Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To meddle in the government of society and to speak about it is the greatest business and, so to speak, the only pleasure that an American knows.... An American does not know how to converse, but he discusses; he does not discourse, but he holds forth. -ADT
4 comments:
I would respectfully argue that racial profiling of suicide bombers is a bad idea, but this story (probably) does not demonstrate why.
If the point is that anyone can be a suicide bomber, even a European, light-skinned woman, then point taken. But I don't think anyone would have argued with that. That said, the fact that this story has gotten so much press suggests that it is the exception that demonstrates the rule: far and away the vast majority of suicide bombers of the last twenty years have come from the same religious group, and a few ethnic groups. But even if 100% of all suicide bombers came from those groups, profiling would still not be a good idea, for two reasons: it is ineffective, and it has negative results.
First, the negative consequences. Being singled out because of what you look like is alienating, and over the last 50 years or so we have obviously decided that the government should not do so. A libertarian should instinctively be concerned about viewing a person as anything other than a discrete individual. A communitarian should instinctively be concerned about creating a fragmented society based upon external appearance. A pragmatist should instinctively realize that it just pisses people off, creates groups that antagonize eachother, and costs a hell of a lot of money than subjecting everyone to the same, low level searches.
Many people would argue that those alone are sufficient reasons to think racial profiling of suicide bombers is a bad idea. But maybe some people want to look at the cost/benefit analysis. Which brings me to my second reason.
The effectiveness of racial profiling is essentially nil. This is an obvious statistical point, but almost everyone seems to miss it. This one Belgian woman blew herself up, but again the vast majority of suicide bombers, probably 99%, are not European, and most are not women. So, let's assume all 300 or so suicide bombers of the last 10 years were of identifiable ethnic origin, say Arab. Well, if 100% of suicide bombers were Arab, it should be easy, right? I don't think so. If 100% of Arabs were suicide bombers, then racial profiling would be effective. But that's not the case. There are roughly 300 million Arabs in the world, so maybe one in a million over ten years is going to be a suicide bomber. So if you stop an Arab, you stand a one in a million chance that he/she will be one who will be a suicide bomber in the next ten years. One in ten million that he will be a suicide bomber in the next year. Your odds aren't actually that much better than anyone else from a practical standpoint. Certainly not any better than the odds that John Smith is some sort of violent criminal. And if you change the percentage of suicide bombers who are Arab from 100% to 99.6%, the change in effectiveness is inconsequential.
Now, that said, maybe Josh is right in that this story shows why racial profiling of suicide bombers is bad, but I think it shows why the costs are higher, rather than why the benefits are lower. Some Arabs could maybe deal with being subject to extra searches when they believed that all suicide bombers were Arab, I mean, at least there is some (faulty) logical connection. But some of those, and probably a non-trivial amount, will no longer suffer silently when they feel like they are carrying a weight no one else is, even though Arabs are not the only suicide bombers.
Respectfully, I disagree. While that post was rather brief due to the exigencies of finals, the article itself goes somewhat beyond the simple provision of the fact that the suicide bomber in question was European and light-skinned.
What I suppose I had in mind when I posted this was a particular quote:
As early as May 2003, France's famed antiterrorist investigating judge, Jean-Louis Bruguière, warned that European terrorist networks were trying to recruit Caucasian women to handle terrorist logistics because they would be less likely to raise suspicion.
I've seen other sources that indicate that terrorist organizations are actively recruiting light-skinned Caucasoids from Chechnya and the Balkans. Thus, the article does illustrate how even the (questionable) benefits of racial profiling are being undermined: the terrorists believe we do it, and are acting accordingly.
As far as arguing the costs or benefits of racial profiling goes: your argument is probably the correct one, but I don't think it's the one that'll play on CNN. Your argument requires some rudimentary statistical analysis and the assumption that we cannot afford to alienate minorities in our population. Framing the discussion in these terms shouldn't allow any but the most intractable racists to wiggle out of admitting that racial profiling is too shaky a theory on which to rest our national security. Plus, like USA Today, Brant, this blog is written at a sixth-grade reading level.
My argument is only that once you convince someone that the benefits are exceedingly small, you should have no trouble finding for any given person a cost that outweighs that benefit, since now you've demonstrated that the cost need not be large.
You're not going to change most person's view of the costs of profiling (at least those not being profiled); those are based on years of experience and fundamental belief systems.
You may change someone's calculus of the benefits, since it involves only numbers. It might be a little bit confusing at first, but once you explain it, there is no reason ro disagree. You don't even have to talk about liberty or equity or justice.
And I argue that most people aren't going to be convinced that the benefits are exceedingly small until they understand that terrorists will change their recruiting patterns accordingly to compensate for racial profiling. But if you want to come at it by the back door in the dead of night, I suppose it's your look-out.
How about a law and economics argument, Brant?
Post a Comment