Baggy-bottomed adolescent boys reeling through store aisles donning anxious expressions signify alarm to employees. Said employee will then moniter movements, administer simple questions (like, “can I help you find something?”), and generally take special care to look out for this particular profile of person. This innocent tactic remains unquestioned because obvious sentiment proves that those with such traits are prone to theft. Certain facial expressions, items of clothing, particular ages, and familiar movements puzzle together the specifics of a thief.

Thus, the basis for the growing popularity of “behavior pattern recognition” in airports It is a method aimed at honing in on potential terrorists. Boston’s Logan International Airport launched the procedure in 2002 for the first time in the U.S. Surprisingly, only 12 airports in the country have adopted the tactic since. The latest joiner is Miami International Airport, whose spokesperson claims they plan to train all 35,0000 airport employees, so as to ensure maximum precaution.

Certain characteristics classify many make-ups of people and this includes those who plan to terrorize aircrafts or commit crime. Alarm signals develop from our innate gut reactions. Why not use such natural detection to weed out criminals? Common sense creates a base on which we can locate those behaviors that may warrant question. What are a few simple questions to the innocent seeking protection?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is playing the worn out race card again, as if this were about segregation in the 1960’s and not authentic evil in the 21^st century. Technically, this procedure targets behavior and therefore, is unrelated to race. But, really, how can you possibly rule out racial profiling? Obviously, our eyes wander toward the abnormal, and historical fear maintains a logically skeptical view of persons of Arab heritage. Everyone will be gauged for the behaviors, though, and that makes it fair. I don’t know why anyone in this country would object to this under-used procedure, which strives to guarantee optimum safety.

The dictionary defines pattern recognition as “aiming to classify data based on either a priori knowledge or on statistical information…” Simple. Obvious. Logical. As they say, the best predictor of the future is the past. Check out the videos of the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded the plane and tell me we shouldn’t be watching everyone with a critical justice. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) documents at least 95 arrests since it’s inception in 2002. None of these were deemed terrorist related, but there was no harm done in catching those involved in other crimes. If 95 arrests have been made with the policy in only 12 national airports, imagine the crime elimination that would surface if implanted in every airport.

Any qualified security guard should already be using this procedure naturally. The ultimate issue here is personal comfort. I’m certainly not comfortable with John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU chapter in Massachusetts, who was quoted in the Associated Press as follows: "The police officer can approach you, can ask you questions, can ask you for identification, but under the circumstances you're under no obligation to respond." Somehow this is his idea of rebellion against pattern behavior recognition but anyone who would not respond to security inquiries in an airport better be prepared to miss their plane.