Stricter Airline Security-Affirmative argument Over the past five months, airline and airport security has been in the news almost daily. The events on and since September 11 have completely changed the viewpoints of many Americans, as well as the world, concerning airline security. Between the 18 suicide hijackers to Richard "the shoe bomber" Reid and the many other terrorists that lurk in the world, flying is definitely not as safe as it once was. I strongly believe that security in airports should be much more strict than it is now, even if it infringes on the people's right to privacy. The last part of that statement is the point of clash for many people because they strongly believe in privacy rights. Before I get to why there should be stricter airport security, I will define a few the main terms in this debate. First of all, stricter security calls for a more systematic, more careful searching of passengers, bags and airplanes for contraband items, like guns, knifes, explosives and anything that could be used as a weapon. I will go into more detail later about different practices to give airports stricter security. Another crucial part of this debate that perplexes many people is the phrase, "right to privacy." Rights to privacy can be defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by the government, the media or other institutions or individuals. Article IV of the Bill of Rights states that "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Airline security has always been a very important issue, but the significance has multiplied exponentially since the September 11th terrorist attacks. On that horrific day, 18 men breeched the security of 4 different airports and planes with weapons like box cutters in their carry-on bags. These men did not have any other luggage with the...