To Profile or Not to Profile?

That is the question.

The left and many self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" are predictably riled up about the Obama administration's recent decision to institute a form of profiling in airports. To read a short summary of the new directive, follow this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/obama-administration-orders-new-airline-security-directives.html

Under the new policy, any individual traveling from or through the following nations on their way to the US will be subjected to enhanced screening: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

The debate over profiling is one worth having, because there are reasonable people with reasonable positions on both sides. At its core, the debate is about how to balance civil liberties and national security. If one accepts that a) we are fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorists, b) that it's a war worth fighting, and c) that it's a war that must be won, since nothing short of the security of our allies and our own citizens is at stake, then it becomes necessary to accept some level of infringement on our individual liberties in the name of keeping the homeland and our fellow Americans safe.

It's a balancing act. In this case, the price we pay in terms of liberty is a little extra attention/screening for individuals who hail from or have recently spent time in certain nations that we deem to be more likely to produce a Muslim extremist hell-bent on slaughtering Americans. The benefit we (hope to) receive is saving innocent American lives.

Obviously, it would make more sense to profile based on religion rather than nationality, since we're at war with radicalized Islamic terrorists, not Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is, of course, a fact that the Obama administration either a) can't bring itself to admit out of a sort of willful blindness, because they don't have the stomach/don't want to face the harsh realities of war or b) motivated by political correctness concerns, chooses not to admit for fear of offending the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful people.

The first theory is the one that Dick Cheney espoused recently. Decisions like the one made by Attorney General Eric Holder, with President Obama's blessing, to ship terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the Big Apple for a criminal trial in a civilian court certainly lends credence to this view of the Obama administration. So too does the administration's insistence on dropping the whole "War on Terror" nomenclature, in favor of labeling acts of terror "man-caused disasters" (as Secretary Napolitano has been known to do) and referring to military actions abroad as "overseas contingency operations."

On the whole, I think Cheney's point about the administration's willful blindness is on target, insofar as it accurately describes the shift away from fighting these barbarians on a war footing. Instead, the administration has elected to treat the terrorists (sorry, "alleged suspects") as ordinary criminals who must be Mirandized and allowed to lawyer up before we can ask them whether they have important information that might allow us to hunt down their leaders and mentors in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc...and potentially save American lives.

But the willful blindness argument only gets you so far. After all, the Obama administration DID just agree to begin a system of profiling in airports, which is a pretty serious step (and one that the supposedly uber-hawkish, Constitution-shredding Bush/Cheney crowd did not take). But as I've pointed out, Obama's profiling strategy singles out people by nationality and/or where they've been living/visiting.

I think, and I'm of course guessing here, that there are two reasons for this approach. The first is that it's simply easier to profile this way rather than asking people (and verifying) what religion they practice. The second reason is that a formal policy of profiling Muslims may alienate the silent majority of peaceful Muslims who reject the hate-mongering and senseless violence of the jihadists. And to win this war, we will ultimately need this moderate Muslim majority to rise up and join us in beating back the forces of radical Islamism.

These concerns have merit, especially the second one. I don't know what the answer is. Profiling by nation is a start. Those who object to this new policy would do well to remember this simple fact: the 14 countries on the list, by taking appropriate actions to root out terrorism within their borders, control their own destiny. We are funneling millions upon millions of dollars in aid to some of these countries in order to help them beat back the forces of extremism. If they get serious about defeating Al Qaeda, perhaps we'll "reward" them by removing them from the list.

But ultimately, for profiling to be a useful tool in our national security arsenal, we're probably going to have to subject Muslims to extra scrutiny. This isn't bigoted or racist. It's a commonsense policy based on facts. We're at war with an enemy whose propensity for wanton violence knows no bounds. They are not Orthodox Jews or devout Christians. They are extremists who claim (falsely) to be adhering to the dictates of the Koran and the Islamic faith.