Airport Screening for Terrorists

Airport Screening for Terrorists

There are a variety of reasons why United States security does not profile terrorists, particularly at major national and international venues such as airports. The main reason why terrorists are not profiled in this setting is because it is virtually impossible to devise a neat, categorical description of what a quintessential terrorist is/looks like. It is true that virtually all of the terrorists involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center were Middle Eastern men from the ages of 20 and 40. Does this fact mean that a Middle Eastern man who is 41, for instance, could not be a terrorist? Or perhaps one that is 19? Although the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center all fit one neat category, others do not. For instance, the young man from Nigeria who attempted to detonate some sort of homemade explosive while above Detroit was not Middle Eastern (or 20 years old, even). This example demonstrates that one of the reasons that terrorists are not profiled, and that security measures are not exacted against only those who meet the profile, because virtually anyone can fit the profile of a terrorist.

Moreover, the example of the World Trade Center presents other highly compelling evidence for the dearth of profiling of terrorists at airports. There are countless people, possibly thousands, who died in the three airplanes that crashed, in the World Trade Center building which exploded, and even more who died trying to assist others when remnants of the aforementioned structure collapsed. This event was so devastating that it was used to justify a global War on Terror in which the United States military went to key countries in the Middle East wreaking havoc, killing people, and governing the lives of those who survived (Huddy and Feldman, 2011, p. 455). This event -- after airport security was substantially increased to today's extreme measures -- is indelibly imprinted on the psyche of the American people. There are a lot of people who would more than likely still be afraid to fly if only certain individuals were profiled -- especially considering the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder that occurred after the attacks (Neria et al., 2011, p. 429). Additionally, it is worth noting that if profiling was enforced at airports, it would make the job of any terrorist considerably easier. He or she would only need to slip his or her supplies to someone who did not fit the profile, have them returned on the other side of the security checkpoint, and continue terrorizing the country. The ease with which this could be done is staggering; the accomplices would not even need to board the same plane. Therefore, profiling is not enforced at airports.

Lastly, it is worth noting that there are a number of egalitarian principles associated with America and its constitution which, although rarely ever enforced, would still make it easy for those whose rights are violated to effect lawsuits (and possibly even win) regarding the infringement of their rights within this country. Most profiling typically occurs at less sophisticated levels, and less formal levels, than at airports. For instance, historic minority groups (such as African-Americans and Latinos) are regularly profiled on the streets by law enforcement officials. If such profiling was formally instituted in airports via Homeland Security agencies, for instance, there could be considerable legal repercussions. Although profiling does happen regularly it is not necessarily legal -- implementing it as such on a formal basis therefore would result in legal infringement.

Alternatives to profiling could include utilizing so-called 'big data' to more closely monitor the movements of individuals and even collectives both within and outside of the airport. For instance, the recent National Security Association breach revealed that government officials are monitoring people's online activity as well as call records for the purported purpose of identifying terrorists (Faris, 2013). These measures could be increased to augment airport security. Additionally, smart phones can contribute to sensor data so that the whereabouts of people are known at most points in time -- which may be of use when attempting to identify terrorists or potentially hazardous activity.

Another potential option that is currently in place in a trial phase is the so-called trusted traveler program, which is part of a larger initiative referred to as Global Entry. For a $100 fee (which will almost surely increase if this initiative is adopted on a permanent basis) travelers can enroll in a program where a host of personally identifiable information -- such as fingerprints, passports and residency cards -- is taken and collected about travelers. These individuals will also have to pass an interview. The point is to establish the fact that they are low risk travelers, whose personal information is already confirmed. Then, when they attempt to travel at airports, they can submit their identification cards at a kiosk and either be directed to baggage or to security for another interview.