Do US security steps discriminate?

Watch part two

The new airport security measures introduced by the US government are already coming under fire.

Full-body pat downs, extra luggage scrutiny as well as mandatory body scanning, have all been proposed. They are a response to the foiled bombing of an US airliner on Christmas Day but have been criticised as an overtly political reaction to the attempt.

While its impact is worldwide, it will be felt more by citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, all labelled “state sponsors of terrorism”.

Those associated with 10 other countries designated by the US as “of interest” such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan can also expect the special treatment.

Even travelling through an airport in one of the 14 countries – 13 of which have Muslim majorities – is enough to attract the extra scrutiny.

But US citizens, and most others who are not flying through those 14 nations on their way to the US, will no longer automatically face the full range of recently intensified security measures.

Washington’s decision has triggered complaints from anti-discrimination groups who say President Obama’s response to security threats amounts to little more than racial profiling.
 
But defenders of the policy say it is designed to keep the skies safe, and is a careful way of targeting those who are most likely to pose a threat.
 
On Thursday’s Riz Khan we ask: are the new US policies motivated purely by safety concerns, or simple discrimination?

Joining the discussion are Christopher Calabrese, of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Zohra Atmar, an Afghan American who was an analyst and adviser to the ISAF in Afghanistan and now works for a contractor that advises the US government on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This episode of the Riz Khan show aired on Thursday, January 7.