Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Reaping the consequences of anti-profiling

Profiling has been the proven, effective, broadly taught and principle technique used to identify criminals and criminal behavior for just about forever.   Yes, I realize that just because something was practiced for a long time and just because it is an effective technique does not make it right.  But the use of common sense has to enter the criminal vetting process at some point.


Profiling is using common sense and reasoning ability to analyze input from our senses.  The “walk like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck” observation certainly increases the odds it is a duck.

But no, the anti-profiling, don’t-offend-anyone syndrome is the new cool.  Profiling might offend someone or some group.  This profiling taboo is also a taboo against common sense.  No more logic, no more effective screening techniques are allowed.  People might be offended.

Isn’t it too bad that Jose Schmuckatlli who claims membership with a gang of robbers, even though he personally committed no robbery, would be offended because he was profiled as being a member of that gang of robbers.  He made the choice of membership in that gang.

Likewise, isn’t it too bad that Muslims who identify with the fascist Islamic ideology, are members of particular mosques that teach hate, who happen to be male between the ages of 15 and 40, and who have written manifestos against the evil west and have expressed the hope of jihad and Islamic supremacy might be profiled.   Major Hasan comes to mind.  And thousands more just like him.

But no.  It’s taboo in the Obama administration (and likely earlier administrations as well) to profile Muslims.  Any reference to Islam, radical Muslims, Muslims, jihad, or radical Islam is prohibited in military, CIA, FBI, and State Department training.

OK, so we can’t profile Muslims.  What to do.  What to do.

I’ve got it.  LET’S MONITOR EVERYONE!!!!

We can’t offend Muslims, so let’s offend EVERYONE!  Let’s monitor all phone calls, emails, and conversations of everyone everywhere, and spend billions of dollars doing that with the hopes we might stop a bombing or two - even though the great majority of both successful and unsuccessful terror attacks are carried out by Boy Scouts?  Presbyterians?    Little old ladies who attend Red Hats? 

No!  Muslims yelling Allahu Akbar! dammit.

Let’s frisk and grope everyone at airports.  Close to home for me, let’s grab 60 year-old women with a little red pillows snugged up to their chest trying to get home three days after open heart surgery at the Cleveland clinic out of their airport wheelchair so the airport wheelchair can be searched.  Let’s not even ask any questions of the individual of Middle Eastern descent without luggage just behind this wheelchair bound heart patient because “we have to thoroughly check every third person.”  Insanity!

So, what is our nations method of choice to prevent terror attacks that come primarily from Muslims?  Offend EVERYONE.  Violate every cherished principle of privacy.  Violate constitutional protections against unwarranted searches, eavesdropping and wiretapping.  Do everything EXCEPT common sense, logical, rational, proven methods of identifying likely criminal behavior.

When will Americans be revolted enough by this insanity to demand a stop to this intolerable treatment of the rest of us?  As much as I disdain Snowden for spilling his guts to our enemies, his traitorous acts may shake us up enough to cause our government to quit being stupid.

A quote from Dante is a warning to our leaders who are doing everything they can, including suspecting and offending all of us, to maintain their neutrality to the evil of Islam:

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”


No comments: