Friday, October 31, 2008
Long division is beneath the New York Times
The New York Times has a story that is as close to self-parody as you are likely to see: "Inquiry Targeted 2,000 Foreign Muslims in 2004." The opening paragraph says it all:
An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.
Er...
So then you think that the "inquiry" must have really been invasive, or offensive to somebody's rights under the United States Constitution or whatever nonsense document might be promulgated by the United Nations. You would be wrong. Here's the worse that the Grey Lady could came up with, presumably with help from something called "the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School," which, by the way, sounds a lot scarier than anything that happened to these Muslims:
One foreigner, in the country on a student visa, was asked his “opinion of America,” according to internal investigative reports. He responded that he was “living the American dream and cared greatly for the equal opportunities, rights and values that are afforded in America.” Another person, from South Asia, was asked about a mosque he attended and told an agent that “the mosque did not espouse any radical or fundamental form of Islam or denounce the United States in any way.” A third visa holder was asked if he owned any chemical or biological explosives. He said he did not.
No. Way. Our security asked an immigrant for his opinion of America, another one whether his mosque preached subversion, and a third whether he owned illegal explosives? And then we accepted their answers and sent them on their way? Does not the BushHitler Reich know that there is a constitutional right not to be asked questions? So when's the Night of the Long Knives II?
Now, the New York Times and the Yalies who are flogging this issue say that 79% of the 2000 or so of the immigrants questioned in connection with anti-terror programs before the 2004 elections were from Muslim countries, so "this was profiling." Well, we can all have a little fun with statistics, and that's without saying that 100% of the people who attacked New York and Washington in 1993 and 2001 were immigrants from Muslim countries, or that all the members of the only international terrorist group actually to declare war on the United States are Muslim. In fiscal 2004, 517,277 people originating from the Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia entered the United States as tourists or other non-immigrants (source data in Excel file here). This number no doubt understates the Muslims who entered, because I did not count people from the Balkans, Russia, sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Phillipines and, dare I say it, the United Kingdom, all of which countries have substantial Muslim populations known to harbor international terrorists. So Homeland Security "inquired" into something less than 0.2% of the Muslims who came in to the United States that year, asking them for their "opinion of America" and such.
If we are profiling Muslim immigrants, we certainly aren't doing a thorough job of it. But then, if the Times had even the slightest interest in writing good news instead of making a political point on behalf of Yale's "National Litigation Project," it would have at least done that simple math. You know, for context.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Oct 31, 09:51:00 AM:
Lichtblau is certainly a one-trick pony. At least this time he's reduced to tapping high-end community slip&fall organizers as opposed to intelligence communtity leaker/traitors.
By , at
Fri Oct 31, 11:20:00 AM:
Let me just say that I'm in favor of profiling muslim immigrants from troubled countries. In fact, government would be derelict if this wasn't happening.
By , at
Fri Oct 31, 12:10:00 PM:
What are the current legal constraints on profiling for this kind of investigatory purpose?
The main problem here seems to be transparency. The idea is that the 79% is potentially a "gotcha" if you've said you're "ethnicity-blind" in the inquiry. (Obviously this is too limited on its own, because there are any other number of conflating factors that could account for the high %.) But can the government legally say that country of origin is a factor in selecting persons of interest?
If they can, perhaps they should.
By , at
Fri Oct 31, 12:56:00 PM:
"The idea is that the 79% is potentially a "gotcha" if you've said you're "ethnicity-blind" in the inquiry."
I know what you're saying, but how "ethnicity-blind" must a country be? Of course they should. I remember a story about a cop who was in trouble for pulling over latinos in a case of "profiling", and he simply said "most illegal drugs aren't coming in from Ireland, what can I say?"
It's to the point that you can't even describe a criminal anymore.
This is such a non story, why did the NYT even run it?
By 
BJM, at
Fri Oct 31, 04:04:00 PM:
Where's the NYT's outrage about this appalling intrusion/invasion of privacy?
Asshats.
By BJM, at
Fri Oct 31, 04:06:00 PM:
Where's the NYT's outrage about this appalling intrusion/invasion of privacy?
Asshats.
(sorry typo in the url)
By sleeper, at
Sat Nov 01, 12:13:00 AM:
For me the most disturbing part of the article was the revelation that asking a subject point-blank whether he owns any chemical or biological explosives passes for an intelligence-gathering method. It certainly makes you trust the Department of Homeland Security that much more.
But then this is the country whose visa application forms have included for ages the question "Do you intend to engage in terrorist acts while in the US?" Shrewd question!
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 01, 01:03:00 PM:
That's only checking boxes, in a legal sense, not an actual collection method.
For example, being an agent of a foreign power while in the US is perfectly legal... as long as you declare it. If you fail to declare it and US security finds out you're a foreign agent, they can arrest you even if you haven't yet committed espionage or broken any other laws.
By sleeper, at
Sat Nov 01, 06:18:00 PM:
I know, but I still think everybody who is not a lawyer must find it hilarious.
And the purpose of the inquiry described in the Times article seems to go beyond legal box-checking.
