Discrimination or Defence?

Most people use flight, as an easy, fast, form of transport. Whether it be for business trips, vacations, visiting family, the enjoyment of travelling, as an occupation or for religious reasons. In fact, according to the IATA, The International Air Transport Association, “8 million people globally fly on airplanes every day. ” Unfortunately, on aeroplane flights today, there is still the contingency of a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are still prevalent, leading to some questioning if airport profiling could be used as an effective and efficient tool in identifying suicide bombers in airports, therefore lowering the risk of a potential terrorist attack. Does airport profiling violate the rights that everyone should be seen with equal respect, and that we shouldn’t accuse without personal evidence proving them guilty? Or are we threatening the lives of others safety without airport profiling, letting possible suspects breeze through security. Airport profiling is an useful tool to prevent terrorist attacks based by the given statistics and terrorist profile, however, it does not have a place in our daily lives and should be a form of defence not discrimination. Airport profiling should be used because it is efficient, cost effective and is more reliable than without.

Airport profiling is when security look more closely at certain people based on their religion, ethnic group, race, behaviour, age, gender, and background to spot if they fit the terrorist profile. Looking at the statistics from the U.S Department of State, “in 2013, a total of 9,707 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide.” ‘According to the U.S Department of State National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’, “out of ten of the highest perpetrator groups with the most attacks worldwide, 7 were muslim groups, the highest being the Taliban with a total of 641 attacks in 2013.” A clear trend from these statistics shows vast majority of terrorists have been recorded to trace from the middle east, a likelihood of males with ages fitting from eighteen to thirty five, originating from a predominantly muslim country. Therefore it is common sense to check somebody who fits the terrorist profile more closely. It is fair to say that “most muslims are not terrorists,” however, “most terrorists are muslim.” Some argue that airport profiling violates human rights, and it is discrimination to suspect some people more closely based on how well they fit the profile. However, it should be highlighted that airport profiling is not due to race, ethnic or religious biases, or any other factor, but is based on the supporting statistics.

Since many disagree with airport profiling and feel that it “is a form of inequality,” the importance for airport profiling should be emphasised with more stress. On September 11th 2001, a group of terrorists hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against the United States. “Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.” Had the security been able to spot these terrorists using airport profiling, hence 3000 unnecessary deaths would have been prevented, and many of those victims of 9/11 may still have been with us today. Airport profiling will prevent future terrorist attacks, like 9/11, from happening again.

There is dispute that many terrorists have a diverse range of exceptions to the terrorist profile leading to airport profiling to be counterproductive. That airport profiling will miss somebody like Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City, 1995. However, as Deroy Murdock, a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, says “looking more closely at certain people that fit the crime profile does not mean ignoring everyone else.” Even though there are exceptions to the terrorist profile, records show that the majority of terrorists have aspects of the terrorist profile. If there was a bombing at an abortion clinic, it seems fair to suspect a white, middle aged christian man. If there was a terrorist attack on an aeroplane, it seems fair to suspect a young, muslim man, from the middle east.

While some feel that airport profiling would become counterproductive and ineffective, however, an interview on the daily mail with security expert Philip Baum, he says that airport profiling is ‘more successful than “too predictable” checks and scans.’ The security specialist says that ‘To prevent another 9/11, airport security should be focussed on behavioural analysis and not “throwing things in the bins.”’ He warns that “Everything is very much focussed on items, rather than the individual,” showing that not only should airports focus on what the passengers carry, most of the times weapons on terrorists are found hidden in the terrorists themselves. It is believed that during the attack of 9/11, the hijackers found a way to pass through security with weapons that were supposed to be restricted. This shows that airports may need to use more than just security checkpoints and as editor of Aviation Security International, Philip Baum said, airport profiling seems to be an effective tool to identify hijackers.

Airport profiling can be useful to stop future terrorist attacks, however should never be used as a form of discrimination. On one hand, it is unfair and very offensive however on the other hand airport profiling could save the lives of some in danger on the airplanes. When used for the purpose of other passengers safety, airport profiling is good form of defence.