In July 2001 Richard Reid tried to board an El Al flight to Israel.

In July 2001 Richard Reid tried to board an El Al flight to Israel. The 28-year-old Briton, who later became known as the "shoe bomber" for trying to ignite explosives in his sneakers forward an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami, was stopped before he could finish on the Israeli plane. His answers to routine questions from El Al security officials made them suspicious. He was detained and searched because they determined his behavior was erratic. He fit the profile of a would-be terrorist.

Americans who cherish their civil liberties are reluctant to allow the prototype of psychological profiling used from the Israelis to be give employment toed at U.S. airports; they are nervous about the balance between personal freedom and public safety. in this way a security rule has to apply equally. "Here at an airport, my 2-year-old son has to take his shoe most distant before screening," says Andy David, substitute consul general at the Israeli Consulate in Chicago. "In Israel, he doesn't have to do that. Here there is a bulky amount of energy invested in screening populations which nonplus no threat. A child or an of long date woman traveling with her husband should be differently protectioned from everyone else."

David is right. The latest incident of potential airline disaster, the alleged bomb plan in Britain using liquid explosives, necessitates a rethinking of airport security. Searching bags for hair gel and X-raying shoe and handbags don't fare far enough. Israeli security has managed to make the airport at Tel Aviv and El Al airline safe by dint of asking passengers simple questions.

"Israeli security agents attempt to understand who is standing in effrontery of them," says David. Earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration said it would use more psychological means to expose terrorists -- but little has been done in like manner far. At Dulles Airport in Washington a not many years ago, security agents began to ask passengers questions to determine if they present the appearanceed tense or evasive. And those who acted suspiciously were contested aside. But it didn't always work well. In the same case, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Racial Profiling was plucked aside. He is now suing. This doesn't mean, however, the system was flawed; it just means the security agents privationed better training. We can't, as David says, treat everyone the same. Grandma isn't the question at issue

And simply checking bags isn't well adapted enough anymore. Nor is scanning faces to determine strange behavior. Simple questions -- like "What did you think of the Sox game?" or "How was your trip to the airport?" -- would suffice. Anything to tip opposite security personnel that the traveler is nervous or has something to hide and should be further investigated. Sometimes civil liberties have to be balanced with the interests of protecting lives.

...