A recent Cornell University survey
found that almost half of all Americans believe that the U.S.
government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans.
This bigoted, racist attitude is quite simply appalling. It essentially
favors racial profiling; yet a recent report by Amnesty International
presents strong evidence indicating that racial profiling does not
work. Amnesty's report was based on six national public hearings and
more than a year of intensive research. The report provides
overwhelming evidence indicating that racial profiling is not only
ineffective but actually impedes the process of finding the real
criminals, encourages hate, and undermines national unity. Just as
racial profiling has failed in the "war on drugs," it is likewise
doomed to fail in the "war on terror." Proponents of racial profiling
might argue that the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, and so Muslims
are more likely to initiate further terror attacks against Americans
and should be scrutinized accordingly. Some call this "hunting where
the ducks are." Using that logic, however, why did we not crack down on
white, European-American men after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995? Racial profiling gives
terrorists a formula for greater success. It tips off criminal networks
about who needs to be recruited in order to be more effective. This is
illustrated by the U.S. government's experience in World War II when,
despite the massive internments of Japanese Americans and visitors,
none of the people convicted of spying for Japan were of Japanese or
Asian ancestry. Moreover, the arrests of John Walker Lindh (a white,
middle-class male), Jose Padilla (an Hispanic gang member), and Richard
Reid (a British citizen of West Indian ancestry) suggest that Al-Qaeda
has already been successful in recruiting a diverse group of
sympathizers who by their nature could not be identified through racial
profiling. [more]