ACLU group sues NYPD re profiling Muslims

[Chris]

That's a bit different than profiling people simply because they belong to a specific religion.

No, it's not. It's picking out something superficial almost abstract to group people. Same thing whether it's body shape, color of skin, religion. In general, that's not very rational, as group statistics say nothing about an individual. But here, I believe, the police are narrowing down likely candidates for questioning.

Certainly, if the police are simply rounding up a group and incarcerating them, like FDR did the Japanese, I would take issue with it.

Questioning likely people, ok, arresting, not unless they have more to go on.

[Mainecoons]

Muslims do not hate this country or any country for that matter just like the majority of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, and all other "ists". Extreme radical Muslims have stated things like that but those people represent an extremely small percentage of the Muslim population on Earth that makes those types of claims or even thinks about that type of claim. NYPD profiling Muslims is wrong because 99% of the Muslims in New York are just trying to live their lives just as you and I are doing. How would you feel if they had a white christian profiling department watching you 24/7 and nobody else? It's about doing what is right and treating people as equals. If the NYPD is profiling Muslims just for being Muslim then they are in the wrong in my opinion.

Interesting international poll on that:

COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. People in majority-Muslim countries express mixed feelings about al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that use violence, however, perhaps due to a combination of support for al Qaeda's goals and disapproval of its terrorist methods.Large majorities support allowing Islamist groups to organize parties and participate in democratic elections. In some majority-Muslim countries, Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are forbidden from participating in elections....The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. It was conducted July through September, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/- 3 to 4 percent.In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective....Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda's attacks on Americans....

What they all agree on is that they want the U.S. out of their face.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Chris]

Muslims do not hate this country or any country for that matter just like the majority of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, and all other "ists". Extreme radical Muslims have stated things like that but those people represent an extremely small percentage of the Muslim population on Earth that makes those types of claims or even thinks about that type of claim. NYPD profiling Muslims is wrong because 99% of the Muslims in New York are just trying to live their lives just as you and I are doing. How would you feel if they had a white christian profiling department watching you 24/7 and nobody else? It's about doing what is right and treating people as equals. If the NYPD is profiling Muslims just for being Muslim then they are in the wrong in my opinion.

Right, however it is true that probabilistically, given terrorism over the last 5 if not 50 years, Muslims would be the ones to profile. It's just so much more unlikely that a Christian gal or Jewish guy would be a terrorist--could be, but unlikely. If you don't, if you investigate everyone equally, babies to grandpas and grandmas of every stripe, the cost would be prohibitive.

It might seem prejudicial, but I don't think it is.

[Ravi]

No, it's not. It's picking out something superficial almost abstract to group people. Same thing whether it's body shape, color of skin, religion. In general, that's not very rational, as group statistics say nothing about an individual. But here, I believe, the police are narrowing down likely candidates for questioning.

Certainly, if the police are simply rounding up a group and incarcerating them, like FDR did the Japanese, I would take issue with it.

Questioning likely people, ok, arresting, not unless they have more to go on.

Now I have to laugh. They are doing basically what the NSA is being accused of doing and in this case you are for it. I wonder why.

As documented extensively by the NYPD’s own records, its Intelligence Division has built a program dedicated to the total suspicionless surveillance of Muslims in the greater New York City area. Officers and informants routinely monitor restaurants, bookstores and mosques and create records of innocent conversations. The Department also sends paid infiltrators into mosques, student associations and beyond to take photos, write down license plate numbers and keep notes on people for no reason other than because they are Muslim. An NYPD official admitted that the mapping activities have not generated a single lead or resulted in even one terrorism investigation.

Actually the NSA isn't at this level as they are apparently targeting data patterns, and not just the data patterns of Muslims.

[Chris]

Now I have to laugh. They are doing basically what the NSA is being accused of doing and in this case you are for it. I wonder why.



Actually the NSA isn't at this level as they are apparently targeting data patterns, and not just the data patterns of Muslims.

This is not at all like the NSA spying. Poor analogy. Even you counter it with "Actually the NSA isn't at this level".

[TheInternet]

Of course the ACLU would argue that, it's their opinion.

Question is does profiling imply turning anyone into a suspect.

My neighborhood has seen a flurry of burglaries. Some home cameras have recorded a tall heavyset person entering homes at night. Would you include babies and grandmothers in your search? No, you would profile tall heavyset people. That doesn't make them suspects, it makes them probable people to observe or question.

Looking for a specific suspect who has known to have already committed a crime is vastly different than targeting every member entire religions.

I'm sure at some point fat, hairy, goofy looking white athiests have committed crimes. That doesn't justify local LEO targeting me.

Your argument justifies the IRS saying "one tea party group broke the rules when applying for c(4) status, so we will target ALL tea party groups applying for c(4) status". Its wrong in the case of the IRS, and its wrong, for the same reasons, in targeting Muslims.

[TheInternet]

This is not at all like the NSA spying. Poor analogy. Even you counter it with "Actually the NSA isn't at this level".

NSA spying is a blanket search without probable cause. The difference is instead of looking for Muslims, bc they sometimes commit crimes, they are looking at all Americans, bc that group (Americans) also sometimes commit crimes. In both cases, its a fishing expedition.

[Chris]

Looking for a specific suspect who has known to have already committed a crime is vastly different than targeting every member entire religions.

I'm sure at some point fat, hairy, goofy looking white athiests have committed crimes. That doesn't justify local LEO targeting me.

Your argument justifies the IRS saying "one tea party group broke the rules when applying for c(4) status, so we will target ALL tea party groups applying for c(4) status". Its wrong in the case of the IRS, and its wrong, for the same reasons, in targeting Muslims.

In this case the police are profiling a group, not an individual.

If statistically it was probable white atheists committed most crimes in your area, the police would, imo, be justified profiling you were you a white atheist. They can't afford, don't have the resources to spy like the NSA or IRS.

My argument doesn't say because one broke the rules all should be targeted. It says if many of a group breaks the rules, the group should be profiled. Nor does my argument extend beyond profiling to tarting or arresting. Nor does my argument include profiling for political purposes. Etc.

[TheInternet]

In this case the police are profiling a group, not an individual.

If statistically it was probable white atheists committed most crimes in your area, the police would, imo, be justified profiling you were you a white atheist. They can't afford, don't have the resources to spy like the NSA or IRS.

My argument doesn't say because one broke the rules all should be targeted. It says if many of a group breaks the rules, the group should be profiled. Nor does my argument extend beyond profiling to tarting or arresting. Nor does my argument include profiling for political purposes. Etc.

The OP was about suspicionless surveillance. Since men commit an overwhelming majority of crime, would you be ok with all men being targeted? That meets your criteria of "many of a group breaking the rules."

[Chris]

The OP was about suspicionless surveillance. Since men commit an overwhelming majority of crime, would you be ok with all men being targeted? That meets your criteria of "many of a group breaking the rules."

As I understand it the concern is terrorism. Does it make sense to surveil white atheists?

Yes, men are more likely to commit crime and should be profiled. I remember years ago reading about serial killers, and the profile included males as they are more likely to commit serial killings. Of course it depends on the deed, I wouldn't profile males for abortions.