Security Screening/Profiling
 

What do you guys think about this article?

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/50716.htm

ISRAELIS KNOW:
PROFILING'S KEY

By YISHAI HA'ETZNI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 26, 2005 -- SINCE 9/11, U.S. officials have struggled with how to protect the American public without infringing on individuals' rights and sensibilities.
The touchiest issue of all is "profiling" — using various factors, including race or ethnicity, in security checks. So, it wasn't surprising that, when New York announced last week that it would begin screening passengers on the city's subway, officials promised loudly and insistently that the checks would be random and racial profiling would not be used.

Such a policy avoids discrimination against certain ethnic groups — in effect, inconveniencing, embarrassing and perhaps even punishing individuals for crimes they did not commit. This is an important value and a worthy goal. Unfortunately, however, blanket avoidance of profiling undermines the entire point of checking passengers.

Following a spate of terrorist hijackings and other attacks on civilian aircraft and airports in the late 1960s and '70s, Israel developed a security system that utilized sociological profiles of those seeking to harm Israelis, among other factors.

The American system developed at the same time relied primarily on technology like scanning devices, which checked people and baggage uniformly.

Facing a less benign threat, Israelis found this system insufficient: Explosives and other weapons could slip through too easily. Since it wasn't feasible to perform extensive security searches on every passenger, Israel used sociological profiles in addition to screening devices: Each passenger is questioned briefly and then airport security personnel use their judgment to identify suspect would-be passengers, who are then questioned at greater length and their bags searched more thoroughly. It is targeted and far more effective than random searches, which end up being nearly cosmetic.

Screening and random searches would not have averted the tragedy that profiling stopped on April 17, 1986. Anne-Marie Murphy, a pregnant Irish woman, was traveling alone to Israel to meet her fiancé's parents. Her bags went through an X-ray machine without problems, and she and her passport appeared otherwise unremarkable.



But in a perfect example of the complexity of profiling, a pregnant woman traveling alone roused the suspicions of security officials. They inspected her bags more closely and discovered a sheet of Semtex explosives under a false bottom. Unbeknownst to Murphy, her fiancé, Nizar Hindawi, had intended to kill her and their unborn child along with the other passengers on the plane.

Unfortunately, the rise in terrorist assaults on Israeli public transportation, entertainment venues and public spaces necessitated that the airport security model be implemented in those areas as well — for one simple reason: it works better than anything else.

In May 2002, a would-be suicide bomber ran away from the entrance to a mall in Netanya after guards at the entrance grew suspicious. Though he killed three people when he blew himself up on a nearby street, he would have murdered far many more people had he been able to enter the mall.

His ethnicity — along with his demeanor, dress, even his hair — was merely one of many factors security personnel use in profiles. But it was a factor.

The American system's "blindness" cuts off the most important weapon in the war against terrorism: Human capability, judgment and perception. Now that the United States faces a higher threat, it cannot afford to neglect those tools.

Using sociological data as well as constantly updated intelligence information, trained security personnel know who is most likely to be perpetuating an attack, as well as how to identify suspicious individuals through behavior. (Again, it is important to note that ethnicity is only one factor among many used to identify potential terrorists.) Removing intelligence and statistical probability as tools would render this model far less effective.

Israelis understand — and other Westerners need to accept — that no system can ever be 100 percent effective. But this is a system that has stood up remarkably well under a vicious and unrelenting assault of terror.

Is profiling worth the resulting infringement on the democratic values of equality? Yes. After all, protecting human life is also a democratic value, perhaps the supreme one.

Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe. The attacks of 9/11 and the attacks on public transport in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life.

Today's terror threatens not only individuals' security and lives, but is an assault on open, democratic societies as a whole. Terrorists use our society's openness against us. Free, democratic societies must carefully balance our rights and responsibilities, lest we saw off the branch upon which democratic freedom sits.


Yishai Ha'etzni is executive director of the Shalem Center, the Jerusalem research institute that publishes the journal Azure (www.azure.org.il).

There was a time, maybe still when customs inspectors were very astute at reading body language.

Profiling makes sense. It isn't a matter of just black and white. McVey and Nichols were pretty white but most of the suspects I have seen are pretty similar in complexion.

Reminds my of a comment reputedly from an Israeli security expert: Americans look for bombs, we look for terrorists. Seems to me to be a lot more efficient and a lot less invasive (unless you're one of the profiled groups). Catch 22 - the left screams about loss of individual rights and racial/ethnic prejudices that would result from profiling (demonstrably true), but what they've forced on us by denying reality is worse - just for being stupid and ineffective. Government has more to fear from the contempt/scorn and laughter of the governed than it does from active threats. FWIW - Peregrino

Profiling?? Let's back up to "Equal Rights" !! What would be wrong with a new Law, or an ammendment to the Patriot Act, that would disallow the application of "EqualRights" to those whose Religions or Government's doctrinal tenets did not believe in/practice the same !!!

We would then be selecting these folks because it appears that the possible aforementioned irregularitiy is likely to exist.


Another option is to search twice as many that do not match the "profiled" as the profiled. You see two comming through the line, you search the two in front of them and the two behind, you make them part of a "Packet" !!

Not entirely clear what you mean...

So if you see a passenger coming through whose government or religion doesn't practice what it preaches, you then search them?

Not a bad idea really. However, I think we should just scrap the whole Racial Profiling outcry entirely and do what works. From what I understand, RP came about after complaints that minorities got stopped by cops more than whites.

(As you know...) We're not dealing with your run of the mill civil law enforcement however. We're talking about security screening to combat terrorism. I say they should give each and every security officer full discretion over who they search and to what extent. If the minorities don't like it, they don't have to travel. Same goes for the grandmothers and senators and dumb white guys like myself. Besides, we're all volunteering for it anyways right? If I go to the airport, I expect to be searched.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we waste time and money searching people who wouldn't otherwise be searched so that we can avoid hurting the feelings of people we need to search.

The article put it best...
"Random searches of grandmothers and congressmen may make Americans feel virtuous, but they don't keep Americans safe. The attacks of 9/11 and the attacks on public transport in Madrid and London sadly demonstrate that Americans cannot afford feeling virtuous at the cost of human life."

Also, I agree with QRQ30 that it's not just about black and white. I think sociological profiling could go a long way. On the other hand, I don't think that race should be completely excluded as a factor for performing searches either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we yet to find a single bomber* that wasn't a middle-eastern male between the age of 18-30?

All of this IMHO and with all due respect...
--Aric

* I use the term "bomber" to denote any terrorist who has used a bomb to attack the US, or our allies, in the course of the GWOT. This excludes other terrorist conflicts such as the Isreal/Palestine conflict or the OK City bombing.

What works and what doesn't? Go to the country with the most experience and learn from them. In this case it's Israel.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Doc

What I meant was that if you saw someone that "fit" the likelyhood that they were from a designated region, you would process them accordingly !!

My thought is that we need to put this whole Politically Correct BS behind us !! Our enemy does not respect us or our ways of life and is using it against us. When in the F**K are the people of this country going to wake up. We've got Ted Kennedy and his like driving the WHOLE bus load of US and heading for Chappaquidock !!

Gotcha...

Amen.

Regards,
Aric

We never got many Muslims or Arabs visting the Embassy, funnily enough. We searched (with both of the metal detecters and x ray) ALL people coming in. Didn't matter who you were (well, that's not quite true. Ambassadors and whatnot were let through), you got searched.

Personally, I looked at body language more than anything else. Oh, and if they were wankers. Then they got a through going over.

Was thinking the same thing as I read that. I like the idea of a "sociological profile." Wonder how the ACLU, et al., would combat that in the SCOTUS.

I would not be a very good screener. I would be preoccupied with searching hotties. :D

Doc: I think you are mistaken on that. I believe the UK has more experience with the IRA. Its a lot safer to go out shopping or to diner in the UK than in Isreal.

As for civil rights I saw an interview with a black member of the American Civil Rights movement and he was for it as long as profiling is based on real facts and not just ethnic.

Terry,

Thanks,

Wouldn't be the first or the last time I was mistaken about something. Maybe we should learn as much as we can from all of the sources available to us? Israel, UK, etc. Just a thought.

Doc

Terry, I'm going with Doc on Israel having the most experience for one simple reason: Israeli security is set up to thwart an enemy attempting to get amongst them and initiate explosives with as many people about, while the IRA is/was more about initiating explosives to conduct massive property damage - hence their coded warnings. I believe the Brit system has now changed to include the suicide bomber template, with training received from the Israelis.

On another note the Israeli system will never work here. All of the contracted personnel working for El Al have undergone extensive back round checks and training - both in technician tasking with security equipment and professional interview/interrogation skills. Each set of security personnel work in concert with one another and make a great 360 degree bubble.

We on the other hand have TSA Shaniqua the 5'2" 245lb welfare mom standin' at the gate wit attitude tellin you "you gots to take tem shoes off", Byron the illegal immigrant/criminal loading the hold with luggage hoping he didn't piss hot or was run for a criminal records check, or the supervisor in charge who, in some of our Eastern cities were ex "exotic" dancers hired for their people skills (?) and their uniqueness - since one possessed a 10 digit social security number.

We are not, and will not be serious about security until we can remove PC and politics from our hiring practices - remember, we grandfathered in the same people who didn't have a clue before 911, and now look to them for security leadership - hey, this could also be applicable to the FBI....... naw, thats just too easy.

Here, here, Casey my brother. Preach on it!

Nice avatar, BTW.

TR

Cost! The horror.......the horror.

We are distinctly different than the UK and Israel in that we have far more International Airports. We could not possibly afford to replace our current system with an Israeli system. Remember that Israel uses the same technology as us they just supplement it with trained professionals.

We are now thinking of installing airport security technology at our mass transit terminals.

Most of the courts in our country already have security technology in place. Manned by those of questionable intelligence and morals.

Alot of our schools in the inner cities now have security technology in place again...manned by amatuers.

We are forced to settle for amatuers due to the prohibitive costs of trained and qualified professionals.

Criminal profiling is highly effective and I am all for it. In part, due to it irks the heck out of the ACLU and other southpaw organizations. But I would love to live in a double wide instead of a single wide trailer, if not for the cost! :munchin

Prejudice and discrimination! I call fowl (Marx Bros big rubber chicken). :D Peregrino

There's something bigger than a single-wide out there? ;)

That's it in a nutshell. Handedness is an overblown issue (except that we are inately superior because of our ability to adapt to the prejudices and outright discrimination of a right-handed world). Though it does come in handy clearing to the right around corners. Peregrino

Hey some of my best friends are (unsure of politically correct term) handicapped like that..................... :D

Apples and Oranges
 

Combating terrorism is a hard enough task in itself. The Israelis have an effective means due to the fact that most of the country is overwhelmingly the same (religion, beliefs, and lifestyles). The United States is the melting pot that seeks out liberties based on the Constitution and as such justify why the are beyond those rights to fairness. Don't like the extra time that it takes to get on the plane, too bad.

To compare the 2 is not the best idea. Yes the Israelis have an effective method to counter suicide bombers in the malls, markets and entertainment venues. But we overlook the fact that most of those terrorists are next door neighbors and are more easily profiled amongst the masses. They look out of place and act out of place. Other than the human factors of reading a persons demeanor, what is out of place in the US?

The biggest problem in this nation was and still is the fact that no single person would ever think that it could happen to them (we are the exception :D ). People that have been interviewed about their contact with successful terrorists always play to the same tune, "they were nice", "I never even suspected him/her." Playing the naive game is easier than standing up and saying something. I have no problem letting authorities know that someone is a suspicious character and needs a little extra attention.

Profiling: Like any other word it's taken out of context, kinda like love, hate and trust. I know of too many people that use the words without knowing the true meaning. Profiling means that you stand back and take in all of the information to make your judgement call. Heavy coat in summer? You're getting checked! One way ticket, no bags, and a little jumpy? Welcome to secondary!

Airport screeners are being held to a standard of morals, not of common sense and initiative or effort. Next time you travel via air, look ahead and pay attention to the screeners eyes. Who do they focus on? Next person or 3-4 people down the line? Most likely they look at the next person and react according to their moral guidelines. There really is no effective way to teach a person to read others. It is a gift that some are blessed with and others can learn the traits but don't have the instinctiveness to discern one type from another.

If people want to stop terrorists they need to embrace civic responsibility and take their lives back. Let these shitheads know that they can bomb us but they can't shake our resolve.

My .02

LOL - I knew, with a little patience, the guilty party would step forward.......

You don't like it/want something different? :D

TR

I understand that there are different circumstances but people always cite Isreal and I'm not overly impressed with their results or means. Things have spread to a flobal terrorism but, nevertheless, it isn't particularly safe to be a Jew in Israel. The attacks continue since the beginning of Israel. Now, their tactics upon rersponse really suck. Can you imagine Cobras and tanks chasing bad guys down the streets in the US? There is enough flap over high speed police chases.

Back to profiling, I say go for it!!

In some respects we are at a disadvantage. Troops can only be used in the event of martial law and it will take more than a dozen 911s to bring that about.

Also, as I and somerone else mentioned, interpretation of body language is of utmost importance.

Unfortunately, without the entire world's support we can't win. The POTUS himself said we will not pull out on his watch. By our laws his watch is over in 3 1/2 years and even the VP isn't going to run. The terrorists need only wait it out.

Sound familiae?? :(

Terry,

I cited Israel because I can't think of another country that historically had/has so many other nations trying to take it down 24/7-365 days a year. Israel's enemies can make mistakes and fail. Israel can't afford the same luxury.

HTH

Doc

Agreed. However I just don't think we can model after their procedures. Most would not stand up to our constitution. That would again take martial law here.

I have heard their airport/airline security cited but we have more flights enter and depart one major airport in a day than they do total in a year.

Interestingly I heard Rumsfeld tell the Iraqi they need to tighten up their borders. Are therte any borders in the world more porous than ours?

What about relaxing security at our airports?

Here's the idea: If you want to bring nailclippers, box-cutters, or semi-auto pistols with you on the plane, have at it...

Reinforce the cockpit door and let the terrorists decide if they want to go up against a well armed and angry plane full of passengers.

Thoughts?

--Aric

I'm not advocating a copy and paste approach, but rather one where we use what we can where we can.

No country can provide 100% protection on it's borders.

Doc

You asked for it!

1. Rarely will the typical civilian intervene in a volatile situation. Regardless of their superiority in numbers or armaments. This country is victimized by Robberies, assaults, and numerous other violent crimes perpetrated in front of civilians without fear of civilian intervention. "Let's Roll" was the exception to the rule.

2. Do you really want everyone carrying firearms on an airline. It scares me knowing there might be an air marshall on my flight. Guns fired in a plane does not seem practical in resolving situations to me.

3. It is hard enough for professionals to get it right when confronted with a volatile and unpredictable situation. ie. London shooting of recent memory. And I believe they had every right to do as they did.

No Thanks!

Looks like you've got a person to ride shotgun on that wagon.

100% agreement, people for the most part are sheep and remove themselves to avoid injury or being implicated in a lawsuit.

My ideas for ac ft security:

1. 100% check of all baggage.

2. No carry on.

3. Strip search 100% and issue disposable PJs and paper slippers.

4. If that is too stringent, stay home.

I know this will never fly but those are my sentiments. :lifter

1. Why do you think that is? I think it's a direct result of social conditioning and prohibitive self defense laws. I think our society relies too heavily on laws and law enforcement for our protection.

2. How much more would it scare the terrorists? I understand the pressurization problem, but they would have a dandy of a time pulling off another 9/11

3. I agree that security professionals (be they LEO or private) have a very hard job, but at the same time, I think the intention of making the job easier has fostered an environment of easy prey i.e. people with no means of self defense whose safety depends on an ever dwindling number of individuals that are not required to protect them anyways.

And yes, I did ask for it... :D

--Aric

1. Kitty Genovese 1964. 38 witnesses to her homicide, not a single person came to her aid.

2. Law enforcement 2005 starting pay 48,000 a year ,extreme shortage of officers and very small number of applicants.

3. Military fails to meet recruitment goals for the past 7 months.

Does not support the belief that there are citizens (in great enough numbers) to volunteer to be vigilant in the face of a threat or an attack. Heck the majority of the professionals are not willing to commit time and effort in learning self defense tactics.....and it is their job!

To many Neville Chamberlain personas and far too few Winston Churchill's today.

And that sir is why each time a soldier or cop is killed we should be mindful of what a tremendous loss it is to our nation. Because that individual we lost is a member of a shrinking class. A courageous class of citizens that feel that service to country is noble and compulsory regardless of risk or sacrifice.

Citizens with nail clippers, hat pins, and derringers.......don't need them or want them. I just want a couple kids on my flight that have served their country. Unarmed they will give me a better chance of surviving any attempted terrorist attack!

1. Perhaps that event is so well known because it is so unusual... You can look at it two ways, there aren't any famous reports about vigilant citizens protecting the innocent because it doesn't happen, or because it's not "newsworthy". I think the latter.

2.I'm not going to volunteer for law enforcement, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't try to help in a crisis situation...

3.Just because someone isn't willing to put in the sacrifice of joining the military doesn't mean they wouldn't do their part in a local situation...
No, there aren't very many out there. And I think that this is due to social conditioning and a removal of liberty, that gives each private citizen (non-LEO, non-military) the idea that to stay out of the way and let the professionals handle it is the safest solution. Doesn't always work that way. See: Kitty Genovese 1964
Couldn't agree more...
Amen...
I once thought that way too. I used to have zero faith in "the video game generation". However, after seeing these men and women stand up and accomplish what they have in the GWOT (or conflict formerly known as GWOT ;) ), I think that this class may not be so few or dwindling as before. I think there is still hope.
Because of their social conditioning... (i.e. their experience with the military)
I submit that if this country grew a backbone and (through the public schools and other government programs) started focusing more on the core values that this country was built on as opposed to all of the PC victimhood crap, there would be no need for your preference.

Counterpoint? :)

Respectfully,
Aric

Dark gray clouds overhead does not mean it is going to storm.....



You just contradicted your initial premise.........a plane full of well armed angry citizens. You have conceded the point!

Stay out of the way?........they didn't even call the police! And in this case that is why it did not work!



I never said I had zero faith in your generation.

Exactly what I was talking about! These are the individuals that have placed service to country above all else. The exception not the rule.

Thank you for again conceding a point. The military experience produces the type of vigilant citizen you seek or believe is anxiously waiting for that challenging moment to prove they are not afflicted with the "Bystander Syndrome" studied extensively since the Genovese Case.

The Bystander Syndrome is a recognized phenomenon as is the Stockholm syndrome. Read up on both of these.....it might give you a different perspective on what the significance of the Genovese case is all about. Has nothing to do with newsworthy!

........through public schools and government programs...
You mean like military service or attending a military academy! You do not need to reinvent the wheel. That which you seek is already there. The only thing lacking is the people walking up to the door.

I would respectfully submit that public schools and government programs (and the bureaucrats who run them) are among the root causes of our current dilemma. That's where true "social conditioning" takes place. The spirit that conquered (really "BAD" word) a continent and put men on the Moon has been villified and denigrated for the last 50 years - to the point that self determination, sacrifice, personal responsibility, and initiative are discouraged in the mindless masses. It's hard to control sheeple when they persist in thinking for themselves. The individuals joining the military - or anything else related to high-risk public service are the exception to the norms. My .02 - Peregrino

It occurs to me that the number of hours per day and days per year, times the years in school, equals more hours than parents are able to dedicate to counter the PC socialist agenda of the NEA which is pounded into impressionable minds in this country daily. There are some good teachers out there, but most are under a bureaucratic regime bent on their own personal agendas as well.

In fact, time in school probably constitutes a lot more hours than most POWs are exposed to before they begin to break.

Teach your kids to think for themselves.

TR

I agree. That's why the public schools would need to be included in the process of changing the social conditioning of our citizens.

Regards,
Aric

"Not many" doesn't mean "not any". I do not concede! :D
Whether every passenger on the plane has a weapon or not, to a terrorist, every passenger would have to be considered armed as there would be no telling who was and who wasn't.

Conceded. However, calling the police is not and cannot be the end all/be all of safety in our society. (At the risk of bringing the local legal experts into this discussion...) Check out this link: http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot.html

Whether required to or not, I believe that every good LEO believes in the "serve and protect" ideal and wants to make sure his/her community is a safe place. However, believing and doing are two different things. Cops can't be everywhere at once, and can't stop all bad things from happening.

Sorry for mischaracterizing your view. I misunderstood.

It's not about service to country. It's about having the ability to defend yourself in the case of a terrorist attack.

Yes, the military does produce that type of people. However, I believe they don't have the corner on the market.
I will read up on Bystander Syndrome. I argued "newsworthy" because you came up with a very famous example of why private citizens can't be relied upon to protect their own. My point was that I think there are many other cases where they can and have been relied upon due to absence of police protection. I would argue that most of these instances don't get reported. A famous example however, is flight 93 on 9/11.
No, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. I think if we were to allow weapons on board airplanes or buses or subways or in public places in general, it would discourage crime, and discourage terrorism.

However, in order for this to be a realistic proposal, we would need to reinvent the wheel. With our current society, this idea would never get past anything more formal than this forum. No government official would go near it with a ten foot pole for fear of annoying the petrified populous. No, today's strategy to keep terrorism out is to lock down the populous through knee-jerk security measures that only make people feel safer and don't necessarily make sense.

If we reengineered the process by which our citizens are raised however, I think that this idea would "fly" so to speak and our society would come out the better for it.

Regards,
Aric

Not to get the discussion off track, but a note:

The Air Force and the Navy are turning people away.

There are also folks going Blue to Green. http://www.goarmy.com/btg/index.jsp

Our local Army recruiter told me last week that "business was picking up again."

It seems to go in cycles.

Military was the wrong term to use in my earlier text.

Regarding the Blue to Green:
"Stars and Stripes" Mideast edition June 29, 2005;
375 airmen and sailors have used the program. I would call this insignificant!

My concern is for the "boots on the ground" not the Air Force and Navy. In my lay persons view the Army and Marines close proximity to battle is in direct correlation to their recruiting woes.

Those in the know, (read Pentagon) submitted the "Urgent Wartime Support Initiative" to congress on July 19,2005 to address the very issue I was referring to in my earlier post. In this initiative they have asked for Increasing enlistment bonuses up to $40,000, Raising the recruitment age to 42, and increases in Special Duty pay ect.

The fact that the Air Force and Navy are turning people away is a result of those two branches exceeding their authorized strength. I assume their authorized strength is proportional to their role in the GWOT, which has diminished since the fall of Saddam Hussein.



Respectfully!