ACLU upset at FBI for alleged profiling

@Fatcat44 (1142)
United States
October 21, 2011 4:01pm CST
I am reading an article in The New York Times, which I would include at link to but I am not rank high enough to. Anyhow, the article is written on how the ACLU has documents where the FBI states that Arab-Muslims areas in Michigan are possible spots for terrorist recruiting. The Chinese and Russian area in San Francisco are potential spots for syndicated crime organization. And that several latino areas of population are possibly harboring MS-13 gangs. They claim the government is illegally profiling when they do this. DAAAAAH??? Where do you think you will find terrorist, syndicated crimes leaders, and the MS-13 gangs? I do not think they will be in Smallville Kansas do you??? This is one of the stupidest things I have read. This is just to stupid, even for the ACLU to do.
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
23 Oct 11
Not profiling is stupid. To not profile, means to not use the best intelligence available to find the suspect. The simple fact is that not all races, religions, etc. are the same. Acts of terrorism in the US are far more likely to be cause by Muslims. That is a FACT. Violent crimes against black people are far more likely to be committed by black people. That is a FACT. A good profiler will include race when he believes it's necessary. He may say "White male, 40's divorced, ex-military". He may also say "Black male, early 20's, physcially fit, uneducated". A profile is never so basic as "Someone got murdered, let's start interrogating black people!" Race is just one of many elements that make a profile and leaving it out is both stupid and dangerous.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
22 Oct 11
When the "profile" of a serial killer, for instance, reads white male, 40s, charming, confident, intelligent and employed, it's just what it is. Now, dare to replace that "white" with black, Latino or a religion-slash-race like Muslim, you have a whole heap of trouble on your hands. It's suddenly bad to profile! It reminds me of some of the folks in New York City. They whined and moaned about how crime was such a problem. So the police really ramped up their efforts and eventually drove crime down. One of the tactics they used was to ignore the PC hogwash and haul people in if they fit a description. Of course, this led to some black males being questioned without cause--beyond fitting a description--but the end result is that crime is lower now. Still, some in NYC are still whining that this is the wrong approach. What's the right approach to fight crime then? You have to profile. There's no way around it. The fact that sometimes you need to profile using factors like race or religion doesn't mean you're building a profile on race or religion. It's not the profile's fault that the criminal may be an Arab Muslim. Is it? I call the ACLU the ASGU - America's Second-Guessing Unit. They love to pick over the stuff and pretend that there's a better way to go about things. In some cases, they may be right. But when it comes to profiling, we're already bending over backwards as a nation as not to offend people. This is counterproductive as it is. Saying something like you'd be more likely to find illegal Latino immigrants in majority Latino communities is not discriminatory. It's playing the numbers. All this nonsense is part of some Americans' push to give everyone the right not to be offended. Someone actually said to me a few weeks ago, when Barbara Walters said "n1ggerhead" on The View, that "black people have a right not to be offended because of our history." Ugg. I don't know how to explain to people that there's no possible way to police offense. If you did, suddenly everyone would be offended by the wind blowing. And we're seeing it already. Because you can feign offense and get your way, more and more people are suddenly becoming offended over things. It is stupid for the ACLU to do, but I guess they're running out of crosses to cover up.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
22 Oct 11
According to a friend of mine who works for a larger city police force they do have a new language. When they are looking for a suspect they will give a description of a white male about 6 foot. For minorities they will say we are looking for a male about 6 foot. Lets be serious if you are looking for a Arab looking man who is suspected of being a terrorist and you search everyone aren't you then conducting an illegal search because the little old lady who is searched they had no reasonable cause to search her. Why didn't the ACLU come to Ron Williams defense when NPR fired him for expressing his opinion on Fox News? His freedom ow speech was violated or did the ACLU profile him as being a black appearing on a conservative news show and decide that that was not the people they wanted to defend?
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
23 Oct 11
Somehow we have enough morons in this country that think it's ok to violate the fourth amendment so long as you either do it to everyone, or do it randomly. If you stop one person because you suspect him of driving drunk, you need reasonable suspicion. If you stop 1000 at an unconstitutional DUI checkpoint, force them to submit to breathalizers and field sobriety tests without any reasonable suspicion whatsoever, it's just fine, because you violated EVERYONE'S rights. Same with airpot security. Violate their rights randomly or do it to everyone and it's fine.
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
23 Oct 11
To many people stik thier noe where i dont belong special when others are looking for terrorists
@bagarad (11437)
• Paso Robles, California
22 Oct 11
It would not surprise me if Eric Holder and our Department of Homeland Security applaud the ACLU for this. Disgusting. I wonder who in government does care if the American people are safe. Of course, I don't see the ACLU accusing the government of looking for terriorist in the tea party movement.