"Don't stop white people" and "Police to raid in socks"


PDA






roo_ster
August 2, 2005, 06:15 PM
Article:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005350468,00.html
ANTI-terror cops must not waste time searching white people as a “PR exercise”, Tory MP Ann Widdecombe said yesterday.

The former Home Office minister said an innocent Muslim or Asian man would not mind being stopped if treated politely.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There is a certain form of person who is a danger to society.

“In the times we are in, I think people understand that.

“It is common sense. It is not racial, it is not religions.”

Ian Johnston, the head of British Transport Police, has said his officers wouldn’t search “old white ladies”.

And Superintendent Ali Dizaei, of the National Black Police Association, agreed racial profiling was acceptable.

He told Today: “These are extraordinary times.”

Just in case you thought the Brits were taking to jihadis a bit too rough, try this (pair of socks) on for size:

Article:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005350274,00.html
By VIRGINIA WHEELER
POLICE have been told they must show respect by taking their SHOES OFF before raiding the homes of Muslim terror suspects.

It was one of 18 rules laid down in new guidelines for officers in Luton — a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism.

Now, that is an interesting mix of cultural in/sensitivity.

I am contiually amazed by the way non-Americans refer to race in the most blunt fashion: Fox in Mexico, the gal from the first article, etc. America gets poked in the eye over race issues...while other countries just flat out state their prejudices for all to see.

Also, we are berated by our lefties for not waiting on potential jihadis hand and foot, while France & the UK is going after them hammer & tong...even expelling citizens for inflammatory speech.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Don't stop white people" and "Police to raid in socks"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrTuffPaws
August 2, 2005, 06:17 PM
HA HA HA :D You have got to be kidding!!!! They have to take their socks off before a raid? HA HA HA!!!!!

El Tejon
August 2, 2005, 06:25 PM
Mr.Tuff, no they took their shoes off, not their socks. No shoes inside a mosque you know. Is this a war or what?

Or, is this an excuse to purchase more tactical 5.11 black socks? :D

TarpleyG
August 2, 2005, 06:30 PM
Not only would I not take off my socks, I'd make it a point to wade through the biggest mudpuddle I could find beforehand. Stoopid rule.

Greg

Henry Bowman
August 2, 2005, 06:49 PM
Can you say "anti personnel devices" ? (i.e., thumb tacks on the floor in front of the door!) :uhoh:

El Tejon
August 2, 2005, 07:00 PM
MI5 should introduce training to shoot on one shoot so you may return fire, in a politically correct manner (i.e. shoot a random white male first before shooting an Arab terrorist), while taking off your shoes. :D

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 07:09 PM
I wish they would get to calling it "statistical profiling" instead of racial.

If you go by the statistics, you have a profile that's not race or religious based. You don't say what they statistics are, you don't want to set up the terrorist with the ability to know exactly who to give the bombs.

Example, how likely are white males and females over "60ish looking" to strap on a bomb? Japanese as well, doubtful they would be carriers of bombs, etc..

Standing Wolf
August 2, 2005, 07:18 PM
World war? What world war? It's just a minor police action, isn't it?

ClonaKilty
August 2, 2005, 07:33 PM
America gets poked in the eye over race issues...while other countries just flat out state their prejudices for all to see.

The more you travel abroad, the more you will see how true this is. People in most countries think nothing of daily racial, ethnic religious slurs that would get one fired in the US.

Biker
August 2, 2005, 07:37 PM
Taking off my boots, much less my socks, could get me thrown in Gitmo for deploying a pair of Bio-WMDS. :eek:
Biker

Kurush
August 2, 2005, 08:08 PM
Japanese as well, doubtful they would be carriers of bombs, etc..Yeah, I mean how many Japanese terrorists have ever released sarin gas in a subway, sprayed botulinum, or blown anthrax spores all over Tokyo. Oh yeah, 120 of them (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/olson.htm) :rolleyes:

Rebar
August 2, 2005, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I mean how many Japanese terrorists have ever released sarin gas in a subway
The Japanese are free to counter their terrorist threats how they please. We have a different problem, and we need to address it specifically.

1 old 0311
August 2, 2005, 08:18 PM
Gee did we drop the ceremonial rice on Japan before we intorduced them to the atomic age? This PC crap is funnier than anything on the Blue Comedy Tour :) :) :) :) :) :)

Kevin

Rebar
August 2, 2005, 09:19 PM
ITALY has banned Islamic burqas under tough terrorism laws that provide two-year jail terms and E2000 ($3200) fines for anyone caught covering their face in a public place.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16110721%5E2703,00.html

Now these people are serious about countering the terrorist threat.

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 09:36 PM
kurush,

They really aren't a threat to us. They're a completely seperate entity and more concerned with their country than ours. The Japanese and Japanese Americans would be one of the last ones I worry about.

NHBB
August 2, 2005, 10:37 PM
it is not racial, it is not religions.

right.

I wonder what sort of doctrine introduced the barefoot raid... I'll take religion for $1000 alex..

Kurush
August 2, 2005, 10:40 PM
They really aren't a threat to us.You have no idea who's a threat because the generalizations of the profiling fans are based on a very small data set, and even within that tiny data set they conveniently ignore the many non-Arabs, even among known al-Qaeda terrorists.

They're a completely seperate entity and more concerned with their country than ours. The Japanese and Japanese Americans would be one of the last ones I worry about.Oh really.

Link (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/aum_antisemitism.htm)
By the time of the Tokyo attack in March 1995, the cult had grown into a large organization of some 10,000 Japanese members, with branches in Russia, Germany, the United States and Sri Lanka.
[...]
In 1992, Asahara claimed that a vast shadowy power, variously identified as Japan, the United States, and a conspiracy of Jews, Freemasons, the British royal family (which, allegedly, has remote Masonic ties) and rival Japanese religions, would launch a third world war. (Japan has 2,512 Freemasons, almost all of them foreigners, and fewer than one thousand Jews).

Asahara thought it likely that Japan would be attacked by the United States, identified with the Beast in the Book of Revelations, because economic motives pitted the United States against Japan. In its rhetoric, it accused the US and the West of spreading rampant materialism and internationalism, which the cult saw as the root of Japan’s problems.

In early I994 Asahara accused the United States of masterminding and carrying out a series of chemical attacks on himself and on Aum facilities in Japan. That year the cult produced a video which claimed to document American poison gas attacks. An Aum spokesman reassured his audience that the sect was not the producer of sarin gas, but its victim. He charged that in the past few years some two hundred and forty Japanese and American aircraft had swooped low over Aum's compound spraying the deadly gas.
[...]
If America was Aum's first target, the world Jewish community was its second. In the tract “Manual of Fear: The Jewish Ambition -- Total World Conquest,” Aum claimed that the Jews had taken advantage of Japan's devastation after World War II as a step in their conspiracy to achieve total world domination. Aum saw the United States as controlled by Jewish capital, which directed the Freemasons, while the Freemasons allegedly used the UN to achieve universal control. The “Manual of Fear” is actually a “declaration of war” on the Jews. “On behalf of the earth's 5.5 billion people,” the editors wrote, “Vajrayana Sacca hereby formally declares war on the ‘world shadow government’ that murders untold numbers of people and, while hiding behind sonorous phrases and high-sounding principles, plans to brainwash and control the rest. Japanese, awaken! The enemy's plot has long since torn our lives into shreds.”

Jews are accused of everything from the massacres in Bosnia to those in Rwanda and Cambodia. Linking the Jews to its enemies in Japanese society, the “black aristocracy” and the “internationalists,” Aum even published a list of these enemies, including cosmopolitan Japanese, labeled Jewish Japanese.

Even if you persist in your belief that the Japanese are harmless, there is another wrench in the works. There are many many Indonesians, Thai, and Filipinos who are in fact al-Qaeda members or affiliates. What percentage of TSA burger-flippers do you think can tell the difference between Filipinos and Japanese?

Phil Ca
August 2, 2005, 11:05 PM
Any police agency that would order their officers to remove their shoes before entering someone's home should be drummed out of the police business. I would never acquiesce to that order! Your shoes or boots are part of your gear and a weapon to boot! (to boot, get it?) :)

This PC crap has gone to far IMNSHO!!! :fire:

Kurush
August 2, 2005, 11:22 PM
Any police agency that would order their officers to remove their shoes before entering someone's home should be drummed out of the police business.Oh yeah, what was this thread about anyway. Ahem. I doubt it's even true, or at least that it isn't misleading. The Sun writes nonsense all the time, its journalistic standards are roughly comparable to The Drudge Report, maybe a bit worse.

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 11:32 PM
kurush, you're just going to push me on this huh?

Grrrr, I threw in the Japanese in as a token. I think we should be watching every single nationality that fits the age groups that would be appropriate. Scratch out all men and women over 60ish, children under 8-12'ish, obvious businessmen and women, moms with kids, etc. Target the more likely, period. If ANY look questionable to you, check them.

Sound crappy? I think it would be very easy to do a job 10 times more effective than what we're doing now. If we're going to do it, do it, quit farting around with it. What we are doing now is too PC and ignorant.

carebear
August 3, 2005, 12:17 AM
1995 on that Aum story....

They just been "layin' low" since then? :rolleyes:

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, they aren't quite the immediate threat they claim to be and could, again perhaps, be left off the profiling list for efficiencies sake and dealt with with standard LEO/infiltration techniques as they probably have been since, oh say, 1995.

You have to weight the threat based on reality to make any investigatory effort practical. Now that we're Carnivoring and "listening for chatter" I think we can safely back burner an oddball group with a sole, non-domestic attack 10 years ago to the level of the white supremacist militias and othe space cults we feared back then.

RevDisk
August 3, 2005, 12:38 AM
They really aren't a threat to us. They're a completely seperate entity and more concerned with their country than ours. The Japanese and Japanese Americans would be one of the last ones I worry about.

Ah... you might want to read up a bit more on terrorism. There were more than a few Japanese terrorist groups. Red Brigade back in the day, Aum Shinrikyo now. Aum Shinrikyo successfully manufactured large amounts of sarin, and also blotched manufacturing of large amounts of anthrax.

You might say, well that happened in Japan. Yep. They failed an attempt to spray US bases and our embassy in Japan with a bad batch of anthrax. They messed up the spore size by accident. Rumor says they were planning on hitting the sites with sarin after the bio attack failed. Oh yea, and they have US members.

That's the problem with profiling. If you go by assumptions, you're eventually gonna miss an unorthodox attack. It's one thing to use profiling to pay more attention to certain folks or behavior. It's another to assume guilt because a person fits a profile.



Or, perhaps, just perhaps, they aren't quite the immediate threat they claim to be and could, again perhaps, be left off the profiling list for efficiencies sake and dealt with with standard LEO/infiltration techniques as they probably have been since, oh say, 1995.

You have to weight the threat based on reality to make any investigatory effort practical. Now that we're Carnivoring and "listening for chatter" I think we can safely back burner an oddball group with a sole, non-domestic attack 10 years ago to the level of the white supremacist militias and othe space cults we feared back then.

Any group that has successfully mass-produced WMD is hardly "an oddball group" on the level with a few white supremacist militias that only drink too much beer and rant a bit more than they probably should. If they hadn't screwed up on deployment, they would have killed tens of thousands.

Marshall
August 3, 2005, 12:49 AM
OK.

What do you want?

Don't check anyone at all, let all roam free regardless?

Check every fifth one?

Racial Profile or not?

Statistical profiling, as I suggested, is not assuming guilt. It's profiling the more probable. After all is said and done, it's the same thing as you quoted. It's one thing to use profiling to pay more attention to certain folks or behavior.It's another to assume guilt because a person fits a profile. What certain folks? Of course you mean the more likely or probable, surely? And yes, the suspiciously behaved.

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 01:01 AM
Grrrr, I threw in the Japanese in as a token.I realize that, and I'm sorry if I came across as picking on you specifically. I am (and have been) trying to argue that profiling is useless and counterproductive. What I'm trying to do currently is point out to everyone that generalizations about people based on their "race" are unreliable. I'm sure I could find a current terrorist group for virtually any "race" (i.e. set of ethnic groups with vaguely similar features) you could mention as not needing to be searched.

That's why real profiling systems, like CAPS, use many different characteristics to try to predict terrorism. But they also fail! The Carnival Booth algorithm (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/) allows profiling systems using numerous independent variables to be defeated easily by even fairly small terrorist cells. Profiling, in other words, is baloney.

They just been "layin' low" since then?It is estimated there are currently about 1500-2000 Aum members. I have no idea if they have resumed or will resume terrorist activity, but al Qaeda has "laid low" several times.

RevDisk
August 3, 2005, 01:10 AM
What do you want? Don't check anyone at all, let all roam free regardless? Check every fifth one? Racial Profile or not? Statistical profiling, as I suggested, is not assuming guilt. It's profiling the more probable. After all is said and done, it's the same thing as you quoted.

What certain folks? Of course you mean the more likely or probable, surely? And yes, the suspiciously behaved.

Want do I want, or what am I willing to accept?

I'd like the roam free and carry whatever hardware ya want, but too many Americans want to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.


I don't want profiling to be considered guilt. ie, I want to avoid eight bullets in the back of my head because I merely "looked suspicious" when in fact I was just going about my daily life.


Just because someone fits a religious or ethnic profile does not mean they are automatically guilty of any crime. Paying extra attention is fine. But to ignore everyone that doesn't fit a profile is kinda stupid, don't ya think? All a terrorist would have to do is get a copy of "The Profile" from TSA or any other LE agency, and now you have a blueprint of how to bypass security.

Profiling is basically assumptions. The trite expression about "assuming" applies to a degree. With security, if you only use assumptions, you're gonna get bypassed. Someone meantioned "Why search Japanese folks?" Because there are Japanese terrorists. "Why search clean cut white folks?" Because there are white terrorists.

I understand statistical profiling. I'm arguing it's not the end-all-be-all when it comes to security. Matter of fact, I very much question it's efficiency.

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 01:12 AM
If they hadn't screwed up on deployment, they would have killed tens of thousands.
Absolutely right. Nobody even knew about the anthrax attack until years later. Luckily for the people of Tokyo they had accidentally used a non-toxic strain of the bacteria they had bought from a lab supply company.

Statistical profiling, as I suggested, is not assuming guilt. It's profiling the more probable. After all is said and done, it's the same thing as you quoted.The profiling system you seem to be describing is just what the Carnival Booth algorithm (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/) defeats.

Marshall
August 3, 2005, 01:20 AM
I realize that, and I'm sorry if I came across as picking on you specifically.
Thank you, that's kind of you. No sweat. Besides, you had know way of knowing that from what I typed.

I also fully understand what you are saying on profiling, and you're right. But the one thing that is also right is, searching in some form, for lack of a better term, is a deterrent and and at least makes it more difficult on them to some extent, what extent that is, I have no idea. I think you have to profile in one fashion or another if you are going to search though. This "every 5th one" stuff is for the birds. Heck, random would be better that that. Obviously, nothing's fool proof.

I'm heading to bed, brains beat, you all have at it. ;)

Rebar
August 3, 2005, 01:22 AM
Carnival Booth algorithm
I know a way to beat the dreaded Carnival Booth algorithm!

Lets just check old white women in wheelchairs and raid VFW halls! We're bound to catch the next terrorist attack like that, because they'd never expect us to check those!

carebear
August 3, 2005, 01:22 AM
Kurush,

I'm also not trying to be obstinate but my point is that we don't have any evidence that, thus far anyway, they have the real capability to draw on non-Saudi/Pakistani assets effectively in the US. Nor, for that matter, that they have much capability left at ALL in the US.

The fact of the existence of variously-origined terrorist groups throughout the world does not necessarily mean that those groups have the logistic capability or intention to actually operate in conjunction with Al-Quaeda inside this country. And it is hardly like we aren't watching those on an intelligence level anyway, to see when such intentionality may become real action.

And I'm not saying dispense with truly random checks, though, given that the kind of point of access checks we're currently using are so porous I doubt we'd see much loss in effectiveness.

What I'm saying is that the Carnival model depends on the actual capability to utilize enough alternate assets to evade profiling. We just haven't seen, in practice, since 9/11 any such DOMESTIC capability from the group we are most concerned with.

Reality trumps statistical probability all the time and, as is, that's how I see this current situation. With profiling being a realistic adjunct to random searches, at the very least we may drive Al-Quaeda (in the US) outside their comfort zone of trained recruits. It isn't an "either/or" situation.

Any change of plan for a cell-based, insular, regionally focussed terrorist group, such as bringing in Chechens, ethnic Indonesians or Japanese Aum, heck, of the Bader-Meinhoff gang, is a point of vulnerability to exploit from an intelligence point of view.

I just don't feel, given what they've managed to pull off since 9/11, they have that kind of capability. they had a big splash and appear to have shot their wad on this side of the pond. Everything else has been bush league one-offs. Even in Europe, they had just one in Spain, one in London.

I've got more follow-up capability.

dleong
August 3, 2005, 10:31 AM
This PC crap is funnier than anything on the Blue Comedy Tour.
What is so funny about something that is slowly but surely killing free thought and speech in this country?

DL

JohnBT
August 3, 2005, 11:26 AM
I think it's funny. Funny as in "I have to laugh to keep from crying."

John

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 12:05 PM
I'm also not trying to be obstinate but my point is that we don't have any evidence that, thus far anyway, they have the real capability to draw on non-Saudi/Pakistani assets effectively in the US.
Assets as in citizens? The American al-Qaeda members that I can remember are: Padilla, "Nuyorican"; Hamdi, Saudi-American; Lindh, spoiled brat. Seems like a pretty random group to me. Anyway I don't think it's likely they have substantial sleeper cells of any nationality in the US. If by assets you mean foreign cells that can get visas like the 9/11 hijackers did, I don't see any reason to believe that. If anything the SE Asian al-Qaeda camps are safer these days.
Nor, for that matter, that they have much capability left at ALL in the US.I agree. Unlike in Europe, immigrants to the US tend to homogenize within a single generation, which makes forming a cell much harder... but see below.

What I'm saying is that the Carnival model depends on the actual capability to utilize enough alternate assets to evade profiling. We just haven't seen, in practice, since 9/11 any such DOMESTIC capability from the group we are most concerned with.In the US I doubt al-Qaeda has any substantial domestic assets at all; Saudi, Pakistani or otherwise. But any assumption no matter how reasonable can be wrong, and the more assumptions you make the more likely that at least one of them is wrong. If we use a profiling system based on these assumptions, al-Qaeda can use the CB algorithm to determine which of our assumptions we're wrong about, and then use our profiling system against us.

TheEgg
August 3, 2005, 12:06 PM
I am (and have been) trying to argue that profiling is useless and counterproductive.

Not a panacea, but far from being "useless" and "counterproductive". Must be done with common sense -- many factors should go into your profile. Agree it is useless if done with limited parameters.

Kurush
August 3, 2005, 12:18 PM
Not a panacea, but far from being "useless" and "counterproductive". Must be done with common sense -- many factors should go into your profile. Agree it is useless if done with limited parameters.It is useless with any number of parameters. That's why I keep talking about the Carnival Booth algorithm (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/). There's a simple explanation of it here (http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/carnival.html). It is counterproductive because mostly the same people end up being profiled every time and it creates resentment.

Hawkmoon
August 3, 2005, 12:21 PM
Just because someone fits a religious or ethnic profile does not mean they are automatically guilty of any crime. Paying extra attention is fine. But to ignore everyone that doesn't fit a profile is kinda stupid, don't ya think? All a terrorist would have to do is get a copy of "The Profile" from TSA or any other LE agency, and now you have a blueprint of how to bypass security.
But they can't.

We have been (reliably?) informed right here, by no less than a TSA supervisor, that not only are the TSA screening regulations classified, they are SO classified that even the regulation stating that the regulations are classified is classified.

Anyone remember that rather Orwellian thread?

"We can confiscate anything we decide to, because the rules give us complete discretion."

"Can we see where it says that in the rules?"

"No, that's classified."

Groucho Marx would be proud.

DelayedReaction
August 3, 2005, 01:20 PM
If someone could provide us with examples of where statistical profiling has saved lives, I would appreciate it. I would prefer that all be screened equally, as random chance should not be a part of any defense strategy. That would be like having guards roll a die to see which side of the base they would patrol.

Better yet, put more emphasis on effective means of protecting the facilities. Passive chemical sensors in the planes, armored cockpit doors with armed flight crews, more effective screening technology, things like that. Wasting time and money having a guard frisk someone because of their race is stupid and offensive.

Want to do proper profiling? Fine. Search everyone, because the only profile a terrorist is going to follow is the one you don't expect.

RevDisk
August 4, 2005, 03:08 AM
Assets as in citizens? The American al-Qaeda members that I can remember are: Padilla, "Nuyorican"; Hamdi, Saudi-American; Lindh, spoiled brat. Seems like a pretty random group to me. Anyway I don't think it's likely they have substantial sleeper cells of any nationality in the US. If by assets you mean foreign cells that can get visas like the 9/11 hijackers did, I don't see any reason to believe that. If anything the SE Asian al-Qaeda camps are safer these days.

Padilla has not been charged with a crime. Not sure what his status is these days.

Hamdi was not charged with a crime. He's been released.

I find it kinda odd. With as many laws that are on the book as there are, why the heck couldn't they find any to charge Padilla or Hamdi with? Heck, Jim March had more charges brought against him than either of 'em.

Lindh renounced his citizenship. Hence, he's not an American. Hopefully he's still rotting in Gitmo. He doesn't wanna be an American, that's his business. Treat him no different than any other terrorist proven to be Taliban or al Qaeda.

Any other examples you'd like to cite? ;)

If you enjoyed reading about ""Don't stop white people" and "Police to raid in socks"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!