But lost in these debates among wise men and wise women is the practicality of the matter as it relates to the baddest of the bad guys — those we’d most like to keep the hell out, those most worth stopping once they’re here.
What do you think the reaction is to these satellite-delivered American TV racial profiling debates as heard by Islamic terrorists, operating anywhere from Tehran to Toronto? They must laugh their heads off, wonder if we’re all nuts.
Surely, they ask: “How, at this point in history, can there be any such debate among our sworn enemies? How much more mayhem can we inflict on them before they realize that we’ve declared war?”
Same with murderous, drug-running and people-running operations in Mexico and Central America. Their primary wholesale delivery depots are in the US. Every time these baddest of bad guys tune in to one of these racial profiling debates they have to be left in stitches:
“They’re debating whether, just over the U.S. border, the police should be allowed to ask for identification based on a Hispanic’s — or anyone else’s — suspicious behavior. How funny is that! Why not just send the Welcome Wagon to pick us up at the border!”
The practicality of the debate is lost in a stew of Constitutional applications that reflect “feelings” — whether it’s “fair” to racially profile, whether it’s “nice.”
No, it’s not nice, but it’s fair. Consider: No one’s rooting harder for the anti-profilers than the baddest of the alien bad guys!
Funny, those who oppose racial profiling as a violation of inalienable rights, ignore the most open and virulent form of racial profiling as legally practiced within our judicial system.
If a minority crime suspect is arrested and charged, his/her defense team often accuse the cops and the DA’s office with a race-based arrest and prosecution — racial profiling — which may or may not be true.
Yet, in choosing juries, defense teams carefully, conspicuously and without apology select jurors based on race and gender profiling.
So it’s considered intolerable that a person be questioned, suspected or arrested if there’s even fractional evidence that he or she was stopped due to a racial profile.
But there’s no problem when the determination of a defendant’s alleged crime becomes, to some small or large degree, a matter of racially profiling the jury that will sit in judgment of the accused.
So race should play no role in the deterrence or the investigation of crime, yet it should play a role in the adjudication of those accused of crimes.
Why is that tolerated?
Meanwhile, it’s Sunday. That’s Comedy Day/Night for the baddest of bad guys operating from Yemen to the Yucatan, targeting the wide-open US to do their worst.
Sunday’s the day when satellite TV carries those serious debates among American wise people as to whether it’s right for police to stop a person based on fitting the profile of law breakers, because it might hurt their feelings.
“Oh man, that’s rich! Stop, you’re killing me!” Yeah, maybe we can get them to laugh themselves to death."