“Smart screening” allows for various forms of profiling, including profiling based on name, ethnicity, and religion, in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. One goal of this “smart screening” is to avoid questioning elderly people or other groups of people who are more likely than not associated with any type of terrorist activity. However, when evaluating the potential benefits and drawbacks of this type of screening, it becomes clear that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
First of all, this type of screening can be utilized virtually anywhere, from airports to large public gatherings. Given the number of airports and large number of public gatherings in America, it would be very difficult to reinforce this type of screening on a national level. Public gatherings also raise an additional question: while at the airport, everyone shows their identification, public gatherings are typically gatherings of people who do not customarily show their identification to law enforcement, unless they are in some type of trouble. Thus, implementing “smart screening” at large public gatherings is more likely to incite anger and anxiety than deter potential terrorist actions. Randomly selected people for smart screening, purely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity, will likely feel anger while those not selected for screening will feel anxiety at the proceedings.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"“Smart Screening”".
Second of all, “smart screening” is not necessary given the virtual absence of terrorist attacks on aircrafts in America since 9/11. The text mentions that 9/11 was successful in garnering international attention and inflicting fear among American citizens, but that it was a complete failure in the long run since it did not divide Americans and it did result in a massive invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (Sernau, 2013, pp. 216-217). The implication is that “smart screening” may have been more effective prior to 9/11, as the nineteen men responsible for the terrorist attacks may well have been pulled aside and questioned, but at this point in time, “smart screening” seems unnecessary, especially since airports have substantially increased security levels since 9/11. Before, people who were not flying could accompany friends and family to the gate, but now they cannot pass security. This is an excellent form of screening since it limits the number of people near the planes automatically.
Third of all, the favored tactic of most terrorists, suicide bombing, would not be undermined by “smart screening” since these types of bombers can strike anywhere at anytime, be it a subway or a sidewalk café. Suicide bombers terrorize people due to the sheer randomness of their attacks, and these types of attacks are commonplace in Iraq and other dangerous locations across the Middle East, areas that “smart screening” would not apply to (Sernau, 2013, p. 215). To address the problem of suicide bombing and other forms of terror, the United States began to use drones to obliterate terrorist suspects, though this has caused massive resentment against the United States in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Lastly, “smart screening” would certainly result in increased hostility and hatred in the United States. Anti-terrorist sentiment has led to multiple people’s prejudices towards Muslims, and “smart screening” would simply add fuel to the fire. This type of screening might inadvertently have a negative influence on someone profiled against, which would in turn cause them to feel less sympathy for the United States. After all, in recent years there has been an increased growth in homegrown terrorists, and the most recent terrorist attack, the Boston Marathon, involved Russians who probably would not have been subjected to “smart screening” in the first place. In general, “smart screening” sounds like an obvious solution at face value, but a careful reflection of its ramifications reveals that it is more problematic than useful.
- Sernau, S. Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and Sustainability. New York, New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2013.
