In the world of political correctness, civil liberties and the global threat of terror attacks, our society has come to a divide on the subject of profiling. Although profiling is used by many corporations, individuals and scientific groups, it is the subject of racial profiling that has come to the forefront of the civil liberties debate. University Of Texas EBT defines profiling in many different categories of interest, in particular is this definition; A technique whereby a set of characteristics of a particular class of person is inferred from past experience, and data-holdings are then searched for individuals with a close fit to that set of characteristics (EBT Glossary). The question is, should racial, ethnic, or nationality based profiling systems be used by our Department of Homeland Security even in our national interest?


Homeland Security: Institutions or Organizations Using Profiling

The there is no question that profiling is used in our country and around the world. There is no question that law enforcement and intelligence agencies use profiling to accomplish missions. The question is; has profiling become an ethical necessity in this age terrorism, and will our freedom loving society ever call for more extensive use of profiling? The answers to both questions are yes. Through research and deductive reasoning I will show why we as a society must give up some of our unrestricted freedoms in order to safeguard, what remains of, our way of life. And how profiling, however distasteful it may be, is the only way to stop terrorist attacks before they happen.

Homeland Security: Profiling Acceptable to, or Tolerated by Our society

There are many groups in our society who currently use profiling in order to benefit their every day business. These groups range from, employers, lawyers, and sales people to the military. All these entities use profiling in one form or another to make their job easier. Employers use profiling to screen their potential employees. Companies like Dell Computer, General Electric, Motorola, Bristol Myers, Hewlett Packard, Nokia and other Fortune 500 Companies, extensively use Psychological evaluations (Abika.com, 2005). These companies use this information to help them understand the needs of the consumer. The military uses profiling to select their Special Forces candidates. “Although the details of this purgatory have varied over the years, the basic structure of the Special Forces tryout (Selection) has remained constant. First there is selection, a month long weeding out process, then follows the qualification course, which trains and tests soldiers in three phases (Robinson, 2004).” This process of weeding out and selection involve a profiling technique which finds individuals who strive to achieve mission which are sometimes unachievable. Yet these men drive themselves without external motivation to do near impossible tasks that are asked of them. Lawyers select jury members using agencies like Trial Behavior Consulting Inc. This particular agency specializes in jury selection and management. Under the Jury Selection section TBC Inc. says, “We accompany you to court for jury selection. If there are questionnaires, we make sure the appropriate questionnaires are handy as jurors are questioned. We take detailed notes on voir dire responses and ensure you have the jurors' own words to assist you in making cause challenges. Based on knowledge of juror attitudes and juror responses during voir dire, we make suggestions for peremptory and cause challenges. We also prepare and maintain seating charts to help keep track of jurors in the box (TBCI, 2005).” These profiling techniques used to select or dismiss potential jurors are so successful that trials are often won before the trial ever begins. So why is profiling used by so many so often, because it works. Does this mean that profiling is used and accepted by average Americans, perhaps not? The next paragraph explores profiling in respects to every day use in our society and how everyday Americans already live with and even use profiling on a daily basis.

As most people have experienced at one time or another, telephone solicitation can be a daily reminder of the profiling of our habits which we live with and tolerate everyday. People willingly fill out questionnaires on web sites in order to meet new people, and guess what they read before meeting them? You got it. They read the individual’s profile. So it appears that our society, though guarded and personal in many respects, has come to accept profiling in our every day lives. Creditors have profiles which estimate the amount of risk a creditor incurs by lending the borrower money. This is measured by a credit score which is derived from the borrower’s spending, lending and payment habits. Insurance companies compile mountains of data on an individual’s driving habits and then calculate a profile which then dictates how much the insurer must pay. So why is there such an outcry about using profiling in police work or to safeguard our national interests? I believe it could be that people are afraid of the abuse of power or, at very least, its misuse? The next chapter will explore actual abuses within the profiling system and detail how these techniques have been misused.


Homeland Security: Unsuccessful Instances of Profiling

As we have seen thus far profiling can successfully be employed by companies, agencies, and even individuals to help them make choices to weed-out people who might not live up to their expectations. However, there are times when the information that might otherwise help these entities make right decisions is inappropriately used. Here is a case of profiling gone wrong: The 26-year-old business administration student traveling to Pittsburgh came up on the airlines hot sheet because his name had a phonetic similarity to a name on the FBI watch list. He was pulled aside and investigated by the FBI, who cleared him there after (Jacinto, 2002). This incident, as it stands was not a problem; it was what happened afterward that shows how tools like profiling, in the wrong hands can cripple a person’s life. Even after the individual was cleared of any wrong doing he was not allowed to board the aircraft. In fact, he was put on an airline ‘black list” and was once again detained and investigated (Jacinto, 2002). Although this type of situation does not happen often, it only needs to happen to a person once for them to appreciate how profiling can disrupt an individual’s life. This is something every American can or should relate to. No person wants their information in a database that allows for innocent people to be targeted for investigation and scrutiny. Even though it may not be intentional, the fact that being in the database may provoke such action is reason enough to worry. However, the times that the profiling works may outweigh the inconvenience one faces by its potential misuse, especially if these watch lists help to save lives. Next we will examine the other end of the spectrum, the times that profiling does work.


Homeland Security: Successful Cases of Profiling

Profiling, though not an exact science, has been proven to be effective it its detection of those who would do us harm. This was demonstrated prior to September 11, 2001. According to the research conducted by Linda Robinson, senior writer for U.S. News and World Report; on December 11, 1999, the State Department issued a warning about travel overseas and the possibility of a terrorist attack. About three days later, Ahmed Ressam was caught trying to cross the U.S. and Canadian border. He was transporting 130 lbs. of RDX (powerful explosives) and timers made from Casio watches along with maps of Washington State, Oregon and California. Here was an example of intelligence, diligence and a little luck saving the day. This is one of the few cases that have been declassified and made accessible to the public. Rest assured that there have been many more foiled attempts, and it has resulted in the saving of countless lives. There is little doubt that the inconvenience that one might suffer in a mishandling of profile information is no where as harmful as 130lb. of high explosives. So it would seem that the successful use of profiling out weighs its potential misuse. But what kinds of people are committing such acts of violence and inhumanity? Is there a common thread among these individuals or are the attacks being committed by a random cross section of the world community? Is it truly possible to use large scale profiling to thwart the suicidal attacks of these mad men? Let us see what kind of profile we can build based on attacks that have already happened.


Homeland Security: Profiles of Suicide Bombers

For American citizens the threat of terror attacks hit our shores on 11 Sept 2001. That is when American liberties changed forever. There have been many suicide bomb attacks throughout the world, but this was the first on American soil. How do we prevent another such disaster from occurring again? In order to fight an enemy you must first know them. What are they like? What do the look like? Who do they associate with? What is the basis for their belief systems? These questions when asked individually don’t seem improper, but put them all together and you have the beginnings of a terrorist profile. Let’s look at what these individuals have in common with each other. The following list was pulled from a Web Blog written by Stefan Sharansky. It gives a description of suicide bombers from Israel and Palestine:

Muhammad Al-Ghoul suicide bomber killed 19 people, injured 74 on a Jerusalem bus, June 18, 2002.

Abdul Baset Odeh suicide bomber killed 29 people, injured 140 at the Park Hotel Passover Seder in Netanya, March 27, 2002.

Sa'id Al Hotary suicide bomber, killed 21 people, injured 120 at the Dolphinarium Disco in Tel Aviv, June 1, 2001.

This was a small example of some international suicide bombers, let us compare the September 11th hijackers and see if we can find a commonality between them. The six primary organizers among them were Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and the pilots (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, and Hani Hanjour. According to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, this distribution reflects the proportions of trainees at al-Qaida camps and the relative ease of obtaining U.S. visas for Saudi Arabian citizens (Wikipedia, July 2005). Well, at first glance it would seem that they are of Middle Eastern descent, male, Muslim and willing to die in a fiery explosion for their cause. It would also appear that their citizenship tends to also be from the Middle East. But wait, on 07 July 2005, 5 bombers struck the London transportation system. The perpetrators were United Kingdom citizens living most if not all their lives in the country, they did not commit suicide and one of the attackers was Jamaican born (BBC, 2005). These men seemed to have been totally integrated in to the British culture and society. They were well educated and from the middle class. These men differ somewhat from the previous attackers mentioned but there is still a commonality, they are all Muslim and it would appear that they have some connection to Pakistani Militants. One of the men is even reported to have been on government assistance (welfare). So did these men attack the citizens of the United Kingdom because they were treated poorly by the government? I think not, The United Kingdom has placated its Muslim citizen’s for years. It has allowed radical clerics to preach in the Mosques and thought it had a “pact” with Muslim groups as was reported in the New York Sun. “An Islamist British group called Al-Muhajiroun - "the immigrants" in Arabic - for some time publicly stated that Britain was immune from Islamist violence because of its acceptable behavior toward Muslims within the country's borders” (Pipes, 2005). On 7 July 2005, the London Bombers proved that no amount of appeasement, or left leaning ideals could stop terror from invading England’s shores. Are citizens ready to give up some of their civil liberties in order to prevent such attacks from occurring again? In the next segment we will weigh the loss of civil liberties against the possible loss of life, should these attacks be allowed to continue.


Homeland Security: Decreased Civil liberties or Terror Proliferation

In this great nation we are blessed with great liberties. With these great liberties often comes great sacrifice. The goal of a terrorist group is to disrupt and destroy our way of life. If we change our way of life, erode our freedoms and live in a police state, then in a sense, the terrorists have already won a major victory. If we refuse to act and continue to allow the type of attacks that have been inflicted on our nation by these Muslim Extremists, we will also lose many freedoms and in the process lose many of our loved ones. So the key is to allow our citizens their freedoms and take the freedoms from those who would do us harm. This would require a type of profiling that would not target freedom-loving and peaceful citizens, but target those who, not only, would do us harm, but also those who provide support to the terrorists. It would require an extraordinary amount of restraint and tempered judgment by our law enforcement officials in order to safeguard its citizens and the American way of life.


Homeland Security: Conclusion

In the latest terror tragedy, the London Underground was targeted by, what appears to be, an Al Qaeda Terror Cell. Although the attempts failed to produce the desired effects, it forever changed the way British citizens view their Muslim neighbors. Historically, the United Kingdom has been known for its positive view of multiculturalism and high tolerance of Muslim religious practices. As was reported by CNN, Londoners did not even expect those who sought citizen ship to hold any allegiance to the country. They were allowed to cloister together, form their own communities and preach anti-western rhetoric in their Mosques. As anyone who has watched the news since July 7, 2005 knows, Tony Blair (England’s Prime Minister) announced a new direction for English tolerance of its Muslim neighbors. No longer will extremist rhetoric be allowed without consequence. This is, without a doubt, an infringement of civil liberties. Freedom of speech has, in a single act of terrorism, been reduced. This is the first step to control the violent actions that would destroy western civilization. Because of England’s excellent camera network, these suspects were quickly apprehended. We know that these terrorist are of the Muslim faith, have Middle Eastern or North African ties and are male.

To be fair we can assume that not all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers, but we now that all the terror acts committed since September 11, 2001 have been by Muslims. Why then would a security check point randomly check a 67 year old German lady while allowing a 25 year old Muslim male with a back pack to pass by? This action would make no since, but is advocated by the ACLU. This was posted on the World Net Daily web site: The American Civil Liberties Union and Council on American-Islamic Relations are teaming up today to decry what they see as a federal screening process that discriminates against Muslim Americans (2005). Americans must understand that the freedoms to go to work, to play with your children and to enjoy the every day life in our society are in danger. Do we want to live with terror in our streets like Israeli citizens? In order to keep many of our freedoms we must be willing to sacrifice a few. Why should any of the law abiding citizens have to put up with the actions of those who would harbor terrorists and promote violence in our society? We refuse to tolerate these actions from Nazi’s, from White separatists, and we should do the same with Muslim extremists. The longer we wait to do what must be done the harder things will become in the future. We tolerate longer lines at the airports, we tolerate sending our loved ones to fight these mad men in foreign lands and we tolerate illegal immigrants crossing our borders by the thousands. Why then can’t we tolerate the profiling of those types of individuals which are determined to destroy the freedoms which makes it possible for them to commit these acts of violence in the first place? America will awaken as they have done in the past, and when they do it will be with a vengeance. Maybe if we start now, we can do what is right with moderation and prudent action. In the process maybe we can save the lives of those we love. Will profiling in order to stop these Muslim mad men take place? Rest assured that profiling of this type will happen and will succeed. The only question is, how many more American men, women and children will have to lose their lives before law makers and the American public wake from their coma of political correctness?



References

* Abika.com. Who uses Psychological Profiles & Background Checks? July, 2005. 

* BBC News. London Attacks: Bombers. July 22, 2005

* Electronic Benefits Transfer and Public Policy. LBJ School PRP, 1997-98. University of Texas

* Jacinto, Leela. Profiling May Be a Dirty Word, But Some Say Targeting Certain Ethnic Groups is a Good Thing. August 14, 2002. U.S. Border Control ABC News.

* Pipes, Daniel, British "Covenant of Security" with Islamists Ends. New York Sun, July 8, 2005

* Robinson, Linda (2004). Masters of Chaos: The Secret History of The Special Forces. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

* Sharkansky, Stefan. Shark Blog, Psychotic Death Cult Photo Album. Sept.12, 2002

* Trial Behavior Consulting, Inc.

* Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Hijackers) July 18, 2005.

* WorlNetDaily, April 20, 2005, Homeland Insecurity