Skip to comments.
Bush: Use Guard to Protect Airports(Federalizing Airport Security)
Yahoo ^
| 9/27/2001
| SCOTT LINDLAW
Posted on 09/27/2001 9:12:23 AM PDT by Solson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
hmmm....
1
posted on
09/27/2001 9:12:23 AM PDT
by
Solson
To: Solson
BTTT...
2
posted on
09/27/2001 9:23:03 AM PDT
by
Solson
To: Solson
As long as the inmates are running the asylum, I will drive. When they stop talking about banning plastic knives, they may be serious about the problem. Until then, it is all useless political posturing for the stupid and cowardly.
To: Solson
Terrorists hijacked four airplanes Sept. 11, crashing two into the World Trade Center in New York and one into the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth crashed in Pennsylvania, apparently after passengers struggled with the hijackers. U.S. air travel has dropped sharply since the attacks. Hey, Scott. I think every person on the planet knows this by now.
To: Solson
Just took a jaunt through Houston, San Diego, Minneapolis via various airlines. Lines are short, hassles are few, and Cops, Sheriffs, Customs officers, Air Marshalls, rent-a-cops are EVERYWHERE. Especially in Houston, there must have been 15 guys in uniform standing at the metal detectors.
5
posted on
09/27/2001 9:36:13 AM PDT
by
Daus
To: Daus
Again you swing through town without an prior notice! quit being a tease! LOL
6
posted on
09/27/2001 9:39:09 AM PDT
by
Solson
To: Solson
The package includes putting the federal government in charge of airport security.
Just like it was in charge of security at Pearl Harbor, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City Federal Building, the Pentagon, the WTC, the day President Reagan was shot -- and the day JFK was murdered!
Can't wait!
To: Daus
He is "cool to the idea" of arming the pilots. Okay, let me just say that I am "cool to the idea" of flying. How's that?
To paraphrase an old Southern expression "If the pilots ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
8
posted on
09/27/2001 9:42:39 AM PDT
by
longleaf
To: Brian Allen
Well, it sure beats having complacent, underpaid people whose attitude is "it's a job", and many of whom do not speak english.
9
posted on
09/27/2001 9:50:42 AM PDT
by
peteram
To: Solson
Ahh... MSP was only for about an hour at 10pm last night connecting through to Milwaukee! It was a LONG couple of days.....
One of these days I'll actually hang around a while up there. :)
10
posted on
09/27/2001 9:53:25 AM PDT
by
Daus
To: Brian Allen
...and, I would add, the same federal government which has utterly failed to control the borders of the United States. The Arab terrorists are here because we rolled out a red carpet for them!
To: longleaf
To paraphrase an old Southern expression "If the pilots ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
I'm onboard for them being able to carry (he's already got the controls of the plane in his hands, he couldn't do any MORE harm with a gun then what he can do with those), though I think it should be somewhat irrelevant in that they should NEVER open to cockpit door in the first place.
12
posted on
09/27/2001 9:56:58 AM PDT
by
Daus
To: Brian Allen
I can't believe the president's solution to the airline security problem is MORE government employees. We have too many of those already.
It seems like an easier solution would be to have standards for security checkpoint employees, and let the private sector handle it. We don't need more government goons who will abuse their power and then be immune from prosecution therefor.
To: Solson
He's "cool to the idea" of arming the pilots? Is this guy a real Texan? For that matter, would a real Texan have stood for the singing of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" at a national memorial service?
14
posted on
09/27/2001 10:03:18 AM PDT
by
Aurelius
To: Henrietta
It seems like an easier solution would be to have standards for security checkpoint employees, and let the private sector handle it. I am all for less government intervention as well. However, the employers of these people need to do something to keep them on the job and alert.
1. Find a way to minimize the high turnover rate of employees.
2. It's great to have multi-lingual people in this position, however make sure that one of those languages IS English.
3. Train them in the use of firearms and/or the marshall arts. At least make them LOOK intimidating.
4. Update their knowledge on the latest "tricks" used to smuggle weapons and how to recognize them.
Otherwise, bring on the 6-foot-4 marine national guard in fatigues with a sidearm. At least to send a message that we are not fooling around.
15
posted on
09/27/2001 10:06:34 AM PDT
by
peteram
To: Solson
Things to consider:
- While we want good security and desire to "feel safe," we have to realize that there will be a price to pay for this. A hefty one. In 1999, when the airlines were running at about full capacity, there were over 8 million departures in the US. That includes mail, cargo and passenger. Do we only put sky marshalls on passenger flights? Wouldn't a cargo filled, transcontinental craft do as much damage? So how many skymarshalls will we need?
- Eight million yearly flights amounts to about 22,000 flights a day. How many flights per day will a skymarshall fly on average? How many sky marshalls per plane? How many flying days per month will they be allowed to fly? (everyone has mandatory ground time)
- We're probably looking at a force of about 25,000 (or more) skymarshalls and a bureaucracy to support them. I can't wait for the next tax increase and $1,000 domestic plane tickets to cover the cost. (We haven't even begun to consider the cost of increased ground security)
- Don't get me wrong, I'm not against appropriate security measures, but once the air industry goes back to full capacity, we'll be picking up a mighty big tab.
To: peteram
We could speculate endlessly about what security measures would be best and most efficient. In my opinion, that's what the free market is all about. Let the airlines decide how best to secure their investments, and their customers. Then we, as the customer, will decide whether or not we think a particular airline is doing a good job. The ones that do the best, will get the most passengers. The ones that do not so good....well, they certainly won't be getting MORE money and MORE control in the face of their failure.
To: Solson
(From boortz.com on 9-27-01)
We're getting some mixed signals from the White House.
On one hand, you have George W. Bush authorizing the military to shoot down hijacked airliners that might be headed toward targets in major cities. But on the other hand, Bush is apparently opposed to the idea of arming airline pilots. What's the deal here? Bush is perfectly willing to blow airplanes and the people in them out of the sky to protect people on the ground--but he won't give pilots a fighting chance to stop the hijackers from taking control of the aircraft? Does that make sense to anyone?
Lets hope that Bush hasnt been swayed by the anti-gun mania of the left? Has Bush fallen for the anti-gunners' lies that guns in the hands of civilians are a danger to all? If so, he may not realize that the majority of airline pilots are ex-military. They have a greater familiarity with guns than the average citizen. Under various proposals, pilots who want to arm themselves against hijackers would have to go through rigorous training similar to the training air marshals receive.
(Comment by Bachert: PARENTHETICALLY, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO BE THOROUGH, BUT WHY THE HELL MUST THESE AIR MARSHALS UNDERGO 32 WEEKS 32 WEEKS -- OF TRAINING? IF IT TAKES THEM THAT LONG TO BE BROUGHT UP TO SPEED TO DRAW, AIM AND SQUEEZE OFF SOME BAD GUYS IN THE CONFINES OF AN ALUMINUM/TITANIUM TUNNEL, YA GOTTA WONDER ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE RECRUITS COMING TO THE PROGRAM. WANNA BET THAT IF THE AUTHORITIES DO RELENT AND LET THE PILOTS ARM THEMSELVES WHICH, BY THE WAY, THEY ALREADY CAN UNDER CFR14.108.11!!! THEYLL CATCH-22 THEM OUT OF THE NOTION BY DEMANDING THEY TAKE THAT 32 WEEK COURSE! IF THAT HAPPENS, ASK YOUR ALLEGED REPRESENTATIVE WHY?)
Guns in the hands of civilians are used to stop crime more than 7,000 times every single day.
Is Bush concerned that the pilots' guns might be taken away from them in a fight and used against them? If so, he probably isn't aware that when guns are used defensively, they're taken away from the victim less than one percent of the time. Is Bush worried that a stray gunshot will cause rapid and catastrophic decompression in the aircraft, ripping the plane's frame apart? It's never happened in real life--only in movies like "Goldfinger." A spy thriller isn't exactly the best teaching tool for the physics of decompression.
Or is Bush worried about accidental discharges in the cockpit? They're really negligent discharges. Proper training will prevent pilots from discharging their guns negligently. Only a fool places his finger on the trigger when he's not ready to shoot. It's usually the leftist gun grabbers who support the notion that military and police authorities should be the only ones with the guns. They think government officials should be the only ones with the ability to use deadly force.
Think about it. Who would you rather have as the last line of defense against a hijacker who wants to turn an airplane into a flying bomb? A blank-faced, minimally-skilled airport security worker who couldn't get a job at the local McDonald's, or an armed pilot? Of all the security improvements that have been thrown around since September 11, armed pilots are most likely to have prevented the hijacking of four commercial airliners and the deaths of 7,000 people. The terrorists took advantage of the gun-free atmosphere. They achieved their mission--and they only needed to use knives.
Let's hope President Bush comes around on this issue.
To: Kirk&Burke
"We're probably looking at a force of about 25,000 (or more) skymarshalls and a bureaucracy to support them."
I work at a glass plant that runs 24/7 and we need 4 shifts to run 24/7.
I would also think the same thing for skymarshalls since planes take off 24/7.
I bet we will need 100,000 skymarshalls to cover 24/7
19
posted on
09/27/2001 10:31:30 AM PDT
by
Mr Fowl
To: jimmy bob's uncle
Let the airlines decide how best to secure their investments, and their customers. Then we, as the customer, will decide whether or not we think a particular airline is doing a good job. That's great. I'm all for the free-market system. One thing I wonder about is, there are airports like the one I use (Orlando International) that have security points in general use areas. In other words, these security checkpoints lead to multiple gate areas where there are several different airline companies operating their gates (with the exception of the Delta airside terminal - that's exclusively Delta Airlines/ComAir).
So, which airline is paying these people? Or are they being paid by the Airport Authority?
20
posted on
09/27/2001 10:33:30 AM PDT
by
peteram
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson