Israeli-Style Behavioral Profiling in Airports is Superior to the American Tech-Based System

[Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I wish to state that my argument is cut and pasted from the last debate I did on this very topic. This will stand as my opening argument, and I will rebut Con's arguments as needed. Thank you. ]Evidence shows that profiling is effective within the context of human intelligence, and its use in airport security cannot be understated. Outline:1. I will explain the need for profiling.2. I will explain the American system.2. I will explain how the Israeli system works.3. I will show that the Israeli system is more reliable, and far safer overall based on the apparent threat. The Need for ProfilingAccording to TROP, an organization that monitors Islamic terrorism throughout the world, as of today, 2011 there have been 17,446 fatal terrorist acts (including bombings, aircraft hijackings, kidnappings, etc. ) committed by Islamist groups since 9/11. [. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com......] While it may be politically incorrect and unpopular to state, the truth is that airborne terrorism is committed by a very specific subset of the population, with a very specific belief system. Regardless of how we hold up the idea of being "tolerant" as correct, the fact remains that Mormons and Catholics --and Jews--are not attempting to blow up the world. How Does the American System Work? The United States uses a "patch" system that is purely reaction-driven. Richard Reid hid explosives in his shoes; therefore, we all take our shoes off. A Nigerian hid explosives in his underwear, therefore now we are subject to full body scans. Screeners are technology-minded: They are concerned with what is in a passenger's bag but pay no real attention to what is in a passenger's face, body language, or mannerisms. Most passengers go through the entire checkpoint screening process without ever being directly challenged or asked a single question. Passengers in the American system do not come under security scrutiny until they step into the ropes, so to speak, of a security checkpoint. Post-9/11 tensions about anti-Islamic sentiment have resulted in a media storm and accompanying political uproar anytime passengers of Middle Eastern descent or Islamic faith are subjected to additional screening or kept from boarding their flight, even after exhibiting erratic behavior that disturbed or frightened other passengers or crew. In addition, the average TSA agent may be a high-school dropout, with little or no security experience. [1] They are not trained in human behavior, nor do they receive instruction on threat detection and/or assessment. Their history is full of near-misses and outright mishaps, up to and including allowing loaded firearms on flights. In fact, sixteen airports in the U. S. have gotten rid of the TSA in favor of private security firms due to incompetence and inability to perform their job to the highest standards of safety and integrity. [3] In fact, a report released a few days ago puts the amount of "security breaches" in TSA-guarded airports at 25,000 in the last 10 years, including 14,000 people who got into secure areas of the airport, and 6,000 who made it past security without being screened. That includes instances where the unscreened passengers literally got on a plane. [4] TSA spokesmen claim that this is "only" less than 1% of the total number of passengers being screened. However, it only takes one breach to have another 9/11. What's more, Israel proves every day that a perfect record is not only possible, but absolutely demanded. How Does the Israeli System Work? Agents at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv are members of Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency. They are all former members of the Israeli Defense Forces (prior military), speak at least two languages, and have at least one college degree. [5] They are trained in counterterrorism, behavioral analysis, threat assessment, and facial microexpressions. Agents drill constantly, and if anything gets through, the offending agent is fired on the spot. [6]Where Profiling Comes into PlayPassengers at Ben Gurion are stopped before they even get out of their cars, and asked two questions: "How are you? " and "Where are you coming from? " The behavior of the person answering is more important than their answers themselves. Those who are Jewish and Israeli move to their plane with little hassle. However, passengers who are foreign are subjected to a far more stringent security protocol, including several conversations with Shin Bet agents who use their training to ascertain whether the passenger is a threat. Those who are of Arabic descent are given the most scrutiny, as agents use a multi-level human-factor analysis that takes into account race, religion, general appearance and behavior. Bret Stephens, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, mused in 2010 about the point a civilization becomes incompetent, stating that “when it fails to learn the lessons of its past…when it becomes crippled…it puts innocent lives recklessly at risk. Put simply,” Stephens continued, “we do not acquit ourselves morally by trying to abstain from a choice of evils. We just allow the nearest evil to make the choice for us”. In 1993, French sociologist Michel Wieviorka, while arguing against racism, inadvertently added more weight to the defense of profiling in security applications. “Some institutions,” he wrote, “…may use methods which, although not deliberately or explicitly racist in themselves, nevertheless contribute to the spread of serious outbreaks of violence”. The current American system of political correctness focuses more on preserving the “feelings” of certain groups than the safety of others. This has contributed to terrorist acts that would have been thwarted under a security system that allowed profiling of the group statistically responsible for air terrorism. Does It Work? In short, YES. Ben Gurion airport has never--ever--experienced a hijacking, even though they exist in the middle of the terrorist nexus, and are bordered on all sides by countries who seek their destruction. In addition, Israel has not seen an airborne terrorist threat in over 30 years. Contrast that with the U. S. , who sees "near-misses" quite regularly. The choice NOT to profile may give certain groups warm, fuzzy feelings but safety is not meant to feel good. The American governent's first and foremost responsibility is to protect its citizens. Profiling is about safety, period. I would like to pose the following question to my opponent: Pretend you are in an airport, about to enter security. You have a choice of two lines. In the first, the agents may be uneducated, they barely look at you, and never once ask you anything for fear they may offend you. In the second, the agents are extremely intense yet efficient, they are highly trained, they stare you down, make you feel uncomfortable, and because they are all of these things, you step onto your plane knowing with 100% certainty--based on a proven track record--that no one with evil intent is on the plane with you. Which line would you choose? Sources:[1]. http://www.legal-criminal-justice-schools.com......[2]http://abcnews.go.com......[3]http://current.newsweek.com......[4] . http://edition.cnn.com...[5]http://www.bloomberg.com......[6]http://articles.cnn.com......