Obama Incorrect In Condemning All Muslim Profiling

WASHINGTON - Feb. 3, 2016 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 3,  2016): President Obama’s suggestion today that profiling on the basis of religion is always wrong is not correct, since the basic concept is supported by his own Justice Department, the U.S. Supreme Court, major political figures, and has been practiced in various forms by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has won over 100 legal actions against discrimination based upon religion, race, gender, and even disability.

        Such targeted terrorist profiling - as distinguished from racial or ethic profiling - is constitutional, and has been proven to substantially increase the effectiveness of the screening process, says Banzhaf, who is also a leading mathematical game theorist.

        Governor Jeb Bush stated that the U.S. should “absolutely” be profiling in order to prevent Islamic terrorists from being admitted to the U.S.  Senator Ted Cruz has said the U.S. should accept Christian refugees but not Muslims.

        Donald Trump said he would “strongly consider” shutting down some mosques.  Even Secretary Hillary Clinton has spoken in favor of some profiling, as have many others.

        There is a simple way to substantially increase the effectiveness of screening techniques to detect terrorists, and to do so by taking into account factors like religion in a constitutional manner.

        Using religion as only one of several factors in selecting persons for secondary screening at airports - “terrorist profiling” - is different from “religious profiling” when used to stop people from entering the country, or in police sweeps after an apparent terrorist incident, he maintains.

        Thus targeted terrorist profiling could be far more effective than simple religious profiling, and detect far more security risks, if the profiling includes several factors which can constitutionally be considered, and if it were done in accordance with what mathematics show is the best way, claims Banzhaf.

        Fortunately, there is a well established mathematics of selection and testing which is used thousands of times every day to detect everything from rare genetic disorders to manufacturing defects on an assembly line, says Banzhaf, a mathematician who created a statistical tool called the “Banzhaf Index.”

        Not surprisingly, the screening technique is based in large part on concentrating searches where one is most likely to find a problem, rather than ineffectively treating all subjects equally, or varying scrutiny in many situations based on age or gender, but ignoring ethnicity, religion, and national origin.

        Terrorist screening is clearly effective, says Banzhaf, noting other areas where targeted screening is commonly used. Screening for Tay-Sacks disease is concentrated on Jews, which some could argue constitutes “religious profiling.”


        Applied to situations like airport screening for terrorists, a detailed mathematical study shows that treating all passengers equally, is illogical as well as inefficient in stopping terrorist attacks.

       Instead, the mathematical study shows that certain groups known to present a statistically higher risk than others should be selected for heightened pre-boarding screening more frequently.  In this way, scarce resources are most effectively concentrated where the greatest chance of a problem lies.

        Previously, the TSA has refused to even consider openly using this logical and established technique - even though it reportedly has used it indirectly and therefore far less efficiently - because of wide spread beliefs that it is unconstitutional or unfair to people in higher risk groups, says Banzhaf.

        But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that factors such as race and ethnicity - much less religion, gender and age - can be used in making selections, provided that it serves a compelling governmental interest, and that it is not the only factor used. That's why state universities may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity in their admissions process, notes Banzhaf, suggesting that preventing fatal terrorist attacks is an even more compelling governmental interest than increasing racial diversity in classrooms.

        Even the U.S. Justice Department has proclaimed that, while factors like race cannot ever be used in criminal investigations unless there is a clearly identified individual suspect of that background, race and similar factors may constitutionally be considered in preventing terrorist attacks and screening persons entering the U.S., even if there is no specific suspect, provided only that it is not the only criteria considered.

        If members of groups with a higher risk potential were singled out more frequently for secondary screening, everyone would benefit, including even members of those very groups. We would be more likely to stop potential terrorists and at a far lower cost, and even innocent young Muslim males would benefit because lines - and the waiting time on them - would be much shorter for everyone (including for young Muslim males) because of the inspection time now being spent on most low risk passengers.

        After all, says Banzhaf, it's the total time spent on undergoing security procedures which is the most important concern for most passengers after their personal safety, and this time delay would be considerably reduced for everyone using a system employing heightened screening based in part on criteria like religion and ethnicity, as well as sex and age.

        Everyone is concerned about not being blown up, and also about not missing their plane because of inspection delays. Concentrating inspections on those most likely to be involved in complex terrorist conspiracies would benefit the great majority of young Muslim males who are law abiding, since it would increase their chances of not dying, and also of not missing their flight due to security delays.