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

I shall answer each rebuttal separately. R1: What's the point? My opponent asks what the point is in using a behavioral/human analysis instead of technological focus, and makes the claim that if a terrorist's weapons are taken away, they are not a threat. First of all, his argument is defeated by simply pointing out that Richard Reid was able to get on a flight with a bomb in his shoe. A Nigerian Muslim was able to smuggle explosives in his underwear. Last week someone left a stun gun in the seat compartment of a JetBlue flight. Clearly, not all terrorists are getting their weapons taken away. Isaak Yeffet is the former head of security for El Al and now an aviation security consultant in New York, so he is well-versed in both systems. He explained why behavioral analysis is important. "In 2002, we had Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. This man gave the security people all the suspicious signs that any passenger could show. The man got a British passport in Belgium, not in England. Number Two: he flew to Paris, he bought a one-way ticket from Paris to Florida. He paid cash. He came to the airport with no luggage. What else do I need to know that this passenger is suspicious? "He goes on to explain that the American system, in the wake of this, had the opportunity to change how they look at passengers. .. but they dropped the ball. "What did we learn from this? Just to tell the passenger from now on, you take off your shoes when you come to the airport? This I call a patch on top of a patch. "Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab's father called the embassy and told them that his son had contacted him and said his father would not be hearing from him again. His father told the embassy his son was planning an airborne terrorist act, but nothing was done. His son was on the list of people connected to al Qaeda. As Yeffet explains, "I don't need more to understand that when he comes, I am not looking for more evidence. He is suspicious; I have to take care of him. "AbdulMutallab paid $3000 cash for his ticket. No one in the TSA knew that he had paid cash. No one knew he had called his father and was planning a terrorist attack. No one knew he was connected to al Qaeda. And because the American system doesn't care about people, only weapons, Abdul Mutallab got on a plane, and tried to detonate plastic explosives in his underwear. Under the Israeli system, both of these men would have never made it onto a plane, because their heightened security net--based on the fact that these men were part of a demographic statistically known to be responsible for almost all airborne terrorism--would have unearthed their motives during the interview process. R2: Is a collage [sic] education really needed for this job? My opponent points out that since all TSA agents do is scan for weapons, they don't need an education. However, his argument here is dependent on R1 being correct. I have just disproven R1 above by giving two examples of terrorist acts that would have been prevented by the Israeli system--specifically, by agents trained to analyze the suspicious activity of passengers. TSA agents did not catch either of these men because a) they were not paying attention to the passenger, and b) their "simple task" was apparently not so simple, since they failed at it. Therefore, by disproving R1, I also disprove R2. Answer to my question:My opponent states that he would rather choose the American style line because it would "not take as long," and believes it would be just as safe because "the TSA agents confiscated every potential weopon that was found on people. "Since we have already shown conclusively that TSA agents do NOT confiscate every weapon on passengers, compared to the Israeli system, which has never, in its history, resulted in someone getting a weapon on a plane, my opponent would be choosing the line that is less safe. Now I will rebut his argument. C1: TSA has more funding. My opponent makes the point that TSA is "better" because it gets 8.1 billion dollars of funding. The obvious question is, if they're so funded, why are they so incompetent? The simple answer is lack of education, training, and focus on the things that matter in security. Israel has a perfect security record--with less funding. If anything, my opponent just added weight to my argument. The truth of the matter is, since 2002, 16 major airports have already kicked out TSA in favor of a civilian security force. Several other airports are considering doing the same. Why is this? The answer is clear. The TSA is NOT better than the Israeli system. I have proven this. Vote Pro! Sources:. http://www.thestar.com...http://articles.cnn.com...;http://www.time.com...http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...;