First of all, what exactly does a Muslim look like? Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and I for one am put off by Kurt’s wording at the end of his story. Being a Muslim is about your RELIGION, not your ethnicity or race, so how can you LOOK like a Muslim?
I understand profiling to a point, BUT, if this guy was doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt, what’s the big deal? Should people wearing “proud to be Irish” t-shirts be banned because they may have possible connections to the IRA?

crc, if the IRA had crashed into the world trade center killing 3000 Americans or so and continued to threat, the answer to you question would be YES

I understand that need for profiling, and first tom, I understand your point that if the IRA was responsible for 9/11 then we would be profiling a completely different group. But this guy was wearing a tshirt, not doing anything suspicious. It’s the airline’s ignorance - and the people who were flying on this man’s plane - to think that because he looks like his from the Middle East (because, again, you can’t really look like a Muslim) that he is on the plane to harm anybody.

I appreciate the efforts by security personnal to keep the traveling public safe in this day and age. Unfortunately not every decision is going to be a good one. This dude wearing a t-shirt with Arabic script probably shouldn’t have been considered a threat.

At the same time, how stupid do you have to be to be a Middle-eastern man aged 18-35 to wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it to an airport? Either this guy lives under a rock or he knew PRECISELY what he was doing when he donned those duds and tried to board a plane. Where is the outrage over his decisions? He may have even realized the money he could make if things played out right when he tried to get on the plane, which they did, and which he got…

Here is some food for thought. There are about 2 billion Muslims in the world. I have seen in several articles in many different newspapers and magazines that most Muslims are ” moderate” and no danger to us. We all know to what extent “radical” Muslims will go to destroy western society. Lets suppose that only one tenth of one percent( that means that 99.99% are moderate) of Muslims are radical. That means that each and everyday there are 2,000,000 Muslims that are doing everything legal and illegal to KILL US!! The Koran says that they can do anything to infidels that they want to. We must either convert,submit, or die! Not many liberties granted to us infidels. Until little old ladies and “non Muslim” type people start attacking us, then we need a very focused profiling program to portect us. I for one are VERY WILLING to put up with these additional security measures to protect our great society.

I didn’t respond to the other races situation because even though I’ve heard the same thing, I have yet to see much evidence that Al-Qaeda has actually been successful at it. Security authorities in several countries have thwarted plots by Al-Qaeda cells on airlines in the last year, but so far as I can tell all those arrested and questioned have been of Asian or Middle Eastern descent.

However, even if it turns out a group like Al-Qaeda has gotten people of other ethnicities to join their global Jihad, that doesn’t change the fact that vast majority of their cell members are still Asian/Middle Eastern. All it means is that security services must take that into account as well as continue to use effective methods like profiling. Just because a particular tool doesn’t work 100% of the time is no reason to scrap it. And yes, it is silly to follow something like that to a radical conclusion. We learned decades ago that internment was a waste of time besies being an egregious abuse of citizen’s rights. No one is seriously advocating doing that again and if they did, I’d be one of the first to protest against it.

Go_Fish says, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with racial or ethnic profiling when it comes to stopping terrorism.” Take that sentence and substitute another crime for the word terrorism. Let’s try burglary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with racial or ethnic profiling when it comes to stopping burglary. OK with that? What about murder? Child abuse? Vandalism?

Is there any situation where racial and ethnic profiling IS wrong? Is there really a situation where criminal justice can be appropriately enforced based upon racial and ethnic stereotyping?

Once again, posters have proven my contention that most Americans are constitutional illiterates. Has any one of you taken a civics class? Racial profiling is not an issue in this case, so forget about it completely. This appears to be primarily a freedom of speech issue. You know, the First Amendment. I know that private entities, such as JetBlue, are not covered by the First Amendment, as it applies only to governmental agencies and agents. However, JetBlue appears to have been acting as a government agent in this case, meaning a First Amendment claim applied to them. Freedom of speech, in this case the wearing of a T-shirt with Arabic script, is almost absolute. There are few exceptions where freedom of speech may be limited. Here, the shirt posed no threat to public safety. Sorry people, the mere wearing of a shirt that might be frightening to some people is not considered a threat to public safety. Look at all the morons who wear Che Gueverra shirts (he was a terrorist, after all). It apparently was not defamation. The script did not constitute “fighting words”. It was not an incitement to crime. It did not constitute sedition. It was not an obscenity. The only possible basis for restricting the man from wearing and exhibiting the T-shirt would be “causing panic”. However, this is a very limited exception, and I do not think another passenger’s “discomfort” rises to the level of panic.

Therefore, the TSA officials, and JetBlue, an agent of the government, had no constitutional basis for restricting the man’s freedom of expression. Rather than badmouth the ACLU, an organization I frequently disagree with, people would be better served learning the Constitution.

It never goes to far, when the safety of the traveling American public is in question. I think most Americans would agree with my position, and unfortunately, these are the times we are living in.

crc: You’re right. My wording was inelegant. I have edited it to reflect what I really meant to say. Thank you.