Armed Sky Marshals on Some UK Flights
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 14 pages of going round in circles we find that roughly 50%
agree and 50% do not agree. Does that really surprise anyone? A trans
atlantic divide?
Well that's fine the US will do what they think needs to be done. End of story.
So where does the would be terrorist goes from here?
Is it only me that remembers the blood bath in the Amsterdam Terminal
departures hall following a Bader Meinhof visit?
If the travelling public are getting screamish now, if a Terminal
bloodbath occurred again, and again and again, that would make all these
impregnable aircraft redundant, as there would be few customers, few
airlines and only ground (not sky) marshals, left to protect them as
they bake in desert storage.
Why go for the aircraft (yes it is dramatic) when there are many, many
other opportunities on the ground, and not just at airports.
The end result will be the same: it's hardly rocket science, is it?
agree and 50% do not agree. Does that really surprise anyone? A trans
atlantic divide?
Well that's fine the US will do what they think needs to be done. End of story.
So where does the would be terrorist goes from here?
Is it only me that remembers the blood bath in the Amsterdam Terminal
departures hall following a Bader Meinhof visit?
If the travelling public are getting screamish now, if a Terminal
bloodbath occurred again, and again and again, that would make all these
impregnable aircraft redundant, as there would be few customers, few
airlines and only ground (not sky) marshals, left to protect them as
they bake in desert storage.
Why go for the aircraft (yes it is dramatic) when there are many, many
other opportunities on the ground, and not just at airports.
The end result will be the same: it's hardly rocket science, is it?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM.. That advert's a worry really.
It sems that these Marshalls will be employed by a private company, sub contracted to either the goverment or the airlines. So very little accountability, the ad appeared in a Forces Retirment magazine, so the majority of applicants will be from the forces. That in its self is OK, but where does there experience of reading situations come? The forces way of doing things is fairly clear cut, and the way to deal with it follows rigid guide lines, as serveral incidents in NI have shown. The Police may or may not have the same experience of weapons training, but from what I have seen have better people skills and much more expeience of dealing with confrontational situations. Both of these skills take a long time to learn, and as very little of what the advert says these SM's will do involves terrorists I can foresee a few very nasty incidnets coming up.
At the end of the day the goverment and or the US have decided that we will have them. I don't like the idea, nor do a large number of people here. But if we are going to have to have them then they should be from the right background and employer, not a private company.
It sems that these Marshalls will be employed by a private company, sub contracted to either the goverment or the airlines. So very little accountability, the ad appeared in a Forces Retirment magazine, so the majority of applicants will be from the forces. That in its self is OK, but where does there experience of reading situations come? The forces way of doing things is fairly clear cut, and the way to deal with it follows rigid guide lines, as serveral incidents in NI have shown. The Police may or may not have the same experience of weapons training, but from what I have seen have better people skills and much more expeience of dealing with confrontational situations. Both of these skills take a long time to learn, and as very little of what the advert says these SM's will do involves terrorists I can foresee a few very nasty incidnets coming up.
At the end of the day the goverment and or the US have decided that we will have them. I don't like the idea, nor do a large number of people here. But if we are going to have to have them then they should be from the right background and employer, not a private company.
Better by far, surely, to infringe people's personal freedom, liberty etc. by rigorous screening, X-ray checks and meaningful body/hand baggage searches than to deliberately introduce weapons into the aircraft cabin?
When terrorists are willing to die it's easy to think of scenarios in which one or two of a group could be used to provoke a reaction from the Sky Marshalls, who, once identified, might be easy for the remaining hi-jackers to deal with.
When terrorists are willing to die it's easy to think of scenarios in which one or two of a group could be used to provoke a reaction from the Sky Marshalls, who, once identified, might be easy for the remaining hi-jackers to deal with.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko I tend to agree. Witness the recent case of an Air Marshall arresting a drunk female passenger. Why did he come forward and reveal himself?
It has been suggested here that the Marshalls shall work in teams on 'certain' flights. It is argued that this might be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a hijacking.
Just a couple of questions:
How many marshallers would a team comprise of?
What is a sufficient ratios of 'Marshalled' flights to 'unmarshalled' flights to successfully intimidate would be terrorists?
If we assume working conditions better than the average airline pilot ( they could hardly be worse! ) and considering how horrendousy boring a 50 hour week as a passenger would be that is reasonable, this leaves us as follows:
Lets say 4 to a team and 10% of flights marshalled ( which is hardly a deterrent ) you are taking about the number of marshalls possibly becoming as high as 25-30% of the number of commercial pilots in the UK! If you want 20% or higher marshalled the number is much higher.
This raises more questions, some of which have already been asked here:
If there are 2000 air marshalls can any government or private agency give a 100% guarantee that none of them will have any links or sympathies with a terrorist organisation ever? Because if the answer is anything less than 100% we will now have given the terrorist a gun on board, something the 911 mob didn't manage.
With the drastic increase in marshalls worldwide the likelihood of mistakes will also increase, particularly in societies that most people have never even seen a handgun. What is the liability of the Commander who will have allowed the handgun on board?
To me this is sadly just a political stunt. Very media friendly but not thought through.
If the States want them in their jurisdiction that's fine but why should they be allowed ram their ideas down the throats of other countries?
It has been suggested here that the Marshalls shall work in teams on 'certain' flights. It is argued that this might be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a hijacking.
Just a couple of questions:
How many marshallers would a team comprise of?
What is a sufficient ratios of 'Marshalled' flights to 'unmarshalled' flights to successfully intimidate would be terrorists?
If we assume working conditions better than the average airline pilot ( they could hardly be worse! ) and considering how horrendousy boring a 50 hour week as a passenger would be that is reasonable, this leaves us as follows:
Lets say 4 to a team and 10% of flights marshalled ( which is hardly a deterrent ) you are taking about the number of marshalls possibly becoming as high as 25-30% of the number of commercial pilots in the UK! If you want 20% or higher marshalled the number is much higher.
This raises more questions, some of which have already been asked here:
If there are 2000 air marshalls can any government or private agency give a 100% guarantee that none of them will have any links or sympathies with a terrorist organisation ever? Because if the answer is anything less than 100% we will now have given the terrorist a gun on board, something the 911 mob didn't manage.
With the drastic increase in marshalls worldwide the likelihood of mistakes will also increase, particularly in societies that most people have never even seen a handgun. What is the liability of the Commander who will have allowed the handgun on board?
To me this is sadly just a political stunt. Very media friendly but not thought through.
If the States want them in their jurisdiction that's fine but why should they be allowed ram their ideas down the throats of other countries?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that this might be for an airline's internal security. Not the Federal Skymarshals that would be provided by the government. I could be wrong though.
The numbers of skymarshals required for 100 percent coverage will always be staggering and therefor impossible. The best you can hope for is to cover the high threat flights combined with good intel.
Canceling the flights outright probably isn't the best solution either as it hands them a win (economic disruption) at no cost to the terrorist, plus they are still available to hijack another flight...
Tough situation when a hijacking can no longer be tolerated (it WAS tolerated before)
Cheers
Wino
The numbers of skymarshals required for 100 percent coverage will always be staggering and therefor impossible. The best you can hope for is to cover the high threat flights combined with good intel.
Canceling the flights outright probably isn't the best solution either as it hands them a win (economic disruption) at no cost to the terrorist, plus they are still available to hijack another flight...
Tough situation when a hijacking can no longer be tolerated (it WAS tolerated before)
Cheers
Wino
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
Finally something I think we can agree on.
While no country could claim to be used to terrorism on the scale of 911 there are many countries ( especially the UK ) that have had active terrorist cells for years. The object of these cells was always maximum disruption which gains maximum media coverage. Despite the enormous loss of life the same could be said of 911.
I agree when you say cancelling flights hands a victory to the terrorists and also agree when you say it is no cost to the terrorists. They get worldwide media coverage yet again and lose nothing.
I just don't accept that skymarshalls will have even the slightest impact on the situation. Consider that Heathrow had 460,000 movements in 2000 and imagine how many movements there are internally in the States, it is impossible to guarantee the level of security that the government are suggesting. What good would a marshall have been in Lockerbie other than creating another grieving family?
The removal of the causes of terrorism is the only solution but that's another story...
While no country could claim to be used to terrorism on the scale of 911 there are many countries ( especially the UK ) that have had active terrorist cells for years. The object of these cells was always maximum disruption which gains maximum media coverage. Despite the enormous loss of life the same could be said of 911.
I agree when you say cancelling flights hands a victory to the terrorists and also agree when you say it is no cost to the terrorists. They get worldwide media coverage yet again and lose nothing.
I just don't accept that skymarshalls will have even the slightest impact on the situation. Consider that Heathrow had 460,000 movements in 2000 and imagine how many movements there are internally in the States, it is impossible to guarantee the level of security that the government are suggesting. What good would a marshall have been in Lockerbie other than creating another grieving family?
The removal of the causes of terrorism is the only solution but that's another story...
If HMG had the balls to say: "No guns on UK registered aircraft, wherever they fly", then the USG would presumably ban UK aircraft from entering or operating in US air space. It's unlikely that HMG would then have the balls to impose a reciprocal ban by saying "no guns on board any civil aircraft operating in UK airspace'. It's a stand-off and the USA has the muscle to insist on its way, I guess.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreign carriers have been flying ACM's or Sky Marshalls into the UK for years and the Met police have been holding their weapons secure whilst they are og UK. Your arguement is pointless.
My my FEBA, so you use your customary courtesy here as well as on Mil Aircrew?
God forbid that anyone should change an established policy, or that anyone should offer a 'pointless' argument by suggesting such a change.....
God forbid that anyone should change an established policy, or that anyone should offer a 'pointless' argument by suggesting such a change.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dispute over marshals canceled flight
Same British Airways flight under scrutiny for four days
WASHINGTON (CNN) --A dispute between the British pilots' union and the British government over armed marshals -- not security concerns -- led to the cancellation of Friday's British Airways flight from London to Washington, a Bush administration official said Saturday.
Flight 223 has been the subject of intense scrutiny for four days.
Saturday's flight was delayed 3.5 hours at the request of U.S. security officials who wanted more information about it, airline officials said. It landed without incident at 9:13 p.m.
Thursday's flight was canceled because of security concerns, according to British and U.S. officials. On Wednesday, it was escorted to Washington's Dulles International Airport by U.S. fighter jets.
The officials said intelligence from an informant and other sources involving the flight number suggested the flight could be a terrorist target.
A Bush administration official said the flight was canceled Friday because of a dispute between the British Air Line Pilots Association and the British government over carrying armed marshals on flights.
The British government recently announced it would require armed undercover marshals on some international flights.
The union opposes the rule, saying flying with armed marshals is dangerous. The group says the money should instead be spent on improving ground security.
The union said pilots agreed that if a credible threat were to emerge for one of their flights, they would cancel rather than fly with a marshal aboard.
The group said the dispute was the reason Fight 223 was canceled both days. The U.S. administration official said the dispute contributed to only Friday's cancellation.
The United States and Britain were prepared to allow the flight to take off, but pilots refused to travel with a marshal aboard, the official said.
Flight 223 was disrupted for the fourth time on Saturday. The flight ultimately took off several hours late.
It was not announced whether Saturday's flight had a marshal aboard. The British government has said it will not announce which flights carry marshals.
The pilots union has begun talks with airlines to reach agreements on allowing marshals aboard trans-Atlantic flights.
One airline -- Virgin Airways -- signed a deal with the British government Wednesday.
The agreement calls for the marshal to be introduced to the pilot and other crew members, and for the marshal's weapon to be approved.
It also states that marshals be former members of a police force, that their training program will be approved by the union, and that the flight captain remains the ultimate authority.
Several other international flights also have been affected in the past two days by the security concerns, but none more so than Flight 223. (Full story)
U.S. officials said there was some question about the credibility of the intelligence information, which they said had nothing to do with the passenger list but focused instead on the flight number. Still, they said the U.S. government would not take chances.
Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for border and transportation security, said Friday that such cancellations of international flights would not take place without "specific intelligence" indicating a possible attack.
"We make the judgments based upon the security measures that are in place, the risk that's assessed, coordination with the other government -- and I think we've made some really good decisions," he said.
Hutchinson would not elaborate on the intelligence.
Administration officials said Saturday that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge spoke with British Home Secretary David Blunkett on Friday about how to expedite the scrutiny of passenger manifests and minimize inconvenience to passengers.
The officials said the phone call lasted about 20 minutes and was "very productive."
[Yessir, I understand now, perfectly...]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...cel/index.html
Same British Airways flight under scrutiny for four days
WASHINGTON (CNN) --A dispute between the British pilots' union and the British government over armed marshals -- not security concerns -- led to the cancellation of Friday's British Airways flight from London to Washington, a Bush administration official said Saturday.
Flight 223 has been the subject of intense scrutiny for four days.
Saturday's flight was delayed 3.5 hours at the request of U.S. security officials who wanted more information about it, airline officials said. It landed without incident at 9:13 p.m.
Thursday's flight was canceled because of security concerns, according to British and U.S. officials. On Wednesday, it was escorted to Washington's Dulles International Airport by U.S. fighter jets.
The officials said intelligence from an informant and other sources involving the flight number suggested the flight could be a terrorist target.
A Bush administration official said the flight was canceled Friday because of a dispute between the British Air Line Pilots Association and the British government over carrying armed marshals on flights.
The British government recently announced it would require armed undercover marshals on some international flights.
The union opposes the rule, saying flying with armed marshals is dangerous. The group says the money should instead be spent on improving ground security.
The union said pilots agreed that if a credible threat were to emerge for one of their flights, they would cancel rather than fly with a marshal aboard.
The group said the dispute was the reason Fight 223 was canceled both days. The U.S. administration official said the dispute contributed to only Friday's cancellation.
The United States and Britain were prepared to allow the flight to take off, but pilots refused to travel with a marshal aboard, the official said.
Flight 223 was disrupted for the fourth time on Saturday. The flight ultimately took off several hours late.
It was not announced whether Saturday's flight had a marshal aboard. The British government has said it will not announce which flights carry marshals.
The pilots union has begun talks with airlines to reach agreements on allowing marshals aboard trans-Atlantic flights.
One airline -- Virgin Airways -- signed a deal with the British government Wednesday.
The agreement calls for the marshal to be introduced to the pilot and other crew members, and for the marshal's weapon to be approved.
It also states that marshals be former members of a police force, that their training program will be approved by the union, and that the flight captain remains the ultimate authority.
Several other international flights also have been affected in the past two days by the security concerns, but none more so than Flight 223. (Full story)
U.S. officials said there was some question about the credibility of the intelligence information, which they said had nothing to do with the passenger list but focused instead on the flight number. Still, they said the U.S. government would not take chances.
Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for border and transportation security, said Friday that such cancellations of international flights would not take place without "specific intelligence" indicating a possible attack.
"We make the judgments based upon the security measures that are in place, the risk that's assessed, coordination with the other government -- and I think we've made some really good decisions," he said.
Hutchinson would not elaborate on the intelligence.
Administration officials said Saturday that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge spoke with British Home Secretary David Blunkett on Friday about how to expedite the scrutiny of passenger manifests and minimize inconvenience to passengers.
The officials said the phone call lasted about 20 minutes and was "very productive."
[Yessir, I understand now, perfectly...]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...cel/index.html
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'BA will refuse to fly with armed guards'
Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer
Controversial plans to put armed guards on British passenger planes were in disarray last night after British Airways effectively refused to fly with them aboard because it would mean there was a 'significant threat' to passengers.
An internal BA memo obtained by The Observer makes clear that executives are deep-seatedly opposed to the scheme unveiled by the Government last week as a vital new step to protect aircraft against hijackers.
The memo - sent on Friday from Mike Street, BA's operations director - said the airline 'would not operate a single flight unless we were satisfied totally that it was safe to do so'. The sky marshals will be deployed only on flights where there has been a specific warning, prompting some pilots to voice concerns about security that a guard may be unable to prevent.
He added: 'If there is security information about a particular flight that gives us cause for concern, then we will not operate that flight. That remains our policy regardless of the Government's capability to deploy armed police officers.'
A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), which also opposes the policy, said BA's statement was expected to be followed by other airlines and would rule out the use of sky marshals, as proposed.
'We now believe sky marshals will never fly,' said the spokesman. 'If you're told there's a perceived risk, you're not going to run it. No one in their right mind would say "Don't worry, we'll put sky marshals aboard it".'
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, has refused to give details of the sky marshals, but Balpa said it was told armed guards would be used only when a specific threat had been made.
Because the marshals would not be used at random as a general deterrent - as in the US and Israel - it is also thought that only 24 are planned. They are likely to be former police officers and would use low-velocity bullets so as not to pierce the fuselage.
Critics condemned the plans as unworkable, with too few sky marshals. Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat spokesman for London, said Ministers were 'trying to sound tough'. 'I think it was not token at the beginning, they were trying to cover all bases and thought this would do that,' he added. 'Then they have been pressured into doing something which is the minimum they could do to keep the States happy. To that extent, it's token.'
Balpa said passengers had been misled. In France, for example, every flight to the US now carries between two and six sky marshals, depending on how full they are.
'The [British] public seem to have the impression there will be one on every plane: it's nothing like that,' said the Balpa spokesman.
A Department for Transport official said he could not comment on when sky marshals would be used, how many would be recruited, how they would be trained, how they would operate, or any other details. 'We don't discuss that,' he said.
Balpa has already signed a deal over sky marshals with Virgin and could do a deal with BA this week. The union will meet government officials tomorrow in a bid to strike a national agreement instead. Under a deal with Virgin, the airline has promised its pilots will be introdcued to marshals used on their planes, and told where the guard is sitting. The pilots will be in control at all times, including emergencies.
Airlines or the Government will have to take responsibility for any accident on board and for pilots' insurance if they are refused personal cover, as some US pilots have been, said Balpa.
The union wants better land-based security instead. 'The Twin Towers [terrorist attacks in New York in 2001] happened not because there were no sky marshals but because there was lax security on the ground,' added the spokesman.
Original Article
[Previous summary post deleted]
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer
Controversial plans to put armed guards on British passenger planes were in disarray last night after British Airways effectively refused to fly with them aboard because it would mean there was a 'significant threat' to passengers.
An internal BA memo obtained by The Observer makes clear that executives are deep-seatedly opposed to the scheme unveiled by the Government last week as a vital new step to protect aircraft against hijackers.
The memo - sent on Friday from Mike Street, BA's operations director - said the airline 'would not operate a single flight unless we were satisfied totally that it was safe to do so'. The sky marshals will be deployed only on flights where there has been a specific warning, prompting some pilots to voice concerns about security that a guard may be unable to prevent.
He added: 'If there is security information about a particular flight that gives us cause for concern, then we will not operate that flight. That remains our policy regardless of the Government's capability to deploy armed police officers.'
A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa), which also opposes the policy, said BA's statement was expected to be followed by other airlines and would rule out the use of sky marshals, as proposed.
'We now believe sky marshals will never fly,' said the spokesman. 'If you're told there's a perceived risk, you're not going to run it. No one in their right mind would say "Don't worry, we'll put sky marshals aboard it".'
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, has refused to give details of the sky marshals, but Balpa said it was told armed guards would be used only when a specific threat had been made.
Because the marshals would not be used at random as a general deterrent - as in the US and Israel - it is also thought that only 24 are planned. They are likely to be former police officers and would use low-velocity bullets so as not to pierce the fuselage.
Critics condemned the plans as unworkable, with too few sky marshals. Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat spokesman for London, said Ministers were 'trying to sound tough'. 'I think it was not token at the beginning, they were trying to cover all bases and thought this would do that,' he added. 'Then they have been pressured into doing something which is the minimum they could do to keep the States happy. To that extent, it's token.'
Balpa said passengers had been misled. In France, for example, every flight to the US now carries between two and six sky marshals, depending on how full they are.
'The [British] public seem to have the impression there will be one on every plane: it's nothing like that,' said the Balpa spokesman.
A Department for Transport official said he could not comment on when sky marshals would be used, how many would be recruited, how they would be trained, how they would operate, or any other details. 'We don't discuss that,' he said.
Balpa has already signed a deal over sky marshals with Virgin and could do a deal with BA this week. The union will meet government officials tomorrow in a bid to strike a national agreement instead. Under a deal with Virgin, the airline has promised its pilots will be introdcued to marshals used on their planes, and told where the guard is sitting. The pilots will be in control at all times, including emergencies.
Airlines or the Government will have to take responsibility for any accident on board and for pilots' insurance if they are refused personal cover, as some US pilots have been, said Balpa.
The union wants better land-based security instead. 'The Twin Towers [terrorist attacks in New York in 2001] happened not because there were no sky marshals but because there was lax security on the ground,' added the spokesman.
Original Article
[Previous summary post deleted]
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skymarshal Nonesense!
It's very plain to me that this stupid decision by incompetent politicians to have armed skymarshals on commercial airline flights is an admission of TOTAL FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE AVIATION SECURITY BEFORE EMBARKATION.
I for one certainly wouldn't feel any safer with an armed guard in the cabin.
For goodness sake, let's have some commonsense and undertake the security prior to boarding and not just rely on a potential shootout in flight.
If we must have security staff on board, surely they could be armed with disabling spray rather than supposedly 'safe' soft-nosed bullets.
What do the aircrews think ??
I for one certainly wouldn't feel any safer with an armed guard in the cabin.
For goodness sake, let's have some commonsense and undertake the security prior to boarding and not just rely on a potential shootout in flight.
If we must have security staff on board, surely they could be armed with disabling spray rather than supposedly 'safe' soft-nosed bullets.
What do the aircrews think ??
Join Date: May 2003
Location: HKG
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this says it all
Date:September 9, 2002 Type:Investigation
Summary:Houston: Seventy-one of 143 indicted airport workers from Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, TX, have been arrested on various charges including making false statements on security badge applications and use of false social security cards and immigration documents. Arrest warrants for the remaining 72 workers are being served by teams consisting of special agents from DOT OIG, the FBI, INS, Social Security Administration OIG, and the Houston Police Department.
Boston: Michel Ange Aspilaire, Somerville, MA, a former jet fuel transporter and refueler at Boston’s Logan International Airport, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Boston to making false statements on his application for a security badge at the airport, possession of a counterfeit alien registration card, and misuse of a social security number. He is the 4th of 20 defendants to plead guilty. Aspilaire will be on supervised probation for 1 year or until he is deported to his native Canada.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressR...rrests_pr.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txs/releas...ac_english.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/oig/executive_ope...ig04302002.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml
http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_txt.php?id=757
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/12/1008155283.html
http://portland.fbi.gov/pressrel/2002/sheik2.htm
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/oig401.htm
The U.S. PATRIOT Act is not just a problem for Arab-Americans in this country. The INS audited 9,000 airport workers in Salt Lake City and found that 271 people, mostly Latin American airport workers, had names which did not match their Social Security numbers. Sixty-three were indicted for using false Social Security cards and six for lying about their arrest records on their job applications (which is a criminal offense). Also, 202 other people who worked in less secure areas at the airport were fired for similar Social Security and immigration violations. http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.200...2002.02.3.html
The INS checked the records of 2,000 Portland International Airport employees and identified 124 workers as working illegally -- 30 were arrested by federal INS officials for what they considered serious offenses. They worked in baggage handling and loading, construction, and food and janitorial services.
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/nindic30_20020830.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-575099.htm
http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...775069,00.html
http://www.fox30online.com/news/loca...6-EDE507B469B2
so if you combine the above and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
the flying Wyatt Earps should be on the ground in the US airports nicking the illegal infiltrated ramp workers
Incredible really
Date:September 9, 2002 Type:Investigation
Summary:Houston: Seventy-one of 143 indicted airport workers from Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, TX, have been arrested on various charges including making false statements on security badge applications and use of false social security cards and immigration documents. Arrest warrants for the remaining 72 workers are being served by teams consisting of special agents from DOT OIG, the FBI, INS, Social Security Administration OIG, and the Houston Police Department.
Boston: Michel Ange Aspilaire, Somerville, MA, a former jet fuel transporter and refueler at Boston’s Logan International Airport, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Boston to making false statements on his application for a security badge at the airport, possession of a counterfeit alien registration card, and misuse of a social security number. He is the 4th of 20 defendants to plead guilty. Aspilaire will be on supervised probation for 1 year or until he is deported to his native Canada.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressR...rrests_pr.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txs/releas...ac_english.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/oig/executive_ope...ig04302002.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml
http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_txt.php?id=757
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/12/1008155283.html
http://portland.fbi.gov/pressrel/2002/sheik2.htm
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/oig401.htm
The U.S. PATRIOT Act is not just a problem for Arab-Americans in this country. The INS audited 9,000 airport workers in Salt Lake City and found that 271 people, mostly Latin American airport workers, had names which did not match their Social Security numbers. Sixty-three were indicted for using false Social Security cards and six for lying about their arrest records on their job applications (which is a criminal offense). Also, 202 other people who worked in less secure areas at the airport were fired for similar Social Security and immigration violations. http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.200...2002.02.3.html
The INS checked the records of 2,000 Portland International Airport employees and identified 124 workers as working illegally -- 30 were arrested by federal INS officials for what they considered serious offenses. They worked in baggage handling and loading, construction, and food and janitorial services.
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/nindic30_20020830.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-575099.htm
http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...775069,00.html
http://www.fox30online.com/news/loca...6-EDE507B469B2
so if you combine the above and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
the flying Wyatt Earps should be on the ground in the US airports nicking the illegal infiltrated ramp workers
Incredible really
Guest
Posts: n/a
May I suggest that we have one armed jerk in the cockpit, pointing at the pilots. Behind the door another one is ready with explosives to knock the door if the first one goes ape****. Behind the bomber we´ll have another gunman, just for added security if the explosive guy loses it. After about 100 marshals standing like that aiming at the guy in front (Depending on aircraft size) this leaves only one tiny problem. The last man standing in the aft galley! I suppose we might then have a remotely operated device of small destruction strapped to his arse, and another marshal in a bombproof shelter on the ground ready. This still leaves a tiny problem..........................
This way we dont have to worry about the pax, there won´t be any seats for them.
I think the American way of life is a bit troubled today, eh.
MB
This way we dont have to worry about the pax, there won´t be any seats for them.
I think the American way of life is a bit troubled today, eh.
MB
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>the flying Wyatt Earps should be on the ground in the US airports nicking the illegal infiltrated ramp workers<<
Well, the "right" to be in the U.S. illegally is devoutly defended by "advocacy" groups. In some of the airport sweeps mentioned above racism was claimed since many of those arrested were "minorities".
Here's a quote from today's Washington Post:
"...Undocumented workers now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers.
Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said he fears the Social Security plan could be used as an incentive for workers to go home instead of settling in the United States, which could create what he called 'a permanent class of temporary workers with no political power.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan3.html
The term "illegal alien" has fallen out of favor since "illegal" has negative connotations in some cultures. "Undocumented migrant" is the more politically correct term these days.
Well, the "right" to be in the U.S. illegally is devoutly defended by "advocacy" groups. In some of the airport sweeps mentioned above racism was claimed since many of those arrested were "minorities".
Here's a quote from today's Washington Post:
"...Undocumented workers now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers.
Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said he fears the Social Security plan could be used as an incentive for workers to go home instead of settling in the United States, which could create what he called 'a permanent class of temporary workers with no political power.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan3.html
The term "illegal alien" has fallen out of favor since "illegal" has negative connotations in some cultures. "Undocumented migrant" is the more politically correct term these days.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great masterbates, brightened up my sunday
how about all passengers who board an a/c have a small tag sealed on their persons and in the event of them mis-behaving we type in a corresponding code in the flight deck and just electrocute them !!!
all a/c terrorism solved !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air marshal or no air marshal - do you think either would stop a suicide bomber??! No hijack involved.
Better the terrorist isn't allowed on the plane in the first place eh?
...perhaps keep the guns out of the aircraft too!
Banning all carry on hand luggage so that passengers only carry a ticket and passport, and thorough searching of all passengers prior to boarding would surely make air marshals redundant?!
BB
(sorry if someone already made that point - i didnt make it through all 15 pages!)
Better the terrorist isn't allowed on the plane in the first place eh?
...perhaps keep the guns out of the aircraft too!
Banning all carry on hand luggage so that passengers only carry a ticket and passport, and thorough searching of all passengers prior to boarding would surely make air marshals redundant?!
BB
(sorry if someone already made that point - i didnt make it through all 15 pages!)
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a perfect world we would of course have none of these tiresome problems, so sad we live in a real world, which of course we do.
It appears though, that quite a few people here have been fairly well insulated from some of the more unpleasant realities of life and protest vigorously when they come up against it.
Shocked indignation however is a poor defence against what is now the present danger and that has been so graphicaly illustrated not so long ago, or do they perhaps think that it:-
a) wouldn't happen to them
b) was simply a one off situation.
c) is now fully under controll
d) 9/11 was all a product of a slow news day and has simply been blown out of proportion by the media?
It appears though, that quite a few people here have been fairly well insulated from some of the more unpleasant realities of life and protest vigorously when they come up against it.
Shocked indignation however is a poor defence against what is now the present danger and that has been so graphicaly illustrated not so long ago, or do they perhaps think that it:-
a) wouldn't happen to them
b) was simply a one off situation.
c) is now fully under controll
d) 9/11 was all a product of a slow news day and has simply been blown out of proportion by the media?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueBug,
A suicide bomber requires carrying a BOMB on the airplane. That security MIGHT be able to catch. There are actually several ways to catch them. Xray machines, Bomb sniffing devices, bomb sniffing dogs etc.
The guy that wants to fight with small bladed weapons will be much harder to stop. Security will never be able to keep knives off of airplanes. They can't keep em out of prisons where prisoners get strip searched with body cavity searches at will and have no "Rights". Yet every day in prisons around the world, prisoners are sticking shivs in each other...
Richard Reid did and didn't defeat security. Though AA corporate security picked him off, though he missed the flight the first night, the FRENCH GOVERNMENT orded AA to carry him the next day, a power they no longer have, but did at the time. At the time France was telling us we couldn't exclude anyone without cause, and though we were suspicious, we never found the bomb in his shoe. Now we can in limited circumstances refuse to carry someone. But that is part of the problem of being a "common carrier". To be fair most government had similar polices.
As to banning all hand luggage. Ummm I would love that idea myself and so would most flight attendants. But what would you do with people's purses? How about people who have to take a lot of medication? What about contact lens gear... etc. Unfortunately, though I would love to see those big rollaboard bags banned, that simply isn't going to happen in this day and age, what about those big puffy Goose Down jackets? After all they could easily be stuffed with C4. And lets not forget SHOES. Everyperson who ever complains about having to take their shoes off can thank a Richard Reid... NOT AMERICA....
Cheers
Wino
A suicide bomber requires carrying a BOMB on the airplane. That security MIGHT be able to catch. There are actually several ways to catch them. Xray machines, Bomb sniffing devices, bomb sniffing dogs etc.
The guy that wants to fight with small bladed weapons will be much harder to stop. Security will never be able to keep knives off of airplanes. They can't keep em out of prisons where prisoners get strip searched with body cavity searches at will and have no "Rights". Yet every day in prisons around the world, prisoners are sticking shivs in each other...
Richard Reid did and didn't defeat security. Though AA corporate security picked him off, though he missed the flight the first night, the FRENCH GOVERNMENT orded AA to carry him the next day, a power they no longer have, but did at the time. At the time France was telling us we couldn't exclude anyone without cause, and though we were suspicious, we never found the bomb in his shoe. Now we can in limited circumstances refuse to carry someone. But that is part of the problem of being a "common carrier". To be fair most government had similar polices.
As to banning all hand luggage. Ummm I would love that idea myself and so would most flight attendants. But what would you do with people's purses? How about people who have to take a lot of medication? What about contact lens gear... etc. Unfortunately, though I would love to see those big rollaboard bags banned, that simply isn't going to happen in this day and age, what about those big puffy Goose Down jackets? After all they could easily be stuffed with C4. And lets not forget SHOES. Everyperson who ever complains about having to take their shoes off can thank a Richard Reid... NOT AMERICA....
Cheers
Wino