Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Air Marshals Too Visible
NewsMax ^ | 6/1/04 | Phil Brennan

Posted on 05/31/2004 4:51:50 PM PDT by wagglebee

They stick out like sore thumbs -- Federal Air Marshals complain.

The marshalls say that's a threat to their own and passenger security.

An intelligence brief quoted by the Los Angeles Times recalled an incident when two air marshals were spotted by a passenger coming down the aisle who said "Oh, I see we have air marshals on board!"

This is something that happens all too often, the marshals say, insisting that the element of surprise may be crucial to their mission.

But in a complaint to Congress, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Assn. said they are "as easy to identify as a uniformed police officer."

What makes them stand out, they say, is the clothes they wear and the way they access the aircraft to which they are assigned.

Regulations require marshals to go to work wearing a suit and tie or sport coat, collared shirt, dress slacks and dress shoes. Equivalent attire is required for female air marshals. This in an era when passengers arrive aboard wearing shorts, jeans and even less informal attire and sporting beards and scraggly hair cuts.

According to the Times, Federal Air Marshal Service spokesman David M. Adams told them that personal appearance was important: "Professional demeanor, attire and attitude gain respect. If a guy pulls out a gun and he's got a tattoo on his arm and [is wearing] shorts, I'm going to question whether he's a law enforcement officer."

Marshals can't go through the initial security screening with the rest of the passengers because they are armed. They are forced to use exit lanes, the Times explained. Instead of using the entry points set aside for airport employees, the marshals often must go through the "exit" lanes - marching against the flow of arriving passengers, at times in full view of travelers.

"Everybody sees you standing there," one marshal said. "Everybody sees you show your ID. They see you are being escorted through an exit lane, bypassing security."

John Amat, a spokesman for the marshals belonging to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association told the Times, "They lose the advantage" of being undercover.

One marshal complained to the Times that "a bad guy on a plane can quickly narrow the pool of potential marshals. They're not wearing jeans, they're not wearing cargo pants... There will not be an air marshal who is unshaven. You eliminate the unknown element."

At Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, the Daily Telegram in Superior, Wisconsin reported that air marshals are required to follow procedures "so absurd that airline passengers could figure out who they were."

It is, the newspaper noted "... a situation that points out the often ridiculous nature of government bureaucracies, in this case the Transportation Security Administration created to help prevent terrorism attacks.

Special Exit Lane

At checkpoints for arriving passengers, screeners can be seen leading the agents up an exit lane to a table where they have to sign in, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The TSA's procedures required air marshals and other plainclothes officers to show identification and sign in at each security checkpoint, and it wasn't exclusive to Mitchell Airport.

The Journal Sentinel cited a letter from Frank Terreri, president of the air marshals unit of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, to the director of the Federal Air Marshals Service in October about the requirement to sign in: "This is done in plain view of passengers transiting through these screening checkpoints. It is obvious that even a novice surveillance agent could sit near a checkpoint and determine who, what and where these logged individuals are and their destination."

Although forbidden to talk to the media, some of the marshals spoke to the Times, noting that the prospect of being spotted by terrorists and disabled or killed before they could react makes them uneasy.

"This is what I foresee," one marshal, a two-year veteran confided to the newspaper. "Two of us get on the plane and we've been under surveillance the whole time. There's a minimum of four bad guys... My partner goes to the bathroom and they come after me with a sharp pen, stab me in the neck or in the brain and take my weapon," he continued. "When my partner comes out, they shoot him. Then they've got 80 rounds of ammunition and two weapons."

Although spokesman Adams called such a scenario "highly unlikely," noting that marshals "are not undercover like Serpico," a congressional General Accounting Office study of a two-year period from 2001 to 2003 found an average of about one case a week in which marshals reported their cover was blown.

Secret Service Look

The controversial dress code is the work of Thomas D. Quinn, the director of the air marshals, who took over in January 2002.

Quinn, the Times reported, spent 20 years with the Secret Service. He was the focus of heavy criticism when he lobbied against a bill designed to broaden the law arming airline pilots.

Before the 9/11 attacks, the air marshal service had about 30 officers. Today it has several thousand, with an annual budget of $600-million.

And, some marshals told the Times, it was after Quinn took over that the strict rules on dress and grooming were instituted, including the ban on beards, long hair and jeans.

"Secret Service people are notoriously known for being snappy dressers," Capt. Steve Luckey, security chairman for the Air Line Pilots Assn told the Times.

The marshals have petitioned Congress for help in changing the rules, but in the meantime, some air marshals have found ways to adapt. One told the newspaper that he deliberately acts as the more visible member of his team. He walks down the jet way before the passengers. If someone stares at him, he stares back. By becoming the focus of attention, he figures he's helping protect his partner's anonymity.

"If they come after me first, he might be able to save my bacon," said the marshal. "At least one guy may be able to do something to defend the aircraft."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; airmarshals; tsa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: joesnuffy

80 rounds!! Just how many terrorists are we expecting on this plane?


21 posted on 05/31/2004 5:35:53 PM PDT by satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

Excuse me but it's already occurring. Many of my pilots are traveling hot.


22 posted on 05/31/2004 5:45:05 PM PDT by CARTOUCHE (The pen is mightier than the sword and so much easier to conceal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Gee, back when this was a Free country, it wasn't a big deal to carry a gun on a plane.

No TSA, no metal detectors, no JBT's patrolling the airports, no strip searches, no secret "no fly" lists.

And no terrorist attacks.

23 posted on 05/31/2004 5:47:48 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: satan

2 pistols. 6 mags at 15 rd ea, 80-90 rds. Not that much in
shootout with 4-5 bad guys.


24 posted on 05/31/2004 5:49:27 PM PDT by TaMoDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: satan

Sounds like grist for another Leslie Nielsen movie. Sustained firefight with terrorists on an airliner in flight; pistols, M4s, SAWs, .50,s, grenades, light antiarmor weapons, and calls for close air support- vectored in on a particular seat and row. :-)


25 posted on 05/31/2004 5:53:26 PM PDT by Riley (Need an experienced computer tech in the DC Metro area? I'm looking. Freepmail for details.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: satan

9MM pistol with a 15 round magazine and one in the chamber. Two spare magazines means an additional 30 rounds. That's 46 rounds a person. Less if the pistol is chambered in .40 Smith and Wesson.


26 posted on 05/31/2004 5:58:32 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
On the other hand if they keep our planes safe who cares how badly they stand out.

I had the same conversation with a police officer about concealed carry... He told me that MO currently allows open carry of a handgun, and that should be enough. My response was that the fact that there are a few "good guys" carrying weapons among the unarmed population would be reason for the bad guys to worry, and possibly move on to easier hunting grounds. More importantly, what if there's a couple of bad guys who want to get my gun. Just as the Air Marshall said, if they spot you, you are at a disadvantage.

Mark

27 posted on 05/31/2004 6:04:42 PM PDT by MarkL (The meek shall inherit the earth... But usually in plots 6' x 3' x 6' deep...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Air Marshals
:-)


28 posted on 05/31/2004 6:07:03 PM PDT by I_killed_kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Indeed. I've been told that on an El Al flight they wear a uniform. Seems to work for them. Also, the air marshals can expect the assistance of everyone on the plane who has a brain.

4-5 hijackers vs 2 armed men+ flight crew(with taser) + the able-bodied passengers + Threepwood!:) = It should be ok.


29 posted on 05/31/2004 6:17:07 PM PDT by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The "Secret Service Look" is as identifiable as any uniform. However, it is not illegal for a person to buy a dark suit, sunglasses, an ear-piece and stuff a salami under his suit jacket, and imitate the "Secret Service Look" quite successfully. IMHO, this is an inherent weakness in our Secret Service protection schemes. The Secret Service protection details should be uniformed, since they stand out like sore thumbs anyway. That way it could be made illegal to impersonate a Secret Service Agent by copying the uniform.

An additional benefit is that a certain Junior Senator would not be able to hire thugs, have them masquerade as Secret Service Agents, and have them beat people up on parade routes and the like. Just as a for-instance...


30 posted on 05/31/2004 6:28:43 PM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs

It's happening about as fast as glaciers are going to re-enter Massachusetts.

The armed pilot program is designed NOT to produce more than a handful of armed pilots and put them throught the wringer so nobody else volunteers.


31 posted on 05/31/2004 6:37:16 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
The ideal situation is a mix of unformed officers and undercover marshals.

That would only serve to remind the peasants that Air Marshals are for flights with High Government Officials on board.

You are on your own. But rest assured the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development won't be crashing into a Pennsylvannia hill. Feel better now?

32 posted on 05/31/2004 6:40:13 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CARTOUCHE
"Many of my pilots are traveling hot."

When I see the pilot of the plane is traveling hot then I will travel with him.

Not before.

33 posted on 05/31/2004 6:51:11 PM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
What is the problem with arming pilots?

"Great idea, but unfortunately, President Bush opposes the idea, so it ain't gonna' happen........"

When and where did he make a statement about this?

Or was in the form of a press release? When and where?

34 posted on 05/31/2004 6:59:25 PM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

Sig P229 chambered for 357 Sig.


35 posted on 05/31/2004 9:58:59 PM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

"Who would wear a suit coat to Hawaii?"

Jack Lord always wore a suit in "Hawaii Five-O!"

"Book-em, Dan-o!" ;)


36 posted on 06/01/2004 12:01:37 AM PDT by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

hmm keep the guns in the cockpit secret. so people still hijack planes. whats a few dead civillians if the cockpit is protected


37 posted on 06/01/2004 12:06:55 AM PDT by KneelBeforeZod (Deus Lo Volt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What is the problem with arming pilots?

It's the bleeding-heart liberal types who complain that a bullet could compomise the aircraft. Piffle. Boeing 747s have landed with no further loss of life after having a quarter of the side ripped out of the plane by bombs - a well-designed aircraft has no structural integrity problems with a couple of bullet holes in the side, as a worst-case scenario with one of the air marshals or even a pilot having to use a firearm.

We now know what the alternative is, after all.
38 posted on 06/01/2004 12:18:13 AM PDT by KangarooJacqui (Australian by birth, American by marriage, and conservative by God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
To the best of my knowledge, President Bush has never come out and openly stated that he opposes the arming of pilots. All he has said on the record is "I'll have to think about it".

But then he took an oath to "faithfully execute the law", and congress passed a law almost two years ago to arm pilots. I think we're up to 600 out of 100,000 now. So one has to make some inferences...

TSA Drags Its Feet On Arming Pilots: Congress voted last year to protect Americans in the air

Why is President Bush against arming Pilots?

P.C. Air Security - When will our pilots be armed?

39 posted on 06/01/2004 3:55:57 AM PDT by snopercod (FReeper-freeper-bo-beeper, bananafanna-fo-feeper, fe-fi-fo-freeper, FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs

Well then, I was doubly wrong. We're up to around 600 armed pilots out of 100,000 now. At this rate, pilots should be fully armed in another 150 years or so...


40 posted on 06/01/2004 3:59:08 AM PDT by snopercod (FReeper-freeper-bo-beeper, bananafanna-fo-feeper, fe-fi-fo-freeper, FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson