So ISIS/ISIL has claimed responsibility for a number of terror
attacks including the Brussels attack. Now there are calls for racial,
religious and ethnic profiling. Some say this is a bad thing. While others
say we got no choice. But I have a slightly different view.
Now I agree that profiling must be done.
I want ethnic, racial, religious and even ideological profiling, but
these should be the final filter after profiling people by other means.
In other words, profile people based on spending habits, is what they buy
something that is or can be used to make a weapon? If they go out of
country, is that country a supporter of terrorism? See who buys that one
way trip, and how much luggage they are carrying. See how they dress, is
it something that can conceal a weapon or a bomb? Is that person or
persons acting more nervous than normal? After answering these questions
and more, then you look into Race, religion, ethnicity and ideological views to
be the final lenses if all else fails, or they should be included with the
others if the criminal activity is carried out in an area where the population
is the majority of a particular race, religion, ethnicity and ideology.
But this will not give anyone the right to harass anyone. Instead
it will be a means to provide for further scrutiny of a selected group if said
group has people who wish to harm others hiding amongst their number.
Basically, you want to filter out as much of the people who are least
likely to be your suspect or even potential terrorist, and focus on the most
likely candidates. At this point an active monitoring system of patrols
and espionage should take place where phones are tapped to see if people in the
area are calling people in terrorist hot spots, or are receiving calls from
people who are suspected terrorists. If so, then you set up surveillance,
and other means of tracking to see if it goes anywhere, if not then you just
proved a person's innocence, if it does go somewhere, you just got a lead on a
potential terrorist network which can be tracked and then removed before they
act. At no time does racial, ethnic, religious or ideological profiling
act alone and at no time does it justify harassment.
Conclusion: Now this is if and only if all
other profiling methods are done at the same time, and if it is used to prove
the innocence of someone. At no time is the suspect(s) approached or
accosted by police unless it is absolutely necessary (if the police have reason
for suspicion, but not probable cause, and they need to spook the suspect). Basically,
no one touches or even interacts with the suspect(s) save in extreme
circumstances and if they are going to arrest them. Now this brings up
questions about a surveillance State, but that is what laws are for which
dictates when, where, how and why the "who" is being surveilled.
So profiling is not bad unless it is used to do bad things like
Internment camps as done under President Woodrow Wilson and President FDR or
concentration camps or genocide like in Nazi Germany and Rwanda. Also, it
is not bad as long as people of a community know that the police are on their
side and not out to harass or to "get them". I think you get my
position as I stand in the middle road between both sides of the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment