Profiling Hysteria

Andrew McCarthy, writing about a New Jersey kerfuffle over racial profiling, argues that someone's Muslim beliefs are an entirely relevant consideration as one part of law enforcement efforts against terrorism.

Key graphs (emphasis mine):

Islamic groups . . . are voicing “long-standing fears of unequal treatment” for Muslims . . .

The interest groups would undeniably have a point if the global scourge of terrorism cut across sectarian lines. Broadly speaking, though, it does not. The vast majority of the terrorism committed in the world, and virtually all of the terrorism targeted against the United States for the past dozen years, has been spawned by radical Islam.

This is obviously why the interest groups are trying mightily to alter the underlying assumptions of counterterrorist theory. Terrorism, they insist, is a reaction to political conditions; it is not doctrinal in nature. But this conflates context with cause. On the same account, one could argue that, say, mafia racketeering is an economic phenomenon, unrelated to any sort of criminal culture.

And facts being stubborn things, the activists have three hurdles they can’t clear. First, it is never an acceptable response to “political” disputes to mass-murder civilians — civilized people do not make their points that way. Second, while political disputes are similar the world over, the people who have reacted to them by bombings (and who, in Israel, claim the right to regard civilians, including children, as legitimately targeted combatants) have almost exclusively been Muslims. And third, regardless of how partisans seek to explain away the atrocities, the militants actually committing them tell us, unabashedly, that it is Islam which commands them to act.

Islam, therefore, cannot sensibly be thought irrelevant to the formulation of precautions to be taken against what is, incontestably, Islamic terrorism. That does not come close to meaning every Muslim should be in a terrorist database. But there are many who should, and that regrettable situation will obtain until terrorism stops being committed on a singular scale by Muslims. And, significantly, until the self-appointed representatives of Islamic interests stop saying lamebrain things, like that blowing up people and buildings is an understandable “political” response to anything.
...

There is nothing wrong with profiling a known, ongoing threat. In fact, people charged with protecting us would be irresponsible if they failed to do so. Moreover, just as we know the militants are Muslims, so, too, we know that the vast majority of Muslims are not militants. There is consequently a lot more to the equation than just religious affiliation.

A Muslim goes to the mosque. So what? That proves nothing. But does he go to a mosque that is known to promote violent jihad? That, to the contrary, would be a very big deal. We know that such mosques have catalyzed terrorists in the past. Plus, there are lots of mosques that don’t preach that sort of thing, so if a Muslim chooses to attend the radical mosque, why should we not take that into account? It would be reckless not to.

A Muslim gives to charity. Again, who cares? We should all give to charity. But if they are charities with a history of underwriting terrorist organizations, that is not something that can responsibly be ignored. Maybe the individual Muslim in question doesn’t know — but why is that a risk society should take? After all, what we are talking about here is who might merit investigation. No one is being locked up for being in a database.

Suspecting people because of who they are rather than what they do is unacceptable. But ignoring who they are in the course of scrutinizing what they do is equally unacceptable if — as with militant Islam, Italian mafia groups, Russian organized crime, Chinese tongs, etc. — who they are is relevant to the determination of whether they are likely to pose a threat.

If I attended a church that advocated the murder of abortion doctors and the bombing of clinics (I don't), and if I gave money to "charities" that pursued similar aims (ditto), do you think anyone on the left would argue those were irrelevant factors that should be ignored? Would I be supported by the ACLU as exercising my right to free expression and association? Could I get away with saying I didn't know they advocated those positions?

Not a chance. It's no different with Islamic militants.