Edward Epstein of the San Francisco Chronicle offers this excellent overview of various argumetns for and against racial profiling after 9/11. Epstein's discussion covers theories that aren't normally mentioned in most press accounts regarding racial profling. Because of the novelty of these arguments, we include some of them here:

Law Professor John Banzhaf compares racial profiling to race-conscious admissions: "A very compelling argument can be made that the government's interest in protecting the lives, safety and health of thousands of its citizens from another major terrorist attack similar to those carried out in New York, London and other cities ... is at least as 'compelling' as a racially diverse student body."

Law Professor John Yoo contends that "racial profiling would be advisable under specific circumstances, such as when police have a description of a suspected suicide bomber's race or ethnicity. 'But without that, I'm not sure it makes sense,' said Yoo.

Instead of race, Yoo says "a better profile for suspected terrorists might be of young men in general, pointing to the Sept. 11 and London bombers and terrorists of other races like Reid and McVeigh."

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff would dismiss both arguments, so it seems: "I think we want to focus on behavior. It's behavior which is the best test of someone's intentions. ... We want to focus on behavior and not prejudice."