| The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were terrible on so many levels. From the first, numbing shock of seeing bodies falling from the burning towers on live television, to the wicked exploitation of the event by conservatives for political gain, the events surrounding 9/11 for me are inextricably entwined with anger and disgust.
One of the cruder side effects was a new outpouring of racism. Chatter about how terror was unique or somehow integral to Islam - and, specifically, the brown-skinned version -- lightly categorized as a horde on the brink of overrunning the United States. Happily for many righties that vision of an endangered Anglo-Saxon empire dovetailed nicely with rhetoric on immigration, then neatly transformed into the hysteria surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate and secret, "socialist" agenda.
One of the outputs of all this talk was a call to racial profiling, kicked off by New York's resident whack job, Peter King, back in 2006:
Declaring that airport screeners shouldn't be hampered by "political correctness," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King has endorsed requiring people of "Middle Eastern and South Asian" descent to undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion.
The Missoulian jumped right in, supporting the idea (the editorial, alas, has been scrubbed from the newspaper's digital memory):
Of course, many screening measures are intended to dance around an uncomfortable reality. The primary terrorist threat comes not from the general public. Our society's sensibilities and laws, however, don't permit us to focus on that specific subpopulation because it would seem discriminatory. Instead, we screen everybody, conduct random searches and, soon perhaps, even employ high-tech machines trying to divine their hidden intentions. The broad-brush approach makes it less likely to detect a terrorist, not more.
The problem we have is that we are unwilling as a society to acknowledge that we are at war with people who are more homogenous than the general U.S. population. Because of this, using a person's ethnic heritage as one of many factors to decide if a person should be inconvenienced a little more than the 80-year-old grandmother isn't discrimination. It is affirmative action....
But...racial profiling actually makes us less safe...
Two words: Jihad Jane.
As Spencer Ackerman notes, racial profiling is "a move that would not have caught shoebomber Richard Reid (British citizen, Jamaican heritage); would-be-underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab at the time (Nigerian citizen, lots of time spent in the U.K.; and now Jihad Jane (American citizen, white as the driven snow, and we know white people can't be terrorists)."
But then, racial profiling isn't about making us safer. It's about making us feel safer. |
