Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Changes to security since 9/11
Security after 9/11 essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Changes to security since 9/11
Conventional wisdom has it that having to submit into a TSA or Full Body Patdown can save lives. This is all done due to safety precautions, without this safety precautions significant amounts of accidents can happen such as hijacking and plane crashes. After 9/11 occur, according to, Airport Security depends on TSA Body Scans and Pat Downs, “Ever since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has struggled to find a balance between beefing up security against terrorism and upholding the rights of individuals - whether it be a right to privacy, a fair trial in court, or freedom from racial profiling”(Christian Science Board). What this shows is that TSA will not have trust because a tremendous of lives are at risk and people need to put a part
One of these agents once told me that they had to do their job but they were also proud of the work since they believed they helped to keep our flights safely. Even though, we all hate to go through TSA scanners for they are time-consuming and so annoying. I certainly won’t convince anyone who despises those TSA scanners. Luke 6:31 says, “Do to others as you would like them to do to you.” Eventually, those TSA agents should get compliments from us for keeping flights safely. I often wonder if there is a better way to go through these obnoxious
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 prompted the world to reevaluate and drastically modify airport and airline security. “Four targets had been chosen, all iconic American buildings that would send a clear message of the depth of their hatred for the United States. All four planes crashed, killing all on board—terrorists, crew members, and passengers, along with hundreds who were killed inside the structures, on the ground, and the men and women who ran into collapsing buildings in an effort to try and save others” (Smutz 1). As Jason Villemez said “the decade after the 9/11 attacks reshaped many facets of life in America” (Villemez 1). Before the attacks, people did not think that large scale hostility towards innocent people in our country was remotely possible. Ever since that fateful moment, citizens in America are on their toes every day worrying about another attack happening. United States citizens have had to adapt and change in response to this fear of further terrorist assault on our country. One of the ways they have adapted is by changing their means of security concerning airline travel.
After 9/11 there was a great increase in security nationwide. One major example of this is the number of agencies created as a result of 9/11. Among these agencies include the creation of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), the DHS (The Department of Homeland Security), the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and lastly the massive advancement of the US Coast Guard. Every one of the budgets of these agencies has doubled since 9/11. The creation of the transportation and security administrations primary goal is to improve the safety of all American Citizens traveling by plane. The TSA started implementing, new policies and new technological advancements.
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
This happens because the TSA focuses on preventing attacks and does not explicitly reveal how many attacks they have stopped, or if they have stopped any at all. Dylan Mathews, the author of “The TSA is a Waste of Money,” argues the TSA would explicitly reveal if they stopped any attacks, but they simply have not. He cites an instance where the TSA “caught” an Army veteran who attempted to “smuggle” unfinished bomb-making materials into his checked luggage. Mathews argues that if they publicized such a small victory, they would most certainly advertise stopping a real attack. He backs up his argument with convincing statistics: Only 14 percent of passenger flaggings led to a referral to law enforcement, and only 0.6 of those flaggings led to an arrest, none of which related to terrorism. These staggering statistics clearly show the TSA’s current flagging process does not efficiently and effectively capture criminals, and only creates aggravating travel
“Many people who were detained on suspicion of their connection to al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists groups were innocent.” (Belanger, Newton 2). The patriot act weakens the right from protection of unreasonable searches the searches may be racist based on the person’s image. The people who were suspects of terrorism were accused of wrong doing. They had their civil rights taken away and they turned out to be innocent. It is not fair for people getting accused because they look a certain way....
In 2014, the New York Police Department announced that it would begin a pilot program to have its officers wear body cameras while on duty (Bruinius). However, the issue of privacy invasion and confidentiality of officers and the public has arisen. Though Body cameras on police officers could help in some scenarios such as random crimes, or police to citizen behavior, they also threaten privacy. Body mounted cameras are an invasion of privacy not only for the officers but also for the citizens involved. According to Freund Kelly, “Police officers often go inside businesses, private property and private homes as part of their duties. When police officers have a warrant, or believe there is an emergency,
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.
Chuck Goodwin explains, “TSA, which stands for Transportation Security Administration, is an agency in the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for screening all travelers and their luggage, as well as the screening of all air and rail transportation in the US.” Many travelers know of the them for their increased presence in all airports in the U.S and other major American airports worldwide. After the terrorist attack that took place in September 2001, President Bush and his advisors implemented The Patriot Act. Tracey DiLascio explains, “The Patriot Act is complex, but its major provisions act to improve coordination and communication between government intelligence agencies, removing unwieldy and unnecessary legal barriers between different federal offices and allowing vital investigations to proceed with greater ease and efficiency.” Their idea was to ensure that all intelligence agencies would communicate in a way that would keep America safe. “Steps to prevent events of the scale of those that took place at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, began to fall into place almost immediately...The first outline of a proposal for what would eventually become the USA Patriot Act was drafted just days after the attacks.” (DiLascio) Due to past terrorist attacks, the TSA has implemented security measures in the airports they occupy. “Following September 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created to strengthen the security of the nation’s transportation systems and ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce.” (TSA website) These measures include full body scanners and pat downs.
The stop and frisk program is a concept that has been employed in the New York City for some few decades not. The program was conceptualized after a careful consideration of the crime rates increasing in the city. As such its core function has been to promote a crime-free society within and in the city. However, the program has had mixed feeling from various stakeholders especially the civilians who have filed complaints with Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) against NYPD police officers.
As a response to the 9/11 attacks, one would expect that the TSA would improve airport security. In reality, it's just security theater. Originally, the use of metal detectors and luggage x-rays in airport security checkpoints was enough. However, on December 25, 2009, an inbound international flight was the target of an attempted bomb plot. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got past security screening and successfully boarded the plane with explosives packed in his underwear. He nearly succeeded in detonating the bomb, but the detonation didn't go as planned and passengers overpowered him before he could fix the detonation[0]. As a result, the TSA increased the use of full-body scanners to replace metal detectors. Before the 2009 attack, there were only 40 full-body scanners in use across 19 airports. After the attack, the government planned to have over 1000 machines in use by the end of 2011. However, the expensive machines are ineffective. In 2010, TV personality Adam Savage unintentionally managed to get two 12" long razor blades through security[1]. In 2011, an undercover TSA agent was able to successfully pass through the scanners with a handgun in her underwear, repeatedly[2]. The TSA is clearly incapable of creating a truly safe airport checkpoint, and is becoming less effective the longe...
To whom it May concern I am writing this letter to inform you that I stand against this policy of positioning body scanners in airports this scanner can affect our health by stepping in and having the x-ray’s hit our body, the outcome of this is to check if we have any dangers weapons that can’t be carry on airport grounds. A second reason why I stand against body scanners is the invasion of our privacy, this scanner processes our whole body inside out giving a whole picture of our body without any clothes on. While we might think that these machines will prevent future terrorist attack, but the reality is that terrorist will change tactics to avoid airport scanners. This scanner will slow airport
Jeffrey Rosen, of the Washington Post, writes a great article regarding the needs of safety when weighed against personal freedoms. “The TSA is invasive, annoying - and Unconstitutional” does well in explaining that the courts do acknowledge that there is a public safety need for certain searches at the airport. It also go on to show that people, when given the choice, are more opposed to pat-down searches than they are with the “naked” scanners of the TSA. These searches, however, do not limit the peoples’ right to procedural due process. The article go on to compare the TSA’s screening methods, with that of the Netherlands. It points to advances in “blob” screening, as opposed to the “naked” scanners the TSA uses. The “blob” scanners do provide more false positives, but as technology improves, so will these minimally invasive scanners (The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional. 2010).
There are many reasons why people believe that airport security should be more enforced. One reason is because of historical events. There are attacks that date all the way back to the 1930s. For example, there was an attack over Chesterton, Indiana killing all seven people that were aboard the small airplane. In 1949, a man from Canada named Albert Guay set a dynamite bomb in his wife’s luggage before she boarded the DC- 3 aircraft. Everyone on the plane was killed in the explosion. Later, him and his two accomplices that were involved in the making and the transporting of the bomb were arrested, and then they were executed. In 1970, President Nixon passed a law that said every person that gets on a plane, and their luggage, have to be screened before they board. Additionally in 1972, the FAA or the Federal Aviation Administration, made it mandatory that the airliner companies scan every passenger with a metal detector to try to prevent hidden weapons. On Christmas day of 2009, a man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year old from Nigeria, attempted to set off explosives aboard a Northwes...