Thanks for the interesting piece of information, I did signify interest on you post next time…

Thank you for writing this article. Just as a small clarification, I would like to point out that I work for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) as its Government Liaison, not the Council on American Islamic Relations. I’d kindly request you make a correction if possible.

Thank you again and please continue the excellent reporting.

Kind Regards,

Alejandro J. Beutel
Government Liaison
Muslim Public Affairs Council

Council on Islamic-American Relations? CIAR? Just wondering. Or is it Council Aiding Islamic Radicals?

We discriminate all the time where it’s entirely reasonable to do so. E.g., we discriminate against the blind when we deny them drivers licences. The question is whether there is a ‘rational basis’ for it, whether there is a ‘compelling interest’ to be protected, whether it is ‘reasonable calculated’ to achieve a permissible end, and whether there are ‘less restrictive alternatives.’

At the very least any ‘journalist’ should come to the debate quipped with the basic, bedrock, rudimentary understanding of the governing law. When it comes to matters of law and discrimination it is best that some journalists remain silent and be thought fools rather than open their mouths are remove all doubt

http://dearbornunderground.blogspot.com/2009/12/mpac-to-hasan-bad-muslim-bad-bad-muslim.html

CAIR’s funding base (Saudi Salafi) is well known.

The cold fact is that ALL of the airline terrorists have had these things in common: Arab, South Asian, or Muslim African (no ‘reverts’) ancestry, relative youth, male and–with the exception of Richard Reid–having Muslim names. Screening elderly chinese women, children with Christian names and Halle Berry makes absolutely no sense in this context. Personnel, equipment and time resources are not unlimited, and cannot be wasted taking everyone’s shoes off, so as not to offend Muslims. As at least one security expert pointed out, ‘racial’ (really, ethno-religious) profiling is the only way to prevent terrorism, since bomb materials, or weapons can be aquired in the Duty Free area, post-screening. Even some forms of ‘behavioral profiling’ could be construed as ‘discriminatory’, such as wearing of (normally haram) perfume, depilitation and saying the Shahada–danger signs of an impending suicide attack. One wonders if Muslim ‘women’ in burkas and niqabs will submit to ‘immodest’ scans, or pat downs…especially since MEN have tried to sneak through so attired (this happened with a wanted Islamist, in Heathrow Airport).

Attention also has to be paid to the personnel working as screeners and other staff at airports. A couple of years ago, a large amount of heroin was waved through by an Indo-British screener, working in tandem with East Indian smugglers. The people who resupply, clean and restock planes between flights are a potentially serious security threat. Things like this happened with the Air India bombing (Sikh Babbar Khalsa terrorists); then, a politically-correct Canadian government didn’t address the threat, out of fears of offending a growing vote bloc. Hopefully, we’re all a bit more sane, now.