upon further reflection

Well I certainly jumped into the deep end of the pool in the pool with that last post.

From the post it's clear I have some deep-seeded religious beliefs.  How religious beliefs can and should affect policy is an area that, upon reflection, I don't want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole.

But it was startling to me that the absurd leap from profiling to McCarthyist tactics to torture was so EASY for us as a nation to take, to justify and defend.  Look how quickly we found escape clauses and workarounds in the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and yes to some extent our own Christian beliefs.  "These aren't enemy combatants, so the Geneva convention doesn't apply."  "These are not U.S. citizens, they are enemy combatants, so the Constitution doesn't apply."  "The enhanced interrogation techniques save lives and are vital to our security." "Wiretapping U.S. citizens making calls overseas is OK if we suspect they're calling terrorists." I think there's ample evidence to suggest that there is a very fine and easily crossed line surrounding profiling. And it seems clear to me we jumped over that line with both feet.

In practical application, Sue, I think profiling (if you'd call it that) works well when you're rounding up a group of say 20 or 30 people, who fit a very narrow category.  But applying profiling to a group of 20 million, knowing 99.995% (rough guess 1000 out of 20 million, give or take a lot) have no connection whatever to terrorism?  I question the effectiveness of treating those 20 million differently than the general population.  If say you were to narrow it down, for example, here's a group of young Muslim men, who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly expressed radical views?  Maybe that's a group of 10,000 people or so (completely a wild guess, but orders of magnitude less than profiling young Muslim men only).  I think it is prudent and logistically practical to ask that smaller subset some extra questions at an airport and watch them more closely, or not let them fly at all.  But if you think on it, why use young Muslim men as a screener at all?  Wouldn't it suffice to say ANYONE who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly enorsed terrorism or radical views should be on a watch list or a no fly list?  I would think twice before boarding an airplane with anyone who falls into that category, including old men and women, regardless of religion.  And if I'm being honest, I know I wouldn't let my kids on board with such a person.  That's definitely not worth the risk.

Now in the case of Abdu....Young muslim male, on a watch list already, Dad reports him missing and having incredibly radical ideas (yikes!), last suspected heading towards Yemen (double yikes!!!).  How many fit that description?  This wasn't profiling, this was a lead handed to the CIA/FBI on a silver platter.  How can you NOT follow up on that? That's one cat that should NEVER have been allowed on a plane.