Shehata 1

Ahmed Shehata
UWRT 1102
Instructor: Fran Voltz
30 Octobar, 2014

EIP: Annotated Bibliography

Brennan, John. Brennan: Post-9/11, U.S. Has 'Right Balance' Between Civil Liberties,
Security.
Judy Woodruff. 7 September 2011. Web. 12 October 2012John Brennan is the White
House Chief Counterterrorism Adviser and is speaking on behalf of Americas safety. In the
interview for the popular online website, PBS News, he clearly states that America is safer today
than it was before September 11th occurred. He feels that America has the right balance
between security procedures and the civil liberties that all citizens have. Brennan continues
saying that although he feels America is safer that the See Something, Say Something
campaign still comes into play. Thus, meaning that if citizens feel unsafe in an airport due to
another persons behavior or actions that they let an authority figure know immediately. He
states, This is going to be a very dynamic environment, both the terrorists trying to adapt to us
and were trying to stay ahead of them. Brennan ends by mentioning this will be a battle that
America will continue to fight in order to expand airport security efforts to stop potential
terrorists plots.
This interview was conducted 10 years after the 9/11 attacks in 2011 making it recent. With
John Brennan being the interviewee and his history working as White House Chief
Counterterrorism Adviser it gives him knowledge on the subject Judy Woodruff is questioning

Shehata 2

him on. There is possible bias with Brennan due to him working in the White House as the
Counterterrorism Advisor. He has first-hand experience dealing with the new security measures
that are in place and with his title he is completely for the amplified security measures. The
interview was televised through Public Broadcasting System (PBS) News Hour which is a
dependable source for information. The video also provided the transcript of the interview to go
back and re-read as well. Overall this video and transcript was an excellent source of information.
I feel that John Brennans credentials and history working with counterterrorism give him the
quality of being a reliable source. His view on the subject is consistent and he has facts to back up
his views on the matter. I recognize that his opinions to the subject may be skewed in one direction;
however, I am researching both sides of this debate making this only beneficial for my paper.
McLaughlin, Christopher. (2011, September 16). Assessing Airport Security After
9/11.FDCH Congressional Testimony: Military & Government Collection. Web. 9 October
2012
This government document was a speech by Christopher McLaughlin, the Assistant
Administrator of Office of Security Operations Department of Homeland Security. His speech
discusses the Transportation Security Administrations regulations and the new security screening
in place at Logan International Airport (BOS). He addresses the TSAs mission to keep all
passengers safe and the thorough examination of luggage and passengers is necessary to uphold
this mission. McLaughlin introduces TSAs pilot program called Screening of Passengers by
Observation Techniques (SPOT) which is passenger screening that began at BOS. This screening
is used to detect behavior of passengers that may be attempting to overthrow the security system.
This document is from a governmental speech and the man speaking on behalf of airline security

Shehata 3

has history of working in that field of study. McLaughlin is the Assistant Administrator of the
Office of Security Operations Department of Homeland Security. It appears he is for the intensified
security that has been set in place since the September 11th attacks. He is promoting an additional
tactic to ensure the safety of all passengers, the SPOT technique. McLaughlin is speaking on behalf
of the TSA to explain the reasons behind the new security and in addition to address the new pilot
-program. After reading this document carefully I feel it will only improve my debatable topic;
specifically for the side of those for to the added security techniques in airports across America. I
trust what McLaughlin is saying as true because of his background knowledge on the TSAs
motives, as well as the SPOT program. The SPOT program he discusses also brings a new aspect
into my paper, and that being the future changes in airport security that has yet to been made.
Seidenstat, Paul. "Terrorism, Airport Security, and the Private Sector."Review of Policy
Research 21.3 (2004): 275-291. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
Paul Seidenstats scholarly peer reviewed article covers important and vital information on
terrorism and airport security. It focuses on the security tactics before September 11th and the
changes that have been made since then. The article also covers information about the cost
effectiveness of the new security that has been put in place. It delves into the problems behind the
old security system as well as the dangers that passengers were facing because the security
screeners were not working at a proficient percentage. Seidenstat continues saying that this was
often due to the inadequate training of the employees who held a job as a security screener. The
amount of training hours was not sufficient to equip the workers with the knowledge of knowing
what to look for when screening bags and passengers. After the attacks of 9/11 and once the TSA
took over airport security across America the TSA had a goal of hiring 54,600 people to work

Shehata 4

solely on screening. Although this was an expensive and drastic change it was needed to create
proper and effective security procedures. Since these changes have been put in place a survey by
Travelocity had results that over 78% of passengers were somewhat or not at all concerned
with flying after September 11th. Seidenstat addresses that there are still issues that airports are
facing today with the security changes. Such as the need for more baggage screeners, thus leading
to airports having unstable financial security, and ultimately getting the results from the
privatization experiment occurring in five airports across America. This article was scholarly peer
reviewed and was published in 2004. The author, Paul Seidenstat specializes in public finance and
management and water management. He often uses economics in his writings to prove a point on
public improvements. Seidenstat is an associate professor at Temple University and teaches
economics. His background provides sufficient information to prove he is educated on what he
speaks about. The article is full of facts and does not appear to be biased at first glance. Paul seems
to seethe good and the bad to the new security and is focused also on what changes will be made
in the future. I realize this article is not extremely current; however, it covers a wide range of
information that is vital to understanding the security changes and the effectiveness of it all. It
appears the author has valuable information about the subject matter and his credentials only
support him. The graphs and charts in the article allowed a visual aid for me to understand costeffectiveness and change over a period of time. The article was laid out in a sequential and proper
manner, broken down with subheadings making it easier to follow the thought process of
Seidenstat. I am confident that this will help me pick out the information I want to use for my
paper and eliminate what would be excess information.

Shehata 5

"The Economist." 20 March 2012. Economist Debates.Web.9 October 2012.

This online newspaper website has contents of a thorough debate between Kip Hawley, the
head of the TSA and Bruce Schneier, a security expert. It had both the opposition and the
proposers thoughts about the reasons behind airport security since September 11th,2001. The
opposing remarks from Bruce Schneier were focused around how the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is working backwards when it comes to airport security. That they are
creating rules based off of previous tactics and strategies that have been attempted before. He
states, Spending billions to force the terrorists to alter their plans in one particular way does not
make us safer. Thus saying between the millions of potential terrorists attacks and targets
predicting an enemys next move is almost impossible. The proposing remarks of Kip Hawley
states that the amplified security for 11 years now is keeping American citizens safer. He proceeds
saying the transition from the outdated security system to the improving security has not been
smooth; however, the transition itself is one that if any terrorist attempts to pass through will not
be successful. He describes the uncertainty of added security procedures during any normal day in
an airport such as canine units, making it clear this was not part of the pre- 9/11 security tactics.
Hawley continues by pointing out that the TSA set out on a mission after the administration was
created called Never Again and this is their daily goal. A goal they are determined not to fail.
It is evident that this source was debate. The website is actually available as a newspaper
and its mission it to provide insight and opinions on international news in a credible way. This
particular online newspaper website provides debatable, current topics and has experts provide
their own opinions on the variety of subjects. The way the website debate works is as follows.
There is a defending and opposing side to the question the moderator asks, and in this case the

Shehata 6

question was have the changes in security after September 11th actually made the situation worse
than before. The two debaters Kip Hawley, on the opposing side and Bruce Scheneir, on the
defending side have been educated on the topic at hand. Hawley is the head of the TSA and
Scheneir is a security expert; therefore, giving the two of them credibility on the debatable issue.
After reading the material on this webpage it has allowed me to see both sides to the airport
security dilemma that is happening in America. It was an easy way of getting a good look into
what both viewpoints have to say about the way airports are handling security. I know I will use
this source in my paper because after reading it I can not necessarily choose which side of the
debate I am for. I am becoming more open minded and am curious now to what Americans feel as
a whole to this dilemma. I have always lived by the saying, It is better to be safe than sorry;
however, I am not confident that the new security is going to maintain Americas safety forever. I
trust what the debating sides are saying because of their credentials and feel as if this source will
only enhance my research.

Shehata 7