New FBI Guidelines May Permit Profiling

If you thought racial profiling was on the way out, think again:

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

.... Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — such as evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity.

< FISA Decision Should Shame Congress | Is the Investigation of Ronnie White's Death Being Obstructed? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What ever happened to that pesky (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:24:45 PM EST

    Right behind this policy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    will be the one that enables FBI to open preliminary investigations because a dubya appointee, who's not afraid to leverage the Justice department, doesn't like the cut of someone's jib. "Oh no, that couldn't happen in 'merica!" Sorry rubes, it has (see Don Siegelman) and it will.

    Paranoia strikes deep, into their hearts it creeps. It strikes when the peoples is always afraid. And isn't that this administration's raison d'etre, to stoke the fear?

    And we're not impeaching him why?

    I know different people..... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    have a different definition of "unreasonable" when it comes to the 4th...my definition of unreasonable definitely includes "That guy's brown, lets investigate 'em!"

    Well, (none / 0) (#7)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    When a woman is murdered in her home the police will almost always look first to the husband/boyfriend first. Is that profiling since not all husbands are murderers and not all women who are killed are murdered by their husbands? Or is it just a logical place to start?

    Let's face it, most murders are committed by men. Are they police wrong to begin with the assumption that a murderer is a man?


    They can assume whatever they want... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    but before commencing an investigation of someone, they need probable cause that person committed a crime.  That's how I read the law...

    You can't just have law enforcement acting on assumptions alone, that's disaster for civil liberties. As the saying goes, when you assume you make an a$$ out of you and me.



    Seems like all our rights are going out (none / 0) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    the window...it is not fair to pick on entire groups based on a few bad apples.

    We have strayed far from being a "free" (none / 0) (#3)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    country. Sorry for the repeat entry, but the word country didn't show up in the first post.

    Isn't this already happening? See recent (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM EST
    NYT article about negotiation of an agreement between EU and U.S. to share info about the bank accounts, credit cards, etc. of their respective citizens.  

    Rebuttal (none / 0) (#8)
    by STLDeb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    I very much dislike profiling being used, however (and there's always a however right?), when ALL  of the terrorist attacks that the U.S., Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have experienced who are the main culprits?  

    I'm always open to new ideas for another way to catch terrorists, lock them away forever.  Our constitution is sacred, however, terrorists are using our courts, constitution & freedom against us and I feel that will be our downfall.

    I hope there will be no more terrorist attack on our country, but if there is there will be a lot of "what ifs, hand wringing, how did this happen" going on.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    The "terrorist" attack in Oklahoma City certainly wasn't run by your "main culprits".

    Also, I am not sure what you mean about "terrorist attacks" in Iraq.  The "main culprits" there are Iraqis, Sunni vs. Shia, etc...  everything else is Al-Queda in Iraq which is mostly foreigners, but not from any particular country.

    So I think the problem is, your definition of "main culprit" seems to take in all of the middle-east as well as Europeans of middle-eastern descent.  That's a pretty broad spectrum of people - all of whom you are suggesting should be suspect???  Except of course the Oklahoma City "terrorist" because that would include white Americans...


    "Terrorist" (none / 0) (#14)
    by STLDeb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    Agree, Oklahoma City bombing was done by McVeigh & the other guy (can't remember his name spending the rest of HIS natural life in prison).

    I agree, it is sunni vs. shia in Iraq, however, if you blow yourselves up and kill your fellow citizens that is a terrorist attack (like McVeigh above, that was a terrorist attack).

    I'm not saying I suspect everyone of middle-east descent as suspect.  What I don't get is why the more moderate arabs don't rise up and condemn, report and if need be, fight off the militants who are harming their race, religion.  


    Because "they" don't know them . . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by wurman on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    . . . anymore than you or I knew Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, John Hinckley, Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme, William Ayers & Bernadette Dohrn (oh, wait, Sen. Obama does know them), Charles Whitman, or Seung-Hui Cho.

    For the most part, it always seems as if "regular" folks don't know much about these crazies in our midst.  Just seems to work out that way.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    arabs tend to be leading the league in blowing sh*t up lately.  However, of the millions of arabs on planet earth, only a miniscule percentage are blowing sh*t up.  Are the vast overwhelming majority of arabs supposed to just lay down and surrender their liberty?  That ain't right....I know I ain't trading away mine if other liberty-extremist crackers  were to take over the league lead in blowing sh*t up all of a sudden.

    Tiny Percentage (none / 0) (#12)
    by STLDeb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    I do agree it is a tiny percentage of the worldwide arab community who wants to do harm to western civilization.

    That's why it's very frustrating when you don't hear condemnation from arab/muslim leaders when bombings, beheadings, what name you is done is the name of their religion.


    It's condemned everyday.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    around kitchen tables around the world.

    Forget about their leaders...they've got agendas other than life, liberty, and happiness....just like our leaders.


    Pursuit of Happiness (none / 0) (#15)
    by STLDeb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    We won't be able to have life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness if militants/terrorists are not put in their place (like a jail cell for the rest of their lives).

    I love having spirited debates.  It really makes you think.  


    We won't have it... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    if we let the state run roughshod over liberty in their efforts to combat terrorism.

    I'd rather be free man in a dangerous violent world than be a mouse in a "safe" tyrannical world.

    PS...I love to knock heads too...it's how you learn:)


    Cheney's legals strategem (none / 0) (#18)
    by msobel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    Caution Snark

    I assume that Cheney is worried that Obama could win and this is just a legal strategy to have reasons to deny him access to the White House.

    End Snark. Thank you for your cooperation.