Time to profile

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3890

Time to Profile Airline Passengers?
by Daniel PipesNew York SunAugust 22, 2006
[NY Sun title: "Calls for Racial Profiling Increase After London Plot"]
The debate over profiling airline passengers revived after the thwarted Islamist plot to bomb 10 airplanes in London on Aug. 10. The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services — with the notable exception of Israel's — search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers.
Although there has been some progress since the attacks of September 11, 2001, most involves the scrutiny of all travelers' actions. For example, in 2003, the Transportation Security Administration, charged with protecting American airplanes, launched a passenger profiling system known as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, now operating in twelve U.S. airports.
Adopting techniques used by the U.S. Customs Service and by Israeli airport security, SPOT is "the antidote to racial profiling," TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis, said. It discerns, she said, "extremely high levels of stress, fear and deception" through "behavioral pattern recognition." SPOT agents observe passengers moving about the airport, with TSA agents looking for such physical symptoms as sweating, rigid posture, and clenched fists. A screener then engages "selectees" in conversation and asks unexpected questions, looking at body language for signs of unnatural responses. Most selectees are immediately released, but about one-fifth are interviewed by the police.
After the London plot, the British authorities instituted a crash-course in SPOT, learning directly from their American counterparts.
Building on this approach, an Israeli machine, called Cogito, uses algorithms, artificial-intelligence software, and polygraph principles to discern passengers with "hostile intent." In trial runs with control groups, the machine incorrectly fingered 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats and let 15% of the role-acting terrorists slip through.
While methods that target the whole population have general value — SPOT did discover passengers with forged visas, fake IDs, stolen airline tickets, and various forms of contraband — its utility for counterterrorism is dubious. Terrorists trained to answer questions convincingly, avoid sweating, and control stress should easily be able to evade the system.
The airport disruptions following the thwarted London plot prompted much discussion about the need to focus on the source of Islamist terrorism and to profile Muslims. In the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, "a return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats."
This argument is gaining momentum. A recent poll found that 55% of Britons support passenger profiling that takes into account "background or appearance," with only 29% against. Lord Stevens, the former chief of Scotland Yard, has endorsed focusing on young Muslim men. The Guardian reports that "some EU countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, want to … introduce explicit checks on Muslim travelers."
One politician in Wisconsin and two in New York State came out in favor of similar profiling. A Fox News anchor, Bill O'Reilly, has suggested that Muslim passengers ages 16 to 45 "all should be spoken with." Mike Gallagher, one of the most popular American radio talk-show hosts, has said he wants "a Muslim-only [passenger] line" at airports. In a column for the Evening Bulletin, Robert Sandler proposed putting "Muslims on one plane and put the rest of us on a different one."
The British Department for Transport reportedly is seeking to introduce passenger profiling that includes taking religious background into account. News from British airports indicates that this has already begun – sometimes even by fellow passengers.
Three conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, because Islamist terrorists are all Muslims, there does need to be a focus on Muslims. Second, such notions as "Muslim-only lines" at airports are infeasible; rather, intelligence must drive efforts to root out Muslims with an Islamist agenda.
Third, the chances of Muslim-focused profiling being widely implemented remain negligible. As the same Wall Street Journal editorial notes, "the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn't preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security."
Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my "education by murder" hypothesis — that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets — I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.

I keep saying this, I do not understand why this is not approached like any other crime problem, figure out the characteristics most likely to be commonly held by the most likely suspects, and search for people who fit that profile. And the number one factor that these terrorists have in common is their religion, they are Muslim. Race, gender, those are only slightly useful profiling tools as terrorists seek to find female murderers or murderers of different races to try to escape detection. There may be Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Bahai, and Shinto terrorists, but if there are, they seem to be ineffective. The danger seems to be overwhelmingly from Muslim terrorists, and for that reason it would be wise for that factor to be the primary characteristic considered when travelers are scrutinized. Since profiling on the basis of religion is 'politically incorrect" there is little likelihood it will be done. That is, until, as Mr. Pipes has said, thousands more Westerners are dead and more blood is flowing in the streets.

If airport screening was applied to everyday life.....

The Face of Stupid

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1216282006


Ever Wonder What Stupid Looks Like? Here it is Is.














Robert McGuire still carries the marks of the adder bite on his right armPicture: Colin Templeton

A HILLWALKER who nearly died after he was bitten by an adder revealed that he picked up two of the snakes so his brother could take a photo of them with a mobile phone.
Robert McGuire was bitten last Saturday while holidaying on the Isle of Arran.
The 44-year-old suffered a severe allergic reaction to the bites and had to be taken to hospital by air ambulance from a remote area of Goat Fell. He spent six days receiving treatment.
Speaking for the first time since he was released from hospital, Mr McGuire described the moment he was bitten.
"I was out for a walk with my brother Steve and his kids. We were going off to have a picnic at a local beauty spot.
"The next minute, one of the kids ran up and said there was a snake in the grass. I just thought it was a grass snake.
"I just bent down to pick it up so my brother could take a photo with his mobile phone. Suddenly a massive black snake just appeared, so I picked that up too. It was then that the second one just sank his fangs right into my hand and then the other one did the same to my other hand."
Mr McGuire told The Scotsman that he had not been particularly concerned about picking up the reptiles as he did not believe there were venomous snakes in Scotland.
Throwing the adders away, the combined effect of their venom began to take effect almost immediately as Mr McGuire's body started to go into anaphylactic shock, a violent allergic reaction which can result in death.
"There was blood just gushing out. I screamed and my brother ran off to get help," he said. "Everyone else was screaming and panicking too.
"Within a few minutes my face started to tingle and tongue started to swell up. Twenty minutes later, I couldn't talk right and couldn't breathe, then my face started to blow up and my hands started swelling. I realised I'd been poisoned."
As the venom coursed through his body, Mr McGuire described how it 'went into revolt', and he began to vomit repeatedly and sweat copiously: "I was sick everywhere, everything in my body just left me. It was terrible.
"My legs went, I couldn't walk, they were just like rubber. I was terrified, I thought that was it, I'd never see my family again."
Adders are Britain's only venomous snakes, but severe reactions to their bites are rare. Fewer than ten people are thought to have died from an adder bite in the UK during the past 50 years.
Mr McGuire said that his final recollections before passing out were of being injected repeatedly with hypodermic needles by the paramedics.
It was the following day before he regained consciousness in hospital, where he discovered that his whole body and head were swollen almost beyond recognition.
"I woke up in hospital, and I kept biting my tongue because it was that big. My lips looked like Mick Jagger's, they were so swollen.
"I felt dead weak and all bloated. I was like Hulk Hogan, my arms were really blown up.
"I couldn't talk and I kept wanting to touch my face because it was all swollen. I couldn't use my hands, they were useless."
"The doctor said I was lucky to be alive. He had told my family while I was being treated that they should expect the worst."
Horrified by his own appearance, Mr McGuire refused to let his family see him while he was in hospital.
He is now back at his home in Saltcoats, Ayrshire, where he lives with his wife Maureen, 37, and his six children: Kerry, 19, Chris, 17, Nicole, 11, Stephanie, ten, Robert, five, and two-year-old Greg.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1216282006
Last updated: 18-Aug-06 00:53 BST


I would say that this is the dumbest thing I have heard of in a while....I mean, this is cosmically 'uberstupid' . I don't care whether he knew, or if there are, poisonous snakes in Britain, snakes bite! Why on earth would you want to pick one up ? And for a silly picture? And the man's brother must also suffer from being in the shallow end of the gene pool since the article makes no mention of him trying to dissuade his stupid brother from doing the stunt. Fortunately the man survived, but obviously he could have died for his idiocy.

We can only hope that the children of these two idiots inherited their intelligence genes from their mothers.

Let's Get Real.....

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/15292574.htm
Posted on Thu, Aug. 17, 2006
Michael Smerconish
Skip the grannies: The case for airport profiling
FIVE YEARSremoved from 9/11, it's time to admit that profiling is not a dirty word.
Profiling is street smarts by any other name. It's the common-sensical recognition that while America is not threatened by an entire community, she is under siege by a certain element of an identifiable group, and law enforcement needs to target its resources accordingly.
The failure to profile is a dereliction of duty on the part of an administration that has otherwise been willing to incur the wrath of civil libertarians as it aggressively fights the war on terror.
Only last week, in the aftermath of the thwarted attack emanating from the U.K., did the president appear to take a step in the direction of profiling when at last, he acknowledged with specificity those who threaten our survival:
"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom."
Hopefully now there will be a long overdue confrontation of the Emperor Has No Clothes charade whereby law enforcement is mandated to ignore the naked barbarism of radical Islam. The arrest of two dozen in connection with the latest, failed plan should change that. After all, they are the same-old, same-old. I refer to Messrs. Ali, Ali, Ali, Hussain, Hussain, Hussain, Islam, Kayani, Khan, Khan, Kha-tib, Patel, Rauf, Saddique, Sarwar, Savant, Tariq, Uddin and Zaman. To a person they are Muslim men.
Where some would highlight the slight differences among them - class, upbringing and whether they were raised Muslim or converted to Islam - I see the commonalities. Equally significant is who they are not.
They are not Americans. They are not urban blacks. They are not suburban whites. They are not Jews. They are not Hispanics. They are not members of the U.S. military, women, senior citizens or young kids. At a minimum, it is time to profile by exclusion.
Some are still standing in the way. Take Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard deputy commissioner, who, on the day the plot was made known, said:
"What I would want to say, and you would expect me to say about this, is this is not about communities. This is about criminals. This is about murderers, people who want to commit mass murder. This is not about anything to do with any particular community."
Wrong, Deputy Stephenson, I would not expect you to say that. And while this is not about a particular community, it most certainly is about people within a particular community.
More appropriate from London were the observations of Max Hastings in the Daily Mail. Hastings correctly noted, "In every other area of criminal activity, we accept that some people are more deserving than others of suspicion."
He pointed out that police do not question women when seeking a rapist, don't round up short West Indians when pursuing a 6-foot white burglar, and don't arrest an elderly widow for car theft when security cameras captured an Asian male.
For years I have been advocating that the United States use this kind of street smarts in the war against radical Islam. I did not begin with any particular knowledge of the subject. To the contrary, whatever understanding I've obtained sprang from a common occurrence in connection with a routine flight.
In March 2004, my family of six was heading to Florida for spring break. At a ticket counter in the Atlantic City airport, my 8-year-old son was singled out for "secondary" or random screening.
I knew it was absurd, but I didn't complain, figuring it was the small price we all have to pay post 9/11. Common sense told me it was a terrible waste of precious resources.
Soon after my son's screening, Dr. Condoleezza Rice testified in front of the 9/11 Commission. Commissioner John Lehman floored me when he asked Dr. Rice this:
"Were you aware that it was the policy, and I believe it remains the policy today, to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that is discriminatory?"
I wondered what in the world he was talking about with his quota question. So I called Secretary Lehman and asked him. He told me that airline executives had said as much in testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Lehman faulted political correctness and said "no one approves of racial profiling. That is not the issue, but the fact is that Norwegian women are not, and 85-year-old ladies with aluminum walkers are not, the source of the terrorist threat. And the fact is, our enemy is the violent Islamic extremism. And so the overwhelming number of people that one needs to worry about are young Arab males."
Lehman was dead-on. When I reported what Secretary Lehman told me in the Daily News, I incurred the wrath of the Department of Transportation. It said I was "wildly incorrect" in my reporting, where I had simply repeated the words of a 9/11 commissioner.
Then I had a chance encounter with Herb Kelleher, the legendary, ballsy founder of Southwest Airlines. He confirmed for me some of what Lehman had raised with Dr. Rice. So I kept digging. Later I learned the specific basis for Lehman's question regarding a quota system.
Edmond Soliday, former head of security for United Airlines, testified before the 9/11 Commission that "a visitor from the Justice Department who told me that if I had more than three people of the same ethnic origin in line for additional screening, our system would be shut down as discriminatory."
Soliday clarified his comments to investigative author Paul Sperry when he said that it was actually the assistant general counsel of the DOT. Soliday said the man "told me that if I had more than three people of the same ethnic origin in line for additional screening, our system would be shut down as discriminatory."
The DOT viewed any human profiling as discriminatory, even if it is based on statistical probability. As a result, Soliday said that United "loaded up the system with randoms to make it mathematically impossible to get three ethnics in line at the same time," including "soccer moms, Girl Scouts, and even little old ladies with walkers."
And there you have it, the origin of a PC policy that has hindered our ability to protect the skies on 9/11 and through today.
What I have learned since 9/11 about the absence of profiling in America's war on Islamic fascism has filled two books that I have authored. Since 9/11 we have seen the Madrid train bombings, the Bali nightclub bombings, London bombings on 7/7 and the most recent threat of a terror attack in the U.K.
My thesis remains unchanged. We are threatened by individuals who largely have race, gender, religion, ethnicity and appearance in common. To the extent we do not take that information into account as we seek to prevent a repeat of 9/11, we are still flying blind.
The president has finally acknowledged that some in a particular community seek to kill us. Hopefully his comments will set the tone for what is to come because his administration needs a mind-set change.
I say it's nice to philosophize about American peace, love and understanding, but right now we have a more important agenda. Like winning the war against radical Islam so that we are still around to engage in such dialogue when the dust settles.
Michael Smerconish is the author of "Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11" and "Muzzled: From T-Ball to Terrorism - True Stories that Should Be Fiction."

I still can not believe that the government keeps giving the same level of scrutiny to all people. Almost a sort of comical "equal opportunity harassment" of everyone, except there is nothing comical about a failure to discover who are the terrorists among us. The absurdity of this even handed scrutiny procedure is highlighted as Mr. Smerconish suggests, by looking at the way police investigate potential criminals. Police determine a profile for whom they suspect may have committed a crime in question. That does not mean necessarily that there is no suspicion of any one else, but it does mean that based on their investigation, they suspect a person, or persons, who fit that profile is most likely to have been involved in the crime.

Why isn't this 'Criminal Justice 101' precept applied to finding terrorists? Not all Muslims are terrorists. Let me say that again, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Unfortunately though, the overwhelming, vast majority of people associated with terrorism recently are Muslims. They SAY they are Muslims and are doing the terror acts for their religion, so I take them at their word on this. Therefore, shouldn't our finite resources focus on the most likely people to commit terrorism at this point, Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40? It is foolhardy to disregard the most salient factor in common amongst most of the terrorists at this time, their religion, ( Islam) and pretend that all religious groups have an equal propensity for terrorism. Until we become less concerned about being "politically correct" in our views of religions and more concerned with discovering terrorists intent on slaughtering as many of us as they can, we are only playing at a deadly game. A game which we will, sooner or later, lose.

Fish Spears Man

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060725/NEWS/107250168

News
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Last modified: July 24. 2006 11:34PMSpeared fisherman recovering after surgery

By Sam Strangeways
An angler who narrowly escaped death after he was speared by a giant blue marlin and knocked out of his boat was still recovering in hospital last night – but his father said he expected him to return to sea as soon as he could.Ian Card was left with a fist-sized chest wound and underwent emergency surgery after the hooked creature struck him during an international sports fishing tournament on Saturday morning.His mother Elizabeth told The Royal Gazette yesterday that he was still very uncomfortable and was not accepting many visitors at the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital.His father Alan, who was captaining the boat while Ian acted as mate, said he could see no reason why the 32-year-old would stop fishing following the freak accident during the Sea Horse Anglers’ Club Bill Fish Tournament. “I would be most amazed if it had that effect,” said Mr. Card, 58, of Somerset.“It’s like falling off a horse; you get right back on. I don’t know how long it will take him to be well enough. He’s in pain and he’s a little bit groggy but other than that he seems to be okay.”The marlin – estimated to weigh 800 pounds and to measure 14 feet in length ( my emphasis) – was cut loose from angler Leslie Spanswick’s line after Ian was pulled to safety from the sea. “We have to go out there and retrieve the lure we lost,” joked Mr. Card, who operates his 40-foot charter fishing vessel Challenger with his son.Edwin Hawn, from Texas, the winner of the Sea Horse tournament – who bagged a 532-lb blue marlin and won the top prize of $78,000 on Sunday – has offered to donate some of his prize money to Ian to help him while he cannot work aboard Challenger. Meanwhile, another competitor picked up a special prize from contest organisers for rushing to help the Cards.Tournament producer Dan Jacobs said American physician Peter Watson, who was fishing on his boat, the Anita Jean, immediately offered his services when he heard the distress call on the radio.“He stopped fishing and ran in as fast as his boat would go to provide any assistance,” said Mr. Jacobs. “That’s an incredible act of sportsmanship and care for his fellow man.”Mr. Jacobs presented Dr. Watson, from North Carolina, with a marine chronometer watch and limited edition art print at the tournament prize giving at Square One, Hamilton, on Sunday evening.The tournament attracted 30 boats, many from the US. It forms part of the Bermuda Triple Crown Bill Fish Championship 2006.

Talk about a weird item....if I hadn't seen this in several news reports from reputable sources I'd have thought it was a hoax. I had no idea that these fish were so large, nor that they are capable of spearing a human. Mr. Card is lucky to have survived the attack.
And as far as I am concerned, one more good reason to stay away from the ocean.

Multicultural Mishmash Alive and Well in Britain Too

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2292741,00.html
Schools told it's no longer necessary to teach right from wrongBy David Charter, Chief Political Correspondent
Join the debate
SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.
NI_MPU('middle'); Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.
The draft also purges references to promoting leadership skills and deletes the requirement to teach children about Britain’s cultural heritage.
Ministers have asked for the curriculum’s aims to be slimmed down to give schools more flexibility in the way they teach pupils aged 11 to 14.
Ken Boston, the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), set out the proposed new aims in a letter to Ruth Kelly, when she was the Education Secretary.
The present aims for Stage 3 pupils state: “The school curriculum should pass on enduring values. It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong.”
The QCA’s proposals will see these phrases replaced to simply say that pupils should “have secure values and beliefs”.
The existing aims state that the curriculum should develop children’s “ability to relate to others and work for the common good”. The proposed changes would remove all references to “the common good”.
The requirement to teach Britain’s “cultural heritage” will also be removed. The present version states: “The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society.”
The proposals say that individuals should be helped to “understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world”.
References to developing leadership in pupils have also been removed. One of the present aims is to give pupils “the opportunity to become creative, innovative, enterprising and capable of leadership”. This is due to be replaced by the aim of ensuring that pupils “are enterprising”.
Professor Alan Smithers, of the University of Buckingham’s centre for education and employment research, said: “The idea that they think it is appropriate to dispense with right and wrong is a bit alarming.”
Teachers’ leaders said that they did not need to be told to teach children to distinguish between right and wrong.
A spokeswoman for the National Union of Teachers said: “Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate. Removing it from the National Curriculum will make no difference.”
But she insisted that it was important for children to understand about their cultural heritage. “To remove that requirement can undermine children’s feelings of security in the country where they are living,” she said.
A spokesman for the QCA said: “The proposed new wording of the curriculum aims is a draft which will be consulted on formally next year as part of the ongoing review of Key Stage 3. One aim of the review is that there should be more flexibility and personalisation that focuses on practical advice for teachers.
NI_MPU('middle'); “The new wording states clearly that young people should become ‘responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society’. It also identifies the need for young people who challenge injustice, are committed to human rights and strive to live peaceably with others.”
IN A QUANDARY
In citizenship classes, teachers ask pupils to discuss issues such as whether it is ever right to pass on information received in confidence and situations such as what they would do if they saw someone writing graffiti on a bus; heard friends talking about stealing; found a wallet full of cash; or saw people fighting
The current wording states that the curriculum should pass on enduring values, develop pupils’ ability to relate to others and to work for the common good and help them “to become creative, innovative, enterprising and capable of leadership”
The proposed changes remove references to “the common good”. Teachers should simply ensure that pupils have secure values and beliefs and a strong sense of their place in the world. Rather than develop leadership skills, the pupils should be enterprising


Oh brother, multicultural, values neutral education is in Britain too! I can not believe that anyone who spouts such nonsense would want to be quoted, much less that any society would take such idiocy seriously. " Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”. What? A world of relative values? In case you missed the real meaning because the carefully chosen phrase obscured it, that means there is no right and wrong. There is no intrinsic morality to life, right and wrong is only whatever each of us thinks it is. I am sure the men who planned and carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the London subway all felt "secure values and beliefs", problem is, their beliefs were to kill as many Western "unbelieving infidels" as they could. Under this proposed new system for teaching in British schools, how could we even have any problem with what the radical *Islamists have done, are doing, or hope to do, they have secure values and beliefs so what more could be said by us? This is not some sort of goofy "tolerance" but madness! If we do not inculcate in our children that there is a moral right and wrong that transcends what is currently fashionable or trendy, we are sowing the seeds for destruction of our society. The article goes on to say that the proposed change also "deletes the requirement to teach children about Britain’s cultural heritage". Where then are British children supposed to learn about British culture and society? Nowhere it would seem. I believe this is a plan to encourage a new trend towards equating all beliefs, cultures and societies as being equally acceptable. In some circles currently it is popular to profess that all values are equally valid, and all cultures equally valid too. No distinctions whatsoever. To deprive British children of the knowledge of their culture is to virtually insure that they will feel no need to support nor, should it come to that, defend it when it eventually comes under attack. If all cultures are equally valid and valuable, then why bother supporting Britsh culture over, say, Chinese culture, cannibal culture, or more to the point, over Islamic culture in Britain? Should there ever be a clash between cultures, why bother to stand up for British culture over another 'equally valid' culture ? There would be no reason to bother to resist should Brtish culture come under attack. Unfortunately for the West, adversarial cultures do not have that same vapid viewpoint of their cultures. They have some of those aforementioned "secure values and beliefs", and want to install their culture instead of Brtish culture, in Britain. And this proposed rule change will only make it easier for them to do so.