Feds Searching All Commercial Airplanes

The Feds are searching every single plane in the US after discovering boxcutters and other materials in the bathrooms of two separate airplanes.

Question for debate: Do you feel that US airliners are still vulnerable? Do you feel that more needs to be done or that nothing can completely curtail the risk to air travellers?

Yes, I do you feel that US airliners are still vulnerable! I think that planes need to be more intensely searched before EVERY take off by security guards and have ALL luggage screened. This is so ridiculous that this is still happening!

Of course they're still vulnerable. Even if all proper measures were being taken, they'd still be vulnerable. That is simply a fact of life. It is the nature of the security beast--you put measures in place, they other side comes up with new ways to attack you, and so on. So, it's not a matter of eliminating the threat, but rather one of making it unlikely.

As far as additional measures, I think too much concern is being placed on not wanting to remove our 'freedoms'. For myself, I'd like the freedom to fly on a plane and not get blown up. If I have to endure a few inconviences to get there, than that's fine. Most actions proposed have nothing to do with limited an individual's freedom, but rather are a matter of emposing an inconvenience (take being searched before boarding as an example--which 'freedom' is being limited here?). As for doing background searches, and targeting efforts at certain profiles? This is simply being efficient and effective. People that object to these proceedings can opt out by finding another means of transportation--nothing is being forced on them. Imagine using a phone you know is tapped. You have the choice to use the phone or not--no freedom is being forcibly removed from you.

I think it is important to share that the news is reporting that there were notes left with these packages that claimed they were tests to see how good the security is. From CNN:

To answer the questions, yes, of course airplanes are still at risk. We all are at risk all the time everywhere, every minute.

As for second question, I'm not quite sure. I have no suggestions on what more could be done that would not violate our Constitutional rights. Unlike Hobbes, my Constitutional rights usurp some false idea of security.

I don't see how searching little old ladies and women with 6 kids will help stop terrorism. How will knowing I bounced a check last week determine if I have the potential to be a terrorist. These methods seem like closing the barn door after the horses got out. My hunch is that more airport security and checks are just band-aids and does nothing to address the mindset of people who want to get on our planes and kill us.

I agree with Jamie.
The problem with the American people is that everyone thought that we were/are invincible. Just because something does not happen in your backyard does not mean it does not happen. Terrorism has been alive and kicking for centuries. In the 90’s terrorist bombed an apartment complex in the Middle East to which I had family in (lucky they were out on a field assignment and were not hurt), however it effected me.
Are planes at risk of course they are, they always have been, its just that no American person (society) saw the potential in using them as a bomb. Trust me folks, it has been done before just not here. One can lay items on a table in front of you and someone can still sneak something past. People learn to get around obstacles, its part of nature.
As far as security risks, etc. I am willing to lean away from a few rights (Patriot act) so that me, my family, and even all of you out there are safe and feel safe; I have nothing to hide. I can say that with confidence because I am about ready to step into Americans Security Business and I know what I am putting on the line when I give a few things up. No one individual is safe 100% of the time from harm it’s just not plausible. But if you watch my back and I watch his back and etc. then you can protect yourself a little better and not lay all of the responsibility on one organization alone ( the gov’t).

I still think there is a lot of confusion among the general public (and therefore among the politicians catering to them) about exactly what 'rights' are being violated when various security measures are implemented. For instance, I know this was often cited as the reason searches couldn't be conducted for people entering malls. I have been to countries where this was done. It actually makes you feel safer. And I fail to see where anyone's rights are violated in the process, as nowhere in the Constitution does it say "I have the right to go wherever I please without anyone inconveniencing me in any way." In fact, I would argue just the opposite--failure to impose the proper security restrictions impinges on my 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', all of which are taken away if you're on board a plane with terrorists (or on a bus that blows up, etc.)

As for the Patriot Act, etc. I do see the legitimate concern. However, I still don't see any direct link between steps outlined there and rights being removed. You might argue the right to privacy. However, I would then then ask which is more important--right to life or right to privacy? If this is open to argument, I would then ask: How important is privacy if you're dead? In any case, I think the issue (as with all big brother gathering too much information situations) is not the information that is gathered, but rather what is done with it. For example, if the government creates a 'terrorist profile' on all of us, no rights have been violated. However, if they then take that list and proceed to lock up everyone that meets certain criteria, that's a completely different issue, and in this case their rights have been violated.

Actually in the 4th amendment it states
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This means that someone can not walk up and say, "can I search your belongings and/or body for anything, without probably cause. With it being a security issue everyone is a suspect therefore probably cause. However, I do agree with you that I value life far more than I value personal freedom. Yes, it’s an inconvenience but like I said earlier I have nothing to hide.

We don't have the constitutional right to go into a mall or board an airplane unsearched. We have the option to not enter that mall or board that airplane, and thereby forego the search.

To answer the original question...I think security has been increased enough at this point.
Does every individual who boards a flight have to be searched for a reasonable avoidance of risk? No. That is unreasonable. Even if everyone received a mandatory inspection, some terrorist might hide anthrax or some other biological contaminant in his/her baby powder container. Should passengers wear air masks throughout the trip just in case? There is no way to eliminate every potential threat.

9/11 caught the passengers unaware. A person wielding a boxcutter today on a flight would receive much more resistance from the passengers and crewmembers. I know I wouldn't simply give in without a fight. I've heard that the pilots are now armed as well. I see no reason to do more.

You can't use the 4th amendment right when boarding an airplane or a city hall building or the Capitol Building. Sorry. There is a flaw there.

PLEASE elaborate. What is the flaw?

Sorry Jaime

The flaw would be that some places require you to allow to be searched for security reasons like the places i listed in my last post.

But what I'm asking, goamerica, is WHY it is ok for some places to search your person without warrant or probable cause? It's that silly probable cause part of the 4th amendment that always gets me tripped up in these 'is it ok to search innocents' debates.

The best argument I have seen on behalf of the pro-airport-search side is that our airports represent our borders and the search is part of a routine border check. But Amlord poses a good question And to that, I agree with MrsP in that nothing more can be done that isn't being done.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on the TSA's proposed Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) program.

It is bothersome the DHS is so willing to search and seize the personal information of innocent Americans without warrant or probable cause. While it does come as some relief they have backed off the credit check proposal, the other information requests (such as the itinerary) go beyond the scope of a reasonable search. Our government wants to search on the mere basis that we want to move about by airplane.

Too much is being done for airline security. I see the zip-lock bag with cutter, clay, etc. as being proof that the added security has been non-sense. It a terrorist wanted to get those items on a plane they can do so. Apparently, terrorists have not wanted to and that should be calming news.

The most valuable security is being aware of those around you. It is just like defensive driving. You gotta watch out for the other guy. You have to be alert to your surroundings. No need to be over the top paranoid but awareness is important.

Now you have to be alert for the government. They are the ones most likely to interfere in your life. Heaven forbid should a security person gets the notion you are suspicious. This is the real threat to me, not some terrorist.

We don't? I suppose it depends on how one defines "unreasonable searches and seizures". To me, being searched merely because I wish to shop or fly seems unreasonable. I have to go with those bringing up the probable cause argument here. Purchasing an airline ticket or deciding I want to visit a food court does not, to my mind, give anyone cause to submit me to a search. As a border issue for incoming international flights, okay - I may not like it, but random searches make sense in terms of customs and so on. But institutionalized searches as a matter of "security" is nothing short of martial law. This is not on in my United States of America. Do we need to quote Franklin on liberty and security again?

Probable cause, I assumed, would be a presupposition for the search. Should there be random inspections before flights? IMO, yes. That is a reasonable post 9/11 precaution. Should there be routine inspections to enter malls? At the moment, no. If we were to start encountering the sort of terrorist activity Israel experiences, I would say yes.

Probable cause or state-sponsored paranoia? More people rob banks and convenience stores than hijack airplanes - and there have been many lives lost in the process, before and after September 11, 2001. Should there be random searches in such places? Should there be random searches on the street for those who might be en route to committing a crime? Should there should be random searches in our homes just in case we're about to leave for an airport with a box cutter? Should there be random searches everywhere? I would not ordinarily put forward a "slippery slope" type of argument, but while the world has not changed since the September 11 attack, this country and its governing administration sure have...

Okay, if the owner of a private business wants to initiate searches as a matter of their own security, that is their right. One can choose to patronize enterprises which don't have such a policy - at one's own risk. But to make it a matter of law would not fly with me. Not in the least. Even if we had a suicide bombing here every second day.

One step that I believe should be done is either screen or don't allow the cargo that is not being brought by passengers like mail and other transported cargo. This stuff is never inspected or screened which makes it one of the easiest ways to hide something like a bomb the bomber does not even have to be on the airplane. Just look at that one person that shipped himself across country in Sept. to his dads house unknowningly to everyone.

Speaking of armed pilots and other agents on plans that are armed not all planes have them.

With this latest incident it does show the lapse of judgement in our security whether it is we are getting to comfortable or what that is hard to say, because we don't know if this was a passenger that left this or someone else. There are certain things that I do believe are a little over the top. But as we are wondering about airline security we overlook our actual borders also which some in the government would like us to believe are secured points of entry but not giving them the budget or man power to do the job.

Should the metal detectors be eliminated as well, along with all bag inspections? Should everyone simply board unchecked, and potentially wielding weapons, on the promise they won't use them? That slippery slope goes both ways.
I don't see the problem with an extra random check prior to boarding. Although I see where you're going with the private business versus legislation, airline security procedures are no different than any other regulation in the interest of public safety at large. I see no appreciable difference between security procedures of passenger jets and regulations made by every agency from the EPA to the FDA in the "interest of the public good".

Presumably the internal flights that were crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania countryside would not have benefited from some form of security searches?

Please - I flew in and out of Boston's Logan Airport in March this year, and was searched far more effectively, and was in sight of more vigilant and more obvious security at Heathrow than I was at Boston. While waiting for my outgoing flight from there, I sat watching an armed security guard bending to lean on a security barrier for over 20 minutes. I was close enough to have reached up and grabbed his weapon. I'm not saying I could then have taken it on board with me undetected (although the only barrier would have been being able to take it from him without him raising an alarm, as I was already in the departure lounge), as I'm not a trained terrorist. I am saying it would have been a lot more possible to hijack a plane at Logan than it would at Heathrow.

And that would have been an outbound international flight, not an inbound one.

The absolute levels of security that are standard in the UK (where, to my knowledge, there has never been a hijacking) should be standard for the USA, and all flights should be treated in the same way regardless of their origin or destination.

I've never had the fortune of travelling to the UK. What defines these 'absolute levels of security'? Thanks.

This may not be on topic but I believe we shouldn't have changed the way we operate our flights. I believe it should have all stayed the same, and by changing it, we let the terrorist win - since thats the whole point in terrorism.

I believe the only thing we should have changed was the way we acknowledge plane hijackings. Instead of just sitting there, letting the terrorist do whatever they want, we should NOT open the cockpit door and not just sit there and take it. Ill make this bet with anyone for any price - I BET if we hadn't changed a thing in our flight policies and a group of 5 or so people tried to take over a plane with BOX cutters, i bet they would get no where fast against a quick uprising of 150 people..

Anyone else agree?

<