"Now we know the truth: The 9/11 terrorists could have been stopped if ... the law enforcement agencies had not been so inept, obstructionist, arrogant, antiquated, bloated and turf-conscious - and timid about racial profiling." - Maureen Dowd
Many would read this quote and automatically attribute it to some conservative pundit -- maybe Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. These people would be surprised to learn that it was written by famed left wing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in response to learning that the FBI admitted that it had resisted profiling Arab and Muslim flight school students before the 9/11 attacks. Maureen and I rarely agree, but I must admit that on this issue I stand with her.
Many people read about racial profiling and immediately recoil because debate has been monopolized by radicals on both the left and right. What is being suggested here is not profiling based solely on race but risk or threat profiling, which uses a conglomeration of factors including race, ethnicity, nationality, sex or religion, to identify possible suspects in the war on terror. In this case racial profiling must be understood not as an act motivated by fear or racism, but by a practical interest in national security.
No one is suggesting that authorities constantly implement threat profiling in the war on terror. No one believes that it can be the sole defense against terrorist attacks on our soil.
However, in the new brand of unconventional war that we face, officials should not have their hands tied behind their backs out of some misguided sense of concern -- Osama bin Laden will not show the same concern to American civilians .
Threat profiling is merely a single tool in the tool chest. Wesley Clark made the ridiculous claim that if we began to regularly implement threat profiling Al Qaeda would simply enlist blue-eyed, blond-haired replacements.
Al Qaeda would have to not only overcome ideological barriers, but secure lines of communication, effect material transfers, and forge new alliances with groups they know next to nothing about which would necessarily leave their organization vulnerable -- not to mention the overwhelming possibility of infiltration by US and European intelligence services.
Furthermore, the claim of threat profiling is not that it will stop 100 percent of all attacks but that it will greatly reduce the possibility of future attacks. It is possible that Al Qaeda could recruit a white person to conduct an act of terror, but without threat profiling we are making their task far easier than it should be.
Another vital element to our national defense which is often overlooked is the idea of positive discrimination -- requiring those who make requests of the Federal Government to follow procedure and be able to justify themselves. If you want to work at a nuclear power plant, take a flight training class or study in the U.S., you need to be able to provide the personal background information required in a timely and truthful manner.
As Michelle Malkin noted, before 9/11, there were already restrictions in place at the INS that applications from Arab/Muslim countries were to be given extra scrutiny.
None of the 9/11 attackers who entered our country even listed an address on US soil where they could be reached and yet their visa applications were accepted. Have we become so afraid of threat profiling that we no longer use common sense? Such fears only serve to place us in greater danger and buoy the efforts of terrorism.
No one is suggesting that Muslims be harassed or thrown in detention camps. What is being suggested is a minimalist policy that would equip our law enforcement authorities with all tools necessary to ensure our safety.
I do not fault authorities for using such a profile in determining my level of threat and accordingly subjecting me to additional scrutiny. Such is life in the post-9/11 world.
The real tragedy of the debate over racial profiling is that it has become a partisan battleground. In reality, a minimum of practical and well reasoned initiatives by security personnel would reduce damage to our civil liberties, to the benefit of all Americans. Our constitution would certainly not be endangered by the use of such textbook law enforcement.
- Eric Wolkoff is a senior Political Science major.
