Okay, here's my try at explaining my position using un-emotional language:

Airport screening provides very little in the way of security, as has been documented repeatedly both by the GAO report, congressional inquiries, and infamous incidents like Nathan Heatwole sneaking box cutters onto planes and telling the TSA about it only to have them ignore his message and discover the weapons by chance several weeks later.

Airport screening also spends a large amount of money that could be spent more broadly to investigate all possible targets of terrorism, such as the alleged plot we've just heard about to bomb a mall. Clearly terrorists have interest in targets other than airplanes, and even the targets in the infamous incident were not airplanes but office buildings.

However, the newly invasive airport screening does provide a major disincentive to flying, not the least by pushing up ticket prices, in an environment where airlines are already struggling. It also puts travelers at risk of having their belongings stolen, mishandled, or broken, and of having their bodies touched in inappropriate ways. The statistics on complaints about the above mentioned issues with luggage and inappropriate touching are available at: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/index.htm

For all of these reasons and more, I and many others on this board think that screening should become much less invasive, which should also cost less and free up money for pursuing terrorists.

As to the question of eliminating screening altogether, I'd like that, but I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so I'll settle for going back to the much less invasive screening process.