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.

..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?...

Well that's the question, isn't it? You've said it all. I guess the answer is that these regulations are more about CYA, PC, and make-work, than about commonsense. The single greatest defense we could have against hijackers would be if all passengers were prepared to use the Todd Beamer response. Of course, that means individual responsibility, rather than nanny state dependence. As to sky marshalls, I have no strong opinion either way. Armed pilots, ditto, with the slight reservation that a crew member might want to go out in a blaze of glory like the Fedex worker or the suicidal JAL pilot. It seems to me that armoured cabin doors are the best defensive option. The pilots keep the plane flying and the passengers take care of their own defense. All the best, Byron

"Well, I know I'm getting a bit bombastic, here. But what is it with all these posters who'll gratefully accept any nanny state stupidity that comes down the pipe? "Please sir, may I have another?" I've spent the Christmas break reading some shattering books on tyranny- Richard and Sabrina Wurmbrands' accounts, and Anne Applebaum's Gulag, amongst others. Not to draw too long a bow, but this 'the state is always right' mantra is how it all starts. "

Thumbs up to you, Byron.

The majority of the security measures that have been implemented at airports since 9/11 have been merely cosmetic, to look as if something's changed. Bull pucky. What good do measures such as making some lady drink her own bottle of expressed breastmilk in order to show that it's not some deadly substance do, when you can drive within 200 feet of an international jet being loaded up, and get even closer if you have a pair of wire cutters?

I can already hear the "Sieg heils!" being shouted in some of the responses here.

Please don't ask me how I have managed to not smoke for nine days because I don't have the foggiest idea. I know I crave it and I catch myself reaching for cigarettes that used to sit right next to my computer.

My hubby is happy that I have finally quit and when my doctor finds out, he's going to be happy as well. It's the first thing he asks me everytime I go in for a check up and I was beginning to run out of excuses. I can't wait to tell the doctor, just so I can see his reaction....it should be real funny!

Anyway....my best advice is quit when you are ready to quit. I used to say I will quit for my hubby or I will quit for the doctor but it never worked. Once I made up my mind to do it for myself, I quit COLD TURKEY. No patches, no pills and I stay away from high calorie foods too. Good luck.

This is a depressing thread. Is there no one here besides Byron who's going to protest this attitude that all those who don't uncomplainingly submit to all our demands deserve to be blown out the sky?

There are reasonable security measures and there are unreasonable ones. People have a right to argue about where that line lies. Tom Ridge's word is not holy writ.

Asking people to not line up for the bathroom is ridiculous. I'd resent it. And so would the rest of you. This is not the way we ought to be using our power.

I have to think that the vast majority Americans are with me on this this. But thanks for doing your part to prop up that old ugly American stereotype folks.

The main point of my post was to convey that there are many things going on in reaction to the attacks and not all of them are worthwhile, but we recognize that things are not the same and will not be for quite some time. In fact, I don't want them to be normal. I don't want for us to go back to business as usual, not until I see Osama Bin Laden's f%#@*&g head on a spike, along with the heads of every person who ever aided, abetted, supported, or sympathized with the attackers.

I think that is where Americans and the rest of the world differ. For me it goes beyond fear of attack or desire for revenge. For me it is clear moral outrage that anyone would perpetrate such an attack. I would feel the same way if the attack had been on Sydney, London, or even, possibly, Paris. It is simply intolerable to me to think that there are people out there so sick and evil. I don't believe the reaction would be the same in Europe, or even anywhere else in the world (I don't know Australia well enough to say). The Europeans seem to be incapable of moral outrage, probably because they have become largely incapable of morality itself. So, after an attack on their citizens, or when they see an attack on ours, their priority seems to be to get back to normal and forget it ever happened, while ours is to set what is wrong to right again.

Don't confuse vigilance with fear. The people who populate this site, and others you hear about in the news all the time, have some activist tendencies, so thinking proactively is their nature. Speculating about whether a barge floating toward a power plant is loaded with explosives, anthrax, or whatever may seem fearful and paranoid to someone who is merely seeking to get back to normal, but to those of us dedicated to preventing such a heinous attack from ever reoccurring, it is simply a mental exercise.

Asking people to not line up for the bathroom is ridiculous. I'd resent it. And so would the rest of you. This is not the way we ought to be using our power. I have to think that the vast majority Americans are with me on this this. But thanks for doing your part to prop up that old ugly American stereotype folks.

Agreed.

Re airport security, we should be taking a few pages from Israel's book, if we're really serious about improving security.

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.