It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists.  As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have."[1]

This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers."[2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds.   Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying.[3]

Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International,  argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening."[4]

Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]."[5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony.[6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks.

Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues:   "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.”[7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear.

Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag."[1]

Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.”[2]

The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected.  According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers."[3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up.

The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later.

Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports.

Expanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety.

Many civil rights groups in addition to consumer’s rights organizations and air-travel business analysts feel very strongly that invasive security procedures violates passengers’ privacy. Profiling those individuals that are a real potential threat is a good way to avoid these problems. As Thomas Sowell argues, proponents of invasive pat-downs and body scanners “would rather have scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for questioning."[1]

Alternatives to profiling are far more invasive and likely to be more offensive to Muslims than profiling would be.  With broad screening of all travelers for example there is likely to be less security as security resources are directs onto people who are not a threat so offending everybody rather than just a tiny minority. For each search of a passenger who a profiler would regard as highly unlikely to engage in violent activity in plane or an airport , there is a near-negligible impact on security attention and resources. However, when this impact is accumulated over the millions of passengers who fly each year, the effect does indeed become measurable. In essence, by spending billions of dollars on scrutinizing the wrong people, security forces are depleting a reserve of resources that could be spent in screening passengers who are materially more likely to constitute a threat.[2]

Broad screening also creates long lines of people awaiting security at airports. Not only does blanket screening reduce the efficiency of airport operations, impacting on the profits of airlines and the businesses that contract with them, security queues themselves could become targets for terrorists, for example through suicide bombings designed to kill an airplane’s worth of passengers before they even get through security. By definition, pat-downs and body scanners cannot prevent such a threat (indeed they add to them by creating long lines), but profiling can, by picking up on suspicious individuals from the moment they enter the airport, or even from when they book their tickets.[3] Profiling also rightly shifts the security focus from cargo to people. Better knowing who is flying allows security forces to know which cargo (luggage) they do need to or do not need to investigate for explosives or drugs, instead of having to search all or do (ineffective) random checks.[4] Therefore security profiling is preferable to the alternatives of body scans and invasive pat-downs, both in terms of security efficacy and also in terms of sensitivity to travelers.