On Tuesday September 11th, 2001,19 Islamic extremists hijacked four airliners; one of them crashed into the Pentagon near Washington DC, two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, and the fourth airliner crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. There were between 5,000 and 6,000 people killed in the tragedy known as 9/11. The total repair cost was estimated to be around $105 billion (Goodrich). Just a short time after the attacks, a law was passed which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in November of 2001. The government has spent close to $100 billion in the 6 years since the tragedy to make sure that airports are secure (Peterson). There are many reasons why the United States government should not continue to spend outrageous amounts of money, more specifically they should not fund the Transportation Security Administration to implement more security measures. This can be concluded based off of the total number of attempted terrorist attacks and the fact that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on an airliner since 9/11. There are a number of security measures that were put in place by the TSA; many of which have been and continue to be inconvenient to passengers, purely symbolic, ineffective and somewhat unconstitutional.

After 9/11, there were a number of changes made to airports in the United States to improve security that would prevent future terrorist attacks. According to Goodrich, the following changes were made after 9/11 in airports nationwide: armed US National Guard members, improved screening and surveillance systems which may include facial recognition technology, implementation of x-ray scanners for luggage and carry-ons, an increase in the number of undercover agents, restrictions on who can be in certain areas airports without a ticket, an increase in the number of random checks of travelers and luggage, an increase in how thorough background checks on employees are and more. Some of these implementations were completely necessary in order to keep travelers safe. However, other changes have been and continue to be tedious and less than helpful to airline passengers. 

Since September 11th, 2001, passengers have to arrive two to three hours prior to their flight in order to make it through the numerous security measures. Passengers do not want to spend additional time or effort on this inconvenience. The process of screening passengers and their carry-ons lengthens the time that they must spend in security lines and in the airport. Some travelers think that the security requirements are so inconvenient that if the distance they need to travel is short enough to drive, they will. Traveling by car has an increased fatality and mortality rate compared air travel. When passengers substitute driving for flying, they are risking their lives (Blalock). From September 2001 to November 2012, there was an increase of 242 deaths per month due to car accidents because regular air travelers would rather drive the distance they need to travel than go through airport security (Kenny). The increase in security requirements led to the decline in demand for airplane tickets. Between September 2001 and 2007, the airline industry lost a total of $1.1 billion in revenue (Blalock). The amount of money lost continues to grow every day as the creation and implementation of new security technologies and regulations are put into place. In a poll taken two years after 9/11, 63% of travelers said that airport security “is becoming more of a hassle” (Woodyard and De Lollis). Passengers also think the random searches are inconvenient, as well as the growing list of items that are prohibited from a carry-on. There is a limit on the amount of liquid that can be brought by carry-on, which some may find inconvenient. Inconveniences to passengers regarding their luggage include destruction, theft and loss of luggage by airline staff. Many people that travel for business, or for short periods of time, do not want to pay the expensive fee to check luggage when they can bring a carry-on for free. According to Garrick Blalock, 40% of flyers are business travelers. Business travelers would be willing to pay almost $40 for a one-hour reduction time from the total time spent in the airport (Blalock). If half of the percentage of flyers that were business travelers decided to drive or not fly, that would be a 20% loss of overall ticket purchases in the airline industry. Not to mention, these business flyers are most likely frequent flyers and purchase multiple plane tickets throughout the year. 

Thomas Birkland mentions that the security implemented in airports, along with the other policies enacted due to the attacks on September 11th, 2001, has been largely for symbolic purposes. Congress must pass policies when an event or tragedy like 9/11 occurs (Birkland, p. 179-200). Otherwise, Congress would hear pressure from just about everyone in the US and probably from people in other countries as well. It would be ethically wrong for Congress to not implement policies with the good intention of protecting Americans and people who may fly to and from the United States. The law that created the Transportation Security Administration was needed and was put in place with said good intentions by Congress; however, the TSA has gone too far in security requirements. Congress also passed a security service tax that airlines could pass onto passengers in the form of higher ticket prices. This led to an even greater decline in the demand for airline tickets. Higher ticket prices and tedious security regulations lead to less passengers and more open seats on flights. This causes airlines to make less money and causes the federal government to receive less tax revenue from the tickets (Blalock).

The Transportation Security Administration’s regulations for security have proven to be ineffective. Although there has not been a successful terrorist attack since 9/11, there have been a number and variety of weapons to pass through security over the years without being detected at all. Also, the amount of money spent to employee TSA staff and machinery used to screen both passengers and baggage costs are large (Blalock). According to Alan Neuhauser, the security measures that have been put in place are ineffective in protecting passengers and they are also time consuming. He also mentions that in May 2015 undercover tests were performed on baggage and passenger screeners which resulted in a large number of unidentified fake guns and explosives in dozens of airports across the US. This proves that there is still an incredibly high rate of inaccuracy when it comes to detection of weapons by screeners. A different review done by the inspector general of the TSA, resulted in the failure to identify 73 staff members that had potential links to terrorism. Neuhauser writes that $878 million dollars has been spent by the TSA to train staff members in detecting suspicious travelers. Yet, there has not been any proof of the effectiveness of the training. Now that the TSA has increased security checks, they have become concerned with the wait times. There are conference calls every two weeks among staff members, in which security measures and safety of passengers are not even mentioned because the focus of the passengers is on the time spent going through security and not the actual security measures in the airports. There are constant shifts of resources by the TSA, which cost a lot of money, so that wait times can be reduced, not potential threats. Neuhauser comments on a poll taken in October of 2015, which concluded that 87% of Americans were unhappy with the Transportation Security Administration and less than 10% of Americans were confident that the TSA was performing effectively. Results from similar polls cause multiple large airports to constantly threaten to privatize security screening because security lines get to be so long (Neuhauser). According to Barbara Peterson, security has been increased greatly in certain areas of airports; however, there are other areas that have no security at all. In the United States, lobbies and arrival areas have no sort of security regulations (Peterson). For example, in the Istanbul Ataturk International Airport, terrorists attacked with rifles and explosives in the arrival and departure areas of terminals (Buchanan).  The measures that continue to be put into place are ineffective because the threat of being attacked declines daily. Charles Kenny quotes John Mueller and Mark Stewart, “the chance that a US resident would die from a terrorist attack was one in 3.5 million”. Kenny also mentions another perspective on the number of deaths by terrorist attack that Mueller says is the same as the number of people that die in bathtubs per year in the United States alone. In 2011, the TSA did not catch a single terrorist attempting to board a plane in the US (Kenny). 

People believe the extensive pat downs, requirements to go through screening systems, and placement of their names without evidence presented onto the “no-fly list” all violate their constitutional rights. There have been numerous unnecessary cases of extensive pat downs of travelers. Bearden tells a story of how an elderly, handicapped woman was required to take off her adult diaper after going through a body screening system because TSA agents believed she was hiding something. Many passengers refuse pat downs and avoid airports altogether because of the violation they feel by these security measures. Travelers also refuse body screenings due to the fact that the machines used give off radiation which is incredibly bad for anyone’s health. Repeated exposure to radiation can lead to a number of ill-effects. 

Bearden also tells a story about a college student named Nick George. George went through security in August of 2009 when he was accused of being a terrorist for having flashcards with the Arabic language written on them. There are a countless number of cases such as George’s in which the TSA accuses people of terrorism for ridiculous reasons and violates their constitutional rights (Bearden). 

Irina Manta and Cassandra Robertson write that many of the security requirements put into place lack constitutionality and do not improve the security of airlines. Since 9/11, there has been implementation of something called the “no-fly list”. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, created and maintains this list. The TSC shares the list with the TSA. Essentially, it is a list of individuals who are known or suspected to have aided in, participated in preparation for, conducted or related to terrorism. The Executive Branch is responsible for deciding what makes someone eligible to be placed on the no-fly list, how they are nominated for it and under what evidence their decision is supported by; all of which is relayed to the TSC. The government has the right to consider the following First Amendment rights as a source for reasonable suspicion for nomination to the no-fly list as long as the nomination is not exclusively based upon: national origin, speech, religion, ethnicity or race. Someone that is on the no-fly list and wishes to be removed may do so by requesting a hearing in which they must defend themselves without knowing why they were placed on the no-fly list and without knowing the evidence presented against them. The no-fly list is ineffective in the sense that the people on the list are accused of being related to or participating in terrorism in some way but are allowed to leave the airport after “appropriate law enforcement agencies” have been notified (Manta and Robertson). Bearden interviews Ben Wizner, Litigation Director of the ACLU, who commented that people should not be sent away from the airport if it is believed that they are legitimate terrorists, they should be arrested. They would only be on the no-fly list if the FBI had reason to believe they were terrorists (Bearden). 

 Ailsa Change wrote an article in which she mentioned that 90% of individuals on the no-fly list succeeded in purchasing firearms. Other individuals have been allowed to work in airports. The no-fly list is clearly an ineffective tool that has been used as a security measure since 9/11. There is also something called the “selectee” list. The “selectee” list is a list of individuals that must participate in extensive screening. For both the no-fly list and the selectee list, the criteria for being included on either list is unknown by the public. The individuals on these lists are not notified when they are added to them. There have been a number of incidents in which people have been wrongly placed on either list; such as an 18-month-old being placed on the no-fly list due to a computer error. Senator Ted Kennedy was placed on the list because his name somewhat resembled that of a terrorist’s alias (Manta and Robertson). 

Since 9/11 there have been many new security regulations and implementations as well as improved ones. Most of the security regulations implemented right after 9/11 can be considered necessary in the detection of anything that could cause harm to passengers of a flight in the United States. However, there have been a lot of unnecessary requirements involving security that passengers must comply with in order to fly. These unnecessary and tedious requirements have led to a decline in ticket purchases and overall revenue by airlines and by the federal government. Airline companies should privatize or Congress should pass new policies that require less of the Transportation Security Administration. There is too much money being spent and lost on security in airports that only causes the loss of more money. Passengers do not want to be inconvenienced for purely symbolic and ineffective security measures put in place by the Transportation Security Administration after September 11th, 2001 that violate their constitutional rights.
