From C-SPAN's 1/21/10 coverage of the Senate Armed Services Committee Review of the Fort Hood Shootings: Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) remarks on profiling and terrorism:
Inhofe: I Believe In Racial And Ethnic Profiling. So should we all.
 Earlier today, I was lying on my gynecologist’s table in a highly exposed position when suddenly she said: “You’re probably going to think this is very politically incorrect but isn’t it crazy not to profile? I mean, isn’t it clear who’s doing what?” I immediately shot straight up and engaged this worthy liberal in a very politically incorrect conversation. (No, she had absolutely no idea what I’ve been writing about). So: Some things are becoming clear and can no longer be denied. Not even by some liberals. Jihadic terrorists tend to be Muslims. Atheists are not blowing themselves up nor are Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Ba’haii or Zoroastrians. Not all Muslims are terrorists; but these days, all terrorists seem to be Muslims. Terrorists and their handlers are not all motivated by poverty and suffering. Many are often wealthy and educated men. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian double agent who recently blew himself up along with seven American CIA operatives in Afghanistan, was a 32 year-old physician. A physician—not a madrassa trained slum dweller. He is now being linked to Al Qaeda in Pakistan. On video, he said: “ We will never forget the blood of our emir, Baitullah Mehsud. We will always demand revenge for him inside America and outside.” (Al-Balawi was shown meeting with the Pakistani Taliban/Al Qaeda and vowing revenge for the death of their leader). Our own homegrown jihadic terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, (a Palestinian-American), is also a physician, a psychiatrist in fact. He had money, independence, prestige. His massacre at Fort Hood was not motivated by illiteracy, poverty, or war-related trauma. Many Westerners find it difficult to accept that a religious war has been declared against the West; that jihadists are ready to die, wave after wave of them, in order to ensure that our way of life is destroyed.
Their ideal is Islamic supremacy (only Muslims will rule because they are “superior”) and they want to return to a seventh century way of life, albeit one with cellphones, the internet, and nuclear weaponry. Moderate, peaceful Muslims certainly exist—but how many are willing to stand up to the jihadists? For example, according to the AP, only 50 Muslims showed up for a “Muslims Against Terrorism” rally outside the federal courthouse in Detroit where the Christmas Day crotch-bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was being arraigned. Although the local Detroit press estimated that there were 150 protestors there—this is still a very small showing given that Detroit and its suburbs are also known as “Dearbornistan” and boast the largest Muslim community in the United States. How many European-Muslim leaders protested the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo Von Gogh, the character assassination of Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ore the recently attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist? How many Muslim religious leaders in Egypt protested the Orthodox Christmas Day shooting of Coptic Christians as they left church? Or protested the abductions, forced conversions, and the hastily arranged marriages of Coptic Christian female children to Muslim adult males? How many Muslim religious leaders have issued fatwas against the Islamic regime of Iran for its heart stopping persecution of Iranian dissidents? Too few, if any. The danger of not standing up early enough is that we condemn ourselves to a higher body count. If we refuse to (behavior) profile now—we must accept that more airports and airplanes will be blown up, more cities held hostage, Mumbai-style.
And, those of us who travel frequently will all have to spend a good part of the rest of our lives standing on line at the airport. And, eventually, at the boat dock, or at the train or bus station. Phyllis Chesler 
 To be sure, after a few initial misguided statements, Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today's idiotic random screening and toward, yes, a measure of profiling -- i.e., focusing on the population most overwhelmingly likely to be harboring a suicide bomber. Obama also sensibly suspended all transfers of Yemenis from Guantanamo. Nonetheless, Obama insisted on repeating his determination to close the prison, invoking his usual rationale of eliminating a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. Imagine that Guantanamo were to disappear tomorrow, swallowed in a giant tsunami. Do you think there'd be any less recruiting for al-Qaeda in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London? Jihadism's list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions. Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom -- in 1492. This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo? Nevertheless, Obama will not change his determination to close Guantanamo. He is too politically committed. The only hope is that perhaps now he is offering his "recruiting" rationale out of political expediency rather than real belief.
With suicide bombers in the air, cynicism is far less dangerous to the country than naivete. Read more at TownHall
 The attempted bombing of Delta/Northwest 253 on Christmas Day was not the first from the Islamic terrorists nor will it be the last. Since I am a pilot, I have had people ask what can a passenger do onboard an airplane to help thwart a terrorist attack. Having personal experience with a few events myself, as well as reading articles and hearing stories from other crewmembers, I can give you some information which might assist you in dealing with a suspicious passenger or situation.
The first thing to realize is that there are a few different scenarios which the terrorists could be using on your particular flight. (Also realize that it could happen on any flight, not just one originating from a non U.S. location.)
Options include testing TSA and law enforcement personnel, testing passengers and crewmembers, observation, dry run/practice, and actual execution of an attack. Of course it is hard to differentiate which scenario is playing out until after your flight lands, but it might assist you in recognizing the threat and knowing how serious your reaction should be if you know all of the options. In most of these instances, their job is to also scare you.
Terrorists create terror. If you stop flying, they win. So be pro-active. Maybe something you do will cause them to call off the attack.
As a passenger you must be observant and vigilant. Most often someone notices some unusual activity or behavior. It doesn’t have to be just a person either. Suspicious bags, luggage, packages, notes, pillows, and electronic devices have been found on planes. One of the biggest advantages you have is the ability to profile. TSA refuses to do the obvious thanks to political correctness.
Everyone knows who is committing these attacks -- Muslim, Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 40. Maybe al Qaeda is trying to recruit others than don’t fit this profile but it sure fits the mold right now.
Some things to look for: groups or pairs of men, a passenger talking to themselves, speaking Arabic, watching crewmembers (this is different than looking), staring at the cockpit door, long stays or multiple trips to the lavatory, reading a book but not turning any pages, nervousness, being unusual by trying to fit in, taking pictures/videos, not making eye contact.
When you are at the boarding area and on the plane if you notice a suspicious passenger, look for others. How many? If it is one or two then they could be planning on bombing the aircraft or just making observations of crew procedures. 6 or more? Then this cell’s objective would be hijacking the plane by brute force. Also remember that there are sleepers that try to blend in with the other passengers and could be very hard to notice.
A website reports a well-dressed man in custody that was also a passenger on Delta Flight 253. After an incident, your entire plane might be delayed for security and they will treat everyone as suspects. Also expect the government and airline to try to cover up parts or all of an event.
A recent example of a possible test occurred on Nov 17 with an Airtran flight from Atlanta to Houston. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane and caused a big disturbance and ended with passengers assisting the flight attendants in the commotion. TSA was called, they took the men off, talked to them, and put them back on.
The crewmembers walked off the plane refusing to fly it, and then passengers walked off as well. The terrorists tested the TSA and passengers but probably also threatened lawsuits to the government and Airtran.
This could be setting up a later mission with hopes the TSA and airline would be afraid to take them off the plane. Just like the Delta flight, the final layer of security, the crewmembers and passengers, are the ones who might have prevented an attack, nothing the government did was successful.
 As hands are wrung in the aftermath of the near-tragedy on a Northwest Airlines flight approaching Detroit, a conversation from London's Heathrow airport in 1986 comes to mind. It consisted of an El Al security agent quizzing Ann-Marie Doreen Murphy, a 32-year-old recent arrival in London from Sallynoggin, Ireland. While working as a chambermaid at the Hilton Hotel on Park Lane, Murphy met Nizar al-Hindawi, a far-leftist Palestinian who impregnated her. After instructing her to "get rid of the thing," he abruptly changed his tune and insisted on immediate marriage in "the Holy Land". He also insisted on their travelling separately. Murphy, later described by the prosecutor as a "simple, unsophisticated Irish lass and a Catholic," accepted unquestioningly Hindawi's arrangements for her to fly to Israel on El Al on April 17.
She also accepted a wheeled suitcase with a false bottom containing nearly 2kg of Semtex, a powerful plastic explosive, and she agreed to be coached by him to answer questions posed by airport security. "What is the purpose of your trip to Israel?" Recalling Hindawi's instructions, Murphy answered, "For a vacation." "Are you married, Miss Murphy?" "No." "Travelling alone?" "Yes." "Is this your first trip abroad?" "Yes." "Do you have relatives in Israel?" "No." "Are you going to meet someone in Israel?" "No. "Has your vacation been planned for a long time?" "No." "Where will you stay while you're in Israel?" "The Tel Aviv Hilton." "How much money do you have with you?" "Fifty pounds." The Hilton at that time costing at least pound stg. 70 a night, he asked: "Do you have a credit card?" "Oh, yes," she replied, showing him an ID for cashing cheques. That did it, and the agent sent her bag for additional inspection, where the bombing apparatus was discovered. Had El Al followed the usual Western security procedures, 375 lives would surely have been lost somewhere over Austria. The bombing plot came to light, in other words, through a non-technical intervention, relying on conversation, perception, common sense, and (yes) profiling. The agent focused on the passenger, not the weaponry. Israeli counter-terrorism takes passengers' identities into account; accordingly, Arabs endure an especially tough inspection. "In Israel, security comes first," David Harris of the American Jewish Committee explains. Obvious as this sounds, over-confidence, political correctness, and legal liability render such an approach impossible anywhere else in the West. In the US, for example, one month after 9/11, the Department of Transportation issued guidelines forbidding its personnel from generalising "about the propensity of members of any racial, ethnic, religious, or national origin group to engage in unlawful activity." (Wear a hijab, I semi-jokingly advise women wanting to avoid secondary screening at airport security.) Worse yet, consider the panicky Mickey-Mouse and embarrassing steps the US Transportation Security Administration implemented hours after the Detroit bombing attempt: no crew announcements "concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks," and disabling all passenger communications services. During a flight's final hour, passengers may not stand up, access carry-on baggage, nor "have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap". Some crews went yet further, keeping cabin lights on throughout the night while turning off the in-flight entertainment, prohibiting all electronic devices, and, during the final hour, requiring passengers to keep hands visible and neither eat nor drink. Things got so bad, the Associated Press reports, "A demand by one flight attendant that no one could read anything elicited gasps of disbelief and howls of laughter." Widely criticised for these Clousseau-like measures, TSA eventually decided to add "enhanced screening" for travellers passing through or originating from 14 "countries of interest" as though one's choice of departure airport indicates a propensity for suicide bombing. The TSA engages in "security theatre" bumbling pretend-steps that treat all passengers equally rather than risk offending anyone by focusing, say, on religion. The alternative approach is Israelification, defined by Toronto's Star newspaper as "a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death". Which do we want, theatrics or safety? Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org ) director of the Middle East Forum and Taube fellow at the Hoover Institution, has super-elite status at two airlines. The Australian
 American authorities announced that as of Monday, anyone traveling from or through nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism — as well as "other countries of interest" — will be required to go through enhanced screening techniques before boarding flights. The Transportation Security Administration said those heightened security measures would include full-body pat-downs, carryon bag searches, full-body scanning and explosive detection technology. The U.S. State Department lists Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. The other countries whose passengers will face enhanced screening include Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. The new measures followed the arrest of a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to set off an explosive device on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. Germany announced increased security at all airports following the failed Christmas Day attack, but authorities on Monday said no further measures have been taken since. U.S. officials in Washington said the new security measures would be implemented Monday but there were few visible changes on the ground in Europe, which has thousands of passengers on hundreds of daily flights to the United States. Large hubs such as London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt alone account for 20-30 trans-Atlantic flights a day each. In Britain, a major international transport hub, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation said he was still trying to decipher the practical implications for Britain of the new U.S. rules. He refused to give his name due to the sensitivity of the subject. In Switzerland, authorities were studying the new U.S. security measures, but so far the old controls were still in place, said Jean-Claude Donzel, spokesman for Swiss International Air Lines. And a security official in Spain, who spoke on condition on anonymity in line with agency rules, said U.S.-bound passengers from countries on the new watch list were not being singled out for body frisks. Muslim advocacy groups bristled at the new TSA rules and urged the agency to consider alternatives. “It comes pretty close to across-the-board profiling of Muslim travelers,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic relations, adding that it would unfairly single out not just foreigners but Muslim Americans traveling to see their families in the selected countries. “It only serves to alienate those whose hearts and minds we’re trying to win.” Alejandro Beutel, government liaison for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said the ruling would cast such a wide net as to ultimately be ineffective. “We do see this as profiling, and profiling is very poor policing,” he said. Elsewhere in the world, there has been a general ramping up of security since Christmas. In Jordan, a key U.S. ally, security was beefed up at Amman's main international airport since the Christmas Day bombing attempt. An official at Queen Alia International Airport said "enhanced techniques" were being applied, especially in screening passengers bound for the United States. He declined to elaborate. Pakistan's national airline said it was intensifying security checks for U.S.-bound passengers, even though there are no direct flights to the States from Pakistan. Screening was also stepped up for those flying to the U.S. from other parts of Asia and the Middle East. "It is beyond my imagination what more they could do," said Nadim Umer, 40, a Karachi-based linen merchant who said he was subjected to a strip search when he arrived in New York last June. "Those who are dying to go to America at any cost can put up with all this inhuman behavior, but I cannot." A spokesman for Pakistan International Airlines said the company began applying the new security standards Jan. 1 on U.S.-bound passengers. Sultan Hasan said the passengers are subjected to special screening, including full body searches, in a designated area of the departure lounge. He said the airline had run advertisements in newspapers to warn prospective passengers of the increased safety measures. maintaining strict security standards at all airports for all flights. "We are already carrying out all possible security arrangements at our airports which can be compared with any Western airport," Pervez George, spokesman for Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority. "Safety of the airliners and passengers as well as security at the airports is a top priority and we are maintaining it irrespective where the flight is going." In South Korea, an official at Seoul's Incheon International Airport, Lee Ji-hye, said U.S.-bound passengers are now required to go through additional security before boarding their flights, and security officials also compile lists of "suspicious" passengers to monitor based on their nationalities, travel patterns and ticket purchases. Australian Transport Ministry spokeswoman Moksha Watts said all passengers flying to the U.S. would continue to be patted down and have all their cabin luggage searched. Baghdad's International Airport already has extremely tight security, with passengers having their luggage sniffed by dogs and getting patted down before entering the airport. "Our security procedures at the airport are more intensified than that in any other airport in the world," said security official Umran Idris. Maayan Malkin, spokeswoman for Israel Airports Authority, declined to discuss security arrangements. The Ben-Gurion International airport is considered one of the safest in the world. FoxNews
 A Muslim MP has opened up divisions within the Islamic community by saying it is reasonable for Muslims to be singled out for extra airport security measures following the Detroit bomb attempt.
Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said it had become necessary to 'profile' passengers from certain racial and religious groups in order to weed out possible terror suspects.
He said: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community.
"I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety.
"If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay.
"The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims."
Muslim opinion on the subject was split yesterday, with some groups objecting to any such move for fear of alienating large sections of the community.
Massoud Shadjareh, the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "It's not true that all terrorists are Muslims.
"Any such measure would not only alienate people, it would also be ineffective in terms of stopping terrorists. What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?"
However, many British Muslims now agree with Mr Mahmood.
(more)
Source: Daily Telegraph
With thanks to Islam in Europe
 by Newt Gingrich After the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, it is time for Americans to demand effective anti-terrorist actions.
Over eight years after 9/11 and 30 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the United States embassy and the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, Washington is still avoiding being intellectually honest about the war we are in.
Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent. America is long overdue for a serious global strategy that includes targeting threats such as the terrorist killer at Fort Hood, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan. The scale, persistence and sophistication of the enemy requires an honesty, a clarity, and a scale appropriate to the response. Once again, instead of targeting the source of the threats, our politically correct government decides to make life more miserable for the travelling public by imposing hopelessly meaningless rules such as not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hour of the flight. Bound by cultural sensitivities, the default reaction of the bureaucracy is to review the procedures and wring its hands ineffectively. Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.Before a lot more Americans are killed we must acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.It is time to be honest about what we know. We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them). We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.We know how to identify these enemies but our elites have refused to do so. In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans. That must now change decisively. It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information. The United States should track down the owners of every website that promotes terrorism and systematically root them out. It should be as dangerous to a person promoting terrorism as it is to execute an act of terrorism.The same should apply to the electronic communications of every known radical (and using these communications to track down every unknown radical). The people behind these websites should be barred from getting a U.S. visa if not in the United States (concurrently, we should make it easier -- not harder -- for non-terrorists to get visas because we want to encourage the law abiding while discriminating against the potential terrorist). An integrated data base for threats should have been expected, we now learn that it does not exist. This must be fixed. It should be reasonable for the flying public to have expected that when the Nigerian terrorist's father reported he was going to a terrorist training camp he should automatically have been barred from getting a visa and from flying into the United States. The emergence of Yemen as the new planning, equipping, and training center for terrorism should remind us we need a worldwide "grand national strategy" (to use the World War II term) that is far bigger than our current debate over Afghanistan. Americans should also note that ABC News is reporting that two of the plotters to blow the Amsterdam to Detroit flight out of the air were released from Guantanamo in 2007, attended an “art rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, were released and took up senior leadership positions in al Qaeda in Yemen. Americans should also know that nearly half of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo are from Yemen.The recent arrest of five Americans in Pakistan and the report there are 25 British citizens training to be bombers in Yemen should remind us this is a global war. Moreover, the report that 74 Guantanamo detainees who have been released are back in the war trying to kill Americans should stop any further effort to close Guantanamo or to release terrorists. This new honesty about the threat should end any thought of a civilian trial in New York for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad with its dangers for exposing American intelligence information. All terrorists including would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in military tribunals as part of a serious war strategy. The Attorney General and every Justice Department appointee whose law firms provided pro bono counsel for terrorists should be fired and replaced with lawyers who believe the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of terrorists. The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks (read Marc Thiessen’s column from yesterday). Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's claim that the Detroit bomber was allowed to board a plan with explosives hidden in his underwear proved the system worked is proof we need a new Homeland Security Secretary who knows we need a new strategy and a new focus. These are the first steps toward defeating the extremists. We should take them before there is a tragic attack that kills a lot of people. We have been warned. Again. Will we now act? Your friend, 
Human Events
 Look: I’m no military strategist or historian. I have spent no time in any standing army or paramilitary organization. But, as a citizen civilian I have some questions. First, what next? Are we all going to be subjected to underwear checks before boarding our flights? If so, Al-Qaeda will soon secrete explosives in body cavities.
Will we all be searched there as well? Will the time it takes to travel coast to coast or continent to continent soon approximate medieval travel times? Is there another, easier way to deal with global terrorism in airports, on trains, and on ships? Might that way involve “profiling?” If so, is it still more important in terms of western values and law that we continue to seriously inconvenience or endanger the majority in order not to collectively punish the presumably innocent-until-proven-guilty minority? What minority? Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion in the world and currently comprises 1.2-1.3 billion people. I guess I’m talking about the Muslim minority in the West most of whom are not actively involved with terrorism or with known terrorist groups. Or are they? Does anybody really know? C’mon: The minute I heard that someone had attempted to blow up a plane over Michigan on Christmas Day I did not think: “Oh, the Buddhists (or the neo-Nazi right-wingers) are at it again. We all knew that it was, without doubt, a Muslim terrorist. So, here are some questions. Why are we still allowing Muslims from non-western foreign countries to fly into Western countries? Please note: I am not talking about “race” but about a highly politicized “faith.” And, what shall we do about the West’s own homegrown Islamist terrorists? Ground them all? Why not? Why are we trying Muslim Islamist terrorists who have been captured in battle against us as if they were American citizens, fully entitled to the protection of the American constitution?
Why do we want the American taxpayer to fund the care and feeding, not to mention the expensive legal talent for all the obviously guilty Gitmo graduates? More at Phyllis Chesler
 Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that. Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman.
However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist. He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums.
He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself.
The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism. It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure. Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone?
Those who claim that such an investigation would be some form of discriminatory profiling are simply wrong.
It is not profiling to investigate someone based on probable cause. The fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim would not be reason enough to open an investigation. However, a Muslim in uniform openly discussing violence against the United States and posting his views on suicide attacks to jihadist forums should at least get a second look. Those who want to explain this away as the result of stress, workplace violence or the "stretched force" are willfully blind. Condemned Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, scheduled for execution this week for his role in killing 10 people and wounding three in October 2002, petitioned for clemency on the basis that he suffers from severe mental illness and Gulf war syndrome.
Surely someone who hunts down and murders strangers is not in his right mind, but the primary motive in both Muhammad's case and Maj. Hasan's was jihadism. The refreshing candor of someone like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the shooter in the June attack on the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., is rare. Reportedly, he said he was a practicing Muslim angry with the U.S. military for its crimes against Muslims and would have shot more than the two soldiers he killed if more had been available. This incident also was called "not terrorism." The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact.
The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is. Source: Washington Times
 Imagine going through airport security, when suddenly a man ahead of you breaks out into a pirouette. Should you be alarmed? Is he crazy or is this the latest in avant-garde dance? No, its "racial profiling" in a post 9/11 world.
Dancer Abdur-Rahim Jackson was asked to dance as he moved through airport security at Ben-Gurion International Airport in Israel last Sunday night because his name is Muslim. Security officers wanted to make sure Jackson was indeed a dancer.
"I demonstrated a few dance steps and after another round of questioning they let me go and join the rest of the group," he told the paper. Jackson also clarified that while his father is Muslim, he is not and that his fiancée (also a member of the dance troupe) is Jewish.
The incident was reported and at times criticized in the Israeli media. "The security guards should be sent home or (the airport) will become a mental asylum," said Motti Kirshenbaum, a veteran commentator and host of the Channel 10 TV program.
But should they? Generally speaking, it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to stop individuals based on his or her race, ethnicity or nationality alone. Such actions naturally raise concerns of racism and bigotry. But is our common sense aversion to racial profiling relevant when "generally" implies peacetime, but Israel is in a perpetual state of national emergency?
Israel is a regular victim of terrorism by Muslims. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. But it is a clear reminder that all terrorists against Israel, and now the West are Muslim. So, any security officer doing his or her job is looking for Muslims. It's an unfortunate reality. But Israel didn't create the bias, terrorists did. And for everyone's safety, Muslims must accept greater scrutiny.
After 9/11, Israel is not alone in its security concerns. Racial profiling is a constant issue in the West, from Germany, to the UK and the US and Canada. Racial profiling is not something that should be permitted in times of peace, but it has become necessary for an indeterminate future.
This is not to say that human rights and civil liberties organizations do not have legitimate concerns. They do. Racial profiling has a history of racism in the United States. American racism against African-Americans relating to the disproportionate road stops of vehicles driven by African-Americans has been dubbed by the ACLU as "driving while black." Moreover, the possibility of abuse of authority, or bias motivated retaliation in the name of security, is a real concern.
Moreover, the anxiety and undue scrutiny placed on the individual is unreasonable, a violation of equal protection and demeaning. Also, the profiling of African-Americans is overbroad when no context or a particular pattern of criminality is offered to connect an entire race (or other trait like religious affiliation) to greater scrutiny. For example, African-Americans are not waging a war against the state.
But the Israeli security situation and the need for racial profiling in the west after 9/11 is distinguishable. Muslims today cannot argue the same. The only common thread law enforcement has to go on at the inception of investigations related to the "war on terror" is Islam. Therefore, all Muslims must bear the burden in order to keep non-Muslims and innocent Muslims safe.
Just as the enemies for Israel are anti-Israeli Arabs and Muslims, the enemies for the west are Muslims as well. Admitting that racial profiling is necessary will allow law enforcement to articulate a policy. Israel knows who the likely suspects are and their security officials scrutinize accordingly. It may result, at times, with odd results as the dancer in the airport, but such actions keep the country safe. The West needs to do the same.
By articulating an honest profile of the enemy in the "war against terror" can we move towards a policy for greater national security, especially in the area of immigration and transportation. This will allow for greater transparency and accountability of security measures, but at the same time allow security officers to do the job they need to do to keep Muslims non-Muslims in the West safe.
Muslims need to do their part and accept more detailed security checks as a necessary and temporary need while the war on terror continues. "Special" lines or greater questioning secures their safety as well as those they travel with. Source: By Supna Zaidi
 By Stephen Brown Nearly seven years after the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration is finally reconsidering its opposition to one of the most effective counterterrorism weapons at its disposal. In the months ahead, FBI agents may be able to profile potential terrorists on the basis of suspicious traits and activities, including their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Those most likely to commit acts of Islamic terrorism will no longer be able to hide in plain sight. It is a modest step. The Justice Department insists that the “FBI is not going to open an investigation simply on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.” Still, the fact these factors can now be taken into consideration at all represents significant progress. Contrary to what one may hear from its opponents, profiling has a record of proven success on the counterterrorism front. Consider the case of Maher “Mike” Hawash. Outwardly, Hawash was an immigrant any country would want. Young and educated, a successful engineer and family man, the Palestinian-born Hawash had arrived in America in 1984, at age 20, and appeared well integrated into his new country’s society. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineNorman Mineta
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
By Lara Jakes Jordan WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups. Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike. Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation. More than a half-dozen senior FBI, Justice Department and other U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the new policy agreed to discuss it only on condition of anonymity. Read more ...Source: AP
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
