Just recently, U.S. security checks have tightened for people coming from any of 14 countries. These countries were selected on the basis of previous terrorists originating in those countries. The article I read is from CBS, but there were other sources that I consider less reliable that also reported this information.
I suggest you Google airport security checks, 14 countries, and other terms. Find out for yourself what the arguments on both sides are.
When you debate, you "agree to disagree." I see logic on both sides of this argument, but only one side can prevail in actual practice. You can also see if these tighter security checks affect only those with foreign passports or also those with U.S. passports.
Good luck!
After allowing a chain of thoughts to percolate, I have arrived at a difference of opinion that I would like to investigate further. In the light of the times in which we live, there is a clash about deliberately scrutinizing certain groups at airport security screening checkpoints more than others. As one person recently said on television, "It is time to stop worrying about political correctness and start concerning ourselves with safety." This is for a refutation speech, so how could I both find out more about his position and do research that casts doubt on his assertions? How can I disagree without being disagreeable?
4 answers
I am wondering what exactly you are refuting.
BP: That it is not only acceptable but also necessary to target certain types of people to stop bombings and such. I think that there must be other things that one could do that do not involving singling out particular groups for scrutiny as they travel.
Yes, you are right. Behaviour indicators do exist, and offer clues. THe question is, and neither you nor I can answer, is of off the things used to prescreen, which are more effective. I suspect only the Israelis have enough data to know that, US standards have not caught enough terrorists boarding airlines to have sufficient data to coorelate with their screening rubrics. Until then, I suspect no one will be able to document any system better, however offensive some of these are to some cultural groups.
So I suspect your refutation is going to be based on theoretical concepts, and near zero data, and you will be refuting on your "thinking" and speculation ("must be other things that one could do"). That basis is not much better than the shotgun heuristic methods being used, in my opinion.
So I suspect your refutation is going to be based on theoretical concepts, and near zero data, and you will be refuting on your "thinking" and speculation ("must be other things that one could do"). That basis is not much better than the shotgun heuristic methods being used, in my opinion.