1. Knox 1
Jerica Knox
Professor Alicia Bolton
English 101
November 20, 2012
Airport Security for the Innocent
Throughout history, the safety of family members and friends has always been a top priority of
the people that love them. Knowing that daughters and sons are in the security of their own home can
put anyone at ease. Security is important, especially when citizens travel. The standard way of
thinking about airport security is that it is strict—stricter than it was during 9/11, that is. The lives of
innocent friends and family were taken so suddenly that day. So, with such a tragic day, security
systems tightened their doors, or did they? I am responding to the ignorance and ineffectiveness in the
story, “Signal Detection” by Steven Casey. An American airport security system, that was supposedly
strict against terrorism, allowed a suspected man on board AA Flight 63. This man, Richard Reid—a
member of al Qaeda and declared loyalist of Osama bin Laden, attempted to end the lives of citizens
with a shoe bomb that could have potentially blown up the whole plane. Had it not been for the brave
passengers, Reid could have been successful. This was a mere 4 months after 9/11. Ultimately, what is
at stake here are the lives of innocent passengers—brothers, sisters, grandmothers, and fathers. At the
very least, citizens should care. Although terrorism is a threat and security has improved, there should
be better security tactics within airports for terrorists who plan to destroy the innocent lives of people.
There are some critics who claim that security has, indeed, improved tactic wise. For one thing,
the improvements people speak of are tactics that are used to prevent terrorists from getting on the
planes, such as randomness. According to “Homeland Security is Working” by former U.S. Appellate
court judge Michael Chertoff, “Randomness is another critical tool... And therefore when we disrupt
their planning capability by having an element of randomness in our detection, we set them back in
terms of their ability to execute” (Chertoff 63). While randomness is an effective tool that potentially

2. Knox 2
brings the element of surprise to our side, this tactic should not be such a critical tool in the first place.
Randomness only works half the time it is actually used. There should be tools much more critical than
this while randomness should be considered merely a back up plan. This proves that security has not
improved much. Lawyer, Joan Claybrook—former President of Public Citizen, a public policy
organization—states a similar viewpoint: “Amidst all the claims of government action to protect
against terrorism, most citizens are completely unaware that little has been done to protect our sensitive
and critical infrastructure from real threats to communities across America” (Claybrook 69).
Government has not improved security with tactics as much as citizens really think. Rodney Wallis,
former Director of Security in the International Air Transport Association, gives an example of this.
One particular thing Wallis mentions referred to the President signing a new aviation law: “President
George W. Bush signed into law the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, believing it ‘should give
all American’s greater confidence when they fly.’ New aviation laws hadn’t achieved their objectives
in the past, and those who listened to the president’s words were entitled to wonder if they would do so
on this occasion” (Wallis 30). This law simply required bags to be screened. However, Wallis goes on
to say that bags had previously been screened as well when terrorists’ attacks had been carried out.
This simple gesture of signing a new aviation law may have seemed like security improving, but
really, it was the same procedure being reintroduced. Moving on, another tactic that is argued for is the
use of x-ray. While it is true that x-ray has improved, it does not necessarily work all the time.
According to National Geographic, the airlines main defense was x-ray, up until recently. Now, they
use machines that can literally see through people: “Tadar can see through clothing like an x-ray
machine ...Tadar isn't full proof. It still requires the watchful eye of a security guard. Cleverly
disguised explosives might get through” (Outsmarting Terror, “Airport/Airplane Security”). This new
machine, though a great idea, is not entirely able to do its job. With clever and sneaky people like
terrorists, this new machine is not even a challenge to them. Although security is trying to improve, it
has yet to truly ensure the safety of citizens.

3. Knox 3
With that being said, security needs to find more innovative ways to deal with the search for
terrorists. Terrorists who succeed do so because they are not predictable. They know what measures
are taken to prevent people like them from blowing up a plane, so they adapt to those regulations to
make them seem less suspicious. Because they have this to their advantage, security needs to improve
their tactics, and show terrorists that America will give them a hard time if they plan on killing innocent
people. This can be done by giving the Transport Security Administration (TSA) more flexibility. The
TSA are those people who make passengers take their shoes off when going through search procedures
in airports. They are usually presented badly, on TV, as they are seen taking a grandmother's cane or a
child's stuffed animal in order to keep everyone safe. However, if the TSA were given more flexibility,
they could interact more with passengers and get a better feel for suspects. Another way to improve
tactics is to simply eliminate baggage fees. Yes, of course, this tactic is not just to reduce the costs of
flying. It will also prevent people from stuffing their suitcases as much as they can in order to avoid
paying extra money. This process will improve security, as it will be easier to maneuver through bags
and weed out any suspicious devices found in them. It will also make security go faster. These
improved tactics will help to better our security.
Keeping all this in mind, there are other ways people say security has improved, like the
creation and strategies of security agencies. Chertoff provides his position on a strategy he believes is
effective: “So our Officer of Bombing Prevention developed and launched the TRIPwire secure
information sharing portal. What this does is it takes any gaps, some of the best learning IED
developments that we're gaining...through DOD [Department of Defense]...it takes and makes it
available...to federal departments, state and local agencies, and private sector organizations” (60).
While I do agree that sharing information among different security agencies is a clever idea, it is
regrettably unorganized. There is no need for so many security agencies. With so many agencies, the
information passed on can be interpreted in various ways. Even the Department of Homeland Security,
since its creation a couple years ago, is filled with too many agencies. In fact, this department is so

4. Knox 4
unnecessarily big that it becomes less effective: “The huge and diverse department wins little praise for
organization. Its constituent elements range from the entire Customs, Border Patrol and immigration-
control forces to the Coast Guard, Secret Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)” (Katel 135). With so many individual agencies under the department, it loses potential of
creating an effective security system. Instead, it does the opposite, and goes backwards in the plan to
tighten security.
With that being said, getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security would actually reverse
the little work that it actually has done. Therefore, simply improving the department could help. One
thing that needs improvement is it's structure. It is definitely an issue. “In simple bureaucratic terms,
structure is an issue for new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, not only because of the
large number of agencies pulled in the new department but also because of those that were left out”
(Katel 135). Some agencies that are important aren't included in the Department of Homeland Security,
while ones that aren't are included. By specifically containing only the important agencies and pulling
out the smaller ones, the structure would improve. There is no need for so many smaller agencies when
they have little to no control over national security. Another problem that branched off of having too
many agencies is the sharing of information. By eliminating the less important agencies, information
would be shared more smoothly and faster. This would effortlessly give more time to solve problems
instead of trying to get it out to everyone. Moving on, although President Bush created the Homeland
Security to coordinate national strategy against terrorist attacks, “policy experts say the office largely
depends upon presidential coattails for influence, because it has no direct authority over any of the
agencies involved in protecting the borders and very little experience in dealing with the issues”
(Marshall 152). This puts a hole in this new security strategy. Without proper authority, this agency
cannot deal with the issues it is supposed to be addressing. Therefore, I suggest giving the Department
the rightful authority it needs and deserves to ensure it can deal with the safety issues its job demands.
Improvements in the Department of Homeland Security would make a major difference in the goal to

5. Knox 5
defend America.
Moving on, taking serious measures, such as searching procedures, are acceptable as long as a
person is actually questionable. Yet, some readers may challenge my view, insisting that it is the
harassment of people who are potentially innocent. Although I grant that the potential harassment is
unfortunate, it is okay as long as the security system has the safety of the passengers in mind. We see a
similar viewpoint in “Signal Detection”: “From the agent's and airline's point of view, the consequences
of a false alarm – tagging an innocent passenger as a terrorist – were regrettable but tolerable as long as
they didn't do it very often and they corrected their mistakes once they were made” (Casey 42).
Making mistakes is okay, especially if it were for the protection of lives. Twenty minutes of
embarrassment is better than a lifetime of hurt by families dying. Harassment is worth it.
Because of this view, the people who claim searching should never end up being harassment do
not think about the possibilities a potential terrorist has. With so many tactics terrorists can use to harm
others, a little harassment would do some good. This would ensure everyone is alert. I would rather
have everything I owned searched than to get on a plane and live my last few seconds of life in fear.
This is what passengers deal with when they are on the plane with a terrorist. They are fearful beyond
words and have little hope of making it through this. No one should have to go through that.
Preventing this from happening can be more effectively done by mistakenly harassing passengers. If a
passenger is innocent, then they have nothing to worry about anyway. This is to ensure their safety, so
why not take these measures to keep them and their loved ones alive? Harassment may be regrettable,
but it would only be done to ensure the safety of mothers and fathers, nieces and nephews.
Though security has attempted to improve, other precautions for airport security need to be
taken to ensure terrorist become a thing of the past. The innocent lives of parents and children are at
stake. Neighbors and co-workers are at stake. Best friends and spouses are at stake. Because of this,
citizens should care. Families and friends should care. Airport security has not improved by much
since 9/11, but terrorists grow both in numbers and creativity. As of right now, they are ahead of

6. Knox 6
security, plotting every move diligently while airports are forced to predictably take on the same
ineffective procedures they have for years. Security needs a change. By giving TSA more flexibility,
and improving the Department of Homeland Security, security would have an edge. Improvement does
not stop there, though. It is the responsibility of every citizen to do as much as they can for their
country. By enduring a small precaution of harassment every now and then, they would be
strengthening security. With both the government and its citizens working together, the security of
America has potential to improve its borders and fill each and every citizen with a sense of both
security and safety.

7. Knox 7
Works Cited
Casey, Steven. “Signal Detection.” The Atomic Chef: And other True Tales of Design, Technology,
and Human Error. New York: Aegean Publishing, 2006. 42. Print.
Chertoff, Michael. “Homeland Security is a Failure.” At Issue: National Security. Ed. David M.
Haugen. New York: Greenhaven Press, 2008. 60-63. Print.
Claybrook, Joan. “Homeland Security is a Failure.” At Issue: National Security. Ed. David M. Haugen.
New York: Greenhaven Press, 2008. 69. Print.
Katel, Peter. "Homeland Security." CQ Researcher 19.6 (2009): 135. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.
Marshall, Patrick. "Policing the Borders." CQ Researcher 12.7 (2002): 152. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.
Outsmarting Terror. “Airport/Airplane Security.” Films Media Group, 2006. Films on Demand. Web.
06 Nov. 2012. <http://storm.hgtc.edu:2048/login?url=http://digital.films.com/
PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=3503&xtid=40808&loid=90555>.
Wallis, Rodney. How Safe are our Skies?: Assessing the Airlines Response to Terrorism. Praeger, 2003.
eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 6 Nov. 2012.