Yeah, and somewhere in these United States, a dog bit a man. Film at 11. If the case succeeds, then airport screeners won’t even be able to use behavior to watch for and stop terrorists.
The top official in charge of fighting racial profiling for the American Civil Liberties Union says he was the victim of profiling at the Boston airport, and he has gone to federal court to challenge a screening technique that relies on suspicious behavior to identify potential terrorists.
King Downing said he was stopped and questioned by state police in October 2003 after arriving on a flight to attend a meeting on racial profiling.
Why is he suing? Because that’s what the ACLU does. It agitates for captured terrorists and tries to make it easier for free range terrorists to get on with their business. This particular case seems to have a few built-in hitches for the ACLU’s master plan.
Downing, who is black and wears a short beard, said in his lawsuit that he was stopped by a state trooper and asked to show identification after he left the gate area and made a phone call in the terminal.
When he declined, Downing said, he was told to leave the airport, but was then stopped again. He was surrounded by four state troopers and told that he was under arrest for failing to produce identification.
He’s alleging racial profiling. But.
Logan officials say race played no role in the decision to question Downing. The first trooper to ask Downing for identification was black, and three of the four officers who arrived later were also black, according to court documents. The first trooper said he became suspicious when he saw Downing watching him.
Airport officials insisted behavior-pattern recognition helps strengthen security and does not involve racial profiling.
“We welcome the opportunity to defend the program in court,” said Matthew Brelis, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates the airport.
It may be worth pointing out that two of the 9-11 aircraft, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, originated from Logan.
The trial may tell us whether this ACLU case was intended to be Flying Imams Mark 2.0.
More: Michelle observes—
The do-nothing ACLU won’t be satisfied until every last homeland defense is dismantled. They argue that national security profiling should be based on behavior, not race/ethnicity/nationality/national origin/religion–and then they turn around and sue to stop behavior profiling.
More: Stop the ACLU was on the case before we were.