 |
| |
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/p...partner=GOOGLEp
quote:
Americans Order Foreign Airlines to Use Marshals
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 30, 2003
Agence France-Presse
Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security, on Monday.
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
Single-Page Format
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Terrorism
Airlines and Airplanes
ASHINGTON, Dec. 29 — Increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorists' hijacking an international flight, the Bush administration issued an emergency order on Monday demanding that foreign airlines place armed air marshals on flights that travel into, out of or over the United States if American officials determine there is a threat.
The move is a significant expansion of American efforts to prevent commercial and cargo flights from being used in terrorist attacks at a time when the administration has raised the nation's terror alert status to "high." In announcing the order, the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, repeated that the alert would remain at "high" at least through the holiday season.
The new system goes into effect immediately for an estimated 800 to 1,000 passenger flights a day that could potentially be required to use air marshals as well as for cargo flights. Although the plan had been under consideration for some time, the administration decided to move ahead with it in large part because of safety concerns raised by the Dec. 24 cancellation of six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles, a senior administration official said.
The French flights were canceled after American officials picked up intelligence indicating that terrorists might try to board and the names of at least a handful of passengers on the flight manifests appeared to match names on American terrorist watch lists, American officials said. The timing of the flights over the holiday and the connection to Los Angeles — often thought to be a potential terrorist target — were also cause for concern, officials said.
French officials have voiced skepticism about the events last week. Still, Mr. Ridge also announced that American and French officials had met on Monday to discuss issues like intelligence sharing and ways to strengthen aviation security. Representatives of the two countries are to meet again in January.
Mr. Ridge said: "Today's meeting is an indication of the importance our mutual governments place on security as well as the need to work together to protect the public from the threat of terrorism."
Under the new American protocol, officials said that if they developed intelligence indicating that a particular flight might be a target of terrorists, as happened last week, they would demand that the foreign airline post armed and trained air marshals, employed by the host government. If the carrier refuses, officials said, the flight could be denied entry into American air space. Hundreds of international cargo transport flights will also be covered by the restrictions, officials said.
"Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of flying to and from a country or even over their airspace," Mr. Ridge said. "So ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have."
American officials would not speculate on how many foreign flights will ultimately be required to post air marshals, saying it would depend on American assessments of risk levels and the intelligence received. Private analysts suggested that only a small part of foreign flights might actually be required to post armed marshals, but the American announcement, and the forcefulness with which it was delivered, received a mixed, sometimes frosty reception from allies and foreign airlines.
In Britain, where handguns are banned and even many police officers do not carry weapons, the transportation agency said earlier this week that armed marshals might be required on some British carriers. But it emphasized in a statement on Monday that "only the U.K. can authorize the placing of air marshals on U.K. carriers."
The British Air Line Pilots Association said arms did not belong on aircraft, and British Airways, the country's biggest airline, said it reserved the right not to fly if it was forced to add air marshals. "We have received the request for the deployment of cover capabilities on flights," an official with the airline said. "Only if British Airways was satisfied that safety was enhanced would that flight take off." |
There's a second page too.
I don't like it. It's awfully cheap, and it seems like a slippery slope. Today it's just airlines. But who knows? Tomorrow it might be an full embargo on nations that refuse to, say, disclose all intelligence info. or something. 
(My FIRST response was "Wtf!? We can even do that!?" but I didn't realise it would be based on airspace denial, before reading the article.)
It's going to result in less flights to and from the country, and that means travelers will be pissed off, and tourism on both sides of the Atlantic (and to and from those other continents too) will probably suffer for it. AFAIcan tell.
EDIT: Fixed a URL and changed the icon (I had a different title at first which led me to the : cool : Message Icon.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
This isn't an inordinate step. And I don't see how its a slippery slope- they're just tightening up security a bit. |
Maybe I just get worried too much. Then again, it's definitely NOT something we should lead ourselves to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
I'd be a lot happier if they used some non-penetrating weapons.
I certainly hope that 'armed' can be interpreted to mean something other than guns.
Dart guns, electric stun guns, chemical sprays, high-frequency sound devices, there's lot's of stuff that can be used.
A 9mm bullet can easily pass through the human body with enough force to penetrate a passenger window. |
Bush is from texas. I'm sure they all have .44 magnums. the most powerful handgun known to man.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
A 9mm bullet can easily pass through the human body with enough force to penetrate a passenger window. |
I know that the marshalls should be armed with special bullets that are designed not to be as effective penetrators, this is what is done in the US. I'm not certain of whether they are capable of penetrating a window. I do think some Europeans are getting very unreasonably worried about this though, the US air marshall program has been in place since the 1970's and I've never read about any inciddent involving a gun depresurizing anything. While the risk may go up in the event of an actual terrorist hijacking, this is already an inherent dangerous situation.
They definately would not ordinarily be put on every flight, but randomly assigned to create the possibility of one being on board as something hijackers would have to worry about. They also would be likely to put on any flights that the government is worried about due to intelligence information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I predict that we will invent inertial damping and then create enormous cannons from which we fire huge shells that unfold into planes w/ ppl inside them.
then u glide the entire way to ur destination!
the future kicks ass.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2003 09:09
).
)
|