Senseless in Seattle: Self-Inflicted Profiling Angst

It must be confusing to be an FBI agent these days. For years now, the practice of profiling, AKA stereotyping, has been officially forbidden, driven underground in the law enforcement community by political correctness and ACLU lawsuits. Fighting the War on Terror with agents blindfolded to race, religion, ethnicity, and other characteristics is becoming increasingly challenging, made more so by the ironic fact that even when the FBI forgoes profiling in potential terrorism investigations it is still criticized by the very groups it strives not to offend. The FBI’s recent release of photos of two unknown men observed conducting what may have been pre-attack operational planning on several ferries in Washington’s Puget Sound area generated an ironic response from Seattle’s Muslim and Arab-American community leaders.

The context of this incident is important to consider. The FBI, after interviewing ferry passengers and staff, was unsuccessful in identifying the two men, who were observed showing interest in critical and restricted areas of the ferries. So unusual was their behavior that ferry staff and passengers reported it to a ferry captain, who photographed the pair. That photo, obtained from the captain, was turned over to the FBI and subsequently released to the news media along with a request for anyone with information about the two men to contact the FBI. The FBI did not refer to the men as Muslims, Arabs, or even Middle Eastern.

That last fact made the swift and emotional response from Seattle’s Muslim and Arab-American community leaders all the more ironic. Their chief complaint was that they had worked hard to establish cooperative relations with the FBI in Seattle, but the FBI had damaged the tenuous partnership by releasing the ferry suspects’ photos without first consulting Muslim and Arab-American leaders. As reported by the Seattle Times:

Dozens of Muslims and Arabs have complained to community leaders about the photographs. The fallout has led to a meeting planned today between Muslim- and Arab-American community leaders and law-enforcement officials.

"We need to get some type of apology from them and figure out how to get back to where we were," said Rita Zawaideh, head of the Arab-American Community Coalition.

Remember, the FBI merely provided the photos to media sources because it wanted to interview the two men regarding their behavior on the ferries, not because of their appearance. Usually when government agencies are criticized in the media by hyper-sensitive groups, they turn tail and flee from the possibility of lawsuits and accusations of profiling. Fortunately, David Gomez, a supervisor in the FBI’s Seattle Field Office stood his ground and accused Seattle’s Muslim and Arab-American leaders of stereotyping in precisely the same manner they so loudly object to from law enforcement:

Gomez said the agency needs to address certain sensitive issues, but "people in those communities have to get over this sensitivity toward feeling victimized."

Many passengers have been stopped and questioned recently, as the ferry system has stepped up security once the FBI concluded the men might be watching the system. The stops are based on activities, not skin color, Gomez said.

Two days ago, a Seattle Times photographer, who is white, was stopped and questioned after taking photographs near the Mukilteo ferry terminal.

The FBI didn't take the photos of the two men to the Arab- and Muslim-American community because the agency doesn't know if the men are Middle Eastern, Gomez added.

"That seems potentially prejudicial to me, and in some ways worse than simply putting [the photos] out the way we did," Gomez said. "It is not us saying these guys look Middle Eastern."

Thus without knowing whether the ferry suspects were Middle Eastern, the FBI followed the most prudent and politically correct course possible in its quest to identify and locate the two men: it simply released the photos without guessing at the pair’s religious preference or ethnicity, and asked for the public’s help in identifying the two men because they were acting suspiciously on a public conveyance considered an attractive potential terrorist target. The FBI played its cards right in this situation, because had it taken the photos to Seattle’s Muslim and Arab-American community leaders asking for assistance, those leaders could have accused the FBI of assuming the two suspects were Muslim or Middle Eastern based on appearance only, a classic cry of profiling. The complaint of Rita Zawaideh that the FBI had consulted with leaders prior to other releases of suspect photos intentionally omits a crucial element: in those prior instances the FBI had already obtained through investigation some indication that those suspects were in fact Muslims of Middle Eastern descent.

The nature of the cooperative relationship previously established between the FBI’s Seattle office and Seattle’s Muslim leaders should be reexamined. While it is not uncommon for law enforcement to approach such leaders when there is some indication a suspect has ties to a particular religious or ethnic community, it would be unusual for a law enforcement agency to feel obliged to allow those leaders to preview all alerts or lookouts (BOLOs) prior to public release when an agency does not know the religion or ethnicity of a suspect. It would be irresponsible to share such law enforcement sensitive data, and it would be profiling. Should the FBI be required to select leaders from every conceivable ethnic or religious group, who will review suspect photos prior to public release? In a nation so diverse, suspects would have long since fled before the FBI could “consult” with representatives from an endless number of cultural communities.

By their own outrage at the FBI’s failure to consult them before releasing the suspects’ photos, Seattle’s Muslim leaders revealed their own penchant for profiling, clearly becoming angry after viewing the photos on the Internet and coming to their own conclusion that the two suspects were in fact Muslim and Middle Eastern based solely on physical characteristics. Had the FBI come to those same conclusions based on the same criteria, an ACLU lawsuit would have arrived at the FBI’s Seattle office before the ink had dried from its printing. Law enforcement agencies face a serious quandary, forbidden from officially teaching agents the art of profiling while simultaneously condemned for carefully avoiding it.

Seattle’s Muslim and Arab-American leaders did not need law enforcement profiling training to conclude from a photo that the ferry suspects were likely Middle Eastern Muslims. Unlike law enforcement, those leaders are allowed to judge by color rather than character. Their response conjured memories of the peasant mob in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who when asked by Sir Bedevere how they knew a village woman was a witch replied, “Because she looks like one!” Apparently Seattle’s Muslim leaders applied the same logic when they viewed the ferry suspects’ photos. To its credit, the FBI withheld such superficial judgment, preferring instead to wait for investigative leads that might establish the suspects’ ethnicity.

Technorati Tags:
FBI, Seattle, Ferry, Terrorist Targets, Muslim Leaders, CAIR, Profiling, Arab-Americans, David Gomez, Rita Zawaideh, Terrorist Attack Planning, Puget Sound, War on Terror

American Muslims Rising in Defense of '24' but Offer No Rival to CAIR

Spy the News! makes a conscious effort to avoid commenting on celebrity news, as in fact I do not consider celebrity behavior to be news. There are more critical matters worthy of reading time and attention than what individual entertainers do or what they think about politics. However, Hollywood's influence on American culture is considerable and thus Hollywood as an institution must be criticized when it distorts truth or attempts to sanitize truth in the name of political correctness. It should also be praised when it bucks the trend of political correctness and presents story lines that unite Americans in a common cause rather than divide us by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or economic status. The Fox program "24" is stirring controversy for its portrayal of terrorists as Arab Muslim terrorists, but it is simultaneously receiving increasing praise for precisely the same reason.

I admit that a few seasons ago I stopped watching the program, mainly due to plots involving wildly exaggerated internal U.S. Government conspiracies in which the main character, Jack Bauer, appeared to be in more danger from our government than from terrorists. It seemed then (and continues to) that Jack's only hope of thwarting terrorists and saving the world was to work completely outside of all government strategy and existing tactics and he spent an inordinate amount of time protecting himself from elements within the U.S. Government bent on murdering him. Fortunately somewhere along the way it appears the producers of "24" have returned to the plots and realities that made the show unique and compelling in its earlier years. The plots once again involve Islamic terrorists working zealously to kill as many Americans as possible through bombings and other attacks, to include a spectacular detonation of a terrorist nuclear device in Los Angeles in this season's plot line.

That depiction of Los Angeles under a mushroom cloud has generated loud objections from CAIR, an organization that wields far too much influence over Islamic sensitivity training programs inexplicably embraced by U.S. Government departments and agencies. CAIR claims that portrayals of terrorists as Muslim will incite violence against Arab-Americans and contributes to stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists. Of course reality justifies America's fear of Islamic terrorism, but CAIR is not concerned with reality as it sits on the government's shoulder and whispers sweet nothings about Islam into Uncle Sam's ear.

Regular Spy the News! readers routinely scroll the left column for daily news headlines and notable columns, and hopefully followed the link to the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal today, which contained a piece written by Arab-American Emilio Kareem Dabul. In this article, "In Defense of '24'" Dabul expresses what Americans hope is a growing sentiment among Arab-Americans. Particularly welcome was the following statement:

"In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist."

In a similar but even more blunt assessment of what Arab-Americans should be doing to fight terrorism within their own religion, M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, contributed a wonderful articleto National Review Online last week. Jasser defended the plot line of "24" and declared that Muslims need to unite and defeat the true enemy, which he explicitly identified as Islamism. Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, made the following call to arms to fellow American Muslims:

"It’s time for hundreds of thousands of Muslims to be not only private but public in their outrage — and to commit themselves to specific, verbal engagement of the militants and their Islamism. We, as American Muslims, should be training and encouraging our Muslim-community youth to become the future Jack Bauers of America. What better way to dispel stereotypes than to create hundreds of new, real images of Muslims who are publicly leading this war on the battlefield and in the domestic and foreign media against the militant Islamists. Condemnations by press release and vague fatwas are not enough. We need to create organizations — high-profile, well-funded national organizations and think tanks — which are not afraid to identify al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name, and by their mission as the enemies of America. If Muslim organizations and the American Muslim leadership were seen publicly as creating a national, generational plan to fight Islamism — rather than searching for reasons to claim victimhood — then the issues and complaints surrounding such TV shows would disappear. The way to fight the realities of 24 is to create a Muslim CTU, a deep Muslim counterterrorism ideology and a national action plan for our security."[emphasis added]

As one who has suffered through CAIR Muslim sensitivity training, I echo Jasser's recommendations and encourage Arab-Americans to establish an organization that, unlike CAIR, has no ties to known terrorists and that promotes Muslim cooperation with terrorist investigations conducted to preserve national security. What troubles many within the intelligence/national security community is the absence of any Arab-American organization to rival CAIR. Occasionally brave dissenters like Dabul and Jasser raise their voices to reassure Americans that our neighbors are not terrorists, but compared to the orchestrated and well-funded machinations of CAIR, such reassurances have only minimal effect on public perception. It is frequently stated that Islamic terrorism can only be eliminated through reform within Islam itself. Well-intentioned reassurances, regardless of frequency, are not reform. Jasser's call for a Muslim CTU is intriguing but currently problematic due to the embarrassingly small number of Arab-Americans and Arabic translators serving within intelligence, law enforcement, and military agencies.

Spy the News! applauds the producers of "24" for not cowering before CAIR. If a War on Terror will ever succeed, it will do so only when enemies are clearly identified, isolated so as to eliminate their ability to recruit, and destroyed. For this to occur, the faithful and courageous assistance of Muslims throughout the world will be necessary. Do they share Dabul and Jasser's desire to reform Islam? That is the question on which the War on Terror hinges.