War on Terror and Racial Profiling Ten

War on Terror and Racial Profiling

Ten years removed from the horrific and fatal attacks launched by Al-Qaeda on 9-11, U.S. leadership continues to grapple with the challenges and complexities of protecting our nation from terrorist threats. Domestic security agencies such as the FBI utilize a myriad of information sources, channels, and platforms to collect intelligence which may prove useful in unlocking potential clues to homeland security threats. One of these essential tools is the gathering of data based on certain demographic characteristics: "certain terrorist and criminal groups target particular ethnic and geographic communities for victimization and/or recruitment purposes, this reality must be taken into account when determining if there are threats to the United States" (Knickerbocker, B. October 21, 2011. P.2). While the FBI views this activity as essential in the prevention of domestic terrorist attacks, civil liberties groups denounce the practice as "industrial scale racial profiling" (Knickerbocker, B. October 21, 2011. P.1), anathema to U.S. Constitutional freedoms. "The American Civil Liberties Union pointed to growing evidence & #8230; that the FBI is illegally and unconstitutionally targeting innocent Americans for investigation based upon their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and political activities protected under the First Amendment" (Knickerbocker, B. October 21, 2011. P.1). The stakes in this debate could not be higher; the protection of our nation from terrorist attacks, however; no justification for racial profiling can be posited that endangers the fundamental freedoms of American citizens.

Racial Profiling Advocates

Beginning with the premise that individuals and groups on both sides of the debate are adamant about the protection of the nation from terrorist attacks; the question then becomes how best to achieve this outcome without violation of the "country's core constitutional principles of equality and fairness" (ACLU. ProCon.org. June 23, 2008. P.1). The post 9/11 world is predominantly dominated by attention of law enforcement officials to "Arabs, Muslims, and men of middle eastern descent" (ACLU. ProCon.org. June 23, 2008. P.2). The basis for proponents of a profiling-based model incorporate two distinct views in this regard. The first is that profiling is necessary, even if it is evil…terrorists planned to detonate many U.S.

cities containing large numbers of people, their names were not Sven and Thor or Juan and Jesus. They had names like Ramzi Yousef and Nidal Ayyad…without the use of profiling; they would have succeeded (ACLU. ProCon.org. June 23, 2008. P.3).

Certainly, this is an ideologically extreme position however, its articulation does provide a counterpoint to a liberal view that there can be no consideration of "race, ethnicity, and other relevant factors to the extent permitted by our laws and our constitution" (ACLU. ProCon.org. June 23, 2008. P.1). Engaging in this polemical however, does not provide a pragmatic solution to profiling or national security, which leads to the second view by proponents.