I think David Frum hits this perfectly:
Can we stop taking our shoes off now? The Hasan revelations raise the unhappy thought that what we’ve been doing these past 8 years isn’t security. It’s security theater.
We thought there was a deal. The public would tolerate some admittedly dopey-looking procedures (walking through the metal detectors in stockinged feet) in the confidence that the authorities were doing the real work of identifying and surveilling the most dangerous threats to public safety.
Apparently not.
For years, genuine experts have warned against the folly of ethnic profiling – that is, applying extra scrutiny to persons because of their Islamic names or country of origin. They were right too. (A point Richard Perle and I argued in 2004 in the book we co-authored.)
But again – the alternative to ethnic profiling is not declining to react to suspicious behavior by a Muslim person lest we somehow corroborate a stereotype. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, hardly any Muslims are terrorists. But when authorities begin to receive credible information that one particular Muslim might be dangerous – especially if that person wears the uniform of the United States – it beggars belief that they would hesitate to act.
Yet hesitate they did. Too bad Hasan didn’t try to smuggle a bottle of water aboard an aircraft. Then of course they’d have thrown the book at him.
Conn, I’m not convinced by the argument repeatedly made by many on the right that political correctness, or some aversion to ethnic profiling, is the reason that authorities failed to act on “credible” information that Hasan might be dangerous. Isn’ it entirely plausible that perhaps that this information, while credible, was not sufficient to act on Hasan. Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities must have probable cause before they arrest or search or seize anyone or their property. The Court has lowered this standard to “reasonable suspicion” in certain cases. But could you say that the authorities had even reasonable suspicion to take action against Hasan? In short, before we make the logical leap that the failure to act by the authorities is the product of cultural or ethnic sensitivity, we need to be mindful of the information the authorities were given, and whether this information in itself was sufficient to act on.
Do Fourth Amendment rights apply to military determinations? Regardless, there was clearly enough evidence to remove Hasan from the military. I don’t know if that would have stopped him from committing a terrorist act, but who knows?
Great post, and I agree with Frum, too.
2nd – the legal question is always an essential one. I don’t have the expertise that you and ConnScript have, although it does seem like there was enough evidence. I am interested in the relationship between your characterization of the right’s argument about political correctness and how it plays out in the media.
After Hasan’s attack, details about the man trickled out slowly (although one of the first was that he was a Muslim). The media showed incredible restraint – even Fox News – in even suggesting any link between Hasan’s ideology and his crime. It took days before anyone took the risk of linking Hasan’s now evident extremism with the shootings.
I think that is because there is a knee-jerk reaction that has enveloped our society whereby the most likely response to a suggestion that a Muslim is a terrorist is to be called a racist. That mentality has been perpetuated through the media and has affected policy without question.
Now as Frum mentions, most Muslims aren’t terrorists. But the terrorists who have both succeeded and failed in attacking our homeland, as well as the ones who kill our soldiers and innocent bystanders every day, have been Muslim. There isn’t a causal relationship, but there is most certainly a link there that should not be ignored by those fighting terrorism. The corollary link is that the very vast majority of Muslims do fit a racial profile.
Was Timothy McVeigh muslim? Are Basque separatists muslim? Are IRA Catholics muslim? Are members of FARC muslim?
Jack, what profile, exactly, do “the vast majority of Muslims…” fit into?
Drew, your logic once again fails you. No, none of those people you mentioned are Muslims, and nobody is suggesting that we ignore those groups as threats. That has zero bearing on the hard-evidenced threat of radical Islamic terrorism.
And, why don’t you just look at this picture and tell me if you notice any common traits among the pictured. If you don’t, you’re either dumb or blind. It is anthropology 101 that Islam developed in one section of the world. The “vast majority” of those Muslims are still centered in the same places. Ergo…well, hopefully you’ll at least understand that much.
Jack, I could show you pictures of IRA bombers, FARC terrorists, Shining Path extremists, down on their luck Catholic, former military Oklahomans, etc and you’d see very different “common traits.” All of those groups have equal “hard evidence” of extreme violence and terrorism associated with them.
Therein lies the danger of narrow racial profiling. If you focus undue attention on what you define as “common” Muslim traits (tough, given that muslims come in all shapes, colors, and sizes – African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Balkan, etc), you inevitably focus less attention on other, equally potentially dangerous groups. No, Jack, radical Islamists aren’t only in “one section” of the world….not unless that section includes both Sudan and Indonesia. It’s woeful inaccuracies and misunderstandings like that that lead to woefully ineffective racial profiling.
“Jack, I could show you pictures of IRA bombers, FARC terrorists, Shining Path extremists, down on their luck Catholic, former military Oklahomans, etc and you’d see very different “common traits.””
Ok good, so you admit that racial profiling can work. Glad we agree on that point.
But my point still remains – if you, as you admit, racial profiling can work to identify terrorists, then it should be used to identify certain types of terrorists (or other criminals). So we should use it to fight radical Islam, just as we should use it in other places where it applies. Right?
No. My point is that just because some people in certain demogrpahic groups look physically similar doesn’t mean that you can effectively gauge terrorist threats through narrow, muslim only profiling. My examples demonstrate the wide diversity that exists between terrorist threats – even amongst “muslims”, who come in a range of shapes and sizes themsleves.
You misunderstand racial profiling. Race is not itself and indicator of anything. It is a component of a profile
Jack, in short, you feel we should battle islamic terrorism by profiling muslims based on appearance. The simple reality is that radical muslims don’t fit a profile – some are African, some are Asian, some are Middle Eastern, etc.. If we used your physical profile – perhaps taking the photographs of the 9/11 highjackers that you poasted earlier – we would miss half or more of the radical mulsim groups who pose a threat. And, doing so will inevitably not only miss other muslim threats, but it will irrationally divert attention from numerous other, non muslim groups, who are just as radical and/or dangerous.
As you may rememeber, on of the 5 9/11 co-conspirators being held in Cuba is Tanzanian – he doesn’t look anything like Bin Laden nor does he halil from the “section” of the globe that you referneced earlier. This is the danger of profiling based on stereotypes and narrow understandings.