Air marshals: If they don't like it, they can go fly a kite

Some European governments and pilots' organizations are stamping their feet because the U.S. has decided that all airlines flying to, from or over this country must be prepared to staff their flights with armed air marshals. If they don't want to, that's fine. They can stay home.

The same goes for foreigners who don't like being fingerprinted and photographed upon landing here. Some seem to feel that verifying a visitor's identity is akin to violating the Geneva Convention. Quoth one Brazilian judge: "I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis."

It is restating an obvious and painfully learned truth to say the U.S. must do everything in its power to protect its citizens and shores from another terror attack. There is no use arguing with those who don't accept that fundamental precept. They'll just have to get with the program or be dropped by the wayside.

There is, in fact, too little security, not too much. Cargo planes undergo lesser scrutiny and so may be targeted by terrorists, as Sen. Chuck Schumer has pointed out. And just yesterday Washington selected three companies to devise ways to protect airliners against surface-to-air missiles, the weapon used by Al Qaeda in a failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli plane in Kenya.

Insisting that carriers be ready to deploy air marshals on suspect flights is more than reasonable. Al Qaeda has been fascinated for years with using airplanes as weapons, and an uptick in intelligence pointing to more plots has been serious enough to prompt flight cancellations, delays and even an escort by fighter jets.

The identification requirements for visitors are likewise necessary. Foreigners who arrive by air or sea from the 160-plus countries of which the U.S. requires a visa for entry must have two fingers scanned electronically and pose for a picture. Only 28 countries, (Canada, 22 European states and five in the Pacific) are exempt. There's no reason not to expand the program to everyone.

especially when considered with theories like this.....

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com

Air travelers are advised to remain vigilant even after boarding an aircraft and urged to notify flight personnel of unusual interaction between seemingly unrelated passengers.

7 January 2004-- Information obtained exclusively by the Northeast Intelligence Network provided additional insight into the terrorists' operational plans involving at least one and perhaps more of the recently grounded flights. According to these sources, the following method of operation is "continuing" and will likely result in additional international flights being grounded.

It is already well known that women are being used as "mules" to smuggle explosive material onto airplanes. The other undisclosed aspect of these plans, according to information confirmed by intelligence officials, is that each woman is "accompanied" by 1-2 other people onto a targeted aircraft. The other passengers do not appear to have any connection to the female passenger whatsoever and even carry passports from other countries. These covert associates carry other electronic items that alone, appear harmless (such as a personal CD player, for example) but are actually intended to be used as components for the explosive device. These items are checked and pass through security as they are operational.

Once aboard the aircraft, there is "quiet" interaction between operatives to pass all of the necessary bomb-making components to the delegated operative who assembles the device in the bathroom of the aircraft. At that point, they have "successfully" breached the intense security and have a workable and deadly explosive device that has been assembled at 30,000 feet.

Open source documentation of recent aircraft incidents offering "bits and pieces" of this plan are not making any reference or connection to the above scenario. Research conducted by by Jill St. Claire cite the following news items that "hint" but do not fully disclose the extent of the operation:

US Jets Escort Plane : At that point the decision was taken to escort the flight into the airport amid fears that if the woman were a terrorist she may have an accomplice.

Jet Lands Safely At Kentucky Airport

More Terror Alerts Hit British Airways: British Transport Secretary Alistair Darling acknowledged only that the government had “specific information” which led it to ask British Airways to cancel the flights.

The amount of gibbering from the usual suspects (unions, the BBC, the Labour party) over this has been incredible here in the UK. I fully support your government's position BTW, in fact I would go further and allow pilots and passengers to carry guns too.

One talking head was demanding that "all flights carrying air marshals should be identified to the public" - with the implication being that they could then avoid those flights.

My reaction was "great idea - then if necessary I can get on those flights! Let the loony left liberals fly on the un-marshalled flights and let's see who gets hijacked first!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.