Page 38 - Freedom in the world_Neat

tickets, or appearing agitated at security checkpoints. Passengers are also now subject to
random additional searches based on their ticket numbers. Yet other critics charge that
terrorists can adapt to behavior-based searches, and that random searches waste
resources on passengers who are unlikely to be terrorists.
A no-fly list of suspected terrorists had been in use prior to 9/11, but it was greatly
expanded following the attacks. While the list had 16 names on September 11, 2001, the
CBS news program 60 Minutes has claimed that a March 2006 copy had 44,000 names.
Since 2001, there have been hundreds of false identifications in which individuals are
delayed or prevented from flying because their names are similar to those on the list.
Following a lawsuit brought by the ACLU in 2004, the government agreed to release
details of how the list was compiled and used.
Some experts protest that many of the TSA's procedures amount to "security
theater,"29 designed to make passengers feel safer without actually enhancing security.
For example, after Richard Reid attempted in December 2001 to blow up a jet with a
bomb concealed in his shoes, the TSA began inspecting shoes at airport terminal
checkpoints. In August 2006, in response to reports that terrorists planned to blow up
planes using liquid explosives, passengers were forbidden to bring liquids or gels aboard
planes. TSA officials and their defenders say these measures prevent terrorists from using
known methods of attack and deter potential terrorists by creating an environment in
which they are likely to be caught.
Some state and local law enforcement agencies have implemented their own search
policies in response to threats against transportation infrastructure. In July 2005, after the
London subway was bombed, the New York City Police Department began randomly
searching bags carried by passengers entering the city's subway system. Yet because the
police eschewed profiling, some argued that the searches would be ineffectual, while other
critics charged that they violated the Fourth Amendment. A federal judge ruled in
December 2005 that the searches were lawful,30 and in October 2006 the Massachusetts
Bay Transit Authority announced that it intended to introduce a similar program.
These practices have been compared both favorably and unfavorably to the system used
by the Israeli national airline, which candidly applies enhanced scrutiny to Arabs and
foreign nationals. Although many revile ethnic profiling, even some critics of the technique
acknowledge that Israel has effectively prevented hijackings. Proponents of profiling have
argued that prohibitions against it should be relaxed to make the American system more
efficient.

Counterterrorism Efforts in Other Western Democracies

Other Western democracies have also changed their laws in the wake of 9/11. The British
government has outlawed the "glorification" of terrorism and authorized the indefinite
detention and deportation of terrorism suspects. Italy, the Netherlands, and France have
authorized increased surveillance and wiretapping, and Germany is considering legislation
that would permit the government to have greater access to individuals' financial
records.31
In the United States and elsewhere, many have expressed horror at revelations of abuse in
American-run prisons abroad. Yet several European nations are quietly exploring policies

Page 38 of 168