The 'war on terror' has dominated not only the political landscape but also has left an indelible imprint within the legal framework globally and domestically. A recurrent theme on the international and domestic stage has been how best to protect the people and institutions of a liberal democracy against those willing to pursue by violent means their opposition to the founding norms of such a state.  It is argued by Enders and Sandler that states have a positive duty towards ensuring the safety of its national culture, identity and democracy from the arbitrary interference of terrorism.  The primary responses to terrorism adopted by Western governments throughout the past five decades has been focused on creating a separate and distinct counter-terrorism framework to administer justice for terrorist offences or those suspected of terrorism. Counter-terrorism frameworks have represented a fusion of national security and criminal justice policies in an attempt to move towards pre-emptive strategies of 'prevention and control' of terrorism threats.  The strategies of 'prevention and control' have resulted in a shift towards anticipatory risk which aims to allow law enforcement agents to identify, interrupt and prosecute those suspected of terrorism offences before their commission. It can be considered that the ability to stop mass murder through acts of terrorism is a legitimate and important role for National Parliaments to pursue. However, it is also important that the way in which these extraordinary powers become enacted and used in practice requires the most careful of scrutiny to ensure the arm of the state is not being over intrusive into the daily life of its citizens. Although the UK has a particular history in managing terrorism with the Northern Ireland conflict, the current threat presents a unique dynamic being formed on a religious radicalisation of Islam emanating from the Middle East but occurring within domestic Western borders.
The attackers involved in the September 11th and the 2004 Madrid bombings all originated from the Middle East which allowed governments to focus their counter-terrorist strategy on developing laws for the identification of 'suspected' terrorists from foreign regions. The threat could be identified as being foreign and alien originating from outside the Western borders which could be controlled by employing strategies to identify those 'suspected' of being a terrorist. However, the London bombings on July 7th 2005 presented a further dynamic to the current threat, in direct contrast to the previous attacks, the terrorists were all British nationals. This change represented a radicalisation within ethnic minority communities which prompted a change in direction in counter-terrorism policy. Due to a growth in 'home grown' terrorists an increasing need has emerged to identify and intervene early in the process by which an individual comes to sympathise with, support or actively engage with terrorist groups and activities. The danger of this need is that the focus of terrorism has been on Islam and its radicalisation within Western borders which has resulted in a focus on those people hailing from the Middle East or is of Middle Eastern appearance.  The inherent danger of focusing on one particular racial or religious ethnicity is that they will become the focal point of counter-terrorism policies in practice as applied by the police and immigration officials risking discrimination and racism within law enforcement.
The September 11th attacks, the London Bombings and the enduring terrorism threat have accelerated the drive to develop actuarial methods which will allow police officers to develop terrorist profiles which can be used to aid the prevention and detection of terrorism.  In particular as the shifting focus from perceiving terrorism as a foreign threat to becoming more a domestic threat emanating from a radicalisation of national citizens, the identification of potential terrorists has become an ever-increasing important focus within law enforcement policies aimed at identifying terrorists.  It is the focus of this thesis to investigate the role that ethnic profiling can play within terrorist profiles in being able to identify terrorists before the commission of an offence. In specific can the inclusion of race within profiling become a relevant factor in identifying terrorists and what role can race play within counter-terrorist strategies? The use of ethnic profiling refers to the process by which the use of racial or ethnic stereotypes become used in making law enforcement decisions to arrest, 'stop and search', identification document checking, database mining  , intelligence gathering and other techniques used to manage terrorism threats.
The process by which the identification of terrorists can occur is through a construction of a 'terrorist profile' in which domestic legal frameworks enable the assimilation of information to form the basis of a profile. Profiles can be constructed from a vast array of sources but in the current terrorism threat an increasing significant indicator of terrorism has been race and ethnicity.  Law enforcement efforts to identify proximate factors contributing to radicalisation have led to a form of profiling identified as 'ethnic profiling' in which the nature of religious practice becomes an important criterion in determining suspicion.  Ethnic profiling uses generalisations grounded in race, ethnicity and national origins rather than objective evidence or individual behaviour, as the basis for making law enforcement and/or investigative decisions about who has been involved in criminal activity.  The vehicle through which ethnic profiling has occurred in Europe has been through a mixture of police operation and tactic including 'stop and search', identity checks and the exercise of police investigative powers used to detect or prevent crime. 
This thesis will investigate the impact of using of sensitive ethnic details in the identification, prevention and investigation of terrorist offences. Specifically this paper will begin by examining the use of pre-crime prevention and how profiling has been used within criminal justice generally prior to its expanded use within terrorism. Additionally, a focus will be whether the use of ethnic profiling can contribute or result in racism and discrimination within the law in practice in the UK. It is argued that whilst the Government has a national interest in countering the terrorism threat to protect its borders, its citizens and the democratic principles, the thesis will question whether the inclusion of ethnic data in the construction of terrorist profiles is a legitimate policy in the pursuit of the greater national interest. In order to determine whether ethnic profiling and the use of sensitive ethnic data can be a legitimate policy for developing a terrorist profile, this paper selects the starting point to investigate the overall drive towards actuarial policing in crime generally in order to investigate whether any parallels can be drawn between profiling within criminal justice and profiling within terrorism. By identifying profiling within criminal justice the theoretical basis for profiling can be examined, this will allow a cross comparator to terrorist profiling theory so as to analyse the merits of including ethnic data within the construction of terrorist profiles.
Due to the nature of profiling it can originate in at least two ways, firstly either officially through official policies employed by law enforcement agencies or secondly unofficially through the practical operation of the law. The focus of the thesis is on the indicators of racism within the operation of counter-terrorism law and policy. The indications of racism will be drawn upon a study of five key areas:
(1) 'Stop and search' powers,
(2) 'Mass identity checks',
(3) Targeted 'raids' by law enforcement,
(4) The use of arrest and imprisonment,
(5) The use of air passenger screening and vetting.
Pre-Crime Prevention and Profiling:
Over the past three decades of the twentieth century and into the first decade of the twenty-first century policing in general has moved towards an increasing trend of using risk-assessment instruments, algorithms, pre-crime anticipation and profiling within criminal justice policy.  Harcourt identifies that policing in employing strategies to deal with criminality, have moved towards an actuarial methodology in order to identify criminal patterns, trends and statistics to aid in the investigation, detection and prevention of crime.  It is argued that all criminal investigations which are aimed at either preventing crime or investigating crime involve an element of probability and the correlations between criminal traits and criminal offending rates.  The core foundation for this move to anticipatory crime prevention is grounded in the roots of deterrence and efficiency. The deterrent effect of apprehending criminals before the completion of a crime carries with it a distinctive deterrent for other criminals for fear of being caught. Additionally, by using actuarial methods policing can become focused and directed to criminality which increases the efficiency of policing by targeting those areas of crime.  The rationale for police targeting is that by allowing police to target specific known patterns of offending, their attention will ultimately reduce the crime rates in this target group through use of actuarial methods of policing. In examining this approach to police investigation parallels may be draw to terrorist profiling. If the use of pre-crime prevention can operate within criminal law in identifying criminal offenders the possibility of transporting the theoretical basis to using preventative terrorist strategies within terrorist profiling may become possible. In order to determine whether this preventative criminal strategy is amenable to terrorist profiling, the specific operation of criminal profiling will need investigation.
Profiles are developed to aid police officers identify potential offenders which are underpinned by an assumption that certain character traits correlate with certain offender rates.  Criminal profiling can operate in at least two ways within policing, firstly in an investigative role post criminal activities or secondly in a pre-criminal activity stage. In the post criminal activity officers focus on the crime scene and locality in order to build likely traits and characteristics about the yet unknown offender. In the pre-criminal activity the police use pre-constructed profiles in the identification of unknown criminals to target areas which have symptomatic criminal activities in order to try and target high criminal offending areas. It is not the purpose of this paper to analyse the merits of each profiling technique but rather to identify how profiling operates within criminal justice in order to identify the theoretical basis for its operation. It is the theoretical basis that is of most interest to the thesis in that if a core theoretical basis can be established for criminal profiling, then comparisons will need to be drawn to terrorist profiling. This will allow the thesis to draw comparisons between the construction of criminal profiles and the construction of terrorist profiles in order to understand whether the use of ethnic/racial data is a valid inclusion within the construction of terrorist profiles. In understanding the correlations between criminal offending and criminal profiles it will be possible to examine the basis upon which ethnicity is included within terrorist profiles.
There are a number of ways in which the development of profiling can be analysed including thematically, chronologically or by classification. This paper will examine criminal profiling thematically which will allow the core characteristics which underpin profiling to be analysed in comparison to ethnic profiling. Profiling in general has developed along two lines: non-scientific models and scientific models. Both lines of profiling draw upon various methods including behavioural analysis, psychology analysis, crime scene analysis, police officer investigative experience and on empirical studies conducted with convicted offenders. The non-scientific model draws upon a vast array of methods to construct a profile of offender's probable characteristics which generally do not use any scientific methods to validate a profile's construction for reliability. The methods used rely heavily upon intuition, interviews with previously convicted offenders and police officer's experience in investigating crimes. Scientific models tend to take an alternative approach in constructing profiles by using a scientific core to develop profiles of offending characteristics. Many scientific models begin by developing a theory of criminal offending linking it with criminal behaviour in constructing profiles.
Alongside the issue of a methodological approach in profiling is the discretionary nature in which profiles are constructed. Due to the discretionary nature of the profiler in constructing the profile there is an element of subjectivity in the profiler's selections. Each profiler will bring an element of prejudice from their unique perspective on life and on their experience of the offence under investigation. The process by which informal influences direct the profiler in constructing the profile can be considered an element of informal profiling. Additionally, there is a further issue in that whilst there is a discretionary element in the construction of profiles, there is also an inherent discretion on the part of the law enforcement officer in the application of the profile in the field. Each law enforcement officer will apply the profile according to their own individual interpretation of the profile itself and the threat being targeted.
One further consideration under preliminary issues is the way in which the official definition of profiling has developed. It is argued by Dowden et al that although many different definitions have been proposed for suspect profiling over the last three decades, there still remains no official consensus on the actual definition of suspect profiling.  Rather it becomes intertwined with the terms: offender profiling, criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling and psychological profiling as a label for the technique in identifying the major personality and behavioural characteristics of an individual based upon an analysis of not only the crime but the crime scene, the location and the victim.  The lack of a definition is core to understanding profiling, in that almost any technique to distil offender characteristics can be considered some form of profiling.  The definition of a profile is assumed to involve a construction of a behavioural composite based on a social and psychological assessment by the profiler. A 'proper' interpretation of the crime scene, the location of the crime and the victim can indicate the 'personality characteristics' of the type of individual who committed the offence, which supposedly can assist the field police officer in the detection of the offender or potential offenders. 
Profiling in criminal justice occupies three phases within the criminal justice process: firstly criminal investigation, secondly apprehension and thirdly prosecution.  The focus of the thesis will be firstly on how theoretically and practicably profiling occurs within criminal investigation and secondly how law enforcement officers use the constructed profiles to identify and apprehend unknown offenders. By focusing specifically on how profiles are constructed and then how they are used in the criminal process, it will allow for greater comparisons on how ethnicity can be used in the construction of terrorist profiles. The essential elements of analysis for this section will be on how profilers construct the profiles and then how they are applied in aiding the identification of unknown offenders.
The focus of the thesis will be to deal with criminal profiling thematically and discuss criminal profiling by considering the non-scientific and scientific model approaches to constructing profiles so as to investigate whether there is an identifiable core basis within criminal profiling. If the thesis can identify a core basis within criminal profiling it will serve to cross compare with terrorist profiling in order to identify the ways in which criminal profile can relate to terrorist profiling. This will enable the thesis to identify how the factors for the inclusion of data within the construction of profiling can impact the success or failure of profile.
The origins of profiling can be traced to fictional literature of the nineteenth century where various characters were given specific roles of finding serial murders and rapists.  However, the specific interest of the thesis is primarily concerned with police use of profiling in the detection and identification of offenders and terrorists. Modern profiling can be attributed to the works of psychiatrist James Brussel who successfully profiled a bomber in New York City in the late 1960s. The methods employed by Brussel involved a careful study of all known information about the bomber and in particular his letter to the police and the way in which he carried out his attacks. The primary focus of the profile was to use previous personality traits constructed by Ernst Kretchmer which allowed Brussel to compartmentalise the likely offender characteristics of the bomber, thereby allowing the police to focus their investigation on the unknown offender. It was the success of Brussel's work which elevated the use of profiling by the police to catch unknown offenders into the media spotlight as his profile shared almost identical characteristics of the bomber. It was the value of using the profile to find the bomber which led to an increased public acceptability of profiling for unknown offenders.
However, although Brussel's attempts at profiling produced positive results in aiding the police investigation in the detection of the unknown bomber, it can be argued that the nature of the offence investigation by Brussel may have been particularly amendable to profiling due to the fact that it was serial in nature. Offences which are serial in nature allow the identification of common patterns, trends and sequences from each offence reoccurrence. This common thread between offences allows profilers like Brussel to focus on establishing similar patterns and trends which allow the direction of a profile. In linking this to terrorist profiling, it can be argued that contemporary terrorism does not take a serial form. In specific contemporary terrorism usually involves the use of a suicide bomber which leaves no trace for profilers like Brussel to focus on for the construction of the profile. It will be a core question of this thesis to ask whether profiling is amendable to the terrorist offences?
It must also be considered that the very nature of police investigation and detection of crime has long involved the elements of profiling before and after the works of Brussel. In specific a police officer's experience in the investigation of crime will inevitably inform how they identify recurrent themes, practice and traits to direct their investigation. Whilst it must be accepted that many forms of profiling exist, the specific focus of this thesis now turns to investigate the models which have been developed along non-scientific and scientific methods so as to examine whether a core theoretical basis can be established for criminal profiling. If a core basis can be established it will be of vital significance for terrorist profiling in that if criminal profiling theory allows for the identification of unknown offenders this will be highly relevant to consider how terrorists profiling can identify unknown terrorists. The core question will become what procedures should be used in the construction of terrorist profiles and what information and factors should be taken into account by the profiler in the construction of the profiles.
Although there are many textbooks  in addition to much more professional literature  , it is argued that there are at least five models within which non-scientific methods of profiling have developed:
(1) Doughlas, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman Model.
(2) Holmes and Holmes Model.
(3) Keppel and Walter Model.
(4) Turco Model.
(5) Turvey Model.
The first model developed by Douglas, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman was primarily used for the identification of characteristics of unknown offenders which used a categorisation process to assimilate information from the crime scene.  This model is most akin to using police officer experience to build a profile about a particular crime. It seeks to use known information about a crime so as to allow the profiler to identify core traits which are common to the type of crime under investigation. It may be argued as being unscientific because it does not use any scientific process as a core basis for the identification, collection or use of crime scene information. Therefore it can be argued that this model is primarily centred upon the intuitive use of the profilers experience in focusing on specific and relevant information from the crime scene.
The second model constructed by Homes and Holmes  tends to develop the first model by Douglas et al by not only considering crime scene evidence but being more selective in the way in which the information from the crime scene should be used. It takes the Douglas et al model somewhat further by matching evidence and information from the crime scene to various criminal typologies with a further focus on the geography of the area in which the crime occurs. The theoretical basis for the model relies heavily upon the academic works of six professionals in behavioural analysis: Kolko and Kazdin  , Sakheim et al  , Rider  , Groth et al  , Knight and Prently  and Burgess et al.  The significant difference between the Douglas et al model for profiling and Holmes and Holmes model is that, the latter model seeks to rely more on other academic works which is filtered into the construction of the profile. It is important to note here that the Holmes and Holmes model was of application to particular types of crime including: murder, arson, rape and paedophilia. By focusing on these types of crime the profiler could identify patterns which emerge from crime to crime and patterns which emerge from serial offenders. In linking this back to the context of terrorism, it immediately can be seen that the first two primary non-scientific models requires some element of consistent, a constant that runs through the particular crime which allows the profiler to focus specific attention in order to build anticipative characteristics.
The third profile model developed by Keppel and Walter  attempts to compensate for the shortcomings of the two models discussed above. In specific they critique the Holmes and Holmes model as being too wide ranging and constantly being of little investigative use as it largely is unsupported by empirical data.  Similar to Holmes and Holmes this model draws heavily upon academic works but their selection of academic works is more towards the empirical data collection in the study of murder and rape offences. In particular they build their profiling techniques around the studies conducted by Hazelwood and Burgess.  It is evident that throughout the first three models there is an attempt by the various authors to constantly change the basis upon which the profile could be constructed. The latter two models extensively rely upon academic literature to support their arguments in the assimilation of profiles. They attempt to use the academic literature to correct the deficiencies evident from the Douglas et al model by attempting to draw support from the literature. However, it is important to note that the first three models extensively rely on the recurrent patterns within crimes and in particular concentrate on those crimes that allow similar patters to be identified.
The fourth model of Turco  focuses on developing a psychological theory to profiling which draws heavily upon the work of Liebert who was a psychiatrist who used his discipline in the context of serial murders in order to identify common traits.  The fifth model of Turvey  articulates a deductive model of profiling which emphasises reliance on physical and behavioural evidence in making inferences about likely offender characteristics.  Turvey argues that a good profile is constructed from 'asking the right questions of the offender's behaviour'.  The model is further assisted by a composition of a 'Behavioural-Motivational Typology' which he draws and adapts from Groth et al's  previous works in understanding power relationships within rape cases, citing power reassurance, power assertive, anger retaliatory, anger excitation and profit as a motivational typology for offenders in committing crimes. Turvey argues that by using Groth et al's understanding of power and control within rape, it can provide a psychological snapshot of a rapist during a single instance from which some reliable inferences about a motive can be made. 
Analysis of Non-Scientific Models:
The models identified in the previous section illustrate a gradual progression towards the construction of profiles based upon studies and evidence of practice of specific crimes, notably murder, rape, arson and paedophilia. From the perspective of the thesis, it is important to analyse how each of these models profile information to construct unknown offender characteristics and secondly how they might be used by the police in assisting criminal investigations. If the non-scientific can assist the police investigation in the detection and investigation of the identity of the offender in criminal offences parallels may exist when comparing with terrorist profiling in later chapters. Although many of approaches taken by the various authors of the models take a consistently logical approach to firstly assimilating the information and secondly constructing the profiles, they have a number of inherent limitations:
(a) Lack of Standardised Goals and Approaches:
It is identifiable that none of the models have a clear goal and standard for profiling but rather each departs upon different routes to construct a profile of offender characteristics.  It can be argued that goals should form a core aspect of a profile because they represent the guidance necessary to standardise the development of profiles across a range of offences.  The standards required of a profiler are an essential aspect of profiling to ensure the limits and guidelines are known to the profiler to ensure or at least minimise the influence of individual discretion on the part of the profiler. Across the models it is possible to identify a minimum of ten different goals for profiling from a non-scientific perspective.  Turvey's model is the clearest example of providing a separate chapter which addresses the goals for a profiler to adopt. Holmes and Holmes also include a specific section on their major goals for profiling which can be identified as a social and psychological assessment of offenders, psychological evaluations of belongings found in the possession of suspected offenders and strategies for interviewing suspected offenders when they have been apprehended. It is interesting to note that Turco does not include any specific goals for profiling and his model remains silent on profiler specific goals. The Douglas et al model and the Keppel and Walter model also remain silent on specific goals for the profiler but do attempt to address goals by focusing on the intentions of profilers.
Whilst it can be argued that some of the non-scientific models do attempt at addressing the specific issue of what should the goals be for a profiler when constructing a profile. The central problem is that none addresses the question sufficiently and they did not offer any consensus on the issue.  It is further important to note that each model attempts to portray profiling as a scientific art which can lead to the identification of unknown offenders, but the key failure is that none identify which types of crimes are more amenable to profile construction. Additionally none of the profiles can put forward a central scientific nexus within which a profile for an unknown offender can be constructed.  It is submitted that those crimes which enable the profiler to glean specific information from the crime scene allows the identification of a common thread or pattern to exist between crimes which is the principal factor enabling the construct of a profile.  It is clear that the two crimes most common to the non-scientific models are murder and rape which may be evidence that those two crimes have identifiable similar patterns such as where they are committed, how they are committed and who they are committed against. Consideration of these three aspects of the crime allows the identification of likely characteristics of an offender.
(b) Use of Unclear Terms and Definitions:
The use of vocabulary by the various authors is one factor which contributes to a problematic application of the principles in constructing a profile.  There are three principal criticisms which can be made of the language used by the profilers:
(i) There is no consistency between the terminology used to describe profiling techniques and elements of the profiling process. Between each of the profiles they use different terms and terminology to describe the profiling process between the same/similar offences.
(ii) As the profile models do not use a consistency between the language and terminology between the various crimes being profiled, they lack the consistency of moving towards a consolidation of vocabulary which would have the effect of moving the non-scientific model towards a valid and reliable method of profiling.
(iii) The models fail to define each of the offences consistency across each of the models in that some refer to murders whilst some refer to serial murder without making the distinction between those crimes that are committed serially by the one person against those crimes that are committed separately by individual criminals but have a core similarity in the way the crimes are committed.
(c) Misuse of Typologies:
The core focus of the non-scientific models (except for Turco) is geared principally towards the use of typologies where the authors try and match the offender to particular typologies largely developed by the academic literature.  The use of typologies throughout the models creates a number of specific problems:
(i) By trying to cluster crimes and offences according to general similarities among them can create a general overview and picture of an offender which is unknown. This creates a conceptual belief of accuracy by establishing similar patterns of behaviour which can be support with reference to academic study.  However, it must be accepted that not every individual will match the entire criterion but may only match some. The profiles do not make clear what the situation is with a profile when the offender under investigation does not match all of the various criterions within the models. This creates a conceptual weakness within the models in that they do not appear to factor in changes within each crime under investigation and the impact this may have on the identification of offenders. 
(ii) There are considerable inconsistencies within the typologies used by the various authors of the scientific models. For example some models such as Holmes and Holmes begin with the geographical importance of the where the crime is committed but then progress to significantly deal with according the offender to motives for the crimes committed. There is no explanation between the importance of motive being linked with geographical location. Similarly when the models are outlining approaches for constructing arson profiles many attempt to divide arson among two different types of motive and whether the offender was likely to be organised or disorganised on the basis of the crime scene analysis. The failure of the models is that they do not provide any linkage between the motives and organised/disorganised dichotomy. 
(iii) The non-scientific models do not sufficiently address the issue of when offenders can be categorised across a range of profiles because they exhibit a number of the traits and characteristics of a range of profiles. This situation would arise when there is an overlap between the typology categorises, the non-scientific models do not make it sufficiently clear or present justification which particular typology should apply.
(d) Reliance on Intuition and Professional Knowledge:
It is evident from all of the non-scientific models they are heavily loaded by the intuition of the profiler. It can be argued that all profiling has an element of intuition in the choices and selections made by the profiler.  However, in non-scientific profiling the core basis for the profile construct is the intuition of the profiler. This presents two core problems: firstly the more reliant a process is upon the intuition of another human being the more it reduces the reliability of that process. If profilers are allowed to inject entirely their own unique experiences into constructing a profile it would be unlikely the no two profilers would come up with the same profile based on the same facts. This inherently weakens the reliability and legitimacy of profiling. Secondly none of the non-scientific models validate their recommendations; there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that they actually work in the identification of offenders.  This carries an inherent danger that investigations may or at least run a high risk, of being directed in a wrong direction by a wrongly constructed profile. If a profile is constructed on a non-scientific basis, this danger is increased considering the credence given to intuition.
(e) Lack of Clear Procedures:
The inherent problem with all the models is that they do not specify clear procedures for constructing a profile. If the primary goal of a profile can be accepted as being the identification of the offender then it must correspond that a profiling technique should at least inform the profiler how crime scene evidence should correlate to offender characteristics.  The central problem of the models is that they identify particular characteristics such as an offender's physical characteristics but they do not show how these characteristics can be gleaned from the crime scene evidence. Therefore one of the primary failures of the non-scientific models is that it fails to provide proper analysis and explanations on how to derive offender characteristics from crime scene evidence.
The second fundamental problem from having unclear procedures is that whilst four of the models advocate the use of typologies to support their arguments, they fail to explain how to use an actual typology to aid the construction of a profile. The final problem with unclear procedures is that fact that none of the models are sufficiently clear on how to deal with offences that have overlap between the different categorises of profiles. It is unclear how a profiler should select a profile when an offender can potentially fall within more than one profile.
(f) No Investigative Value?
An important aspect with evaluating the non-scientific models is to determine whether they actually work. None of the models goes on to prove whether or not their actual model works. Therefore, all of the attempts to draw out a procedure for constructing profiles is done on the basis of a hypothesis. As none of the models are validated they present severe credibility issues as to their accuracy and actual use.
Non-Scientific Models and the Identification of Terrorists:
It is evident that the core basis upon which the non-scientific models operate is primarily drawing upon a profilers experience and their intuition on a particular offence. The lack of clear goals and aims, the inconsistent use of words and terminology, the misuse of typologies and the heavy reliance on intuition all form together to question the legitimacy and accuracy of predicting the offenders identification. There is no evidence to suggest that this design of profiling actually works at either assisting or helping the investigation and the detection of criminal offenders. The principal problem with non-scientific models is that they fail to incorporate principles that can be validated and principles that would create legitimacy in the construction of profiles. In the context of terrorism it is important to consider how the non-scientific profiles might allow law enforcement agents to identify potential terrorists. On the basis of the discussion above there are a number of problems transporting the non-scientific models into the terrorism domain. Firstly the primary problem is to do with the offence of terrorism. In the non-scientific models they all deal with crimes that are serial in nature either from the perspective of the one offender or different crimes exhibiting the same/similar traits and characteristics which allow the identification of some of the characteristics of the unknown offender. These crimes are specifically concerned with rape, murder, arson and paedophilia. In the context of terrorism it is arguable that a number of inherent differences between terrorism as a crime and general criminal offences. In light of contemporary terrorism where the use of suicide bombers are mainly employed by the current perpetrators of terrorism, it is unlikely that current terrorists exhibit traits and personality characteristics which are discernable by employing non-scientific methods of profiling.