In this new age of global terror and pervasive threats of bombings, high-jacking, and kidnapping; the security standards employed in combating these events appears to lack the fervor required to eradicate it. America rests behind legislation aimed at curbing the influx of individuals linked to terrorist organizations, but hampers itself with the concerns over public opinion and civil liberty. Despite the surreal nature of the geographical origin and religion of current and former terrorists, the U.S. has not pushed to implement standards of security that include profiling individuals based on these points. Racial profiling summons resentful feelings in individuals, but used in the correct manner and with the proper training it has been utilized with great success. America must take a proactive and responsible approach to identifying those persons most likely to be linked with groups akin to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Mujahedeen.
The destruction of the World Trade Center has been etched into the minds of all Americans. Images of the nineteen suspects involved in the attacks that day, whose aim was to strike fear into the American psyche, were plastered over television sets. The statement was these men were predominantly Saudi Arabian with ties to Al-Qaeda, a terrorist faction stemming from Afghanistan, and devout followers of extreme Islamic Jihadists. This group has taken its ideology from those of its predecessors; the taking of hostages and the murder of Christians and foreigners are a pious duty (Ibrahim). Though not all those devout to Islam can be identified with the few zealots performing acts of terrorism, it is essential to observe that racial, geographical, and religious factors have a role in determining persons more likely to perpetrate these actions.
While there are legitimate concerns in profiling, given past events, particular groups are more responsible for terrorist activities than others. Opponents of profiling are quick to point to the idiom that not all people are the same and that pouring everyone into the same mold is unfair if not unjust. Identifying potential threats based on race can lead to overreaction. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Attorney General Warren authorized the use of land laws against all Japanese landowners in California. The premise being that a recurrence of an attack was an eminent threat, eventually leading to the prohibition of all Japanese from the coastal regions of California (Siggins 399). While it cannot be ignored that there are going to be hurdles to navigate, a reasonable measure of profiling has shown to be effective in preventing criminal activities.
Police, nation-wide, incorporate profiling practices, commonly referred to as “racially biased policing” as a footing in stopping individuals (“Racial” 56-7). As Siggins emphasizes, “Racial profiling refers to a method…where individuals are identified as more likely to be associated with a specific crime because of their race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.”(qtd. in 398). The key points are “identification” and “more likely to be associated”; where an educated distinction can be made in asserting that particular individuals are more suspect than others. David Harel, a security expert for Shin Bet and El Al Airlines, believes that profiling is necessary due to the unfeasibility of enforcing “a high level of scrutiny” on all airline patrons (Tucker para. 27). Distinctions need to be made to reserve an embodiment of freedom while also ensuring the safety of all Americans. The primary factor that will resonate with the public is the perception that their civil rights are being violated in the name of overblown panic.
Those who would say that profiling infringes on their rights and freedoms commonly forget the determination of those seeking to do us harm. Methods devised to combat racial bias have created directives that violate personal freedoms far more. Invasive body scanners dotting airport terminals and vast legislative measures like the Patriot Act create a vortex of dread for the American people. Considering the individuals responsible for the strike on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were comprised of Middle Eastern men “who fit a specific profile”; does profiling truly violate ones civil rights (Siggins 398)? The Fourth Amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secured in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures…but upon probable cause…” (“Bill”). Simply detaining and questioning an individual based on the perception of criminal intent combined with racial and religious factors does not violate this statute. Two Supreme Court cases have been argued based on this distinction: Terry v. Ohio, 1968, and Whren v. United States, 1996, where the justices resolved that the “subjective motivation” of law enforcement personnel “has no part to play in the…justification for a stop and search when the officer can articulate objective reasons.” (Siggins 399). If there is no infraction on a person’s civil liberties, is profiling not a viable means of providing security to the public?
Israel, a victim of terrorism for the last fifty years, has laid the groundwork when it comes to balancing security with freedom. El Al airline dictates that “young Arabs” can be identified for “extensive research procedures”. They counter arguments against the practice by reasoning that they have “not had a high-jacking in over thirty years” (Siggins 402). Such evidence only strengthens the reasoning for targeting individuals more likely to commit crimes than others. A look through most international airports paints a grim perception of our resolve in stamping out terrorism. As Dr. Tucker emphasizes, “Large passenger aircraft are attractive targets…they are extremely vulnerable.” (qtd. in para. 23). The difficulty in providing further security is two-fold. First, the financial obligation required; El Al spends approximately $80 million annually just in Tel Aviv (Tucker para. 24). Magnify this number by the international airports throughout the U.S. and the figure is staggering. Second, the interagency communication required is something the American government has struggled with. Though both points present obstacles, the alternative of not truly protecting citizens is harder to swallow.
People will say that America has done a decent job of protecting its populace, but recent events after 9/11 indicate otherwise. Dr. Tucker notes:
…when Richard Reid (the future “shoe bomber”) decided to fly in July 2001 from Amsterdam to Israel…El Al security personnel selected him for profiling and subjected him to a full security check from head to toe (including an X-ray scan of his shoes) that showed he carried no bomb or weapon. Although Reid was allowed to board the plane, El Al remained suspicious and made sure he was sitting near an armed sky marshal…American Airlines was not as careful, however, and allowed Reid to board a flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001. This time the Al-Qaeda operative carried an explosive device, concealed in a shoe, and he attempted to detonate the explosive in mid-flight (qtd. in para. 28)
Had American Airlines possessed the ability and freedom to selectively profile individuals, it is assumed that the incident could have been completely avoided. Unfortunately, freedom is not free. In fact, freedom requires the surrender of individual will for the common good of all. To overcome the threat of Al-Qaeda and its sister groups, America must take a proactive approach to securing its people. If only one percent of all Middle Eastern men are terrorists, is it not still worth the minor aggravation required to stamp it out? Terrorist groups will continue to recruit young men; those befitting certain profiles, and will continue to send them into this country. If America persists in hiding behind civil liberties, cowing to groups proclaiming profiling as prejudicial, and omnibus legislation, then it had better be prepared for the consequence of being caught off guard again.
“The Bill of Rights: A Transcription.” The U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.
Ibrahim, Youssef M. “The Twin Towers: Terrorism; Throughout Arab World, 20 Years of Growth
of Islamic Terror Groups.” New York Times, 6 Mar. 1993.
“Racial Profiling.” Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco: Learning about Addictive Behavior. Ed. Rosalyn
Carson-DeWitt. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 56.
Siggins, Peter. “Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism.” Crime and Punishment: Essential
Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 398-
402.
Tucker, Jonathan B. “Strategies for Countering Terrorism: Lessons from the Israeli Experience.”
Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute, Mar. 2003. .
No comments:
Post a Comment