News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[Ivan Seeking]

In principle I understand the need for full body scans and highly personal searches, but I think this has gone too far. What happened to chemical swab tests? Aren't these effective? I've had my stuff swabbed at least a dozen times [I was often carrying a lot of test equipment that demanded a closer look].

An interesting point was made about the polling of this issue. It doesn't mean anything to poll the general public. What matters is what frequent flyers think - the people being groped and exposed. It's no wonder that people who don't generally fly don't have a problem with this.

I have to agree with Bob Barr on this one [a scary thought in itself]. I want to see Michelle Obama and the kids go through this public humiliation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.

When I see these searches, I feel ashamed and a little sick.

 

[Mathnomalous]

The problem is the TSA is a reactionary agency. Some guy packs explosives in his underwear and gets caught; now, the TSA has to check everyone's groin area, but the next guy is not likely to use the same method used by the first guy. Also, spending that much money to improve airport security is stupid; if you happen to catch someone at the checkpoint, it is too late already! You have missed the early planning stages, movement of money, communication between terror organizations, etc. All that security is just theatre.

Perhaps a service like Clear should be brought back for frequent flyers? I no longer have a problem with the backscatter x-ray machines; quick? painless? no junk touching? Good! The pat-downs are idiotic, though. Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Relevant story: http://www.slate.com/id/2275721/

 

[Pengwuino]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

What if they brought a bomb onto the airplane and... had second thoughts? Do you want them to just leave the thing in the trash can?

 

[Mathnomalous]

But seriously, that sounds like a waste of time. The person already flew, nothing happened, yet they still go through a security checkpoint just to leave the damn airport.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Not true.

It is true that incoming international travelers have to go through a TSA checkpoint before boarding a domestic flight.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see what's particularly crazy about having incoming int'l passengers go through a security check before exiting the airport (irrespective of its truthiness).

 

[Mathnomalous]

It seems there was a recent change. At least my mother in-law mentioned she went through a security checkpoint before exiting the airport (no connecting flight).

Found these:

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5413922/tsa_new_security_rules_for_international.html?cat=17

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/guidance_international_flights.shtm

I don't see what's particularly crazy about having incoming int'l passengers go through a security check before exiting the airport (irrespective of its truthiness).

If it is a Customs/Immigration check, no problem. A TSA security check identical to a pre-boarding check is unnecessary. Likely, any explosives that got onto the plane were detonated; if the would-be terrorist had a change of heart, then the initial check failed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, based on what I have seen, it wouldn't be that hard to hide explosives anally, as is often done with drugs. Is that next?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Btw, based on what I have seen, it wouldn't be that hard to hide explosives anally, as is often done with drugs. Is that next?

You bet!

Coming soon to an airport near you, rectal exams! Courtesy of the US Government! How is that for universal healthcare?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Or vaginally?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Or vaginally?

That might turn out to be a hairy situation... but, yeah, this is getting out of hand. And before I sign off, let me leave you with this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

They should just install a scanner on everyone's front door and get it over with.

 

[Proton Soup]

The problem is the TSA is a reactionary agency. Some guy packs explosives in his underwear and gets caught; now, the TSA has to check everyone's groin area, but the next guy is not likely to use the same method used by the first guy. Also, spending that much money to improve airport security is stupid; if you happen to catch someone at the checkpoint, it is too late already! You have missed the early planning stages, movement of money, communication between terror organizations, etc. All that security is just theatre.

Perhaps a service like Clear should be brought back for frequent flyers? I no longer have a problem with the backscatter x-ray machines; quick? painless? no junk touching? Good! The pat-downs are idiotic, though. Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Relevant story: http://www.slate.com/id/2275721/

i have a hard time believing the images aren't being catalogued. after all, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/security/video-nato-prepares-to-transfer-authority-in-afghanistan/5297/" is one of the biggies in afghanistan right now.

the gizmodo link from slate is certainly not a good sign.

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

 

[Proton Soup]

Or vaginally?

surgically remove fatty tissue from obese terrorist recruit. install explosives in sealed bags in the cavities. design to be detonated with externally applied pressure.

That might turn out to be a hairy situation... but, yeah, this is getting out of hand. And before I sign off, let me leave you with this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

They should just install a scanner on everyone's front door and get it over with.

disgusting. as far as I'm concerned, this makes these officials terrorists. i actually find myself siding with Ron Paul.

 

[Galteeth]

Not true.

It is true that incoming international travelers have to go through a TSA checkpoint before boarding a domestic flight.

Well, it happened to this guy who recorded everything.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NoBlasters#p/u/3/LkRPS0pSScQ

 

[BobG]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Do incoming international travelers really exit the airport after deboarding or does the customs area empty out into the general gate area? There's a difference. In other words, the TSA checkpoint isn't to exit the airport; it's to enter the general boarding area.

That's a function of airport design. One way or another, passengers catching a connecting domestic flight will have to go through the security checkpoint.

In fact, that was the secret to the guy in Galteeth's recording. He was not catching a connecting flight, so the solution was eventually to escort him through the boarding area, all the way to the 'outside' of the airport's security area.

 

[D H]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

 

[lisab]

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

Regardless of how the change happened, I'm appalled by those who say, "It's worth is as long as we're safe, that's the important thing." Ugh, totally disgusting!

What if a woman is on her period and is wearing a pad? It would probably be detected using either the scan or these extremely intimate body searches. Would she have to demonstrate it's not an explosive?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. Just a beige human body outline that looks like the average human dimensions. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive. I've been patted down hundreds of times before for various entries, what is the big deal now.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Regardless of how the change happened, I'm appalled by those who say, "It's worth is as long as we're safe, that's the important thing."

Why? I can kind of gues the response so i'll ask my follow up question now.
Where do you draw the line between safety/security on a sliding scale (i'm assuming you aren't for letting anyone on a plane without any checks what so ever), and why?

I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive.

I've got to say, I agree. I don't see why people are prudish about this sort of thing. "Oh noez they can see my doodle." : / : / : /


EDIT: I'd just like to say something regarding this: Prudence is not the same as capitulation.

 

[mugaliens]

I don't see why people are prudish about this sort of thing.

Me neither. Anyone who has been to a backwoods hot springs either learns to adapt or flees in terror (I didn't flee in terror).

So the issue for many has nothing to do with being a prude.

...what is the big deal now.

I dunno. Perhaps repetitive, even multiple times daily exposure to backscatter x-ray radiation for pilots, flight attendants, frequent fliers and those who work the concessions beyond the security checkpoints?

I'll bet TSA employees are exempt from being scanned, possibly even as justified by "frequent exposure may cause..." clause. I'll also bet my security clearance (S, TS, etc.) background checks were more thorough than was theirs. So why am I a suspect until proven innocent while they get to bypass both scans and patdowns?

Hmm...

Meanwhile, many are standing firm on the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in light of the TSA's massive cost and dismal track record.

Metal scanners? Fine. Exposure to x-rays? Sorry, but no. Grope my junk? No way.

 

[Gokul43201]

What are your odds of being killed by terrorists on a flight? One in several million? For what other activities that involve similar risk levels do you use similar levels of precaution? (Hint: You are much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a dog.)

 

[xxChrisxx]

What are your odds of being killed by terrorists on a flight? One in several million? For what other activities that involve similar risk levels do you use similar levels of precaution? (Hint: You are much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a dog.)

So what is your acceptable risk (probability) for boarding a plane that will explode before it lands?

I assume you make this argument to show that the massive level of secuity is silly as the odds are so remote. Just think about that point for a second.

 

[Gokul43201]

I accept a nearly 1% lifetime chance of being accidentally poisoned (and dying from it) without any thought to it (though, to be fair, I eat a lot more often than I take a flight). I imagine there are probably a lot more along those lines that add up to a lifetime risk on the order of a few percent. I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

 

[lisab]

So what is your acceptable risk (probability) for boarding a plane that will explode before it lands?

I assume you make this argument to show that the massive level of secuity is silly as the odds are so remote. Just think about that point for a second.

But for all the intrusive scanning and groping, are we really secure? It seems we're always a step behind the terrorists' tactics - we're very good about guarding against the last attack. After they take down planes with box cutters, we ban box cutters. After they try shoe bombs, we scan shoes. And now our underwear is getting scrutinized. I even read that they're paying extra close attention to toner cartridges that are coming out of Yemen now.

Problem is, the terrorists aren't dummies. They are adapting, no matter what we do they will make adjustments. Face it: we will be attacked again. Will it be a plane, or something we've never even considered? Based on their past attacks and attempted attacks, I think it will be the latter.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but there is a line somewhere. Here, our government is advising me how to dress, and to not wear an underwire bra:

In addition, certain clothing and accessories can set off an alarm on the metal detector and slow you down. Avoid wearing clothing, jewelry or other accessories that contain metal when traveling through the security checkpoints:

• Heavy jewelry (including pins, necklaces, bracelets, rings, watches, earrings, body piercings, cuff links, lanyards or bolo ties)
• Clothing with metal buttons, snaps or studs
• Metal hair barrettes or other hair decoration
• Belt buckles
• Under-wire bras
• Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search.
• Take metal items such as keys, loose change, mobile phones, pagers, and personal data assistants (PDAs) out of your pockets.
• Place heavy jewelry and other metal items in your carry-on baggage or in plastic bags if they are offered, until you clear security.
• Pack all your coats and jackets in your baggage when possible. All coats and jackets must go through the X-ray machine for inspection. These include, but are not limited to, trench coats, heavy winter coats, suit jackets, sport coats and blazers. If you choose to wear an outer coat or jacket to the checkpoint, you will need to either place it in your carry-on or put it in the bin that is provided for you.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/index.shtm

Screw them, I'll wear whatever damn bra I want.

 

[Astronuc]

I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. Just a beige human body outline that looks like the average human dimensions. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive. I've been patted down hundreds of times before for various entries, what is the big deal now.

I've had to go through that in some nuclear facilities and some airports. It's no big deal - it's just business.

I'm not too concerned about the scanning. Not much to look at.

 

[BobG]

I find the entire controversy over TSA checkpoints to be a positive development, even if rather ironic.

Our post 9/11 reactions have included several measures a lot worse than having to walk through a backscatter imaging device. Warrantless wiretaps, US citizens categorized as illegal enemy combatants and denied any legal way to challenge their status, torture of enemy detainees, etc.

And then outrage over one of the most trivial actions taken to protect against terrorists.

The pat down procedures are something a person should be upset about if it were applied to everyone.

The backscatter imaging device is a trivial inconvenience (10 seconds max?). The outrage over the imagers illustrates what's important to Americans. They seem perfectly willing to reveal details about their personal actions (wiretapping, e-mail surveillance, etc), willing to give out personal details of their life (facebook, credit & personal info for online purchases, etc), but don't want anyone to see their body.

I think that's an odd thing to be upset about, but if the outrage spreads to more important things, such as electronic surveillance, torture, and rights of US citizens suspected of associating with terrorists, then I think it's a good thing.

Maybe we'll finally find a long term accomadation between protecting our civil liberties and protection, seeing as how a war on terror defies defining any endpoint where we can claim the war is over and our rights can be restored to their normal peace time status.


Trivial, but interesting - of those that think the backscatter imaging devices may be dangerous to your health, how many understand the technology used by a metal detector? I'm not saying there's any reason to be concerned about the health risks of metal detectors (there's not), but how many people even have a clue how they work? (That percentage might be a bit higher on PF, but I would imagine it's very close to zero among the general population.)

 

[WhoWee]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.

When I see these searches, I feel ashamed and a little sick.

I have to agree. I used to fly 2 or 3 times per week. Now I'll drive 400 miles to avoid the hassel - and it really doesn't take more time (to drive).

 

[FlexGunship]

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

If there is anyone not totally familiar with this case (the site is funny, but the YouTube videos are 100% dead serious), then he or she should really spend some time listening about reading about it.

Joking aside, I would elect this man into public office; he's brave enough not to buckle under TSA or police pressure and holds the Constitution as his defense. His arguments are so compelling that the TSA finally admits they cannot detain him or force him to undergo a search. The police and TSA agents escort him from the airport without submitting to the requested search.

This should be studied in every political science classroom in the nation right now.

 

[FlexGunship]

I've had to go through that in some nuclear facilities and some airports. It's no big deal - it's just business.

I'm not too concerned about the scanning. Not much to look at.

I think it's less an issue of the actual practice and more an issue of the compulsory invasion of privacy.

Anytime you move between states in the US (something protected in the Constitution as part of interstate trade) there is a non-zero chance that you will be FORCED to choose to either be photographed naked or sexually assaulted.

Yes, this is a very stark an un-pragmatic way to look at it, but this is the core of the issue. Before terrorist intervention interstate travel (and re-entering the country) didn't require these things. Because of terrorism, we have become a society of _______________. Fill in the blank; I can't decide what to put there.

 

[Pengwuino]

Lately I've seen a few articles popping up talking about how the Israeli's do airport security. I like their idea of profiling people the smart way (for example, an Israeli Arab that travels between Israel and Britain never gets a moment thought but anyone who frequents Syria and other countries that have issues with terrorists will be pulled aside for questioning). I wonder how hard it would be to implement something like that here. Sure, Israel has what, 1 or 2 international airports, but we have far more resources then they do and hopefully with their help, we could have that kinda security here. One article noted that while bombs were going off daily in Tel Aviv, not one hijacker ever made it on board in decades.

I think what is going on now is saying that the terrorists have done their job and done it well. The way Israel does it seems to say "we will actively defend our way of life and your message will never get across".

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but there is a line somewhere.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse I promise :), but that didn't answer my question. I asked in your opinion what is the line. Where do you draw the line?

Here, our government is advising me how to dress, and to not wear an underwire bra:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/index.shtm
Screw them, I'll wear whatever damn bra I want.

Important part is bolded.

I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.



I'll add my own opinion on this. I prsonally believe the 'extra' security suffers massively from diminishing returns from a security vs inconveneince standpoint. Is the extra inconvenience worth the extra security?

As I've never been in a sticky situation i'd say no. Ask someone who's been in that situation they'd probably give a different answer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I just went over some of the numbers relating to the x-ray doses from the scanners. It looks like it's not a big deal: at present travel rates I expect about 400 cancer deaths per century, where I might expect 4000 deaths from airplane hijacking and other related terrorism in the same period. (I leave the numbers intentionally vague; the models aren't good enough to support even one significant decimal place.)

So it's entirely an issue of privacy and cost.

 

[Andre]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.

I did discuss this with commercial collegues and wrote some letters. Most agreed, so I hope that this "last ditch" defence has gained some attention.

 

[Pengwuino]

On the other hand, this is providing some decent comedic relief.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40358601/ns/travel-news/

 

[turbo]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.

I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

 

[WhoWee]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

Could this be an opportunity for toga's to make a comeback?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSyQ3uAu3E&feature=related

The safety pins might be a problem though?

 

[mheslep]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.

That no doubt would be of use now, in hindsight, with reinforced doors and the knowledge that the hostiles intend suicide versus catching a ride to Cuba at gun / knife point for some coin. I can't imagine any pre 911 crew trying violent aerial maneuvers.

 

[BobG]

I accept a nearly 1% lifetime chance of being accidentally poisoned (and dying from it) without any thought to it (though, to be fair, I eat a lot more often than I take a flight). I imagine there are probably a lot more along those lines that add up to a lifetime risk on the order of a few percent. I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.

I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

It's not quite grammatical, but the meaning is clear.

The odds of being crushed by a toilet bowl falling from a high shelf in the local Home Depot are fairly long. That's the sort of thing that could give a person a persecution complex. It could result in paranoid tendencies.

That's why some people are afraid of flying and drive cross country, instead. If you die in a plane crash, you'll feel like someone has it in for you because the odds against it happening are to slim for it to be mere coincidence. In a car crash, you'll be able to console yourself with the fact that this sort of thing happens to people all of the time.

Of course, I guess if either happened to me, I wouldn't be laughing.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Its hard to use good grammar when I'm posting on a phone. I'll try again at work.

Edit: heh I've jinxed it. I get in and the network is down!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find the entire controversy over TSA checkpoints to be a positive development, even if rather ironic.

Our post 9/11 reactions have included several measures a lot worse than having to walk through a backscatter imaging device. Warrantless wiretaps, US citizens categorized as illegal enemy combatants and denied any legal way to challenge their status, torture of enemy detainees, etc.

And then outrage over one of the most trivial actions taken to protect against terrorists

As a point of clarification, if you recall, I was damned near going out of my mind when this stuff was happening. My position has been completely consistent. And this is offensive.

Just as a point of reference, for those who don't worry about this sort of thing, at what price would you put the right to privacy over convenience? If we could eliminate the need for this for $10 a head by using electronic sniffers, or swabs, would you pay the $10. Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?

Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If it takes rectal and vaginal probing to make sure we're as safe as possible, is that what we do?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?

This may seem a little obvious but. If you don't like it you don't have to fly. Then you wouldn't be scanned prodded or fondled at all.

Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

People keep saying this. Yet will not give a clear answer themselves. What is your risk v inconvenience threshold?

Also you need to justify why you think your idea of safety is any more valid than someone with more stringent criteria.

To be honest id make everyone fly totally naked, no one could smuggle anything, the prudes wouldn't fly, the queues would be shorter and if there are any sexy ladies then all the better.

Edit: yeah a finger up the bum stops the last hiding hole, so ill add that to my pre flight checks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

I believe this is only true because people don't understand what they are sacrificing - that which every soldier is sworn to protect, to give his or her life if needed - our liberty. We cheer the soldier whose job it is to defend that which we thoughtlessly toss out with the garbage. What irony.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Cant have liberty if you are dead.

Everyone believes their own views are correct and justified. Yet there must be some compromise when you are using a service along with others whos views differ.

your complaints that its too intrusive are just as justified in people saying its not intrusive enough. So who do we go with? Are you more correct in saying ' you don't have to fly if you think its too dangerous' or the other people who say ' you don't have to fly if you find it too inconvenient'?


You could always become rich and buy your own personal plane, then you wouldn't have to jump through these hoops.

 

[ThomasT]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.

I have absolutely no problem with this. This is not to say whether or not we're right or wrong in this. It's just the way things are. The survival of Western culture and people is at odds with that of middle eastern Islamic culture. One of them has to go in a global society. I'm hoping that it's middle eastern Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[BobG]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The county with the most muslims is not in the middle east.

 

[BobG]

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics

Actually, if you look at some of the other statistics in those links, you can gain a hint into why Muslim terrorism is a lot less likely in the US.

Whether Muslim or Arab American (or both), they have higher income levels and higher education levels than the average American. People born in the US, regardless of ancestry, are American citizens and affect American political processes. Currently, there's only two Muslim Congressmen and both were elected to office in the last four years.

In the US, there's a good reason for immigrants to buy into the system and become more interested in becoming integrated into society rather than maintaining close ties to their ancestor's country of origin.

The threat of terrorism from any US citizen is very low - even those with Arab ancestors.