Immediately after 9-11, President Bush gave law-enforcement agencies powerful new tools to hunt suspected terrorists, arrest them, and hold them in jail. Critics are crying foul. They argue that Bush's anti-terrorist tactics threaten civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union warns that government policies "should not be based on the myth that liberties must be curtailed to protect the public."

HOW DO WE FIND TERRORISTS?

Unlike our enemies in the past, terrorists cannot be easily identified. They don't live in one particular country, and they don't wear a military uniform. Terrorists operate in secret cells, often not even knowing each other. Finding terrorists before they strike, therefore, is extremely difficult. Profiling is a tool that law-enforcement officials hope will help them.

WHAT IS PROFILING?

The FBI and other security agencies have developed a profile, or outline, of key personal traits that terrorists seem to share. Government officials use the profile to decide whom to search or question. While the exact profile is not public information, it appears that factors such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, and national origin are included. Since there are more people who fit the profile than there are terrorists, security agents single out large numbers of innocent people for questioning and embarrassing public searches.

THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL DILEMMA OF PROFILING

Civil rights advocates condemn the government's tactics. It is unconstitutional, they claim, to use a profile, which includes race, when deciding whether or not to investigate someone. Supporters of profiling reply that while the practice of using race to narrow the search for terrorists is unattractive, it is necessary during a time of immediate danger to the country. After all, they observe, 100 percent of the 9-11 terrorists were Arabs.

THE JEWISH VIEW

Judaism approaches the profiling debate by seeking a balance. On the one hand, the Talmud seems to support the views of civil libertarians, who scold the government for violating the civil rights of innocent people. Resh Lakish warns in Shabbat 97a, "One who suspects innocent people of misdeeds is punished."

Placing undue suspicion on the innocent is wrong not only because it is unjust, but also because it injures the dignity of the suspect. According to tradition, it is "better to throw yourself into a fiery furnace than humiliate someone in public"(Sotah 10b).

The rabbis realized, though, that the world is far from perfect. While it is best to judge people only by their actions, the popular saying from the Talmud (Negaim 12:6), "Oy l'rasha, v'oy l'shcheino" (Woe to the evildoer and woe to his neighbor) teaches that under certain circumstances it is legitimate to scrutinize individuals more closely, at least based on their voluntary affiliations. When is it appropriate to sacrifice the civil rights and dignity of the few for the increased security of society? The Torah counsels us to take preventive actions during life-threatening emergencies, even if it means violating the usual laws such as keeping Shabbat.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Do you think that Arab Americans should be subject to screening?