Search us.

NR doesn't often agree with the New York Civil Liberties Union, but this passage from a press release announcing its suit against New York City's random subway searches had us nodding along: "The NYPD is not conducting searches at most subway entrances at any given time, is giving advance notice about searches at those entrances where searches are being conducted, is allowing people selected for a search to walk away, and is not basing the searches on any suspicious activity of individuals. As common sense would suggest, the NYPD's program is virtually certain neither to catch any person trying to carry explosives into the subway system nor to deter such an effort."

Exactly. Our agreement with the NYCLU ends there. It claims that the random searches violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures." But the Supreme Court has made it clear that brief, standardized, discretion-free searches in response to a compelling public interest (e.g., keeping drunk drivers off the road) pass constitutional muster. The problem with the searches is not that they are unconstitutional. It is that they are deliberately badly designed so that they can adhere to the PC piety that has made "profiling" a dirty word.

We know who is targeting us: Young Muslim men from Arab, South Asian, or North African countries. To forbid law enforcement to act on this information is as senseless as forcing it to ignore Italian heritage as a factor in breaking up the New York mob. Yes, there can be exceptions, such as the female suicide bombers who occasionally strike in Israel. But the exceptions do not obviate the statistical rule, nor make it wise to ignore it. Searching black, Hispanic, and white women, children, the aged, and others who have almost no chance of being terrorists is a deliberate misallocation of police energy and resources that is scandalous given the gravity of the threat.

Police should be able to act on their suspicions and their instincts without prompting outrage. But white people can be terrorists, argue the anti-profilers. What about abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph? If there were information that Rudolph, when he was still on the run, were heading to New York City, police would have rightly given extra scrutiny to white males near abortion clinics. What about Timothy McVeigh? If a militia group were to declare its intent to bomb government buildings, law enforcement would be especially vigilant about people fitting the profile of the members of militias. Whenever government makes a distinction based on race, it gets strict scrutiny from the courts. But the courts have rightly held that racial distinctions can be justified if the public interest is compelling enough--and preventing a terrorist attack meets the test.

There is something very American and almost touching about the lengths we will go to avoid offending people. It's an admirable, good-hearted impulse--at least until people get killed.