I don't think that all forms of discrimination are unjustified, similarly, I don't think that its abuse would show that it of itself is intrinsically wrong. I'm fine with profiling any and every race, but again, this would come to a priority issue, where maybe one race is profiled more than another, and so on. However, that is an issue of application and a valid criteria of debate, but if it's applied to every race (so that there is no inconsistency, which seems to be your problem), I don't see what's wrong with it.

AKG wrote:

Yes, racial profiling is intrinsically wrong because to me it blatantly leads to discrimination and can easily be abused as the history of the USA up to today shows.

What some action tends to "lead to" can't be the reason for calling it "intrinsically" wrong. Intrinsically wrong actions are wrong in themselves, not by reference to what they lead to or to their susceptibility for abuse.

So then in the case of domestic terrorism which white supremacy is the greatest threat, and has committed most of the terror attacks, profiling white people in this regards, would be just in that case?

Like I said, the fact that racial profiling is almost exclusively advocated by white people to me reveals an intrinsic racist/biased view to it. 

Are there actually ANY benefits to racial profiling? I have yet to hear any, and so far all it seems to do is increase racial hostilities.

Much of this conversation has already been had in another thread. Depressingly few people actuelly seem to want to engage the arguments as opposed to wallow in the all polluting sea of political grievance mongering.

http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=700&p=1

To recap: whether or not to subject members of a certain demographic, natural or gerrymandered, to additional checks due to the presence of unlawful activities on the parts of some members of that demographic is an entirely 'prudential' matter i.e. one that should or should not be taken based on the consequences which would likely follow from it - for instance in the case of the proposed profiling of visitors from certain Islamic nations where terrorist groups are a problem it would be weighing potential preventative benefit against potential 'herd hostility' such a move might engender towards citizens of that country (or Muslims as a while).

In order for profilers to commit the moral mistake of racism or xenophobia they would have to claim there is an inherent, essential connection between race/nationality and said unlawful action e.g. Arabs inherently prone to terrorism, Italians inherently prone to gang-violence or the Irish inherently prone to drunkenness.

Lets look at some examples analogues to profiling:

1. If the police have a reason to believe that a crowd contains members of a certain infamous gang and that said gang is mainly composed of women it would not be sexist for them to spend more time interviewing the female members of said crowd.

2. If a large number of terrorist bombing were carried out by Catholic Irish Republicans then it would not be unreasonable to subject those who feel into that category to additional surveillance or background checks.

AKG wrote:

Like I said, the fact that racial profiling is almost exclusively advocated by white people to me reveals an intrinsic racist/biased view to it.

Since by 'racial' I assume what is really meant here is people of a certain national origin e.g. Saudi then one might argue other Islamic countries have a duty to their citizens to subject visitors from said problem nations to additional checks and profiling (since the largest victim demographic for Islamic terrorism are normal Muslims). Now I doubt there is one country in the world so rife with terrorism that it would justify such actions but they could ex hypothesi be justified.

AKG wrote:

On another related note not to imply anything Dennis or give hostility but most defenders of profiling I've met usually mean for African-Americans, Mexicans, Muslims or other minorities yet when white supremacy is shown as the greatest domestic terrorism threat in the USA, these people are rarely advocating a profiling in this regard and are silent about it. So my reservations towards profiling are that is mostly is association with a covert form of racism marked by inconsistency.

A possible difference here is that the profiling proposed in the interests of preventing hardline Islamic terrorism usually applies to foreign nationals visiting the country. In the case of White Supremacists or other homegrown problems one would hope a reasonable government would have already composed a profile (the difference being that it would have been done more covertly). The unfortunate thing about successful 'covert' intelligence gathering and prevention is that almost by its very nature people won't know about it.