A case against mistaken identity

Ever since 11 September 2001 we have heard about the need for "security". We have to give up some of our rights in order to be secure. And at the same time we hear about how it is ridiculous to stop white-haired grandmothers from the Midwest, as they aren't "terrorist threats." That when we passed freedom-infringing laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, that they really shouldn't be enforced against people who aren't obvious threats, but instead against those who "look like" terrorists, according to same people, anyway.

But what does a "terrorist" look like? If you asked Americans, you'd probably find at least 4 out of 5 who believed that a terrorist would look like an Arab or South Asian, male, probably between the ages of 20 and 50 (and more towards the younger end of that spectrum). And this doesn't even get into the religious portion of the profile, since you can't tell one's religion from outward appearances. And while that profile may have fit the hijackers of the late summer of 2001, let's look at some other acts of "terrorism" from the 1990s.

1993 - World Trade Center, New York - Mohammed Salama - fits the profile
1995 - Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City - Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - neither fits the profile
1996 - Centennial Olympic Park, Atlanta - Eric Rudolph - doesn't fit the profile
1997 - bombing of lesbian nightclub and abortion clinic, Atlanta - Eric Rudolph - see above
1998 - bombing of abortion clinic, Birmingham, AL - Eric Rudolph - see above
1998 - murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, Buffalo - James Kopp - doesn't fit the profile

So, of a minimum of seven acts of "terrorism" within the United States during the 1990s, only one was carried out by the "typical" "terrorist"; young males from the Middle East or South Asia. The other six were carried out by four young or middle-aged white men born in the United States (two of whom are avowed "born-again" Christians!). So why is our profile such a narrow profile? Especially in a nation where a century-long campaign of "terror" was carried out by an organization of protestant Christian white men against men and women who were black, Jewish or Catholic. One large orchestrated act of terror committed by 19 Arab men suddenly pushes that demographic to the fore as the "typical" "terrorist" profile, in spite of what history tells us is true.

And why are these profiles so dangerous? Let us consider the case of the man that London police gunned down in a subway car on 22 July, a day after the copy-cat "bombs" were set in the Underground. On that day it was widely reported that he was a suspect in the prior day's failed "terror" attacks. Then this afternoon the London police have come forth and said "oops, he wasn't a suspect. Dreadfully sorry. We wish would could take back the actions. Pardon the mistake."

The man was followed from his apartment building, which was under surveillance as part of the investigation into Thursday's "attacks". His clothing and behaviour were "suspicious", so the police followed him into the subway, and onto a train. It was there that the police shot him, in front of a train full of passengers.

Shooting innocent people because they fit a profile. It's a new wave of "terror", one that targets minorities, and carried out in front of other citizens, with disregard for their safety, supported by the authority of the government.