This summary provides an overview of the document, which appears to be an annotated bibliography written by Jerica Knox for an English class. The bibliography includes summaries of five sources that Knox will use for a research paper on airport security. The sources evaluate whether security measures are effective at preventing terrorist threats on planes and in airports. One source criticizes the Department of Homeland Security for failing to adequately protect infrastructure. Another argues new legislation has not improved security and expresses doubt about the ability to fully secure borders. A film segment discusses how explosives can evade x-ray detection. The bibliography demonstrates Knox has selected sources from diverse formats to incorporate differing viewpoints in her evaluation of airport security.

1. Knox 1
Jerica Knox
Professor Alicia Bolton
English 101
November 8, 2012
Annotated Bibliography: Steven Casey's “Signal Detection”
Since 9/11, the standard way of thinking about airport security is that it is strict. From the
searching of luggage to going through scanners, passengers believe security would not let the slightest
questionable person on board. However, in Steven Casey's “Signal Detection”, a suspected terrorist
was allowed to ride the American Airlines. He, Richard Reid, carried no clothes and a passport that
seemed to be missing a few pages. Although alarms for this man were going off left and right, security
allowed him to get on the plane, putting everyone in danger. Reid, a declared terrorist who was loyal to
Osama bin Laden, attempted to light a shoe bomb and if it weren't for the flight attendants and a few
passengers, their lives could all be gone right now.
There are others out there that are just as smart and capable as Reid, if not more. If Reid was
allowed to get on the American Airlines, then so could other terrorists. Some may actually succeed and
this would be truly sad because airport securities could prevent this. The lives of sisters, brothers, and
other family and friends are at stake. Although terrorism is a threat, and security has attempted to
improve, we can all agree, there should be better precautions for terrorists who plan to destroy the
innocent lives of people. This may mean taking a longer time in line and the criticism of
discrimination at some point, but it serves a purpose to keep everyone's lives as safe as possible. My
research paper will inform citizens that they should not be so comfortable with the safety of America.
My research paper will reflect on this bibliography, which serves as the basis for my research.
Claybrook, Joan. “Homeland Security is a Failure.” At Issue: National Security. Ed. David M. Haugen.
New York: Greenhaven Press, 2008. 68-75. Print.

2. Knox 2
The anthology, National Security, by David Haugen offers different viewpoints on National
Security. In particular, “Homeland Security is a Failure,” by Joan Claybrook, clearly states that
Americans are not safer today as a result of legislation after the 2001 attacks. She bluntly argues that
there has not been enough done to protect American soil and that Americans are ignorant of this fact:
“Amidst all the claims of government action to protect against terrorism, most citizens are completely
unaware that little has been done to protect our sensitive and critical infrastructure from real threats to
communities across America” (Haugen 69). This fact is widely unknown, and because of this, the
government is doing little to nothing to protect citizens from potentially harmful terrorist attacks.
Claybrook goes on to evaluate the transportation systems and how they are under attack. These
transport vehicles are targets of terrorists because they can do much harm and protection is slim.
This anthology was published merely 4 years ago, in 2008. Not much time has passed since
then, and, unfortunately, security lingers as it has been. Lawyer, Joan Claybrook, is the former
president of Public Citizen. This organization is based in Washington, D.C which advocated for the
public interest. Claybrook has also formerly served as the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration during the Jimmy Carter administration. Therefore, she is a trustworthy source with
much experience dealing with the security of America.
Claybrook topic of homeland security being a failure is exactly what my research paper is
about. It will be easy to use her inside my paper. She is completely against national security, as she
clearly states, “the answer is a resounding no,” (Haugen 69) in the anthology. Claybrook includes a
section all about transportation systems and how they are vulnerable. Because this is what I am talking
about in my research paper to some extent, I can take advantage of this. She describes what has been
done since the 2001 attacks and concludes that it just is not enough. All of this can be used in my
paper.
Katel, Peter. "Homeland Security." CQ Researcher 19.6 (2009): 129-52. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.

3. Knox 3
This article, by Peter Katel, evaluates national security following the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. It begins by explaining how the U.S government, since then, has created the
Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to prevent terrorist attacks. Although former
President, George W. Bush gave credit to this action step, the article goes on to say that there are
arguments that the new department has failed to do its duty: “The huge and diverse department wins
little praise for organization (Katel 135). The article criticizes the new department for leaving out
certain agencies, both on membership and vital information. Potential new attacks still remain. Katel
also argues that the resources of the Homeland Security are not being used in the right places. From all
of this, Katel concludes that Americans should learn to live with the possibility of terrorist threats
instead of being completely secure in the safety of America.
This article was written a couple years ago, in 2009. Katel is not just a random person with an
opinion. He is a veteran journalist who previously served as a bureau chief for Time magazine. He has
had experience for public opinion, working as a reported for 11 years for several non-governmental
organizations, including International Social Service and The World Bank. Katel has several awards
under his belt. Furthermore, he is also a graduate of the University of New Mexico in University
studies. Katel has, therefore, heard his share of opposing views on homeland security. He is credible
because, inside the article, he collected the opinions of several experienced security people, such as
Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer.
This article will prove to be useful in my paper because it gets the opinions of many
experienced, important people in relation to homeland security. I can use this to my advantage.
Because of the various opinions, my paper will seem much more open-minded. Plus, it will make me
seem better-rounded. Katel includes an opposing view which I can then use for my counterargument to
make my paper stronger and seem more reliable.
Marshall, Patrick. "Policing the Borders." CQ Researcher 12.7 (2002): 145-68. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.

4. Knox 4
In Marshall’s article, “Policing the Borders,” he explains what areas are monitored by security
agencies to keep America safe from terrorism. Monitoring includes both land and sea, the millions of
non-citizens that visit each year, and vehicles. However, Marshall goes on to criticize security: “But
experts disagree over with security steps would be most cost-effective and least disruptive to trade and
Americans’ daily lives.” Securities resources are not being properly used for the right thing. With this
being said, Marshall argues that it is difficult to guard the borders of America without problems rising.
Although President Bush created the Homeland Security to coordinate national strategy against terrorist
attacks, “policy experts say the office largely depends upon presidential coattails for influence, because
it has no direct authority over any of the agencies involved in protecting the borders and very little
experience in dealing with the issues” (Marshall 152). This puts a hole in this new security strategy.
Without proper authority, this agency cannot deal with the issues it is supposed to be addressing.
This article was written only some years ago, in 2002, and Patrick Marshall is no stranger to
research. He is a freelance writer who writes about public policy and technology issues. Like my other
sources, Marshall has taken the opportunity of getting other people’s opinion on his topic. For
example, he has taken advantage of using David Masci, who specializes in social policy and foreign
affairs. This only adds to Marshall’s credibility, and in turn, mine. By using other opinions he has
received, he makes himself seem more credible which will then help me along the way.
I can incorporate Marshall’s article in my research paper by explaining what he has said about
the Homeland Security. He criticized it for not having an effective chain of command, and because of
this, it is not able to function properly. I can also use this article by using some of the opinions
mentioned in it. Going back to what I said about the opinions making Marshall reliable, I can also use
this to give me the same credibility. Moving on, Marshall mentioned recommendations in the article
about a tighter security. I can use these to my advantage. I, too, am recommending ideas for a tighter
security, and with his, I can create my own.

5. Knox 5
Outsmarting Terror. “Airport/Airplane Security.” Films Media Group, 2006. Films on Demand. Web.
06 November 2012. <http://storm.hgtc.edu:2048/login?url=http://digital.films.com/
PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=3503&xtid=40808&loid=90555>
In Outsmarting Terror, the film question if high-tech weapons and defense systems can really
outsmart the world’s leading terrorists. The film looks at innovations being created for security
purposes. Such innovations include guns that shoot around corners and robots that detect and disarm
explosives. Specifically, the segment I will use in my research paper, “Airport/Airplane Security,” talks
about the story that was mentioned in Signal Detection, with Richard Reid. The segment goes on to
say that explosives can easily be taken through security, manipulating its way on to planes.
This film is a National Geographic production, which automatically proves its credibility. It
talks about real life technologies and shows actual proof of it. Since this film is scholarly, it is already
proven to be reliable.
I can use this film in my research project by reiterating what it says about x-rays not being
enough these days. It has been said that “...in the modern war of terror, x-ray isn't enough. It can't tell
the difference between a bar of chocolate and a chunk of TNT” (Outsmarting Terror, “Airport/Airplane
Security”). This information is very crucial to my paper because it shows that x-rays are definitely not
as a effective as they used to be when they first appeared years ago. This proves that while technology
is not improving, terrorists are. Terrorists learn new tricks that can easily manipulate the standard
safety measures of x-rays.
Wallis, Rodney. How Safe are our Skies?: Assessing the Airlines Response to Terrorism. Praeger, 2003.
eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 6 Nov. 2012.
Former Director of Security, International Air Transport Association, Rodney Wallis wrote the
book How Safe are our Skies?: Assessing the Airlines Response to Terrorism. Wallis talks about
security issues and assesses the international and U.S domestic air travel. Along with this, he addresses
the legislation made after the September 11, 2001 attacks. One particular thing Wallis mentioned

6. Knox 6
referred to the President signing a new aviation law: “President George W. Bush signed into law the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, believing it ‘should give all American’s greater confidence
when they fly.’ New aviation laws hadn’t achieved their objectives in the past, and those who listened
to the president’s words were entitled to wonder if they would do so on this occasion” (Wallis 30).
This law simply required bags to be screened. However, Wallis goes on to say that bags had previously
been screened as well when terrorists’ attacks had been carried out. It is an evaluation, and also a
recommendation; as Wallis goes on to give out his own ideas for a new security.
This book was published only 9 years ago, in 2003. Wallis has, therefore, had enough time to
evaluate the airport security since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wallis is very credible, being that he
is the former Director of Security in the International Air Transport Association. No one could be more
reliable than him. He has looked at both opposing views of the security system, whether it is an
effective approach or a dangerous one. Because of this, he makes himself seem open-minded, which in
turn makes him even more credible.
Since I am writing about the evaluation of airport security, this book will be the perfect start to my
research. By using this book, I am getting information from the former top dog himself. Therefore,
this will make me more reliable and easier to persuade readers of my evaluation. I will consider both
possibilities of security—the good and bad—just as Wallis has. Specifically, I will be using chapter 3
to show how the security has not improved much since the 2001 attacks. Wallis shows in detail proof
of this and examples to go along. This will surely help in the development of my paper.