Airline Security Measures Lead the Way to a Police State

Since the September 11 terror attacks, the federal government and the airlines have expended much effort to improve the security of flights. The primary threats against which they need to protect are hijacking and planting of bombs. The basic approach to alleviating these threats has been to increase the intensity of searches of passengers and their luggage.

The hijacking risk is easy to deal with. Along with the cockpit security that is already being implemented, there needs to be someone on each flight who is capable of defending passengers and crew from assault.

The danger of destroying an airplane by depressurization due to bullet damage has been dramatically exaggerated by action movies. Whatever real danger exists to the plane itself can be eliminated by use of special bullets that are incapable of penetrating the aircraft structure.

To start, at least the pilots should be armed with handguns. In addition, I think we should consider relaxing restrictions on weapon possession by passengers. Police officers should even receive a discount on their tickets if they agree to go armed on their flights. This would improve flight security against hijackers and remove one of the major reasons to search passengers before boarding.

The bomb risk is more of a problem. There have been many instances of planes being destroyed by bombs smuggled aboard in luggage. It is even possible to damage or destroy the aircraft using explosives hidden in a passenger's shoes or clothing. This possibility is used to justify the most intrusive searches of passengers.

The least intrusive approach that I can imagine for dealing with this real threat is the use of bomb-sniffing dogs on both passengers and luggage. Even this doesn't seem foolproof. If we are to make bombing airplanes impossible, it seems that we have to throw out the Fourth Amendment when judging searches involving airline flights.

The problem with the previous paragraph is the word "impossible." Let's think about some of the other possibilities for mass murder in our society. What is stopping someone from dusting viral spores or chemicals in public mail deposit boxes, restaurant tables, or a million other places? How about setting off a car bomb while a suicide bomber drives over a major bridge during rush hour? Or releasing poison gas in a mall or other crowded public place? Any even slightly free society is completely vulnerable to such acts.

If our standard of security is to be that mass murder is "impossible," everyone must be subject to search at any time, in any place. Nay, even a standard of "difficult" requires scrapping the Fourth Amendment. Only a total police state can be reasonably confident that terrorist mass murder can't happen.

Once we give up all of our rights as air travelers, any terrorist incident will prompt comparison of airport security with security in other places. It will be shown that the power to search anyone, any time, works to secure air travel. Why not extend that successful approach to cars driving down the street, pedestrians strolling through a mall or on a sidewalk?

What alternatives do we have? If we are to remain a free nation, we can never make it impossible or even difficult for someone to perpetrate a mass attack on our civilian population. The only other approaches are to make it costly to do so, and to avoid unjust policies that may prompt such acts. Our government is currently engaged in making terrorism costly, in its efforts in Afghanistan. We should also be looking critically at our interventionist foreign policies that create enemies for our country.

It seems that until we can destroy existing terrorists and remove the motivations that create more terrorists, our choice is between liberty and the possibility of death. Give up the Fourth Amendment, or take a chance of being shot, blown up or lethally infected. I stand with Patrick Henry in his assessment of that choice: give me liberty every time.