thedrifter
11-23-04, 06:17 AM
The Politically Correct Terrorism War?
November 22, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jim Kouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As time passes and the events of September 11th become more distant, the voices of America’s political-correctness orthodoxy have increased their volume and intensity. They now feel safe in questioning Homeland Security tactics to combat terrorism and are attempting to turn public opinion against law-enforcement leaders. A major weapon in their arsenal is the accusation of racial profiling by US police and security forces. Another weapon in the war against the war on terrorism is the distortions made regarding the Patriot Act.
Most clear thinking Americans were shocked when 9-11 Commission member and former US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman revealed a disturbing fact: the Federal Aviation Administration will be hitting American airlines with stiff penalties for even the appearance of any racial profiling of Middle-Easterners. One airline paid out a huge sum of money to Arab males who filed law suits alleging racial profiling, as well. Yet none of this appeared in the commission's final report.
This leaves many law-enforcement officers incredulously asking: what kind of terrorism war is this? It seems national security and public safety are taking a back-seat to political correctness which in turn thwarts our efforts to detect terrorists and their accomplices.
The National Association of Chiefs of Police's annual survey of our nation's police commanders and security directors provides evidence of our insane infatuation with the politically-correct orthodoxy. The survey reveals that almost 60 percent of police departments enforce a written policy prohibiting so-called racial profiling. At the same time, the survey shows that 88 percent of American police and security executives believe our homeland will suffer a terrorist attack within the next year.
Many Americans even hoped that the 9-11 Commission Report would reveal how political correctness -- in many cases, a euphemism for left-wing ideology -- contributed to the worst terrorist attack in US history. It did not. Some of the same people complaining about the CIA and FBI deficiencies are the people responsible for handcuffing law enforcement and intelligence officers in the first place. In fact, some in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail are guilty of having it both ways: they supported the heavily partisan 9-11 Commission and at the same time oppose the Patriot Act, in spite of the law's opponents' inability to provide evidence of even one case where the Patriot Act infringed on Americans' civil liberties. Their favorite tool for putting law-enforcement leaders -- and the politicos who support them -- on the defensive is to make allegations of profiling.
Criminal Profiling is a law-enforcement tool with a history that began in the early 1980s. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Behavioral Sciences Unit developed the first profile for a serial-killer (which by the way indicated a white male among its criteria). Then, according to former-FBI special agent Robert Ressler, the BSU created profiles for other categories of crime including terrorism. Through the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, local law-enforcement officers were provided instruction in profiling, which they brought back to their respective police agencies. Any cop worth his salt will tell you that criminal profiling remains a work-in-progress. As law enforcement learns more about the criminal mind and criminal characteristics, these profiles will continue to be revised. But will there be any need for such research and development if cops are prohibited from using this tool?
Jim Kouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kouri is a certified protection professional and 5th Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's a frequent contributor to Chief of Police and Police Times magazines. He represented NACOP during the US Government Accounting Office's study on the impact on local law enforcement by the FBI reorganization plan. Jim is the author of Assume the Position which is available at Amazon.com, Booksamillion.com and Barnes & Noble (BN.com).
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/k-misc/kouri112204.htm
Ellie
November 22, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jim Kouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As time passes and the events of September 11th become more distant, the voices of America’s political-correctness orthodoxy have increased their volume and intensity. They now feel safe in questioning Homeland Security tactics to combat terrorism and are attempting to turn public opinion against law-enforcement leaders. A major weapon in their arsenal is the accusation of racial profiling by US police and security forces. Another weapon in the war against the war on terrorism is the distortions made regarding the Patriot Act.
Most clear thinking Americans were shocked when 9-11 Commission member and former US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman revealed a disturbing fact: the Federal Aviation Administration will be hitting American airlines with stiff penalties for even the appearance of any racial profiling of Middle-Easterners. One airline paid out a huge sum of money to Arab males who filed law suits alleging racial profiling, as well. Yet none of this appeared in the commission's final report.
This leaves many law-enforcement officers incredulously asking: what kind of terrorism war is this? It seems national security and public safety are taking a back-seat to political correctness which in turn thwarts our efforts to detect terrorists and their accomplices.
The National Association of Chiefs of Police's annual survey of our nation's police commanders and security directors provides evidence of our insane infatuation with the politically-correct orthodoxy. The survey reveals that almost 60 percent of police departments enforce a written policy prohibiting so-called racial profiling. At the same time, the survey shows that 88 percent of American police and security executives believe our homeland will suffer a terrorist attack within the next year.
Many Americans even hoped that the 9-11 Commission Report would reveal how political correctness -- in many cases, a euphemism for left-wing ideology -- contributed to the worst terrorist attack in US history. It did not. Some of the same people complaining about the CIA and FBI deficiencies are the people responsible for handcuffing law enforcement and intelligence officers in the first place. In fact, some in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail are guilty of having it both ways: they supported the heavily partisan 9-11 Commission and at the same time oppose the Patriot Act, in spite of the law's opponents' inability to provide evidence of even one case where the Patriot Act infringed on Americans' civil liberties. Their favorite tool for putting law-enforcement leaders -- and the politicos who support them -- on the defensive is to make allegations of profiling.
Criminal Profiling is a law-enforcement tool with a history that began in the early 1980s. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Behavioral Sciences Unit developed the first profile for a serial-killer (which by the way indicated a white male among its criteria). Then, according to former-FBI special agent Robert Ressler, the BSU created profiles for other categories of crime including terrorism. Through the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, local law-enforcement officers were provided instruction in profiling, which they brought back to their respective police agencies. Any cop worth his salt will tell you that criminal profiling remains a work-in-progress. As law enforcement learns more about the criminal mind and criminal characteristics, these profiles will continue to be revised. But will there be any need for such research and development if cops are prohibited from using this tool?
Jim Kouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kouri is a certified protection professional and 5th Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's a frequent contributor to Chief of Police and Police Times magazines. He represented NACOP during the US Government Accounting Office's study on the impact on local law enforcement by the FBI reorganization plan. Jim is the author of Assume the Position which is available at Amazon.com, Booksamillion.com and Barnes & Noble (BN.com).
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/k-misc/kouri112204.htm
Ellie