Review of the economist debate on airport security: post September 2011 bombings

Abstract

This paper is a review of the Economist debate held on March 20, 2012. Central to the debate is the motion that, “Airport security measures instituted in response to the September 11,2001 terrorist bombings of Towers in USA have done more harm to humankind than good.’ A tripod framework delimiting the review of this debate has been adopted. The review framework will take a pictorial / helicopter’s observational position as its first review position. The moderator, two protagonists’ and the audience’s participation will be viewed from a flat and even platform. This part of the framework will offer not only an even visibility review position but rather a pH 7 treatment of the views of all participants. A mirror / reflective observational position will be the second review position. This position will enable the review process to establish; how far from the principles of argumentation was the debate under review handled and with what conformity the pillars of valid arguments such as issues, claims, reasons, inferences, warrants and conclusions were put across. The third review position will be investigative in nature. Some investigation into the views of protagonists’ definitions of issue(s), key meanings of key words and phrases, claims, validity and credibility of reasons supporting conclusions will need some investigative treatment using data triangulation methods. It will also be prudent to investigate  whether or not all issues were addressed and  whether the conclusions drawn are in any way  converging at co-ordinate zero (0) of the motion. That is, whether or not the conclusions answer the original questions (issue/s).