. He said it shouldn't be scrapped. I know it's a subtle difference that can only be sussed out by understanding English, so I'll give you a pass on that one.

I suppose you have a better idea of how to screen for terrorists without slowing transport/immigration services to a near dead stand still?

Oh, and I'll expect you to draft a letter to all the law enforcement institutions in the US telling them that they can no longer be suspicious of middle aged white males when searching for serial killers. Never mind that a vast majority of serial killers are whitey, logic shouldn't have any appreciable affect on catching criminals especially the dangerous, stabby, blow-uppy ones.

[winmutt]

Social networking analysis. It is how they caught Saddam. It is the only proper way to assess the danger level of an individual. Those that we don't have any info on should all be treated as semi dangerous.

[Jector]

Which brings us back to treating 99% of people like criminals and crippling transportation and immigration.

And what about serial killers? Do they use social networking analysis on everyone within 60 miles? Assume anyone in that range is the killer? Don't narrow down potential suspects at all until the analysis is done?

[likestoride]

Jihad Jane had converted to Islam.

Profiling IS racist. It would also seem stupid to ignore the FACT that there are more Muslims than southern Baptists that want to do the US harm.
Strip searching Grandma while ignoring the Iranian in line behind her just because we don't want to seem racist is stupid and ignoring the obvious.

[Dan43]

I'll expect you to draft a letter to all the law enforcement institutions in the US telling them that they can no longer be suspicious of middle aged white males when searching for serial killers. Never mind that a vast majority of serial killers are whitey, logic shouldn't have any appreciable affect on catching criminals especially the dangerous, stabby, blow-uppy ones.How many people did the DC sniper kill while LEO searched for a middle aged white male?

[Jector]

How many survived because they caught a middle aged white dude faster than spending their time canvasing neighborhoods for anyone who can pick up a knife? Make sure you check the nursing homes. Just because that gal is 90, in a wheelchair, and has alzheimers doesn't mean it's impossible for her to be a killer. Excluding her would be ageist and sexist which is profiling squared and therefore wrong.

Here's the problem with the line of thought that people use for arguing against profiling; it boils down to "It's not right 100% of the time, therefore it's wrong." This is faulty thinking. If statistics show that %70 of the time X type of person will have done Y action, then when Y action occurs and you go looking for X person first you will be more likely to find your man quicker. Last time I checked law enforcement gets more pats on the back for finding profiled killers quickly than being politically correct while letting murderers stay on their killing sprees for an extra couple months.