bingle

It is, however, racial discrimination. That is, given two people identical except for race, they are treated differently - race becomes a method for making distinctions between the two people.

Now, you can argue, if you want, that racial discrimination is necessary, or helpful, but call it what it is.

As others have posted, though, think of the logical extension of this policy to other arenas. Investigating black suspects more strenuously than white suspects, because statistically they are more likely to have committed a crime, is the one that stands out most in my mind. Once we start deciding that certain people are racially more likely to have a certain characteristic or act in a certain way, we revert to society 100 years ago.

Now, limiting the number of people of one race who can be searched is not the right approach to take - if someone is suspicious, they should be searched regardless of how many other people of that group have been searched. But limiting or even concentrating on one group of people ignores the fact that other groups are equally able or likely to commit terrorist acts.

Remember that, looking at the history of terrorism in the US, a terrorist is more likely going to be a white, Christian extremist than any other group. Or if you're focused on Islamic extremism, realize that focusing on one particular racial group leaves a huge hole in our defenses that can be exploited by a determined group. Truly random screenings can't be exploited in the same way.

Bingle