Profilage: Cachez cette réalité que je ne saurais voir (Racial profiling vs. the height of politically correct stupidity

911_psychos_1I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks. The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the « racist » and « unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt. To make amends for this « shameful blot » on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. Michelle Malkin
the once reactionary idea of profiling suspects by age, gender, religion, and ethnicity should have disappeared — but apparently not altogether when the 19 murderers of 3,000 innocents were uniformly young, male, Islamic, from the Arab world, and living stealthily in the United States. Victor Davis Hanson
le cinéma américain: terroristes, assassins, bandits fourbes, intolérants, qui bafouent les femmes, etc. Tous les stéréotypes hollywoodiens existent et j’aurais détesté me retrouver dans un film qui aurait pu choquer ma famille, mes proches et d’une façon générale, les gens que je respecte. Khalid Abdalla (l’acteur égypto-britannique qui joue le terroriste – LIBANAIS ! – qui, avec 3 saoudiens, prend les commandes du Vol 93)

En sortant du film United 93 (actuellement sur les écrans français sous le titre Vol 93), comment ne pas être horrifié par la prétendue religion et les infâmes textes qui cautionnent de tels actes ?

Et comment ne pas être atterré par l’imbécillité de toutes ces belles âmes de gauche qui continuent à nous bassiner avec cette prétendue « religion d’amour de tolérance et de paix » et, alors que les 19 terroristes étaient tous musulmans et arabes, à récuser le profilage ?

Surtout qu’on a l’impression, comme le rappelait deux de nos derniers billets sur l’Affaire Rosenberg, que 50 ans après on retrouve la même impréparation des services de sécurité et la même difficulté de l’opinion (et tout particulièrement de nos élites) à prendre conscience, comme avant pour le communisme, de la gravité de la menace nazi-coraniste.

Ainsi, comme son prédécesseur sous le gouvernement Roosevelt 50 ans plus tôt, le FBI s’était à nouveau montré incapable de relier ensemble les renseignements collectés juste avant le 11/9, parlalysé qu’il était par la crainte d’être accusé de racisme.

D’où l’intérêt du pavé dans la mare qu’a jeté en 2004 la journaliste filipino-américaine Michelle Malkin (In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror). Et contre lequel s’est dûment déchainée la bien-pensance de gauche sans voir que si, comme plus tard pour la réaction populiste du sénateur Mc Carthy contre la subversion communiste, la décision d’interner les japonais-américains de la Côte ouest avait évidemment sa part d’hystérie et de sur-réaction, elle n’en répondait pas moins à des menaces réelles d’infiltration et d’espionnage de la part des services secrets japonais. Et surtout après le fiasco du 11 /9, qu’il était tout à fait irresponsable d’invoquer un tel précédent pour refuser tout profilage.

Extraits:

If the FBI had taken Williams’ advice, the feeling of some Arabs and Muslims might have been hurt. But the Twin Towers might still be standing and 3,000 innocent people might be alive today.

Post-9/11, the belief that racial, religious and nationality profiling is never justified has become a dangerous bugaboo. It is unfortunate that loyal Muslims or Arabs might be burdened because of terrorists who share their race, nationality or religion. But any inconvenience is preferable to suffering a second mass terrorist attack on American soil.

Racial profiling: A matter of survival
Michelle Malkin
Jewish World Review
August 20, 2004

When our national security is on the line, « racial profiling » — or more precisely, threat profiling based on race, religion or nationality — is justified. Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with Islamic extremists.

Yet, last week, the FBI came under fire for questioning Muslims in Seattle about possible terrorist ties. Members of a local mosque complained to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who called for a congressional investigation of the FBI’s innocuous tactics. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington accused the agency of « ethnic profiling. »

But where else are federal agents supposed to turn for help in uncovering terrorist plots by Islamic fanatics: Buddhist temples? Knights of Columbus meetings? Amish neighborhoods?

Some might argue that profiling is so offensive to fundamental American values that it ought to be prohibited, even if the prohibition jeopardizes our safety. Yet many of the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure « diversity » or « parity » in peacetime.

The civil-rights hypocrites have never met a « compelling government interest » for using racial, ethnicity or nationality classifications they didn’t like, except when that compelling interest happens to be the nation’s very survival.

Missed opportunities

Consider what happened in summer 2001, when Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams urged his superiors to investigate militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. flight schools as part of al-Qaeda missions.

Williams’ recommendation was rejected, FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, partly because of concerns that the plan could be viewed as discriminatory racial profiling.

Mueller acknowledged that if Williams’ Phoenix profiling memo had been shared with the agency’s Minneapolis office, which had unsuccessfully sought a special intelligence warrant to search suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop computer, the warrant might have been granted.

If the FBI had taken Williams’ advice, the feeling of some Arabs and Muslims might have been hurt. But the Twin Towers might still be standing and 3,000 innocent people might be alive today.

Absolutists who oppose national-security profiling often invoke the World War II experience of Japanese-Americans. When asked whether the 12 Muslim chaplains serving in the armed forces should be vetted more carefully than military rabbis or priests, Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council raised the specter of Japanese internment.

The analogy is ridiculous. The more extensive screening of 12 military officers is a far cry from the evacuation of 112,000 individuals on the West Coast. The targeted profiling of Muslims serving in sensitive positions is not a constitutional crisis.

Some argue that the dismissal of charges against Army Capt. James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain who ministered to enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was initially suspected of espionage, undermines the case for profiling of any kind. Not at all. As the Defense Department has acknowledged, the military’s 12 Muslim chaplains were trained by a radical Wahhabi school and were certified by a Muslim group founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was charged in September 2003 with accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya, a U.S.-designated sponsor of terrorism. These associations cannot be ignored.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon caved in to Eltantawi and her fellow travelers. Rather than focus exclusively on the 12 Muslim chaplains, it pressed forward with a review of all 2,800 military chaplains.

The refusal to be discriminating was, as Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., acknowledged, the « height of politically correct stupidity. »

Smoke-and-mirrors arguments

In the wake of 9/11, opponents of profiling have shifted away from arguing against it because it is « racist » and now claim that it endangers security because it is a drain on resources and damages relations with ethnic and religious minorities, thereby hampering intelligence-gathering. These assertions are cleverly fine-tuned to appeal to post-9/11 sensibilities, but they are unfounded and disingenuous. The fact that al-Qaeda is using some non-Arab recruits does not render profiling moot. As long as we have open borders, Osama bin Laden will continue to send Middle East terrorists here by land, sea and air. Profiling is just one discretionary investigative tool among many.

Post-9/11, the belief that racial, religious and nationality profiling is never justified has become a dangerous bugaboo. It is unfortunate that loyal Muslims or Arabs might be burdened because of terrorists who share their race, nationality or religion. But any inconvenience is preferable to suffering a second mass terrorist attack on American soil.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider « must reading. » Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Michelle Malkin is the author of, most recently, « In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror ».

Voir aussi:

the identity and motivations of the hijackers are quite clear, from
their red headbands and body hair removal to their repeated
incantations of « Allah Hu Akbar » (Allah is the greatest) and
« B’ismullah » (in the name of Allah).

we have had plenty of warning in America. It was not just the 9/11
attacks and the foiled shoe-bomber attempt in 2001, and other escapades
since. Before that, we had the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the
blowing up of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, the 1996
Khobar Towers attacks, « Black Hawk Down » in Somalia, and so on. Before
that, Hezbollah–a group which works with al-Qaeda training its
insurgents and which took part in the Khobar Towers attack–hijacked
TWA Flight 847, torturing to death Navy diver Robert Stethem, and
murdered 300 U.S. military and civilian personnel in Lebanon.

The question is: Will we take heed of them like the passengers on
United 93 and go down fighting? Or will we « see no evil » and silently,
willingly submit to the will of the Islamists who repeatedly tell us of
their mission . . . until the West is dead?

« United 93 »: Movie of the Year
By Debbie Schlussel
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 26, 2006

When previews for « United 93 » were shown in New York City moviehouses, the crowd whined, « Too soon! »

But « United 93 » is not arriving in theaters too soon. If anything, it is arriving too late.

It has been almost five years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and most Americans have fallen back to sleep. They’ve forgotten who our enemy is: extremist Islam. They’ve forgotten why the Patriot Act was enacted. They’ve forgotten why it was necessary for the NSA to listen in on phone calls of Muslims in America to their friends overseas. They’ve forgotten why it is necessary that many Islamic charities allegedly funding hospitals and orphanages must be shut down (because as on 9/11, they fund acts and groups that continue to put people in hospitals and orphanages).

That’s why « United 93 » should be required movie viewing for all Americans who love freedom . . . while we still have it. This movie is the wake-up call that needs to be visited upon anyone who questions why our government responded the way it did when nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by Islamic terrorists.

« United 93 » is vivid, it is terrifying, and it is real.

And while all Americans should see this film, there are special groups who need to see it more than others:
• Assorted ACLU-style lawyers and activists: They need to suffer through this movie and remind themselves of those whose memories they are blaspheming with their endless lawsuits on behalf of the compatriots of their murderers.
• The giant piñata of kowtowing federal « law enforcement » bureaucrats, like FBI Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security lawyer and Islamist outreach figure Daniel Sutherland, and various local fed sachems like U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy III, Michigan FBI Special Agent in Charge Daniel Roberts, and his ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) counterpart, Brian Moskowitz. All of these individuals have, instead, repeatedly broken bread with, kowtowed to, and even given awards to Sunni and Shia Islamists who openly support and even fund terrorism.
• FAA brass: The stars of this film are really the memories of the fallen heroes of Flight 93 (Jeremy Glick, Todd Beamer, Thomas Burnett, and many others) who bravely fought back. But on of the biggest stars of this film is Ben Sliney. He is not an actor at all, but was Chief of Air Traffic Control Operations at the FAA’s Command Center on 9/11. He plays himself, and demonstrates his heroic behavior amidst the chaos. Sliney did the best he could while his FAA superiors repeatedly refused to give approval for F-16 fighters to engage the hijacked planes. Has the FAA bureaucracy changed enough from that day? Since the agency is still supremely worried about profiling of Arabs and Muslims rather than aviation safety, apparently not.
• Most Hollywood directors and writers, who could learn a thing or two from this movie’s director/writer Paul Greengrass, who did not make editorial comment. He stuck strictly the 9/11 commission reports and recounting of relatives and ground crews.

Perhaps that is why the hijab-wearing woman I saw and her Muslim male companion walked out of the film with big frowns on their faces. This movie is not PC. It sticks to the story as it happened.

And the identity and motivations of the hijackers are quite clear, from their red headbands and body hair removal to their repeated incantations of « Allah Hu Akbar » (Allah is the greatest) and « B’ismullah » (in the name of Allah).

In many ways, what happened on United Flight 93 is a microcosmic view of the war we are fighting against Islamic terrorism all over the world, but especially on our own soil.

The passengers on the flight knew that if they did not fight the Islamic terrorists on board, they would probably meet their deaths. They spoke with family and friends on the ground who were watching live TV coverage of the events that had already occurred that morning. They knew that two planes already flew into the World Trade Center and that there was an explosion near the Pentagon.

They realized that their Islamic hijackers were on a suicide mission. And they decided to pursue an effort in the remote chance that they might save themselves, but knowing they would likely go down fighting, as they did. You can’t help but agree with a male passenger’s shout of « You bastard! » as he joined the other men on the plane in stabbing one of their hijackers with forks and knives.

Even though it is only the fourth month of the year, I’m confident in proclaiming « United 93 » the Movie of the Year. It’s a good bet that Hollywood will not produce such an important and provocative film in the remaining eight months.

It is coincidental that this movie comes out the same week both sides rested their case in the last phase of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. While the United 93 passengers had barely a warning–perhaps less than an hour, we have had plenty of warning in America. It was not just the 9/11 attacks and the foiled shoe-bomber attempt in 2001, and other escapades since. Before that, we had the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the blowing up of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, the 1996 Khobar Towers attacks, « Black Hawk Down » in Somalia, and so on. Before that, Hezbollah–a group which works with al-Qaeda training its insurgents and which took part in the Khobar Towers attack–hijacked TWA Flight 847, torturing to death Navy diver Robert Stethem, and murdered 300 U.S. military and civilian personnel in Lebanon.

Yes, we have had the warnings. Plenty of them. And unlike in Hollywood, in real life, Jack Bauer does not usually save the day.

The question is: Will we take heed of them like the passengers on United 93 and go down fighting? Or will we « see no evil » and silently, willingly submit to the will of the Islamists who repeatedly tell us of their mission . . . until the West is dead?

So far, the answer is latter, and that is why « United 93 » is a necessary and vital film. And it is also well done.

***

I note that two pro-homicide bombing/terrorism movies I’ve reviewed over the last year, « Paradise Now, » and « The War Within, » both turn the screen to white upon impact of their deadly targets. But « United 93 » ends with a black screen. Unlike the aims of those two films, « United 93 » shows us there is nothing pure white about the murder of innocent civilians. It is simply dark and evil.

2 Responses to Profilage: Cachez cette réalité que je ne saurais voir (Racial profiling vs. the height of politically correct stupidity

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    40 YEARS BEHIND ISRAEL (Trust your gut: The Israeli profiling approach trains and encourages security personnel to rely on their impressions and gut reactions)

    « In terms of airport security, the Europeans are 40 years behind Israel. »

    Pini Shif (former head of security for the Israel Airports Authority)

    Dozens of Calls to Israel after Brussels Attack: Help Us Secure our Airports

    Much of Israel’s success in detecting and blocking attacks on airports and on individual flights is heavily based on profiling, combined with a regular flow of intelligence data regarding anti-Israeli suspects. This could pose a problem for non-Israeli security services because many Western countries, including the US, specifically prohibit their security forces from using profiling, which is commonly viewed as racial profiling — the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race.

    The Israeli profiling approach trains and encourages security personnel to rely on their impressions and gut reactions in processing passengers, while allowing for the fact that this gut reaction would often be triggered by the ethnicity of the suspect, meaning they are Arab.

    The Ben Gurion International Airport security watch begins before passengers reach the departures area. Passengers encounter the first security checkpoint in their car, at the airport’s entrance, where security personnel check passengers and the people who accompany them. They are authorized to pull cars aside and conduct searches. At the departures area, spotters seek out suspicious passengers and have the authority to check them on the spot. Security personnel have access to passenger lists, which they cross check with regularly updated lists of suspects under surveillance, and send alerts regarding passengers who must undergo a detailed security check.

    Israeli security checks do not stop at a passenger’s luggage or even their person — agents are authorized to instruct passengers to open their email accounts or Facebook pages for an inspection. More than a few Arab passengers looking to enter Israel have been rejected based on their online activity …

    http://www.jewishpress.com/news/dozens-of-calls-to-israel-after-brussels-attack-help-us-secure-our-airports/2016/03/24/

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    Canadian security folly
    SPOT THE ERROR !

    Jama, a Somali national with a long criminal record, was wanted in Britain for the 2006 murder of police constable Sharon Beshenivsky. As police closed in to arrest the career criminal, Jama was able to escape back to Somalia by wearing a full veil and boarding a flight at Heathrow airport…

    http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/canadians-outraged-veiled-muslim-women-not-required-lift-veil-prove-id-airports

    Intelligence sources suggest he stole his sister’s passport and slipped though the net at Heathrow between Christmas and New Year…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

    J'aime

Répondre

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :