ethnic profiling is both effective and unavoidable

[7960]

Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert who has written about aviation security, said ethnic profiling is both effective and unavoidable.

"It's foolishness not to use profiles when you know that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups and certain age groups," he said. "A bomber on a plane is likely to be Muslim and young, not an elderly Holocaust survivor. We're talking about preventing a lot of casualties, and that justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group."

Israeli Airport Security Challenged

Well that's kind of a "no shit!" statement. But the part I'm interesting in is the 2nd paragraph of the article....

Israel's renowned airline security faced a legal challenge Wednesday from a civil rights group charging that its practice of ethnic profiling is racist because it singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.

At a Supreme Court hearing, civil rights lawyers demanded an end to the policy, which they say violates Israeli law. Such profiling is illegal in the U.S., where passengers must be singled out for security checks on a random basis.

This is happening in an israeli court. Why is it pointed out that it's illegal in the US? Why do they not also point out that it's standard practice in India? I haven't read much about the handgun issue in our supreme court now, but do articles point out "the supreme court is reviewing a handgun ban in the US. These countries ban handguns _____________"?

I'd appreciate if this didn't turn this into an "israel is america's puppet" or "one world govt" conspiracy or some shit like.

[bheld]

Profiling is just lazy police work. You can sensibly narrow down your suspect list without racial profiling. That guy's statement on holocaust survivors is just idiotic.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

[7960]
Well that's kind of a "no shit!" statement. But the part I'm interesting in is the 2nd paragraph of the article....

Israel's renowned airline security faced a legal challenge Wednesday from a civil rights group charging that its practice of ethnic profiling is racist because it singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.

At a Supreme Court hearing, civil rights lawyers demanded an end to the policy, which they say violates Israeli law. Such profiling is illegal in the U.S., where passengers must be singled out for security checks on a random basis.

This is happening in an israeli court. Why is it pointed out that it's illegal in the US? Why do they not also point out that it's standard practice in India? I haven't read much about the handgun issue in our supreme court now, but do articles point out "the supreme court is reviewing a handgun ban in the US. These countries ban handguns _____________"?

I'd appreciate if this didn't turn this into an "israel is america's puppet" or "one world govt" conspiracy or some shit like.

It already happened with the gay rights case and a a death penalty case.

Oh found the link:

Supreme Court Justices Spar Over International Law
The Associated Press
January 18, 2005


Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the "arrogance" of U.S. judges who seek to decide politically charged questions involving gay rights and the death penalty by citing international law.

The conservative judge sparred Thursday with Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a rare televised debate at American University on the role of foreign judgments in deciding Supreme Court cases.

Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including those decriminalizing gay sex and banning the execution of the mentally retarded.

"What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Scalia said. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?

"Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he said, arguing that elected legislatures should make those decisions.

Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society.

"U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students ... it's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere.''

[7960]

Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution

he should bemoan it because it's an asinine thing to do.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

he should bemoan it because it's an asinine thing to do.

its justices legislating from the bench, I think the Texas law was stupid and outdated. But it should have been overturned by a legislative body, not the Supreme Court citing international law

[David Octavius]

Statements like "unavoidable" is stupid - it is not our only choice or even the best choice. 9/11 would of been avoided if airport security did their job, more than a couple of the killers set off detectors but were allowed through anyway. Incompetence, not the lack of racial profiling, is what allowed it to happen and yet instead of learning from it we seem to be just as incompetent now. That is what our main weakness is now

[Thorgrim]

So if we cross our fingers we can live in a more racist society?