All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
July 26, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, you hear that Wisconsin.
I was accused of being part of the Eastern media elite in the last hour by a woman from Maryland.
Wisconsin.
Uncommon common sense, Midwestern values, all that stuff.
Remember John Bolton?
He's almost faded from memory.
The Democrats are trying to find reasons to hate John Roberts.
They're obsessed with Karl Rove.
They've almost forgotten about John Bolton, but so is our son.
John Bolton's still out there twisting in the wind.
We still don't have a United Nations ambassador.
It looks like the president is going to make Bolton a recess appointment.
That's kind of his own little nuclear option.
The way recess appointments work, and they've been part of the government literally since the beginning, and were a necessity in the early days of our country in which Congress, when Congress did not meet all that often, a recess appointment is can be used by the President when Congress is in recess.
A person who would normally need to be confirmed by the United States Senate can be appointed by the President when Congress is not in session.
That person then serves until the end of that congressional term, which would be early 2007.
In other words, if they make Bolton a recess appointment, he would serve for the remainder of this year, all of next year, and would have to vacate office by early January of 2007 when the next Congress is sworn in.
The Bush administration is frustrated with the inability of the refusal of the Senate to confirm Bolton, and they want to make him a recess appointment.
Uh reports indicate that the president could announce this as early as Friday.
Scott McClellan, White House spokesman said if the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the president has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees.
I don't like that.
I don't like the fact that we have to do it in this fashion.
John Bolton is eminently qualified to be United Nations ambassador.
And you shouldn't have to go through the back door.
He shouldn't have to serve as though he's somehow illegitimate and had to be snuck in by the president.
But given the fact that the Republicans in the Senate can't seem to figure out a way to get Bolton confirmed, and given the fact that Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats refuse to allow the guy to be confirmed, you may as well do it this way.
So Bolton will go in there.
Great irony in all of this is that we don't have an ambassador to the United Nations right now.
It's the left that keeps telling us that everything we do requires the approval of the U.N. Maybe one way to look at this is just to say, okay, we won't send anybody there.
In fact, we're going to recall our entire delegation.
We're just going to pull out.
If you don't let us have Bolton go over there, we won't be part of it at all.
I'll put them in a tizzy.
Uh getting to our other nominee, the one they haven't figured out how to rough up yet, Judge John Roberts.
This dispute about which documents they're going to release that were authored by Roberts seems to be resolved by the Bush administration.
Roberts worked in the Reagan White House in the Office of the Council to the President.
The counselor to the president essentially acts as the president's lawyer.
He also served in the first President Bush's White House as the Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.
The Solicitor General's office is the agency that represents the government, for example, if the government is sued.
Or if someone challenges the constitutionality of a law, the Solicitor General's office would go before the Supreme Court or another federal court and argue in favor of that law.
The Solicitor General does not report directly to the president, although he is part of the presidential administration.
Anyway, the Bush administration says that we will release documents from Roberts during the time that he worked in the council's office in the mid-80s, but not when he worked for the office of the Solicitor General.
I don't even think they need to turn over the first set of documents, but they're certainly, I think making a good faith offer here to the Democrats, the whole reason why they're asking for the documents is they want to find something somewhere.
They want to find five words that John that uh John Roberts wrote at some point in his career that they can say, look, this guy's out of the mainstream, he's a right-wing kook.
They're looking for anything.
The man is 50 years old and they don't have anything on him yet, so they figure if they go on this giant document search and have the entire Democratic staff of the United States Congress go through every record and every memo and every internal conversation or correspondence that he produced, they'll find something.
The real reason for it is they know that the documents from the council's office are not going to be released.
They know they're not going to get them.
Since they know they're not going to get them, this becomes the thing on which they make their last stand.
Why, this is an important principle.
We're nominating a man to be justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
We need to see all of these things.
And I can't vote to confirm this man.
If we don't have these records, we're not really opposed to John Roberts.
We just want to have our proper review.
And they'll use this as the delaying tactic and the reason to try to hold up the uh Roberts nomination.
In the meantime, there's something very intriguing going on with regard to a little bit of the nipping at Roberts' heels with regard to his Catholicism.
So story that leaked out of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin's office that dealt with the conversation that Durbin had with Roberts about their mutual Catholicism.
Durbin is Catholic, as is Roberts.
The White House and Congressional Republicans are warning Democrats to not make an issue of the fact that Roberts is Catholic.
They apparently are thinking about questioning him as to whether or not his Catholic beliefs would affect his ability to impartially hear cases on the Supreme Court.
Can you imagine if we now had a religious test like this applied to a member of another religion?
A Jewish nominee, or another faith.
Imagine if we had an atheist nominee.
Imagine if a Democratic candidate, a Democratic president nominated an atheist to be a Supreme Court justice.
Can you imagine the reaction if that if that potential nominee was grilled on their atheism?
Catholicism is and fundamentalist Christianity seem to be the two areas where it's fair game to go after them, but only if they're conservative.
I don't recall any Republicans attacking John Kerry when he ran for president on the basis of his being Catholic.
The only difference between Roberts' form of Catholicism and Kerry's form of Catholicism is that Roberts appears to be a rather conservative Catholic.
Anyway, it's Durbin again, by the way.
So Durbin's talking to him about his catholic.
What is it with Dick Durbin all of a sudden?
Guy's been in the United States Senate for what, a decade?
No one's ever heard of him.
Then all of a sudden he's comparing Guantanamo to the gulags and the concentration camps.
Now he's talking to Roberts about the fact that he's Catholic and wondering about that.
What happened to Dick Durbin?
Dick Durbin actually is a somewhat reasonable guy.
I know Dick Durbin.
Dick Durbin is a friend of mine.
I, the last time I think I saw Dick Durbin was in the early 1980s in Illinois.
I was working there.
We went, we both went to see E.T., not together.
Durbin was not my date to see E.T. I was there with a date, and Durbin was there with his family.
And we said hello to one another.
He at the time was working in the Illinois legislature.
He was a staffer.
And uh that's the last conversation I recall having with Dick Durbin, which was about E.T. I think he said that E.T. reminded him of Joe Stalin.
Quite sure about that.
I'm Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush on EIB.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm in favor of profiling.
I'm in favor of profiling.
I'm doing the program in New York.
Of course, the subway checks are going on, they're being done completely at random.
At airports all across the country when they pull somebody out of line.
To check them, we have to make sure that we're not acting on the basis of any type of profile.
That's stupid.
The reason why there is an innate sense of profiling is because profiling, there is a profile.
I fit the profile.
I'm a white guy from the Midwest who likes sports.
Classic talk radio host, right?
There's a profile.
With regard to terrorism, there is a profile.
It's not 85-year-old little old ladies who are suicide bombers.
They're not the ones who are doing it.
It's also not 11-year-old kids from central cities.
They're not the ones doing it.
The profile of terrorists in our world right now is young Middle Eastern males.
To pretend that that reality doesn't exist is stupid.
Today's New York Post has a column by Yeshai Hyatsny, who is described as the executive director of the Shalem Center, which is a Jerusalem research institute.
I want to read a few paragraphs from him because he thinks we're nuts here in the United States.
The American system's blindness cuts off the most important weapon in the war against terrorism.
Human capability, judgment, and perception.
Now that the United States faces a higher threat, it cannot afford to neglect those tools.
Using sociological data as well as constantly updated intelligence information, trained security personnel know who is most likely to be perpetuating an attack, as well as to how how to identify suspicious individuals through behavior.
Removing intelligence and statistical probability as tools would render this model far less effective.
Israelis understand and other Westerners need to accept that no system can ever be 100% effective.
But this is a system that has stood up remarkably well under a vicious and unrelenting assault of terror.
Is profiling worth the resulting infringement on the democratic values of equality?
Yes.
After all, protecting human life is also a democratic value, perhaps the supreme one.
Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe.
The attacks of 9-11 and the attacks on public transportation in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life.
Today's terror threatens not only individuals' security and lives, but is an assault on open democratic societies as a whole.
Terrorists use our society's openness against us.
Free democratic societies must carefully balance our rights and responsibilities, lest we saw off the branch upon which democratic freedom sits.
By contrast, today's New York Times is an editorial terrorism and the random search, in which they caution New York authorities to not engage in any kind of profiling in the searches that are going on in the subways.
What is the point of searching someone who you know in your gut is not a problem?
When you're going to allow someone to walk by, knowing that that individual may be a threat, there is no point in doing it.
The idea of doing something at random because it is fair defeats the entire purpose of doing it.
To Rockland, California, Steve, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Yes, uh, hello there, Mark.
I just mentioned uh that uh to your your screener there that there is certainly a way that yourself, or for that matter, any white male would be racially profiled by the New York City Police Department.
All you have to do is to drive east on Highway 80, cross the George Washington Bridge, and drive or very slowly, or park in the neighborhood on the other side in a vehicle, preferably an SUV with out of state plates.
You would be assumed as looking for either a product or a service that's illegal.
And you would be profiled for doing that.
And the reason why you'd be profiled is because there is a pattern that is real of people coming into the city from the suburbs to do exactly that.
You're exactly right about that.
We all use profiles in everything that we do.
There are judgments that we make about situations.
If you go into a nightclub and you see someone acting oddly, you're basing it on a frame of reference that you have about that individual.
in the case of terrorism there is a profile there is you shouldn't profile when you don't have any real reason to profile If these acts of terror were committed by people who didn't have any characteristics in common, it would be one thing.
But they're not.
There are characteristics in common of those who have committed terror.
Therefore, searching more of them not only makes sense, but searching others when you could be searching someone who presents a greater threat is just stupid.
Once the profile changes, and once al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists start to use sixty-five-year-old men and walkers, then it will make sense to start searching them when they try to get out of the subway.
But to do it now is just stupid.
So that's cer certainly uh certainly agreeable, and I hope that more people happen to uh to think of this.
And um I don't know if you have time for a comment about the United Nations.
Uh no, I really don't.
Oh, okay.
Thanks.
Thanks for the call, Steve.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to Washington.
Mike on a cell phone, Mike, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Mark to reject even entertaining the term racial profiling.
It is a canard meant to undermine us and put us on the defensive.
What my buddies in law enforcement use is terrorist profiling.
And if you want to get into intricacies of the terrorist profiling, it'll come very clear who the terrorists are.
Well, and uh the the fact of the matter is is that if you do any kind of a profile, since almost no one is a terrorist and almost no one is a suicide bomber, you're going to be searching all sorts of innocent people.
You can't get you can't get around that.
The reason that you search though is that you are hoping to find someone who is a problem and you want to use every tool at your disposal.
But race would only be a minor part of that, only a small part.
There's a lot other involved.
You don't have to be an Islamist to support Islamist terrorism.
So I would say a terrorist profile could fit anyone who hangs out with Islamists.
You know what I'm saying?
That's what we have to do.
Find a case of a terrorist in current contemporary America and Europe who has not been a Middle Eastern descended male.
Just one.
Well, true, but we have to remember that in Indonesia and Bali, they weren't uh they weren't uh say Arabs.
They were, you know, in media.
I I understand that, but the profiling that's not then we gotta get away from the whole the searching that is being done is being done in the United States, it's being done in Europe.
Israel has faced more terror than any other nation.
Israel profiles.
If Israel didn't profile, there would be a lot more attacks than there are.
We now are detaining people at airports, we're detaining people at the New York City subway stations, and we are doing so with the goal not of catching somebody who may be dangerous, but with the goal of looking to be fair.
Aren't we good people?
We're not racist, we're not bigots, we'll search anyone.
But there's a price to be paid for that.
Every time you search someone who is not a problem, you are not taking the time to t to search someone else who may well be a problem.
The uh what what you get is a lot of complaining from Middle Eastern descended males who are honest law-abiding citizens who feel as though they're being treated like criminals.
Still, better to search that person than someone for whom there is no reason to believe that they would be a criminal since someone has to be searched.
But they fit they fit, you know, into those that uh limitations of the of the terrorist profile.
And there is a profile.
There is a profile.
But if you're not gonna be able to do it.
If there wasn't If there wasn't a proven profile, there'd be no need to do this.
But almost everyone who has been involved in this type of terror fits a certain profile.
Now, if you were in Britain 15 or 20 years ago, if you're in England 15 or 20 20 years ago, there may be a different profile that you could have come up with with regard to the IRA.
The threats we are facing now are from Al-Qaeda and related organizations, and the individuals that have been involved in this thing fit a definite profile, and it is just silly to go out and search a mother with five crying kids when you've got other people who clearly pose more of a threat.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
He's on vacation, but Rush Limbaugh.com is running 24 hours a day.
You can go to the Club Gitmo Gallery at Russia's website.
Uh keep the pictures coming in.
You can also buy Club Gitmo material.
I have my own Club Gitmo t-shirt that I've been given.
Wrong size, a medium.
That's how underappreciated I am here.
I'm going to get back to my show in Milwaukee and give it away on the air, I think.
Oh, people will die for that.
Wisconsinites are cheap.
They're probably not buying any of the material off the website.
Anyway, it's all there at Russia's website.
I want you to check it out.
Uh you can send your material in, including a photo of yourself wearing your Club Gitmo gear.
Uh send it to Club Gitmo, G-I-T-M-O at Rushlimbaugh.com, Club Getmo at Rush Limbaugh.com, post it in the Club Gitmo uh gallery, which is updated daily.
I've been working on that myself.
I've been taking over the website, dude.
We are discussing profiling for terrorists.
Why are we right now conducting searches of numerous people in the subway system in New York?
Why at airports are we taking some people out of line and checking them head to toe?
Why are we doing it?
We're doing it because since 9-11, we have been made aware that there is an organization with a lot of supporters who want to kill us.
They want to kill innocent civilians, and they have shown a proclivity to strike public transportation sites, airplanes via hijackings, subways, trains.
We saw how they attacked on 9-11.
We saw how they attacked in Madrid, we saw how they attacked in London.
It's a problem.
It's a real problem.
That's why we're searching people.
We are taking precautions to try to stop another terrorist attack.
If your goal is to stop a terrorist attack, worrying about who it is that you're searching on the basis of fairness is completely beside the point.
Instead of worrying about who is being wrongly searched, shouldn't the goal be to make sure that we search the right people?
And if that means that some individuals who are innocent are searched in the process, we're not affecting any greater number of individuals than if we do it at random.
Because everyone who is innocent was presumably searched for no real reason or for no necessary reason.
What you're looking for is a needle in a haystack.
And if you don't profile, you're not even looking for the needle.
You'd be just grabbing pieces of hay in the haystack, but that's fair.
That's random.
That's random.
That's fair.
It's not fair to all the other pieces of metal that they may have been perceived to be a needle.
To St. Charles, Missouri, and Chris, Chris, you're on Russia's program.
I'm Mark Belling.
Hi.
I'm about 99% in agreement with the But we're gonna hear the one percent, aren't we, Chris?
Well, it's not I mean it kind of on the devil's advocate side of it.
I think that um, you know, 99% of the terrorism out there is the Middle Eastern, and it's not me.
I'm a young mother, and I'm not gonna go, you know, doing something like that.
But I just thought of Terry McVay and um or Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols from the Oklahoma City bombing.
You know, they were homegrown terrorists, and they don't fit the Middle Eastern profile, of course, so I think we'd probably want to still have some kind of randomness.
Why is that outside?
Why?
Why not?
Well, because I th as I said Before you're wasting time.
If there was a spate of Timothy McVeigh slash Terry Nichols type terrorism, and it was being done in a way in which they were going into places for which they could be searched, you would have a valid point.
What happened in Oklahoma City was isolated.
It wasn't part of any national movement.
There isn't a national terror organization that those two men were part of.
True.
There is no reason to believe that anything like that is going to happen beyond the fact that any sicko can do whatever they want in this country.
There is, however, an organization with a lot of supporters that has struck in very specific ways.
Once El Qaeda changes its routine, and once Al Qaeda is able to recruit operatives who don't fit this profile, we can change what we're doing.
What we are looking for here are people who do fit a profile.
Now that may change.
But it hasn't changed yet.
I I agree with that.
And I think the absolute vast majority of our resources need to go to fighting that organized terror groups.
But I think that, you know, maybe in addition to, you know, profiling the people that they come as they come on the planes as they go on the subways, that in addition to that, perhaps they should do some of the random, you know, and maybe just to give peace of mind to the people that are going on it.
If they've searched everybody who fits the profile and they have some extra time, I don't mind if they search me.
If that will make you happy, Chris.
Thank you for the call.
The New York Times weighs in on this.
They say the following today, this is on the editorial page.
The police officers must be careful not to give the impression that every writer who looks Arab or South Asian is automatically a sus subject of suspicion.
They will naturally choose to search the bags of those people who appear suspicious, like those wearing bulky clothes in warm weather.
But those who are selected simply because they are carrying packages should be chosen in a way that does not raise fears of racial profiling.
By, for example, searching every fifth or twelfth person with the exact sequence chosen at random.
Can you think of anything dumber?
Can you think of anything dumber?
Group of people are coming onto the uh subway.
Four or five, twenty-four, twenty-five-year-old Middle Eastern descended males walking by, all holding large boxes and wearing overcoats.
But some fat white guy comes by, he's also carrying a bag from Macy's.
We search him because he's the twelfth one, but we don't take a look at the other guys because they're numbers seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven.
It may make us feel good, and it may allow us to tell ourselves that we do not live in a racist judgmental society, but it is not the way to stop a terrorist from striking.
Pittsburgh and Fred.
Fred, you're on Russia's program.
Hi.
Hi.
I just wanted to let you know that I'm a anti-terrorism uh force protection officer constructor for the Navy.
Uh-huh.
And uh one of the things I teach is use of force, and I came across the uh random searches and inspections when we're going through uh gates at bases.
Right.
And I always said, you know, the please lawyers are supposed to set up a random profiles every fifth or every tenth or every fifteenth or whatever the case may be.
And I always say, now listen, I think we need to apply some common sense in there.
If we're searching every fifth and the fifth car is the base commander or your commanding officer or uh a fellow standard that you know, and the sixth car is a uh Pakistani or Afghani taxi driver, you wave the fifth one through and you search the sixth one.
You search the sixth one.
You know why you do that, Fred?
Because we have because we have brains, we have common sense, we have knowledge.
I'm not advocating blatant racism here by saying that we're targeting individuals.
But if we are going to search and there is a profile in place, it only makes sense to take advantage of that knowledge rather than pretend that that knowledge does not exist.
And that is correct.
And what I find though is when I have lawyers in my class, they always start to scream that that's profiling, you shouldn't be profiling and so forth, that you can never prosecute these people, etc.
etc.
And I said, I always tell them the purpose is to stop the bomb from getting on your base and going off.
I don't care if I can't prosecute them if I can stop them from killing our people.
That's an outstanding point.
Terror terrorism is the one crime for which the criminal justice system is essentially useless.
We can't be worrying about who we're going to convict after the fact after a hundred and eighty people are killed.
Terrorism is the one crime where the only approach has to be proactive.
You have to try to stop it from happening in the first place, and that means using every tool that is available to you.
Now I happen to think that the New York subway searches are a good idea.
New York City has been hit.
Al Qaeda has demonstrated that they are willing to attack mass transit systems first in Madrid and then in London.
It is not implausible to think that something terrible could happen in New York City.
The fact that you have made the decision that it is okay to search, then I think puts a requirement upon you that you search intelligently rather than just waste time and searching individuals who everyone knows is posed are posing no threat at all is a waste of time when that time could be used, maybe finding the person who is about to do something terrible.
Can we imagine if on 9-11 we were doing more intensive searches than we were doing at the time, and we allowed all the terrorists to get on the plane, but we were searching a little old lady.
Think about the guilt this country would legitimately have for not being willing to engage in common sense profiling.
We've made this whole profiling thing a dirty word because of abuses that have occurred in law enforcement.
It's wrong to pull up pull over a man who's driving an automobile down the freeway just because he's black.
That is a false profile.
This profile, however, is real.
It's legitimate.
The fact that some profiling is wrong doesn't mean that all of it is wrong.
Sometimes it only makes sense, and when we're dealing with this particular type of terrorism now, it makes sense to use the knowledge and common sense that we have.
Thank you for the call.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I mean, Blenab, we're just stupid.
We were attacked by terrorists less than five years ago.
Since then, that particular terror organization, while badly wounded by us, is still active.
In addition, there are sympathizers of that organization.
And in addition to that, we have a nation that is an ally of the United States, Israel, that has been hit by terrorists again and again and again and again.
To think that we might be a target in the future is not a vague, abstract, remote possibility.
It's likely.
It is to the incredible credit of the Bush administration, law enforcement agencies all over this country, and the Department of Homeland Security that we have not been attacked since 9-11.
But Israel's attacked all the time.
Madrid was hit.
London was hit once, and they tried to hit it twice.
It's plausible it could happen here.
When we set up measures to try to stop it from happening, the only criteria we should put in place is whether or not they're likely to work.
How can we do it most effectively?
And we have allowed ourselves, because we're playing to our own guilt, and we're playing to a leftist media that loves to portray individuals who are searched when they aren't guilty as somehow being victimized into doing searches in a way that is just idiotic.
It makes no sense to search people that professional law enforcement authorities know are not a risk.
It's just silly to do so.
And I don't think we're going to change our policies until we have another attack here, and it's apparent that the attackers slipped right through our fingers because we were wasting our time looking at somebody else.
And the entire crowd that's been arguing, don't profile, don't do this, don't do that, will then demand to know you were conducting searches and these terrorists walked right past you.
What were you doing?
Were you asleep at the switch?
No, what they were doing was wasting their time searching somebody who fit no profile at all.
Dover, Delaware, and Matthew.
Matthew, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
No, Matthew.
Let's profile him.
Callers from Dover, Delaware may not be there when the host calls upon them.
To Alpharetta, Georgia and Stan on a cell phone, Stan, it's your turn.
Hey, Mark, you're doing a great job.
Thank you.
Uh, one thing I wanted to say, uh, I mentioned to your your screener, uh, week after week in the airports across the country, we are asked to report any suspicious activity.
That in itself from the Department of Homeland Secur Homeland Security is asking us to do some type of profiling.
Profiling works.
We know it does.
We've used it numerous times to solve uh serial killer uh murders, and uh the only reason we fail to want to use profiling in a consistent manner is because of the situation where organizations like the ACLU turn everything into a racial situation.
Profiling goes well beyond race alone.
And but for some reason, every every time we hear about profiling, it always comes back to that one word race, and what brought my attention to it was when you read that article out of the New York Times.
Well race pops up in it again.
You're right, they do bring up race, although ethnicity is clearly part of the profile that does exist here.
But that what the the point that I think that is important is that profile was not invented.
It's not based on somebody's bigotry.
It's not based on a preconceived bias that we have that's pr the premised on something that isn't real.
This pro this profile comes from actual events and behavior.
This profile is a real one, and I just think that we can indulge ourselves in our fairness fantasies, which is what the ACLU types and the New York Times want us to do, but then we are missing the point of trying to take these steps to protect ourselves and make ourselves safe, because every minute that is spent dealing with someone who we all know isn't a threat is a minute that could have been spent with someone who might well turn out to be the threat.
Well said.
Thank you for the call.
Newburgh, New York, and Roberto Roberto, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, yeah, um, as I was telling you screener, and I totally agree with the profiling.
Uh I agree if there's someone fits the profile, check that person.
If a mother comes in with her five screaming children, it's very unlikely that she's gonna be carrying anything or gonna do anything.
But what happened in uh 2001 with uh the terrorists, they used our planes against us.
They didn't do anything illegal, even if they were searched, they had nothing on them specifically that would have caused any stir.
So how do we not know that still profiling is gonna stop them from doing something again?
Well, we don't.
W we don't, and all the searching we're doing may not be enough to stop an attack, although one thing we will never know is whether or not any attacks have been foiled.
We will never know if someone was planning to do something terrible, but stop because they saw all the security that was in place.
We look at all of the people who are trying to get on airplanes and they have this banned object or that banned object, you never know.
I am forever fascinated by the case of the shoe bomber, the guy who was trying to light his shoes on fire on that cross.
I I I believe that he may have been a trial run.
If he had been successful and blew up that uh and had blown up that plane, we never would have known that it was done through shoes.
Maybe they had a plan to put shoe bombs in you know what all sorts of terrorists and had to change up and change their strategy because now they're searching shoes.
When you go through the airport, you don't really ever know, and there are no guarantees here.
You cited though 9-11 and the fact that those terrorists followed all of the rules.
That was then.
We've learned from that.
And we've learned what's happened in London.
We've learned what's happened in Madrid.
I don't think you can come up with a foolproof plan.
I don't even know if you can come up with something that is likely to work.
However, the obligation ought to be to try, to try to be successful and not worry about whether or not you're going to be searching someone who is innocent because all of the people who don't fit the profile who are being searched, they're innocent too.
Thank you for the call, Roberto.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Talking about terrorism and profiling and the motivations of some who don't want to do any profiling because it is unfair to people who fit the profile but are innocent.
I think it's also similar to the reaction from some to what happened in London with the shooting of the Brazilian man who was not a terrorist, killed by London police because of his behavior.
There are some people who are more bothered by that shooting than are by the terror attacks in the first place.
They're angrier at British police who made a mistake than they are a terrorist who deliberately took the lives of innocent people.
▲
Export Selection