This semester I led a discussion on civil liberties with a few of my classmates. Part of this presentation entailed a talk about whether our 4th Amendment (right of search and seizure regulation) was being too restricted. Recently I discovered an article that dealt with this same issue. Although this time, the article discussed how the lines in airports created from these searches, specifically in O'Hare International Airport, was causing such annoyance that people are starting to avoid O'Hare altogether. This could have huge implications for tourism, as fewer international visitors would come to Chicago. If security checks are preventing people from flying to certain locations, than there must be a large issue. And the lines are only supposed to get longer as the years pass.
An article in “Crain’s” suggests that an increase in airport employees would decrease the lines and get rid of the issue at hand.
In my opinion, that is the wrong way to be thinking about how to decrease the lines in airports. The solution seems very clear. If the amount of security checks, and the intensity of those checks were reduced, than the lines would be shorter, flying would be less of a hassle, and our 4th Amendment would be less restricted. Not only would the issue in the article be handled and tourism remain high, but also many of the rights in the Amendments would be supported from this simple solution. Do you agree? How should we go about changing the security at airports? Or do you believe there is no issue?
I do not know if I agree with you Tom. Post 9/11, security at airports and other hubs of transportation had to be significantly increased for the safety of Americans, and of humanity. Since then, I believe we have had few to no incidents of terrorism. I think that reducing security checks at this point would be regressing from where we are now. And, if the Crain's article suggests EMPLOYING more Americans is a solution, I am all for that because more jobs in America is almost always a positive. That is just my take. Cheers!
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to agree with Clark. I think that we need to keep the security at airports high. It is worth the temporary inconvenience to keep fliers safe. However, to deal with longer lines, I think it would be smart to create a few more security checkpoints which would end up creating more jobs. That way, security could go much faster by having shorter lines, but we wouldn't be sacrificing our safety.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I understand the points you both are making, but I also think there is more to consider. After reading both of your comments, I did some more research of my own and discovered a very interesting article. The article was essentially stating that airport security has become too extreme, and has become an inconvenience. After 9/11, attention towards terrorism greatly increased, to the point that it was out of proportion to the relative threat it presents. The reality is that the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is one in 3.5 million. Also, extremist Islamic terrorism resulted in 200 to 400 deaths worldwide outside the war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the same number that die in bathtubs in the U.S. alone each year. I am not saying that terrorism is not extremely serious, because it is, but something such as decreasing some of TSA's security in airports could have benefits. All of my information was pulled from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us. Feel free to read this article, as it is very interesting!
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteNice job blogging overall this term. I like the way this post links to an outside article and to topically links to our Perilous Times unit. You don't yet pull out portions of the Crain's text to analyze, though. Nor do you say exactly what forms the searches were taking. That might be nice to quote. These suggestions would make the post even stronger. The comment chain offers a good lesson in AOS. Your response to the commentators is strong.