I don’t mind necessary evils. I object to the unnecessary ones.

In the same vein, I don’t object to the idea of greater airport security after Sept. 11. I was certainly willing to give up a little time and convenience for a greater assurance that the next Mohammed Atta was not on my flight. I was willing to pack my shaving razors and nail clippers in my checked luggage rather than my carry-on. I was willing to submit to random luggage searches, metal-detector sweeps, putting my shoes through the x-ray conveyor and even bomb-sniffing dogs. Like almost everyone else, I thought they were necessary evils.

But seeing firsthand the security process last weekend at three different airports — the miniature Dane County Regional in Madison, the mammoth O’Hare International in Chicago and the infamous Logan International in Boston — I have changed my mind. The new security measures are not only a serious inconvenience, but they are in many ways unnecessary and arbitrary; they provide a semblance of greater security without really adding to it.

To begin, I’ll look at the smallest of the three, Dane County Regional. Security there was not noticeably different than previously, save the presence of a few uniformed members of the National Guard. I can’t quite pinpoint why they find the need to wear camouflage in an airport — if they want to be hidden, they should paint their uniforms in ugly plaster.

Dane County Regional did do away with the pointless 60-second car searches it performed in the first few months after Sept. 11 (even if people wanted to bomb an empty parking ramp, would they put the bomb in such a visible place that a cursory glance over the car would reveal it?), and almost no one was stopped for random searches.

I did not have to go through the security process at O’Hare, but I could see that it had stepped up security somewhat. More people were stopped for random searches than usual, and there were more security guards milling about. But neither Dane County nor O’Hare could prepare me for what I saw at Logan.

Logan bore the brunt of the blame for security failure on Sept. 11, with critics citing its lax security as the reason terrorists chose to hijack two planes from there. I predicted procedures would be tighter there. But I was not ready for this.

I could not see the security checkpoint from the beginning of the line, which stretched 40 yards. An hour and one I.D. check from a camouflaged military police officer later, I was at the front – and immediately got the feeling that I had stumbled into the prisoners’ inspection line for monthly visits. The x-ray belt constantly stopped and started, moved back and forth, amid frequent orders of “step over there while he inspects your bag.”

The passengers’ faces conveyed a mix of fear and annoyance — mostly fear. The National Guard troops, again in camouflage but this time with machine-gun rounds around their shoulders, did nothing to alleviate this. I can see the reason for them to carry nightsticks or even guns, but seriously, are these guys going to get into a prolonged shoot-out in the middle of a crowded airport?

With my white skin and boring clothing, I got through security without a second glance. Not so for those who did not fit my stereotypically “American” profile. As I waited for my flight at the gate next to the security checkpoint, I saw every single person who looked even somewhat foreign, provided they did not have families, get picked for luggage and full-body searches with a metal detector. Some white people had to do this too, but half of them looked and dressed like they came from Europe rather than here.

The profiling might, on some rational level, be excused because the devastating attacks of Sept. 11 were carried out entirely by people of foreign origin. But the fact that these searches took place in the middle of the concourse, in plain view of everyone, is simply disgraceful.

I saw more than a hundred of these searches, since my plane was delayed for an hour while every passenger transferring to my flight from another airline had to be fully searched due to some obscure FAA rule. Once we were in line to board, there were more random searches. Theoretically, some of these people could have been searched four times in one trip with a single layover.

Of course, all this added security may prevent another Sept. 11; but then again, so would the non-invasive measure of strong cockpit doors and a policy that they must remain locked at all times. If this is true, if terrorists cannot get into the cockpit without blowing a hole in the plane, then the need for airplane security is no different than the need for security on a train.

Logan’s extreme measures do little good anyway — the U.S. airport security system is only as strong as its weakest link. A terrorist need only go through an airport with lesser security, hop a flight to Boston and avoid the stern-looking guys with machine-gun rounds altogether.

I do not wish to belittle the security guards and the job they do; they take their duties very seriously, and everyone should be proud of their desire to increase the feeling of security. But it is only a feeling that they create and policy goes overboard in creating it.

The terrorist attacks exposed major flaws in the security system and thousands paid the tragic consequences. But these weaknesses should have been addressed as simply and easily as possible with necessary evils, rather than taking care of the necessary and piling on a stack of unnecessary ones.

Matt Lynch is a junior majoring in English and political science.