This is not profiling

Once again it is time for me to agree with the guys over at Stop the ACLU--even though I don't agree that we need to stop the ACLU.

The TSA has begun using "casual conversation to flush out possible terrorists." (Read about the program here)

It basically works this way...

TRAINED Security people strike up conversations with people who are acting suspicious. If the TRAINED security people determine that there is something hinky about someone--they will question them further.

The ACLU says this could lead to profiling.

I am not a big fan of profiling only because I think it is easy for the bad guys to circumvent. If we are only looking for Arab men between 17 and 35 then the bad guys are going to use women, midgets and children with red hair and green eyes. I don't think profiling is effective.

I do think this "behavior-pattern recognition" is effective. I actually know if is effective because the Israelis use it all the time and when was the last time you heard of an El Al flight being blown up?

This program is not racial profiling. This is behavior based. It should be used--probably in conjunction with--the bag searches in the NY subway and everywhere else.

Suicide bombers and other terrorists while motivated aren't robots...they get nervous, the sweat, the behave in certain ways. Training the guys in the airport to look for and notice these things is a good tool.

Chris

Read more here: Stop the ACLU

Comments

[USMC Steve]

Chris, thanks for mentioning this. I had not heard about it as yet. And it is a common sense rich thing to do. Given some of the people who run the TSA, any show of common sense is encouraging and refreshing.

I find myself in agreement with you. This is a good idea, and it would work for keeping anyone who is a looney tune from getting aboard an aircraft, not only terrorists. Like the mental case off his meds who claimed to have a bomb, and his wife who stood next to him, screaming "He's off his medication!" (Wonder who she thought she was helping by doing that?)

[Chris Vaughan]

Profiling, an interesting thing. If the ACLU (American Communist Liberation Unit) has thier way an all points bulletin would be illegal. Do to the fact an all points gives description, hieght , wieght, race and possible clothing of a suspect.
One has to take into account who the founders of the ACLU are and were. What is their adgenda (clearly not in the interest of American citizens). A leading conversation that is casual but inquisitive is an excellent tool, as is PROFILING. If this form of conversation is illegal just think of how boreing it will be at the ofice water cooler trying to get the daily info on who and what in the interoffice political game that is played out on a daily basis.

[HC]

Here is the ALCU side of the story.

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a so-called "behavioral assessment" program adopted by the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts state police to stop and detain people for questioning at Logan Airport.

"This program is another unfortunate example of the extent to which we are being asked to surrender basic freedoms in the name of security," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This allows the police to stop anyone, any time, for any reason."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. When Downing finally agreed to produce his driver's license, the troopers then demanded to see his airline ticket. Downing was told by the police that he could be barred from the airport if he did not cooperate. After the police inspected Downing's identification and travel documents, he was allowed to leave. No charges were ever filed against him.

"This is a dangerous extension of police power," said Downing. "I was stopped and held for no legal reason by armed State Police troopers. I was told I could not leave unless I proved who I was and why I was at the airport, and that if I did not cooperate, I would be arrested or banned from the airport. This is racial profiling, and not the action of a government that stands for freedom and the rights of all its people."

Behavioral profiling has been used as the basis for stopping passengers since 2002 when Massport announced that State Police troopers at Logan Airport were being trained by an outside security consultant. The procedures were subsequently incorporated into the state police "Behavior Assessment Screening System" used at Logan and other locations. It was recently reported that B.A.S.S. is being used as a model by the Transportation Security Administration, which will soon launch a similar program nationwide, entitled SPOT ("Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques").

Current law permits the police to stop and question someone when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. In contrast, the "behavioral profiling" program instructs officers to detain anyone who they believe is exhibiting "unusual" or "anxious" behavior. What constitutes "unusual" or "anxious" behavior presumably is left to individual officer discretion.

"This case illustrates the danger of giving law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to detain people," said ACLU Cooperating Attorney Peter Krupp. "It is a clear case of unconstitutional racial profiling. Mr. Downing did nothing suspicious - unless you consider having dark skin and a beard evidence of suspicious behavior."

The case was filed in Suffolk Superior Court.

[Mark]

I suppose the mental giants at the ACLU haven't yet figured out that their "legal successes" may ultimately result in the United States suffering a catastrophic terrorist attack (perhaps even with nukes or chem/bio) by Islamic fascists.

However, here's the best part: the ACLU is clearly either unable or unwilling to recognize that if the above DOES happen this will quickly result in:

1. The immediate suspension of significant sections of the Constitution. Habeas corpus? Fuhgeddabowdit!

2. "Profiling" like there's no tomorrow.

3. The designation, and banning, of the ACLU itself as a "subversive organization."

4. Relocation and internment of ACLU members, along with most Muslims and other "undesirable elements," to "protective custody" camps...if they're LUCKY.

Yeah, way to go ACLU: y'all still don't understand the Constitution is NOT a "suicide pact."

[HC]

If this program is just being used as cover for racial profiling, then I would against it. However, If TSA can show a factual basis on the success of this screening program, then I would be for it. From the Article I did not see proof that the program works. If anyone can tell me where to look for this program's success rate, please do.

[Jason]

Yeah, racial profiling is terrible. I'd rather the TSA agents focus on the 82 year old lady with a cane, or the 18 year old blonde girl with 2 kids, than the brown-skinned guy with boxcutters. I'm always afraid some little old lady is gonna pop out her dentures in mid-flight and try to chew her way through the cockpit door because she's pissed that they cancelled "Murder She Wrote".

[HC]

I see Mark If we defend our civil rights then you want to turn our country into a police state. The ACLU only files the suit. It is the courts which determine if the suit as merit according to constitution. So you are willing violate the constitution to suit your will. How Interesting.

[USMC Steve]

You aren't going to find anything showing that the program works, because the article is talking only about what the ACLU is doing and from their perspective. They are lawyers, and they don't care one bit about the other side of the equation, as that might be against the pet point they are trying to prove. Based upon the meat of the article itself, the ACLU anarchists have no basis nor any merit behind the suit they are filing. There is merit for a suit alleging that the police harassed this guy, but there is nothing at all in the article you provide that indicated that the trooper in question was even doing behavioral ANYTHING. He was rousting a black guy, it is as simple as that. If he had no real reason other than he thought the guy looked suspicious, then he was in the wrong. But there is nothing there to indicate the entire program is subversive, intrusive, or anything else. But then, the ACLU wouldn't try to halfass the true facts of the case in order to win, would they? After all, they are trial lawyers specializing in "civil rights" matters just as long as you aren't a mainstream normal white person. They won't deal with them.

I don't know if it works this way in Mass. but in most states if a cop of any sort walks up to you and tells you to produce some ID, you WILL do it, or you will be arrested and detained for refusing to cooperate with police. This boob would never have been "detained" or hassled if he had simply pulled out his drivers license as requested. But instead, he decided to be an uncooperative smart ass and they screwed with him for doing so. What did he think they were going to do nowadays, just say thanks for playing and walk away?

Further, Downing is incorrect in stating that he was racially profiled. Where is his proof of such? What other blacks with short beards have been asked for ID by state troopers in that airport, and how many of each other ethnic group in existence going through that airport are asked for their ID's? What is the ratio of black to arabic, white to hispanic, etc, etc.?

My odds are that Downing did something suspicious in that trooper's eyes, so he challenged him. Nothing was mentioned about that but I really doubt the trooper would have hassled him while simply standing around making a phone call. Downing made his own mess and is now trying to capitalize on it.

[HC]

USMC I understand that ACLU did not provide any information supporting the program's success rate and that is why I am asking the good and fair people of "Stop the ACLU" and anyone else to provide that information. I would like that information so I can make an educated decision on this issue.

[woof]

Here is a success that we should all remember.
***********************
Ressam, with ties to the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, was arrested in 1999 in Port Angeles, Wash., as he drove off a ferry from Canada. Customs agents, suspicious of his nervous behavior, searched his trunk and found explosives. Ressam, who had been living in Montreal, was convicted of plotting a blast at the Los Angeles airport.
********************
I don't know what a measurement of a success rate would be. It could be successful just in further discouraging terrorists from passing security check points. We can see what the failure rate would lead to.

Lets also stop and ask is it really commonsensical to call something which is individual and behaviorally specific profiling? Isn't looking closely at an individual the opposite of profiling?

[Ken Arromdee]

The problem is that letting agents stop you for acting suspiciously really means letting agents stop you for any reason at all, since they can always claim "he was acting suspiciously" as an excuse to justify a stop really made for another reason.

I agree that it isn't profiling as described, but that assumes everyone is perfectly honest. It makes it very easy to abuse the system for the purpose of profiling.

[USMC Steve]

Ken, a police officer can do just that now. A police officer could do that 10 years ago too. There are some in law enforcement who enjoy rousting people, but not that many, and most of the ones I have known, don't do it unless they feel it is necessary. If you take into account the reason it often happens these days, I am not averse to it.

And in no way does it resemble racial or any other form of profiling. Anyone who looks up the legal definition of that will see this.

[Ken Arromdee]

It's true that a police officer can do that now, but the ACLU considers stops by police officers to be prone to the same kind of abuse and objects to them on the same grounds. They even have a Campaign Against Racial Profiling specifically dedicated to the issue of stops by police.

As a guess, I'd imagine that the ACLU's position on this issue arose *from* their similar position on stops by the police.

"And in no way does it resemble racial or any other form of profiling."

It's not profiling by itself. But it does make profiling much easier to hide.