Muslim woman removed from flight

[karan.1970]

We need to look at full statistics to compare numbers.

In many of the cases, including the ones you listed, the passenger was either flagged by customs officials (i.e. professionals) or had some article of clothing/personal belonging which contravened regulations. In both these cases, there is no debate. We all acknowledge that heightened security is warranted. The debate here is when there doesn't seem to be any cause.

See, there always will be cases that are false positives.. The key is to avoid a false negative. True positive cases anyway dont need defending. Its always false positives that need it. All I am saying is that all false positives are not necessarily Muslims.. But the ones that make it to the news headlines and debates are mostly Muslim cases.. To me it seems like a case of reverse racism..

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

Of course civilians should be vigilant.

Most (western) countries have terrorism hotlines where people can report suspicious behavior and then professionals take over the investigation.

In extreme cases of urgency, a civilian may make a citizen's arrest. However, they do open themselves up to a lawsuit if their hunch proves false.

which is fair and expected...

 

[Developereo]

See, there always will be cases that are false positives.. The key is to avoid a false negative. True positive cases anyway dont need defending. Its always false positives that need it. All I am saying is that all false positives are not necessarily Muslims..

Of course. It is, as some other poster wrote, "better safe than sorry".
The issue is whether these false positives are disproportionately focussed at a certain demographic.

But the ones that make it to the news headlines and debates are mostly Muslim cases.. To me it seems like a case of reverse racism..

You could look at it another way. In all the other case, including Mr. baggy pants and Madam photographer, their religion was not mentioned. Only in the case of Muslims is their religion identified front and center.

The vast majority of readers will not read the article; they will simply see the headline "Muslim removed for security reasons" and move on. It reaffirms the association of Muslims as a security threat, whether the alarm was justified or not.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ That is correct.

The blame lies on both sides. Some Muslims chose to make it an issue of religious discrimination as well when that may not be the case.

 

[karan.1970]

Of course. It is, as some other poster wrote, "better safe than sorry".
The issue is whether these false positives are disproportionately focussed at a certain demographic.



You could look at it another way. In all the other case, including Mr. baggy pants and Madam photographer, their religion was not mentioned. Only in the case of Muslims is their religion identified front and center.

The vast majority of readers will not read the article; they will simply see the headline "Muslim removed for security reasons" and move on. It reaffirms the association of Muslims as a security threat, whether the alarm was justified or not.

Firstly, the identification of the religion in a news headline is mostly a press/media thing and nothing to do with Law enforcing bodies

Secondly, its the same clique as an answer that since in recent times, terror attacks have originated disproportionately from a particular demographic, it will be pretty stupid not to be more vigilant when something amiss is seen in a person belonging to that demographic. The level of suspicion will certainly be higher.. Just like an unwell person travelling in from South east Asia at peak of SARS epidemic was more suspected of having SARS than an unwell person travelling in from say Europe at the same time exhibiting same symptoms

 

[Developereo]

Firstly, the identification of the religion in a news headline is mostly a press/media thing and nothing to do with Law enforcing bodies

Absolutely. There is not much beef with law enforcement authorities. For the most part they do a professional job -- barring a few aberrations.

It is the ignorant, sensationalist media which is the problem. In fact, law enforcement often berates the media for sensationalist coverage that ends up alienating the Muslim community and making cooperation and community relations more difficult for the police.

Secondly, its the same clique as an answer that since in recent times, terror attacks have originated disproportionately from a particular demographic, it will be pretty stupid not to be more vigilant when something amiss is seen in a person belonging to that demographic. The level of suspicion will certainly be higher.. Just like an unwell person travelling in from South east Asia at peak of SARS epidemic was more suspected of having SARS than an unwell person travelling in from say Europe at the same time exhibiting same symptoms

The difference is that everyone is treated the same in that case. Every person on a flight from SE Asia will be screened, regardless of their race, religion or anything else. Conversely, an Asian passenger arriving from Europe and who has never been to SE Asia will not face any scrutiny.

A more apt analogy would be when Japanese Americans were rounded up in internment camps in the US during WW2. Admittedly, things are not that bad for Muslims (although it has been suggested).

 

[karan.1970]

Absolutely. There is not much beef with law enforcement authorities. For the most part they do a professional job -- barring a few aberrations.

It is the ignorant, sensationalist media which is the problem. In fact, law enforcement often berates the media for sensationalist coverage that ends up alienating the Muslim community and making cooperation and community relations more difficult for the police.

Yes.. Some educated people get it.. But not all.. The irony is that once an alleged case of racial bias becomes hot, its this media only (that racialized the whole thing to begin with) gets in the forefront, this time lambasting the Law enforcing agencies for doing their work..

The difference is that everyone is treated the same in that case. Every person on a flight from SE Asia will be screened, regardless of their race, religion or anything else. Conversely, an Asian passenger arriving from Europe and who has never been to SE Asia will not face any scrutiny.

A more apt analogy would be when Japanese Americans were rounded up in internment camps in the US during WW2. Admittedly, things are not that bad for Muslims (although it has been suggested).

I do not really agree, since in that case every single Muslim on all flights in USA and to USA would have been stripped searched. Which is not the case. Its always a combination of demographic and reduced sense of tolerance of suspicious activity. So while all Muslims are not given extra attention, the threshold of suspicious activity which will invite special attention for a Muslim is much lower than what it will be for a, say North american or oriental. Some thing more on the lines of some one with a viral fever while coming back from Thailand vs someone coming back from Europe

 

[Developereo]

Well, you seem to be covering both angles. Before you were suggesting that Muslims are not disproportionately targetted compared to everyone else being kicked off planes, and now you are saying that it is only natural that they should be.

 

[gambit]

Your earlier statement:

What the Islamic jihadists have done was to turn ordinary garbs that are associated with muslim civilians into visual cues of war

The 9/11 hijackers were dressed in western clothes. All potential terrorists apprehended on airlines have worn western clothes. Where exactly did the muslim garbs come into the picture?

Dressed like ordinary western civilians. What part of this woman's appearance match the hijackers to justify suspicions?

You missed my point. The issue is more about distinguishing a 'combatant' from a 'civilian' than it is about the muslim garb. Certainly a muslim can wear any style of clothing he wish, but the moment he don a particular style of clothing, he will send out visual cues to everyone to tell them that he is an authorized agent of a government to do combat. We call that person a 'soldier' or a 'combatant'.

You might criticize us for judging people by their looks but the reality is that everyone does it and does it by necessity. If I meet someone who fits certain assumptions based upon visual cues, those assumptions could move me to say things like 'Yes, Sir' or 'No, Madam' and treat the person with high respect, like an elderly person, for example. Another assumption would move me to act cautiously if I see a man wearing dirty clothes, smells bad, and have a scowling face. The most basic decision that is based upon visual cues is the 'fight or flight' instinct.

Take a look again at the difference illustration below...

For the 'soldier', we have a reasonable expectation that there are very few individuals in this group and that they are easily distinguishable based upon appearance. For the civilian, we also have a reasonable expectation but that expectation is the opposite for the 'soldier', that there is a great deal more population count of 'civilians' than 'soldiers', and that they are also very distinguishable by appearance. The soldier is allowed to do certain things that are forbidden to the civilian and vice versa and the soldier is allowed to do those things generally when he is wearing those easily distinguishable markings. Basically, if you want to kill other people, wear things that says you are authorized by a government to kill other people.

You are twisting and turning to justify religious profiling when every professional will tell you that other cues are far more important.

Fair enough. What are they?

When the jihadists decided for themselves, meaning independent of any government, to kill other people and do it while wearing civilian garb, they effectively forced US to broaden our visual search criteria. I am not talking about an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan looking at all muslim civilians with suspicion. That is already happening. Am talking about ordinary American citizens looking at muslims in America with suspicion.

So all you have to do is give US what you think are credible visual cues of what a suicide bomber look like so we can make that millisecond 'fight or flight' decision.

---------- Post added at 07:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

Underpowered guerillas always fight in civilian clothes -- from the French Resistance to the South American and Vietnamese guerillas to the current Islamic insurgents.

Are you saying that these guerillas have so gotten under your skin that America has subjugated its own values and allowed the terrorists to dictate the American way of life?

Always? Let us grant you that latitude. So what if there are gross disparity in arms between sides? The Geneva Conventions does not specify uniforms as commonly accepted, only that combatants are distinguishable from non-combatants, the marking can be a coat or even as simple as a scarf that all those who would be combatants would wear, carry their arms openly, and finally all combatants should try to remove themselves as far away from civilians as possible. What give them the privilege, not yet a 'right', to be exempt or exempt themselves from those rules?

The burden for the opposing force would be to take note of those distinguishing markings, target only those who sports those markings and openly bear their arms, and finally to leave alone those who do not conform to the criteria. The burden of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants falls upon both sides.

Like it or not, what the French Resistance did was wrong when its fighters hid among the French civilians. That endangered the French civilians from the Nazis even more, as if the Nazis' behaviors were not atrocious enough already. What the Geneva Conventions said is applicable to organized armies, militias, and guerrilla forces. The supposedly 'nobility' or 'righteouness' of my cause does not grant me exemptions from these rules, if anything, compliance to these rules would make my cause even more 'noble' and 'righteous'.

The Geneva Conventions were ratified after WW II and countries that have professional militaries have largely complied to the Conventions. Whoever brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki was idiotic in that in trying to use those war events as convenient insults against what we believe TODAY, he unwittingly implied that we should return to those days of unrestrained warfare. If that is what the muslims want, then all the muslims have to do is commit more 9/11 and we will acommodate your wish.

It was because of the horrors from the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and others, and from the atomic weapons that we strive to reduce worldwide nuclear weapons stockpile and improve the accuracy of conventional weapons so that we do less harm to civilians if we have to go to war against each other. But if the muslims want unrestrained warfare, let US know, the bloodier the message, the sooner and quicker we will revert back to those days.

The problem for both sides, the muslims and US infidels, is that the jihadists have made it public they will not comply to modern accepted rules of warfare. In doing so, they gave US the option of relieving ourselves of the burden of trying to distinguish muslim combatants from muslims civilians in this religous war. So far we have yet to exercise that option. You may argue that the jihadists do not 'speak' for the muslims, but that is no comfort to the victims of their preferred methods of warfare. Look at the recent suicide bombings, on foot and on car, in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghaninstan. Not only have the jihadists spoke for the muslims, they acted for all of you as well.

 

[Developereo]

You might criticize us for judging people by their looks but the reality is that everyone does it and does it by necessity.

No, my point was the focus on certain aspects of the look -- i.e. religion -- as opposed to established cues for identifying suspects. Your example of enemy combatants, while true, does not apply to the situation we are discussing, which is hijacking civilian airliners. No terrorist in their right mind is going to give away his intentions by dressing inappropriately or broadcasting his ideology -- religious or otherwise. It is the behavioral cues you have to look out for.

Fair enough. What are they?

Usual indicators of nervousness: shifty eyes, not making eye contact, fidgety hands, sweating, aniety, evasive answers, obsession with specific personal belongings, etc. I am sure the professionals know a dozen more.

Of course, any one of these by itself doesn't mean anything. It's all about cumulative effect.

That is already happening. Am talking about ordinary American citizens looking at muslims in America with suspicion.

Precisely. You are begging the question.

The issue isn't how to detect Muslims, but whether this generalization is warranted in the first place. You are assuming/justifying that it is, and then describing its consequences.

Your argument to justify this generalization is that the jihadists violate the Geneva Conventions so now you have no choice but to cast a wide net. However, the same logic did not apply in other cases like South American guerillas ostensibly fighting for Latinos, or abortion clinic bombers ostensibly representing Christians.

In doing so, they gave US the option of relieving ourselves of the burden of trying to distinguish muslim combatants from muslims civilians in this religous war. So far we have yet to exercise that option.

One might argue that the drone strikes do precisely that. The US has not declared war on Pakistan, so the areas bombed do not constitute a theater of war -- exempt from normal precautions.

 

[karan.1970]

Well, you seem to be covering both angles. Before you were suggesting that Muslims are not disproportionately targetted compared to everyone else being kicked off planes, and now you are saying that it is only natural that they should be.

Not really.. I am simply saying that such incidents are not restricted to Muslims only.. The need for heightened security has reduced the threshold of suspicion to a great degree.. However the cases where this happens to Muslims, there is a lot of hue and cry about racial targeting. And also its natural that in a sampling strategy, its natural that a particular demographic, which has a higher probability of causing a terror event (based on past incidents) will get more attention.. However in my view this is not racism, but simply sound screening practices..

 

[Developereo]

a particular demographic, which has a higher probability of causing a terror event (based on past incidents) will get more attention..

But that is the whole debate. This demographic is being defined too broadly to include 1.2 billion people. That's no way to catch criminals.

The focus should be on behavior, not religion. All the potential terrorists who have been caught have been done so by observing strange behavior, not because they were reciting the Quran. All the incidents where Muslims were targetted for Islamic behavior, e.g. praying at an airport, turned out to be false alarms.

 

[karan.1970]

But that is the whole debate. This demographic is being defined too broadly to include 1.2 billion people. That's no way to catch criminals.

The focus should be on behavior, not religion. All the potential terrorists who have been caught have been done so by observing strange behavior, not because they were reciting the Quran. All the incidents where Muslims were targetted for Islamic behavior, e.g. praying at an airport, turned out to be false alarms.

Which brings me back to the point that had all Muslims been defined as high risk, then all muslims travelling on planes would have faced special screening which is not the case. Also, apart from screening process, there is also human behavior to factor in.. As I said before, the threshold for suspicious activity today is much lower for the said demography than it is for the rest of the world.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

But that is the whole debate. This demographic is being defined too broadly to include 1.2 billion people. That's no way to catch criminals.

Plus, you can never really tell who is a Muslim by their appearance alone.

There are European Muslims like Bosnians, and East Asian Muslims like Hui Chinese.

You can't even tell by their names. Hui Liangyu for instance, the Vice Premier of China, is a Hui Muslim. Only someone who can read Chinese characters would be able to tell that it is an ethnic minority surname.

 

[Obambam]

Plus, you can never really tell who is a Muslim by their appearance alone.

There are European Muslims like Bosnians, and East Asian Muslims like Hui Chinese.

You can't even tell by their names. Hui Liangyu for instance, the Vice Premier of China, is a Hui Muslim. Only someone who can read Chinese characters would be able to tell that it is an ethnic minority surname.

Likewise, you cannot tell who is Christian or Buddhist by simply looking at them. People are not obliged to dress like Jesus or Buddha. There is a saying "never judge the book by its cover" which applies and fits this. People should never judge a person based on the way they look because you could be wrong half the time.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

^^^ Sikhs wear turbans and beards get confused for Muslims all the time ignorant bigots need to be beaten with a stick until they learn.