ACLU Sides with the Enemy...Again
Jim Kouri, CPP
December 30, 2005
The Transportation Security Administration is finally taking some positive steps to professionalize airport security. The initial step was designating security screens as security officers, which will require additional training and supervision, as well as additional responsibilities.
Part of the professionalization process is the training of airport security staff in what's been called psychological profiling or behavioral analysis or a number of other terms that all amount to the same thing -- avoiding allegations of racial profiling while at the same time effectively screening out potential terrorists.
This is a welcomed program by those of us in law enforcement who've said for years that psychological profiling should be used by airport security staff. While representing the staff and membership of the National Association of Chiefs of Police at lectures or during media interviews, I've often discussed the need for upgrading the training of airport security staff with part of the upgrade to include psychological profiling.
Most police officers and investigators are familiar with the concept since it's used during the interrogation and interview process to detect deception on the part of the subject. Without going into too much detail, interrogators or interviewers, while questioning a subject about the matter at hand, are observing body language, eye contact, breathing, physical characteristics such as dry mouth or profuse perspiration, and other criteria.
Israeli security agents and police have used this method for screening people at airports and security checkpoints for years with much success.
According to TSA officials, security officers at major airports across the country will be trained next year to use "casual conversation" to flush out possible terrorists. They will first teach officers what suspicious behaviors to look for in travelers. These can include nervousness, wearing a big coat in the summer or reluctance to make eye contact with law enforcement. Then, the officers carry on a supposedly casual conversation with passengers in hopes of spotting possible terrorists or to determine whether further scrutiny of a passenger is required.
Without fanfare, these techniques are being employed at several major airports, including those in Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Miami and Houston. Again, psychological profiling -- or, as the TSA calls it, behavior detection -- is a common practice among police officers. Customs agents, who screen arriving passengers, also use the process when they suspect a passenger needs a more detailed interview. This behavior detection program will be put in place at airport security checkpoints nationwide. It adds a psychological dimension to the screening process.
Boston's Logan International Airport began a pilot program for behavior screening in 2002. Shortly after 9/11, the airport management brought in an Israeli security specialist who helped train Massachusetts police, assigned to airport duty, in behavior screening. Currently, the TSA security officers perform preliminary assessment and then turn over any suspicious passengers to police officers for further questioning.
Most clear-thinking Americans should welcome this new program: It is not random; it doesn't entail profiling based on skin color or ethnicity; and it's unobtrusive. Unfortunately, there are some in the United States that take a different view of homeland security. One group is already making noises and have begun to look into taking legal action against the TSA and airports who have security officers using behavior detection. That group is -- surprise? -- the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a press release that's being used by the mainstream media as a news story, has warned that the screening technique could result in racial profiling.
Behavior detection] is a code word for targeting brown-skinned males between ages 17 and 45 years. It’s not only racial profiling, it’s ethnic profiling,” said Timothy Sparapani, who oversees privacy rights for the ACLU. Mr. Sparapani doesn't mention how he arrived at the age bracket. He also fails to provide evidence that race and ethnicity enter into the behavior detection process.
With recent events in Europe showing that certain whites are being recruited by terrorists, psychological profiling may prove even more effective than traditional criminal profiling.
If Al-Qaeda or the international terrorism network wanted to create an anti-American cell within the United States that would hamper efforts to protect American lives, they couldn't create a better cell than the ACLU. Each time a new technique or strategy is proposed or put into operation, the knee-jerk lawyers at the ACLU are right there trying to thwart the attempted innovation.
For example, right after the terrorist suicide bombings in London's mass transit system, the City of New York instituted an immediate security program of random police inspections of backpacks, briefcases and other objects being brought into subway stations. This writer's cousin, an NYPD officer, was assigned to subway package screening. According to her first hand experience, no one complained. However, the ACLU dragged the city government into court saying the program was unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
A judge ruled against the ACLU, but the harm was done. Some people began griping about violations of their civil rights. Other complained the random searches were intrusive. And the city spent millions of dollars to fight the ACLU.
The ACLU is a non-profit organization, but it seems the have been empowered with a quasi-governmental status. With their comrades in the judiciary -- liberal judges appointed by liberal politicians -- they have been successful in hampering law enforcement and intelligence officers. In essence they are the law firm for terrorists and the enemies within the US who have a far different vision for this nation than most Americans.
Part of the professionalization process is the training of airport security staff in what's been called psychological profiling or behavioral analysis or a number of other terms that all amount to the same thing -- avoiding allegations of racial profiling while at the same time effectively screening out potential terrorists.
This is a welcomed program by those of us in law enforcement who've said for years that psychological profiling should be used by airport security staff. While representing the staff and membership of the National Association of Chiefs of Police at lectures or during media interviews, I've often discussed the need for upgrading the training of airport security staff with part of the upgrade to include psychological profiling.
Most police officers and investigators are familiar with the concept since it's used during the interrogation and interview process to detect deception on the part of the subject. Without going into too much detail, interrogators or interviewers, while questioning a subject about the matter at hand, are observing body language, eye contact, breathing, physical characteristics such as dry mouth or profuse perspiration, and other criteria.
Israeli security agents and police have used this method for screening people at airports and security checkpoints for years with much success.
According to TSA officials, security officers at major airports across the country will be trained next year to use "casual conversation" to flush out possible terrorists. They will first teach officers what suspicious behaviors to look for in travelers. These can include nervousness, wearing a big coat in the summer or reluctance to make eye contact with law enforcement. Then, the officers carry on a supposedly casual conversation with passengers in hopes of spotting possible terrorists or to determine whether further scrutiny of a passenger is required.
Without fanfare, these techniques are being employed at several major airports, including those in Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Miami and Houston. Again, psychological profiling -- or, as the TSA calls it, behavior detection -- is a common practice among police officers. Customs agents, who screen arriving passengers, also use the process when they suspect a passenger needs a more detailed interview. This behavior detection program will be put in place at airport security checkpoints nationwide. It adds a psychological dimension to the screening process.
Boston's Logan International Airport began a pilot program for behavior screening in 2002. Shortly after 9/11, the airport management brought in an Israeli security specialist who helped train Massachusetts police, assigned to airport duty, in behavior screening. Currently, the TSA security officers perform preliminary assessment and then turn over any suspicious passengers to police officers for further questioning.
Most clear-thinking Americans should welcome this new program: It is not random; it doesn't entail profiling based on skin color or ethnicity; and it's unobtrusive. Unfortunately, there are some in the United States that take a different view of homeland security. One group is already making noises and have begun to look into taking legal action against the TSA and airports who have security officers using behavior detection. That group is -- surprise? -- the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a press release that's being used by the mainstream media as a news story, has warned that the screening technique could result in racial profiling.
Behavior detection] is a code word for targeting brown-skinned males between ages 17 and 45 years. It’s not only racial profiling, it’s ethnic profiling,” said Timothy Sparapani, who oversees privacy rights for the ACLU. Mr. Sparapani doesn't mention how he arrived at the age bracket. He also fails to provide evidence that race and ethnicity enter into the behavior detection process.
With recent events in Europe showing that certain whites are being recruited by terrorists, psychological profiling may prove even more effective than traditional criminal profiling.
If Al-Qaeda or the international terrorism network wanted to create an anti-American cell within the United States that would hamper efforts to protect American lives, they couldn't create a better cell than the ACLU. Each time a new technique or strategy is proposed or put into operation, the knee-jerk lawyers at the ACLU are right there trying to thwart the attempted innovation.
For example, right after the terrorist suicide bombings in London's mass transit system, the City of New York instituted an immediate security program of random police inspections of backpacks, briefcases and other objects being brought into subway stations. This writer's cousin, an NYPD officer, was assigned to subway package screening. According to her first hand experience, no one complained. However, the ACLU dragged the city government into court saying the program was unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
A judge ruled against the ACLU, but the harm was done. Some people began griping about violations of their civil rights. Other complained the random searches were intrusive. And the city spent millions of dollars to fight the ACLU.
The ACLU is a non-profit organization, but it seems the have been empowered with a quasi-governmental status. With their comrades in the judiciary -- liberal judges appointed by liberal politicians -- they have been successful in hampering law enforcement and intelligence officers. In essence they are the law firm for terrorists and the enemies within the US who have a far different vision for this nation than most Americans.
Print
Email
