By Nick Dial
The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time.
“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.
On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:
“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).
What is a “mock bomb?” It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.
In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.
Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:
- Are white people commonly in the area?
- Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
- Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
- Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?
These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them? The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.
With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006). Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.
We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent. Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag? Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.
When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.
References
Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.
Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html
