- The Washington Times - Friday, November 1, 2002

From President Bush on down, it seems everyone is opposed to racial profiling that is, unless white men make up the group of likely suspects. For the three weeks that two snipers terrorized the Maryland and Virginia suburbs around the nation's capital, we heard endless speculation by government officials, experts and media commentators that the killings were likely the handiwork of an angry white man or men. It's the same rhetoric we heard repeatedly in the as-yet-unsolved anthrax attacks that killed five people a year ago.
By assuming they "knew" the race of these killers with absolutely no evidence to back up their suspicions law enforcement officials may have impeded their own investigations. That certainly appears to be the case with the sniper killings. Washington police Chief Charles Ramsey acknowledged that police paid little attention to alleged snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, who on 10 separate occasions over the course of the killing spree crossed paths with authorities, according to The Washington Post. "We were looking for two white guys in a white van," Chief Ramsey said in defense of various police jurisdictions' failure to connect the pair to the attacks. As it turned out, Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo were two black men driving a blue Chevy Caprice.
Imagine the outrage if the murders had been committed by two white men, but police had 10 times passed up the opportunity to apprehend them because a phony racial profile and nothing more told them to be on the lookout for a black man? There would have been cries of racism, justifiably so.
I have consistently opposed racial profiling, not only because I think it's morally wrong, but because it leads to sloppy police work. In the absence of information from witnesses about the race of a perpetrator, it's not enough to know that similar crimes have been committed more often by members of one racial or ethnic group.
But if police reliance on racial profiling helped lead them astray in tracking down the Washington-area snipers, their reluctance to probe other important characteristics about the sniper suspects is equally troubling. Mr. Muhammad's race is clearly irrelevant to his alleged crime, but his political and religious views may be very important in understanding his motives. Yet both government officials and most of the media are assiduously avoiding any discussion of Mr. Muhammad's conversion to Islam or, more accurately, the radical Black Muslim sect and his reported sympathy for al Qaeda, which are legitimate avenues of inquiry.
If the snipers had turned out to be two white guys who were members of some extremist Christian sect and had voiced sympathy for Timothy McVeigh, you can bet we would be watching endless investigative reports on the evening news about right-wing Christian and militia groups. In fact, after McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the media spent hundreds of hours dissecting the roots of the militia movement, and some newscasters speculated there might be thousands of would-be McVeighs just waiting for their chance to kill hundreds of innocents to make a political point.
But the media are ignoring Mr. Muhammad's political and religious ties in order not to appear anti-Islam. The possibility that Mr. Muhammad may have been acting out some fantasy that he was a mujahideen killing infidels doesn't seem to interest the major media in the slightest.
The media have no such reservations when it comes to probing whether Mr. Muhammad's Persian Gulf war experience may have been a factor in his alleged crimes, however. A Reuters news service reporter even asked Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld if the military "felt responsible for creating the alleged killer."
Certainly soldiers are trained to kill, but U.S. soldiers are not trained to kill civilians, much less their fellow Americans. Mr. Muhammad may have learned how to fire a rifle with precision from the U.S. Army, but he learned to hate elsewhere. We should be asking where.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide