US Security Needs Anger Some Europeans

LONDON (AP) - Fears of a new airborne terrorist attack have brought heightened tensions, grounded flights - and created turbulence for U.S.-European relations.

Some European nations have balked at the United States' tough new aviation security measures, which include armed guards on aircraft and preflight scrutiny of passenger lists. Airlines, hit by rising security demands, want governments to handle part of the cost.

``There are tensions within Europe on how to handle U.S. requests,'' said Philip Butterworth-Hayes, editor of Jane's Aircraft Components. ``Politically, it's a complete nightmare for Europe.''

Meanwhile, France is searching for an Afghan on a U.S. list of suspected terrorists because someone with his name failed to board a Christmas Eve flight across the Atlantic that was canceled amid security fears, officials said Wednesday.

A passenger surnamed Hai was ticketed for Air France Flight 68 to Los Angeles but did not show up, French officials said. They said investigators have not yet established whether the passenger is the Abdou Hai on a U.S. terrorism watch list or someone with the same name.

The name was one reason why security on trans-Atlantic flights was stepped up over the holiday season. In all, six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were canceled amid concerns members of the al-Qaida terrorist network might try to board planes.

Investigators said Abdou Hai is not known to French intelligence, and France's judiciary has not opened an investigation into him, meaning he is not now suspected of wrongdoing.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, asked at a news conference Wednesday if there was a single potential terrorist loose who is a source of grave concern, said he was ``not aware of any one particular individual who is loose.''

But Justice Minister Dominique Perben confirmed Wednesday that French and European authorities were searching for someone who failed to show up for an Air France flight.

``We are looking for someone, but I can't say more,'' Perben told RMC radio. ``What's important when someone doesn't take a plane is to know why he didn't take it,'' he added.

The Air France flights were canceled after U.S. intelligence told their French counterparts that al-Qaida operatives would try to board the planes over Christmas, French officials have said.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, many airlines around the world have acceded to U.S. requests, installing bulletproof cockpit doors on aircraft and agreeing to share passenger lists with U.S. authorities. But for some, the demand for armed sky marshals on flights to the United States was a step too far.

While a European Union-wide aviation safety agency is being established, each member country has been free to take its own position on sky marshals.

The Irish government, which took over the rotating presidency of the European Union on Jan. 1, said Wednesday it was organizing a meeting of EU aviation chiefs in Brussels, Belgium, next week to discuss the U.S. request.

On Dec. 29, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that airlines would be required to place armed law enforcement officers on flights to the United States ``where necessary.''

The announcement came after U.S. authorities raised their terrorism alert to orange, the second-highest level, and increased security surrounding international flights. More than a dozen flights to the United States on British Airways, Aeromexico and Air France have been canceled or delayed since New Year's Eve because of security fears.

British Transport Secretary Alistair Darling called the deployment of sky marshals ``responsible and prudent'' and said passengers would have to get used to increased security. France and Germany, alongside nations such as Canada and Australia, also agreed to the U.S. request, with Germany saying it has had sky marshals on some flights for more than two years.

But civil aviation authorities in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Portugal all said they would not allow armed marshals to fly and would instead cancel flights if there was a strong suspicion of a planned attack.

Denmark's Transportation Minister, Flemming Hansen, told the Politiken newspaper that ``putting armed guards on passenger planes is the same as saying that the terrorists have won.''

Package tour operator Thomas Cook, which operates charter flights between London and Orlando, Fla., also said it would not accept sky marshals, and pilot organizations in Britain, Spain and other countries expressed strong reservations.

``We do not accept that it is necessary to introduce armed officials on to aircraft,'' Conor Nolan, director of safety for the Irish Airline Pilots Association, was quoted as saying by the Irish Examiner newspaper. ``The aircraft should be the last place for security measures. They should have taken place on the ground before takeoff.''

Aviation expert Butterworth-Hayes said the trans-Atlantic disagreement ``partly comes from differences of culture, for example on the issue of arming pilots. The U.S. is much more bullish about that.''

Cost is also a factor. Heightened security measures since Sept. 11 have cost major airlines between $90 million and $180 million, according to aviation analyst Nick van den Brul of BN Paribas.

Sky marshals are not the first American demand to have met a mixed reception. In December, after months of negotiations, the European Union agreed to share flight passenger lists with U.S. authorities. But the EU won concessions to comply with European privacy rules, including an agreement to hold the data for 3 years rather than the 50 years originally proposed.

And on Wednesday the Australian airline Qantas bridled at a U.S. request that it discourage passengers from gathering in groups during flights to America. Australian Transport Minister John Anderson described the request as ``a little bit hard to handle.''

Darrin Kayser, a spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, said Wednesday that passengers were free to wait in line for airplane bathrooms. But he said the agency had asked all airlines flying to the United States to discourage people from congregating on planes, possibly by making announcements to that effect before takeoff.

Other nations have been irked by the U.S. introduction of fingerprint scanning and photographing for visitors from all but 27 mostly European nations. Last week, Brazil began fingerprinting and photographing arriving Americans in retaliation.

On Tuesday, the Brazilian foreign minister met with the U.S. ambassador to ask that Brazilians be exempted from fingerprinting and that they ``be treated with dignity,'' according to a government statement.

David Learmount, an aviation expert with Flight International magazine, said U.S. authorities would have to accept a compromise on some of its security demands.

The effort against terrorism should be ``about people working together, not America bulldozing its way around, telling everyone what to do,'' he said.

Thanks for such a lengthy and thoughtful reply, FR Freak. I'll try to address your main points.

...but I wonder if your country would refrain from all things silly and pointless if a few planes were crashed into downtown Sydney...

I would hope we'd stay frosty. Not surrender to fear. Because my view is that kind of thing does wonders for the enemy's morale. I reckon Al Qaeda must be getting a big kick out of watching the paranoia, Stateside. Our parents and grandparents, who experienced real war, didn't carry on like this. They wouldn't give the enemy the satisfaction! We had a thread on FR the other day, a barge broke away from its moorings and drifted toward a riverside powerplant. And there were Freepers all over the thread speculating about anthrax, explosives, you name it. It is really getting to the hysterical stage, in some quarters.

...we are working out the details, trying to figure out the best long-term strategies for security and in the short-term, just trying to survive. If you think the no-lavatory-congregation rule is silly, you should see the silly security measures that we endure on domestic flights....

I have. Sixty-eight year-old grannies from Wisconsin getting strip-searched, that kind of thing. A bit of bureaucratic overzealousness can be expected, but what's scary is the number of Americans calling for more red tape, simply as a security blanket. Especially dismaying is the way so many are prepared to cast away their Fourth Amendment rights.

...to ignore the last method because you think it couldn't possibly be tried twice would be madness....

Madness is banning toilet queues on inbound aircraft. Have you seen how many people have quit flying, domestically and internationally? I would love to know how many more road deaths there's been because families decided to drive rather than fly, to avoid the hassles. Maybe, more than the 911 toll?

...the USA has poured a significant portion of its economy and industry into providing an umbrella for half the world, as if they were our own people, all the while enduring endless protests made possible by the very freedom we secured. Australia's contribution, while admirable, is nothing close to this scale....

Of course it isn't. We've only got one-fifteenth of your population, and we're not so involved with Europe.

....you give the impression that you don't believe it is in Australia's interest to secure Iraq, or Afghanistan, or wherever else we may end up in this war...

Well, I had not intended to convey that impression. But since you brought it up, I don't think Afghanistan or Iraq is 'secured.' The only way that's going to happen is if America is prepared to demonstrate on the ground in those countries her commitment to the principles that have made her great- starting with the Constitution. What's needed is some kind of zone or enclave in the Middle East where citizens can operate under the same kind of freedoms, property rights and individual rights America once held dear. I think they'd thrive and set an example and precedent to their neighbours.

..we just committed an estimated 400 billion dollars to a useless prescription drug program. We give away billions in aid every year to countries who hate us. We just dedicated massive money and material to help Iran, a country that refers to us as the Great Satan, to help in its time of need. Why do we do these things? Because we can...

Honestly not trying to be rude, but doesn't that sound a bit silly, to you? 'Because we can'? And I don't think even the mighty US can keep up this kind of spending forever. 400 billion on the drug program, 350 billion for domestic WOT spending, how many billion on welfare support for the eight million illegals the President's inviting to stay? I remember a few years ago, Freepers used to rip the Clintons for wasteful programs that were miniscule compared to some of the craziness coming out of the WH, now.

The bottom line is that our generation has never known real fear or want, the way previous generations have. We don't know what war's like, compared to the WWII generation. So there's a whole bunch of baby boomers over reacting and getting carried away about almost completely imagined threats. Think of all the scares we've read about on FR: anthrax, suitcase nukes, sleeper cells, missing containers of cyanide or fertiliser, loose barges, all of it amounting to nothing. I think people who've never known genuine fear get a vicarious thrill from pretending to experience it. And I think it's time this Administration stop feeding that. Time for the President to go before the American people and bring a bit of closure to 911, so everyone can get on with their lives.

"I reckon Al Qaeda must be getting a big kick out of watching the paranoia, Stateside."

Probably not as much as they enjoyed watching the Twin Towers collapse with human beings inside.

"Our parents and grandparents, who experienced real war, didn't carry on like this."

WRONG again.....My grandmother had real war experiences here in the good ole' United States during World War II. They actually practiced and perfected a response to air raids. Lights were not allowed to be on at night and all windows had to be covered so that the enemy couldn't see his target. Paranoia then? I think not. Paranoia now....nope!

You are right about some of us being frightened of flying though. I'm one of those people. I have always had a fear of flying, but I've done it anyway. I've been to Europe twice and I've flown all over this country numerous times, but since 9/11, that fear has gotten worse. Yep, the enemy is getting what they want by instilling fear in me. My husband wants to take another trip to Disney World this spring and I don't. I don't want to go to New York City and catch a flight to Florida. My stomach does flip flops just thinking about it. I think about the last time I flew....June of 2001. The Towers were still there and terrorists attacks were the furthest thing from my mind. It's different now....my husband speaks of the sights he had seen at ground zero. I think of my neighbor who is a police officer for the New York City police department. If he hadn't had a doctors appointment the morning of 9/11, he'd be dead right now.

So, excuse me for being afraid and excuse me for wanting extra precautions when it comes to flying. I'm sure in time, those precautions won't be necessary but in the mean time, show a little tolerance and understanding. It's not much for us to ask for now is it?

I'm sure I'll get get reamed for agreeing you, but I'm disgusted with many of the "illusion of increased security" measures as well. We've been subjected to soldiers standing guard with unloaded weapons at airports, strip searches of 80 year old nuns, 2 inch plastic toy guns being confiscated from GI Joe dolls, and all other forms of insanity in the name of so-called security. Meanwhile, we'd rather shoot a passenger airline out of the sky than arm the pilots. The whole thing is pathetic and disgusting.

I won't fly anymore unless I absolutely cannot avoid it. Not because I'm afraid, but because I'm completely sickened by the police state tactics inflicted upon me every time I set foot in an airport. Why should I tolerate having my car searched, my orifices searched, my toenail clippers confiscated, etc. etc. when we allow our borders to remain unsecured, a ridiculous anti-profiling PC-run-amok mindset to rule over common sense, and visas to still be granted to foreigners from countries that sponsor terrorism? And, now if I decide to take a trip to and from Australia, I can't even pee?

I am curious what you think about putting armed sky marshalls on flights. And, what are your thoughts on arming pilots?

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.