"I have undergone a 10 year history and background check. For me to pass through security while uniformed and appropriately badged is repetitious and unnecessary."
I have undergone the same checks, many times. I've received clearances as well as simply undergoing the checks. I've been fingerprinted, and even conducted checks myself at one time. I've had investigators call old girlfriends, visit former landlords. If you think the little ten year check you submitted is comprehensive, think again. In my case, I've been given the proverbial finger. However, even with all of that, there is substantial background which hasn't even been covered by these investigators.
The fact is that your background check is conducted by the company. You haven't undergone a real check. You've been signed off the the company, with the company stating that they did the check. In most all cases this involves sending notifications to former employers. Perhaps a sweep of your state BCI records, and in cases that are red flagged, a III check and NCIC check may have been warranted (but these are rare). The bottom line is that the current checks don't mean much; that you have a "ten year check" means very little, in fact.
Locally, some two hundred SIDA employees were arrested a week ago after it was determined that they had criminal histories, were illegal aliens, and a host of other undisclosed background concerns. In every case, these individuals were employed by major airlines, the airport authority or city, and other firms approved to conduct these checks.
So should your check allow you unfettered access to a secure area? Not hardly. It doesn't make you special, and it says nothing about you after the time you were checked. Further, ANY security clearance of substance is time limited. That means that people who really hold clearances must undergo full background checks periodically, as the clearances expire. A given is that people do get turned, do go bad. That someone passed a check once only speaks to what is known about their past; it says nothing of who they are now.
Following your logic, after a phase or annual inspection, the airplane should be good to go. Why preflight or check it over...after all, it's already been checked. As pilots we know the absurdity of such a statement. Anyone who understands the least iota of security understands the absurdity of allowing a badged person through a security perimiter, simply because they've been "checked." It doesn't wash.
"Name one other industry where you are subjected to as much scrutiny by just reporting to work. Another big difference is that the passenger can refuse the search and leave the airport. I can do neither. "
Name one industry? How about hundreds of them? Any industry involving security. Workers in gold and diamond mines are subjected to searches entering and leaving the premisis. Anyone entering onto a miliary facility is subject to search at any time, civillian or not. Anyone entering into a federal facility, or most state facilities, is subject to the same. Anyone entering into a facility so posted is subject to the same.
You can't refuse the search and leave the airport? Sure you can. You may lose your job, just as the passenger may lose his or her ticket, and may become the target of an investigation, but yes, you can. That's your right. Complain to your employer. The complaint will fall on deaf ears; they know the search is necessary, even if you don't.
One former civil employer for whom I flew required all employees to sign a statement of understanding that included among other things, the understanding that the employee was subject to surveillance at any time, and in any form. If you read the small print, you may be surprised to find that this isn't an uncommon clause; I've seen it before, and if you work long enough to get a little experience in the industry, it's material you'll see again, too.
"I suspect you have ulterior motives here. "
The suspense is killing me. What might they be?
"Re-read the Bill of Rights, specifically the part about protection from unreasonable search and seizure."
I suspect you speak of the fourth ammendment, which states:
Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Upon what interpretation or case law do you base a security screening in a common area (read: public) on the security perimeter of an airport to be an infringement of the fourth ammendment? Can you cite the reference, or determine what has been unreasonably siezed?
Unreasonable search has been held to mean without probable cause (broadly defined in case law, by the way), or in lieu thereof, without warrant. Aside from the fact that recently armed terrorists have taken down two of the worlds largest high-rises, several thousand souls, and four fully packed airliners, what probable cause might you deem necessary to establish these security measures?
You may also look to the constitution and follow that to the Aviation Act of 1958 which created the FAA, which requires many of these measures. These measures are constitutionally grounded, and though I certainly don't wish to fill pages with information you should already know and understand as a federally certificated pilot, we can. But you know this already.
There is no unreasonable search and siezure. You may have some shred of evidence that dictates otherwise, and perhaps you can present that before the courts to get the law amended in your favor. If you're in the right in such a presumptious statement, then you owe it to the citizenery of this great nation to take that step. Are you up to it?
If you think the simply proceedures in effect now are onerous, then wait until the more sweeping measures just recently drafted through the government take effect.
As for being unable to walk away from a screening checkpoint; yes you can. However, by evading the ckeckpoint or leaving, you may be deemed to act suspicious. If you act suspicious, or give reason to believe that your actions appear suspicious, you may be searched regardless, and this fits clearly within the scope of reasonable search. It would appear that submitting to a search, by choice or by force within the terminal and SIDA, is reasonable, and should be expected. Play it how you will, but submit, you will.
There have been cases of military operations in the past to foriegn lands to block the flow of drugs. In several cases, the personnel returning acted as mules to bring drugs into the United States. Ironic, huh? Who would have expected it? Give people enough incentive, enough money, threaten their family, or catch them in enough hot water to put on some pressure, and people will do strange things. Have you done anything that someone could use against you? That won't come up in a security screening, most likely, but it can come up in a real investigation by the "bad guys," who won't hesitate to use it against you.
It only takes one person to fold. Something simple. You may not agree to let hand grenades on board. But one pilot may be coerced into carrying something, doing something. It's happened in the past. It can happen in the future. Pilots are not saints. Pilots lie on income taxes like many other people. Pilots have extramarital affairs. Pilots love their children enough that they may do something seemingly innocent to protect them, under threat of torture or death. Pilots are human beings, in other words, subject to the same temptations and pressures that all individuals are. Do you think you are better than those moving through the terminal to sit in the back of the airplane, simply because you sit in the front?
What of flight attendants? What of mechanics, cleaners, and others? If those posessing SIDA identifications were simply allowed to pass, of the hundreds of thousands of crewmembers out there, isn't it possible that just one could be turned? And then what? All that one person need do is secure something aboard the airplane for a connecting passenger to obtain. You probably know the drill, or you should.
NOBODY enters the secure area without being subject to search, or other precautions as determined to be necessary. That applies to crews as to passengers. The system doesn't work unless EVERYBODY plays. Does that make any sense? It's dirt simple. It can't not make sense.
