Civil Liberties vs. Post-9/11 Airport Security

Following the September 11, 2011 terrorist attacks, issues concerning domestic security took center stage in American politics. The 9/11 airline hijackers revealed weaknesses in aviation security and sparked a movement for stricter screening protocols in American airports. Yet, despite the rationale that rigorous screening can prevent another 9/11 from occurring, a contingent of American society believes that new screening technologies, such as body scanners, are inappropriately invasive and violate the civil liberties of American citizens. While the government does have an obligation to promote order by protecting the safety of its citizens, post-9/11 screening protocols unjustifiably violate the liberties of Americans because they violate a citizen’s right to privacy and are inefficient in securing the safety of the public.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon demonstrate the ability of airline security breeches to undermine public order. Following the attack, the United States faced catastrophic losses both socially and economically. As Phillip P. Pupura, director of the Security and Justice Institute, notes, over 3,000 people were killed during the 9/11 attacks and thousands more were significantly injured (Purpura 196). Further, the destruction caused by the attacks resulted in $21 billion in property damages and insurance costs (196). Further, the federal government issued over $344 million dollars in public assistance to compensate for the interruptions in business that occurred following the attacks (198). Along with violating the safety of Americans, the terrorist attacks threatened the economic stability of the United States.

Though terrorist attacks on airplanes rank low among the risks that Americans face, supporters of increased security note that breaches in airline security have a unique ability to destabilize society. RAND Corporation analyst Brian M. Jenkins, a supporter of increased airline security measures, acknowledges that there have only been 75 terrorist attacks, resulting in 157 deaths, between 2001 and 2011 (Jenkins 1). In comparison, the same period yielded 2,000 attacks on trains and buses that resulted in over 4,000 deaths (1). However, Jenkins argues that airport security should be taken seriously as one of the most critical components of counterterrorism (2). As Jenkins recalls, a series of terrorist-led plane hijackings during the 1960s placed the public in a compromising position because it forced the government to negotiate with the sky bound terrorists, it forced the government to attempt risky rescue missions, and it placed the public at risk of further injury should the aircraft explode or crash (2). Thus, the public is better served if terrorists are prevented from boarding aircrafts in the first place.

Jenkins also asserts that tougher airline screening is effective in deterring terrorism. As Jenkins asserts, hijacking was commonplace during the 1970s when there was an average of one hijacking or bombing attempt per month (3). However, he asserts the number of attempts have decreased since the 1970s because terrorists simply do not find it profitable to face strengthened security; rather they attempt to find weaknesses in security systems they can exploit (3). Further, Jenkins argues that the adaptive nature of terrorists necessitates upgraded security measures. For example, the intercepted 2010 attempt to carry a bomb concealed in a printer cartridge aboard a Chicago-bound flight demonstrates the danger Americans face if the United States were to relax its screening procedure. Further, Jenkins holds that because the oldest person arrested for attempting a terrorist attack was seventy-six years old and the youngest person recruited to carry a bomb onboard a plane was six years old, the expansion of screening to all segments of the population is warranted (5). Thus, Jenkins argues that the benefits of airline security outweigh any infringements placed upon the civil liberties of travelers.

Yet, Stanford political scientist Russel Hardin asserts that the practice of screening many individuals in effort to locate one terrorist is an unacceptable civil liberties violation. Hardin acknowledges that in certain situations, security can be considered a positive right that the government is obligated to protect (Hardin 86). However, Hardin asserts that the propensity of the government to falsely accuse individuals of terrorism undermines its ability to protect the security of individuals (82). Hardin presents statistical data confirming that the United States would have to screen 5,000 terrorists for each terrorist it catches (80). Further, if the government were to just screen Middle Easterners and other high-risk groups, it would have to investigate 50 individuals for every terrorist it eventually finds (81). In consideration of these figures, the government would have to undermine the civil liberties of far more people than it protects in order to deter terrorism.

Despite this tradeoff, many supporters of increased airport screening measures believe that the efficacy of broad screening is worth the consequences. However, RAND Corporation analyst Jack Riley argues that airport screening unnecessarily violated Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure (149). Further, Riley estimates that the reduction in air travel following 9/11 generated an additional 2,200 road traffic deaths in 2003 when driving increased as an alternative. Further, the deterring air travel decreases tourism and business travel, which negatively impacts the economy (149). Riley also asserts that many screening methods are an inefficient use of resources, noting that upgraded screening methods are projected to cost $1.2 billion per by 2014 (150). While a hypothetical terrorist attack can undermine order, these figures highlight the social and economic consequences inherent in present airport security practices.

As Riley demonstrates, it is a mistaken belief that the screening tactics adopted following 9/11 were effective in promoting security. Riley assesses that the reforms that actually reduced the opportunity for another 9/11 attack to take place include the increased vigilance of travelers, new restrictions that limit access to the cockpit in airplanes, and stricter visa procedures for foreign travelers (151). Additionally, Riley argues that uniformly screening passengers is a waste of resources because flights that originate from within the United States pose little risk of being hijacked by terrorists (154). As this analysis demonstrates, many of the tradeoffs made at the airport between civil liberties and safety are unwarranted and represent inefficient policy.

The fear and panic caused by terrorism often creates an atmosphere that tolerates violations to civil liberties. For many Americans, the security measures adopted at airports following 9/11 are considered necessary to protect the lives of American citizens and prevent the calamity that occurs after a large scale terrorist attack. However, while increases to airport security can deter acts of terrorism, a balance must be maintained between respecting the liberties of travelers and effectively countering terrorist plots. As Pupura demonstrated, a main consequence of adopting stringent screening requirements is that the liberties of many must be infringed upon in order to locate a small number of terrorists. Further, Riley demonstrated that alternative measures to countering terrorism on airplanes could protect the public while promoting the civil liberties of travelers. Thus, the actions to increase uniform security following 9/11 were an unnecessary attempt to preserve order that ultimately violated the civil liberties of citizens.

Works Cited

Hardin, Russel. Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism. Journal of Ethics, vol. 8 no.1, 2013, pp. 77-95. Academic Search Premier. Web. Accessed 1 Oct. 2013.

Jenkins, Brian M. Aviation Security. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. Print.

Purpura, Philip P. Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction with Applications. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006, Print.

Riley, Jack. “Flight or Fancy? Air Passenger Security Since 9/11.” In Readings in Long Shadow of 9/11: America’s Response to Terrorism. Eds. Brian Michael Jenkins and Michael Godges. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2011. Print.