Originally Posted by Bart
What do you define as secondary screening? If you're talking about the SSSS-mandated screening, I agree with you. If you're talking about the secondary screening that occurs ONLY to resolve alarms at the WTMD or items that cannot be cleared by x-ray, then I disagree with you. By the way, how should such cases be resolved in your view? As for reasonable suspicion, court judgments have beaten this little horse to death: security screening is not the same as a search for evidence. But you know this already; you just refuse to acknowledge case precedence, which makes it difficult to hold a reasonable discussion/debate with you.
You ignore the other hazards posed to aviation that are not terrorist-related. How do you propose to prevent the accidental introduction of hazardous material aboard aircraft without screening all individuals? How do you prevent the use of weapons by people who do not necessarily intend to commit terrorist acts but certainly commit acts of violence? I'm talking about air rage passengers, people who may blow up an airplane simply for insurance purposes, disgruntled airline employees, and a variety of other potential acts of violence that are just as dangerous as acts of terrorism, the difference being that they are not specifically conducted for a terrorist cause. As for people who are specifically identified as members of actual terrorist groups, to paraphrase the comedian Gallagher: use DELTA....Don't Even Let Them Aboard. There is no reason to allow someone aboard who is known to be associated with a terrorist group. This is an area where the FBI should be free to step in and investigate the matter further BEFORE they board, meaning to DENY them from boarding until the matter is resolved.
Of course if the WTMD alarms, then the person must be screened thoroughly, whether by hand wand, pat-down, newer technology, whatever.
Regarding case precedence, please cite for me the United States Supreme Court opinion that holds that passengers are deemed to consent to a search and seizure of their persons and belongings
even without reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity at an airport. If you can find such case law, then I will accept that passengers do not have Fourth Amendment rights, per the U.S. Supreme Court. I would add that if there is such case law, it would be from the same court that held that Negroes were property (
Dred Scott), that separate but equal was constitutional despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (
Plessy v. Ferguson), and internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was constitutional (
Korematsu). Only one institution on Earth is infallible, and I do not think airport checkpoints are a matter of faith for the Church on which the Pope speaks
ex cathedra.
Before 9/11, what did the government or airlines do to prevent incidents involving hazardous materials, air rage, blowing up airplanes for insurance purposes, and the variety of other potential acts of violence just as dangerous as acts of terrorism? Even more to the point, how many such acts occurred before 9/11? Even more to the point, what is the government and airlines doing now to prevent such acts? Air rage cannot be prevented by TSA or anything short of forcibly restricting passengers to their seats (okay, sedate every passenger while on the airliner.) Failing to screen cargo is a formula for allowing airliners to be blown up for insurance or terroristic reasons. Any trained individual could use a belt, sharpened pencil, broken wine bottle, or even bare hands to injure or kill someone on an airliner. How is such an act just as dangerous as terrorism? Such an act would be a common assault, absent other factors such as a demand to be flown to a destination other than the one scheduled. Are we going to structure the airline industry to prevent such random acts that are not terrorism? What other facets of American life should be similarly screened? Grocery stores? Sporting events? Symphony performances? Malls? Risk management vs. risk avoidance, right. I humbly submit that the main risk factor relating to terrorism against U.S. interests is strongly correlated with Islamic extremists.