Profiling Needed

by Walter Williams Standing in long lines to pass through airport security, I thought: Where's racial and sexual profiling now when it can benefit most, if not all, passengers? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Everybody knows that profiling has been declared racist and sex profiling is no better?" Let's look at profiling as a principle.

Suppose you were chief of police seeking to apprehend some unknown gangsters involved in a recent drive-by shooting. Would you instruct your officers to include 80-year-old women as possible suspects to be detained and questioned? You probably wouldn't and why? It's not because you have affection or special respect for the civil rights of older women. Focusing police resources on 80-year-old women, and for that matter 80-year-old-men, as suspects would be stupid and a gross waste of resources, because the chances that 80-year-olds would be involved in drive-by shootings is close to nil.

Criminals involved in the drive-by shooting would benefit if there were to be an anti-profiling law forcing police to view 80-year-olds just as likely to be involved in drive-by shootings as any other age group in the population. Doing so would waste police resources and give criminals greater opportunities to escape detection and apprehension.

Similar reasoning can be applied to airport security measures. Right now, part of enhanced security includes forcing all passengers to wait in long lines to have their tickets and ID checked, take off outer garments, be frisked and have their carry-on items searched for anything that might be used as a weapon -- that includes fingernail files and clippers, cuticle cutters, knitting needles ... you name it.

Lines and passenger inconvenience could be reduced by applying profiling where less scrutiny is given to older women and men. While older women and men are not likely to be hijackers, they might be used by hijackers to carry weapons -- thus, a reasonable case can be made for requiring them, as well as any other passengers, to pass through metal detectors.

Who should receive more scrutiny, and who should receive less? This is an important question if we are to insure against hijacking. As a generality, women should receive less scrutiny. After all women have never been significant players in hijacking. Black Americans of either sex should receive less scrutiny for the same reason. Most security resources should be spent scrutinizing Caucasian males, particularly those with a Middle Eastern appearance. And why? It's simply that virtually all hijackings in the United States and elsewhere have been committed by men fitting that general description.

Some might say that it's unjust to single out some Americans for more security scrutiny than others. But it is also unjust, plus a waste of resources, to subject people to airport security harassment who pose absolutely no hijacking threat, such as old men, women of any age and young children.

There are security measures we can take that are far more effective than anything that we're doing now. There are tens of thousands of retired policemen and active duty policemen, as well as their counterparts in the FBI and Secret Service who fly. How about a program that allows them to fly half-fare if they carry their weapons and act as sky marshals? That would create considerable uncertainty for hijackers. They wouldn't know who or how many people were on the plane who would be in the position to blow their brains out.

Current government regulations give aid and comfort to hijackers. The Federal Aviation Administration has guaranteed hijackers that no one on the plane is armed but them. That must be changed.

My 78 yr old mother, was stopped by security last week at an airport, because she had a small pair of scizzors that she used to open her packets of medication in her carry-on cosmetic bag-- which she forgot to put in her luggage. She was allowed to use the scizzors back to open the packets and then she told security she would put them in her car. Later, she was physically searched, when she got to the boarding gate, because she was already identified as a "suspected terrorist",-- she had resisted security efforts to take her scizzors and dispose of them.

I agree - too bad we could never get it to happen. Of course Dr. Williams has said the only governmental position he would consider would be the Supreme Court.

Great Story ! You should start a new discussion with that post. I'm about to fly for the first time since sept 11th. I'm not even remotely worried about terrorists but I am worried that I'll be compelled to throttle one of the security idiots.

19 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 911 outrage were young males of Middle Eastern heritage and nationality ... it's a no brainer to think we would start looking at this group first to try to detect and stop future terrorist attacks ... except apparently for those with no brains...

I think many of these "protectors of our security" hassle a large percentage of elderly because they know they can pad their numbers - look vigilant - on the most docile members of the travelling public.

It's a ridiculous waste of time but now that we have allowed Dascle etal to make baggage checkers union members, we will never be rid of them as long as we fly. Pray they don't get the idea to set up road blocks all over manned by govt union members who will pad their numbers by pulling over school busses. Our government does not look vigilant but like bureaucrats on steroids. No common sense or practicality just building their little empires as fast as they can approve the pork.

I coun't agree with you more. We can't just blame the dems though. It's the executive branch that's doing this. The dems are responsible for the unionization and as you said that makes things much much worse. It will make it difficult to reverse this idiocy. It damaging our economy and unless the public revolts it will continue to do so forever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.