Stricter Airline Security, Speech, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Speech

Stricter Airline Security

Stricter Airline Security Stricter Airline Security-Affirmative argument Over the past five months, airline and airport security has been in the news almost daily. The events on and since September 11 have completely changed the viewpoints of many Americans, as well as the world, concerning airline security. Between the 18 suicide hijackers to Richard “the shoe bomber” Reid and the many other terrorists that lurk in the world, flying is definitely not as safe as it once was. I strongly believe that security in airports should be much more strict than it is now, even if it infringes on the people’s right to privacy. The last part of that statement is the point of clash for many people because they strongly believe in privacy rights. Before I get to why there should be stricter airport security, I will define a few the main terms in this debate. First of all, stricter security calls for a more systematic, more careful searching of passengers, bags and airplanes for contraband items, like guns, knifes, explosives and anything that could be used as a weapon. I will go into more detail later about different practices to give airports stricter security. Another crucial part of this debate that perplexes many people is the phrase, “right to privacy.” Rights to privacy can be defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by the government, the media or other institutions or individuals. Article IV of the Bill of Rights states that “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …” Airline security has always been a very important issue, but the significance has multiplied exponentially since the September 11th terrorist attacks. On that horrific day, 18 men breeched the security of 4 different airports and planes with weapons like box cutters in their carry-on bags. These men did not have any other luggage with them though. They used the box cutters to take over the planes and eventually crash the planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. A few months later, Richard Reid boarded a plane in Paris, France, headed for America with explosives in his shoes. None of the security precautions discovered the explosives. Only passengers who saw Reid trying to ignite the explosives stopped the destruction of the plane. Reid attempted to blow up this plane only one day after he was detained and extensively questioned while trying to board another plane to America. Since September 11th, many changes have been made to the security in airports, but I believe that they are not enough to keep us safe. Currently, airport security includes armed National Guard troops watching over lobbies and terminals, more checked luggage requirements, and more metal and x-ray detectors. Right after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, every airport in America was shut down for several days and only opened with National Guard soldiers watching for suspicious behavior. But, after only a month of the extra security guards, the majority of the airports were without the Guard troops. Another precaution that airlines are currently taking includes several new checked luggage requirements. In November, Congress passed a law that requires airlines to screen all bags in four ways: with explosive-detection equipment, with explosive-sniffing dogs, with hand searches and by matching passengers to bags. Congress set a deadline of January 18, 2002, and, in that sort amount of time, airports were only able to institute a bag-matching policy. This is where baggage handlers make sure that every bag on board belongs to a passenger on the plane. If a passenger gets off the plane for some reason, their bags must be taken off the plane also. Luggage is also, according to the new law, supposed to be thoroughly examined by x-ray machines and chemical-detecting machines. Only the major airports in New York and Los Angeles have enough money for these expensive machines. Just one scanner can cost up to $1.3 million. Also, these scanners can take up a huge amount of space to install them, and manufacturers are straining to meet the high demand. After the events of September 11, to say that the lack of strict airline security is significant is an understatement. The attack on the World Trade Center towers alone killed thousands upon thousands of people. Add to that the many victims in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon and the many other terrorist attacks in the past. The shear loss of life due to problems in airline security makes the need for stricter security even greater. But the threat of more terrorists is still out there. Just a few weeks ago, yet another alert was put out, stemming from another terrorist threat. The new “security precautions” from Congress do not remove these threats like they are meant to. The law as a whole could quite possibly deter many attacks, but the law as a whole is not being used. As I said before, the law calls for bags to be screened with explosive-detection equipment, with explosive-sniffing dogs, with hand searches and by matching passengers to bags. Because of the extremely high cost of many of these precautions, airports are only mainly using bag matching. But matching luggage to passengers aboard flights to prevent terrorist from checking bags and not boarding the planes does not go far enough. Bags are only matched on flights originating in the United States. It does not include flights originating elsewhere in the world or connecting flights within the U.S. This practice appears to leave a gaping hole in airport baggage security, especially considering the fact that bag-matching doesn’t protect from suicide bombings, like those on September 11. It would not be difficult for a suicide mission to carry a device of destruction, either in checked luggage or on his or her person. These gaping holes in security plus the enormous loss of life at the hands of terrorists justify major changes in airline security, making it much more strict and thorough. I believe that there are several points of action that airlines and the federal government can take to solve the problems in airline security. First of all, the matching bags practice needs to be streamlined. Every bag on every plane needs to be matched to a passenger, not just originating flights. And every bag needs to be hand-checked and scanned by sophisticated explosive-detection, chemical-detection, and x-ray equipment. Even though the advanced equipment costs millions of dollars per machine, every airport should have the machines capable of catching any contraband or weapon. Another action the airlines should be able to do some kind of background checks on people when they buy plane tickets. These checks should look for connections to terrorist and other violent organizations. For example, a day before Richard Reid was caught with explosives in his shoes, he was detained in the same airport. The background checks would be able to catch and avoid situations like the “shoe bomber.” The Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the United States Federal Government, should be the ultimate enforcer of these new security precautions. Weekly “mystery passenger” checks should be done at every airport to check that the proper procedures are in place. These “passengers” would try to get through the security with some type of contraband and make sure they are caught. Even “clean” mystery passengers could go through to check that they went through all these procedures. Stiff fines should be in place for those airports that do not follow the correct procedure. Depending on the size of the airport, fines should be high enough to make a difference to the owners. For example, an airport in New York City should have a very hefty fine of at least $25,000 per infraction. Smaller airports cannot afford such amounts, so the fines should be tailored to their income. The funding for these new procedures and equipment has been allowed for in President Bush’s new budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Also, raising ticket prices only a few dollars each would help fund the new equipment. The fines from faulty airports could go into a fund to help pay for more equipment. Ultimately, I believe that these stricter changes would not only prevent events like those on September 11, but also they would deter would-be terrorists from even trying to breech the security at airports. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1403