home

TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemakers

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 02:02:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

Something I missed from three days ago until I found it on PatriotDaily.com. USA Today reported Dec. 28 that TSA screeners use conversation at some airports to identify potential troublemakers: Airport security uses talk as tactic / Conversation can help identify high-risk fliers. If anything, this has a high-risk of abuse of civil liberties.

Conversation during a traffic stop has long been the ploy of choice for police officers to find an excuse to search your car for drugs or weapons.

The new security technique, already in use at some airports, adds a psychological dimension to screening by trying to find high-risk passengers based on how they act at checkpoints or boarding gates.

Passengers who raise suspicions will undergo extra physical screening and could face police questioning.

Airports in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit and Miami recently began using the technique. [Remember, the 9/11 leader got into the security system at Portland, ME.]

Some airport and transit police already look for people acting oddly—such as wearing a heavy coat in the summer or appearing to be doing surveillance—and question them about travel plans.

“I don't want (officers) just sitting there waiting for a call to come in. I want them observing people, observing their behavior and engaging them in conversation. They're looking for people whose activities don't look right,” says Alvy Dodson, public safety director at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Last year, 70% of DFW's 167 airport police were trained in the program.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the technique leads to racial profiling and has sued to stop a behavior-screening program run by the Massachusetts State Police at Boston's Logan International Airport. That program, the first at a U.S. airport when it began in 2002, was challenged last year after a black ACLU official said he was questioned and threatened with arrest if he didn't show identification. (bracketed material and emphasis mine)

Transit police? What questions would transit police ask? "Going to the 96th Street station? A little warm for that jacket?"

What questions would any screener ask? How do they avoid profiling in asking the questions in the first place? How can they get the screeners to leave their prejudices at home when they come to work?

All I've heard from screeners is inane pleasantries, but then, again, I'm a middle aged WASP. What should I expect? Well, there was the time I was almost strip searched because I didn't take off my shoes at LAX because I made a point of getting "metal detector friendly" shoes and there was no metal in them, since I go through metal detectors sometimes four times a day at courthouses and jails. It was "suggested" that I take them off. It turned out that suggestion was government-speak for "do it or suffer the consequences." After all, I could have had a bomb in my Reeboks. I thought that our TSA is a "kinder, gentler" police state. I guess not. Maybe Rebooks are a weapon of mass destruction. What shoe was Richard Reid's choice?

[cross-posted to www.FourthAmendment.com]

< Abramoff: Whom Will He Tag on the Way Down? | Live Free or Die? Die or Live Free? Times Square, 2006 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemakers | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    I think Richard Reid wore Reeboks, just your luck. The "black" NAACP official, I feel for him. Hopefully someday he's not jumpin from the 95th floor of a building with his ID in his hand. That would really suck.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:43:41 PM EST
    Reminds me of Clinton, the president who started the rendition-for-torture program, a program it now turns out that Bush scaled back from that of his predecessor. As for profiling "behavior" ... well, duh. Of course behavior should be profiled. Those still worried about civil liberties via behavior profiling (must ... suppress... giggles) will, I'm sure, join me in calling for the elevation to SCOTUS at the earliest opportunity of Janice Rogers Brown.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    While racial profiling is dumb, for the utilitarian reason that it is ineffective at the least, behavioral profiling seems reasonable. I guess I am swayed in part from my limited understanding of how El Al does its screenings, which I understand are brief and light on those that do not fit a behavior profile, and very deep and even covert on those that do fit a profile. And those that do? They may well be having a casual and unsuspected conversation with an undercover agent at the airport. And I guess that seems to work pretty well. I am not saying that this isn't a road to abuse, but that it may be a reasonable road to take, with oversight.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:15:32 PM EST
    Ras, Give me one solid, genuine piece of informaton that shows Bush has "scaled back" a rendition program started by Clinton. Clinton was no savior, I ain't gonna argue that, but using it to try to rationalize Bush's utter and complete incompetence and credibility-shattering missteps is just sad. I can easily criticize Clinton without reverting to "Well, Reagan did it, or Bush I did it..." Can't you do the same with your boy?

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    Dadler, Bush ain't my "boy." He's just better'n the alternatives that the Dems present, as are most R's (tho not all) as compared to most D's. Bush has some serious strengths and a few weaknesses, as do most of us. I esp look fw, in '06 and beyond, to the D's - or more likely, a successor party, cuz this one's going whig on us anytime in the next few years - regaining of their senses so that a reasonable alternative to the R's can be established; something non-moonbat, and please, not so completely egocentric. Seriously. You asked a reasonable q, and I am trying to be blunt but not deliberately inflammatory here. I suspect the "sigh, but mine is at least the better of the two" attitude is something we have in common. As for "scaled back," since you asked, note that, per the link I provided:
    the Bush administration decided not to render CIA captives after 9/11 but to have the agency keep custody of the terrorists in foreign bases, such as Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and apparently some of the European nations that the Washington Post exposed in its leak publication.
    A fair summation. I would call it a scaling back of rendition, in that the US - by the very basis of the rendition arg that the Left itself uses to underpin its entire reasoning - is sending less of the combatants to other countries; i.e. less rendition. *** And on an unrelated note: Happy New Year! Note that an extra leap-second is being added at midnight to the new year. No, not to extend Bush's term, but jut to bring the calendar into closer alignment with the actual orbit of the earth. So extend your New Year's kiss with your beloved a tick of the clock longer; Galileo would approve.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    Ras, Where are you getting that quote about rendition? Source? Please? And is that really any better a policy, even if your "source" is true in the most literal sense (which i highly doubt)? Shouldn't we be simply trying to do better than both examples? I have the urge to hit my kid every once in awhile, but I never would, because I remember the pain of being hit myself. We have to start living the personal creed on the political level, if that makes sense. And it better, or my Happy New Year will turn ugly real fast. Kidding. Listen, it's a joy to have someone on the "other" side to banter with, I only hope it makes both of us better, and hence our nation better. Which is what freedom should be about, I think, in my humble, dumbas* opinion. May Drew Brees' separated shoulder heal fully by next NFL season. And may Phillip Rivers bring us more than an overpaid backup. I can't believe my Bolts didn't make the post-season!!! Happy New Year, much love, peace all around, to all those who blog honestly here. Even if I think you're a loon, or you think the same of me. Peace, Y'all. This is my wedding anniversary, too. Gotta go help wifey dry off after her long hot bath. Ow-chicka-ow-ow. That's bad seventies porn music, btw. Mazel!!

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#7)
    by skeptic on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:37:04 PM EST
    The section that ras quoted isn't actually from the story but from the analysis of the story. The story about the Clinton administration having a rendition program is a credible one: it's an AFP piece quoting Michael Scheuer, who was interviewed in Die Zeit. And frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that that the Clinton administration did this. On the other hand, ras's claim that Bush actually scaled back the rendition is a little tenuous. The AFP story doesn't say that; it says this:
    [Scheuer] said the program changed under Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, after the attacks of September 11, 2001. "We started putting people in our own institutions -- in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. The Bush administration wanted to capture people itself but made the same mistake as the Clinton administration by not treating these people as prisoners of war."
    It actually doesn't say anything about the numbers of prisoners shipped off to other countries--it merely says that preference was given US-run prisons, so presumably the number of "rendered" prisoners was smaller as a percentage of total accused terrorists processed by the CIA. Another distinction: the CIA did not directly ship prisoners from US soil to other countries to soften them up under the Clinton-era program: that was done by the police or secret service of foreign powers. Basically, according to the article, Clinton told the CIA to destroy Al Qaeda, and left it up to the CIA to process the resulting prisoners--effectively washing his hands. Shorter version: nobody comes out of this very well. The original AFP article can be found here. Skeptic

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 03:26:29 AM EST
    ras: excellent posting to end the year on. Keep up the good work. I would ask you your opinion on the upcoming elections up north, but it does not seem to be the appropriate time.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:32:05 AM EST
    Last Night In Little Rock - Yes, you could have a bomb in your Reboks. And since we don't allow racial profiling, a very stupid mistake in airport security, the fact that you are a WASP means nothing. Now, as to why the shoe removal. I asked the same question at Denver one morning. The answer was simple. Sir, many people don't have your type of shoes, so when they trip the machine, we have to stop the line. And that slows it up for everyone. So today we are asking everyone to slip their shoes off. There. Kind of simple, isn't it?

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    Skeptic, Thanks, my point exactly. If this is what you can reasonably assess from the record, imagine what wretched sh*t they're keeping secret. The notion this adminstration is doing ANYTHING more humanely than the utterly disappointing Clinton administration is just purposeful and willful denial. If Bush has proven anything, it's that he's a bully, doesn't listen, and has a sociopath's sense of power. There is not a chance in HELL that what Bush has done with rendition and all this other pointless nonsense is anything but egregious. You have to want desperately to believe in the tooth fairy if you do. Dishonesty about EVERYTHING is Bush's M.O. Whether it's his cocaine use, his personal history of business chicanery, or his political f-ups as president. He's a child.

    Re: TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemake (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    Not happy with profiling, and not happy with the obviuous alternative, which is to have the screeners look for suspicious behavior. So what should screeners do? Wave everyone through?

    TSA to Use Conversation to Discern Troublemakers | 11 comments (11 topical)