IMPERIAL TRANSPORTATION BUREAUCRAT SAYS YES TO LAVISH OFFICES, NO TO ARMED PILOTS

Texas Straight Talk ^ | June 24, 2002 | Ron Paul

[robowombat]

June 24, 2002

IMPERIAL TRANSPORTATION BUREAUCRAT SAYS YES TO LAVISH OFFICES, NO TO ARMED PILOTS

Undersecretary John Magaw, the chief of the new Transportation Security Administration, has been very busy lately. He just spent $410,000 of your tax dollars installing lavish fixtures in his new office suite at the Transportation department headquarters. The Washington Post reports that "With its plush carpeting, mahogany stained doors, crown molding, and state-of-the-art conference room equipped with $109,000 worth of audio equipment, it has struck some visitors as ‘a little bit over the top.’" Incredibly, Magaw managed to spend about $132 per square foot on his new digs, more than the cost of new construction from scratch in the most expensive locations!

Of course this is nothing new in Washington. Self-indulgent bureaucrats routinely get away with wasteful extravagance. It’s rare, however, when they are caught red handed, and it’s important to expose such behavior whenever possible. Taxpayers deserve better and should demand his resignation.

Mr. Magaw is no stranger to bureaucratic excess. He worked for Clinton and Janet Reno as director of the hated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the agency responsible for the Waco tragedy.

This is the same Mr. Magaw who recently announced at a Transportation committee hearing that he "would not allow" pilots to carry guns. That’s right, he would not allow it. In other words, the undersecretary believes that he, rather than Congress, will determine federal policy regarding armed pilots. This incredibly arrogant assumption of legislative power by an unelected bureaucrat should outrage every member of Congress, and every American who cares about the separation of federal powers. Apparently Mr. Magaw cares little for a Constitution that authorizes Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, to make the laws.

His pompous display on national television angered many pilots, who recognized Magaw’s disdain for their abilities. The undersecretary made clear his belief that the men and women we entrust to fly our families cannot be trusted with simple firearms. His ludicrous statement- that pilots cannot fly the plane and defend the cockpit at the same time- utterly ignores the reality that pilots can’t fly at all if they’re left defenseless as terrorists overtake them! The bottom line is that guns in the cockpit might have changed the outcome of September 11th.

We’ve already seen the Transportation department, headed by anti-gun Secretary Mineta, refuse to implement the armed pilots program passed by Congress last fall. The department must be learning from the IRS, which often simply refuses to allow new deductions passed by Congress. Both agencies demonstrate the disturbing trend toward lawmaking by unaccountable administrative agencies.

Arming pilots remains the smartest and sanest approach to making the skies safer immediately. Pilots themselves overwhelmingly support having the option to carry arms in the cockpit, and we should listen to them rather than self-appointed policymakers in federal agencies. While the usual anti-gun forces predictably oppose armed pilots legislation, the supposedly gun-friendly Bush administration should not stand in the way of pilots defending themselves and their passengers. Mr. Magaw should be fired if he refuses to implement the law. A new armed pilots bill recently passed in the Aviation subcommittee, and may see a vote later this year. While I support this bill, which essentially makes pilots federal deputies, my own legislation is more direct. My bill simply allows the airlines and pilots to decide for themselves whether to allow guns in the cockpit. This approach respects both the Second amendment and the private property rights of the airlines. While no amount of security can guarantee another terrorist won’t again board an aircraft with a weapon, Congress can make sure pilots are not left defenseless by passing a direct armed pilots bill and overseeing its immediate implementation.

[robowombat]

Your tax dolars at work. While Imperial Consul Magaw devotes his attention to color coordinating his new palace he takes time to denounce the outrageous suggestion that airline pilots be armed to defend their ship and passengers against pirates and maurauders. What is clearly on display is the statist attitude that only officially certified government violence specialists can use force. The rest of the subjects of the empire must know their place.

[dcwusmc]

Bravo for this post and a HUGE Ron Paul BUMP!

[cynicom]

He is there because BUSH allows it. This tin can should be tied on Bush, no one else.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"He worked for Clinton and Janet Reno as director of the hated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the agency responsible for the Waco tragedy. "

Bush has this idiot for the TSA???

[drypowder]

It appears that Bush has been effectively castrated. Any true and rational REPUBLICAN President would have dumped the Clinton leftovers in the first few days of taking office. It is my sense that these corrupted bureaucrats will be Bushes undoing.

[niki]

bump

[colorado tanker]

Imperial Consul Magaw's abilities obviously are planetary in scope. I nominate him as the next sand inspector on Tatooine.

[PoppingSmoke]

Yeah there is a lot of waste in DC. But that does not mean pilots need to be armed. Someone, anyone tell me what other Country arms they're pilots? Someone, anyone show me "in fact" not emotionally, not politically, that this plan is well thought out and has a detailed procedure? Someone, anyone show me any independent studies showing cause and effect, other than the typical pro-gun (which I am a supporter of the Second Amendment) that shows support for this move.

For the sake of being consistant. I can support a weapon in the cockpit "ONLY" as a last resort for the protection of the cockpit and thats as long as there is a strick guideline.

[Wm Bach]

He is there because BUSH allows it.

Truth outs!

[robowombat]

To my knowledge Israel and Pakistan arm flight crews. As to the efficacy of this policy I can only state I would trust someone trained to pilot a large aircraft in an armed confrontation with a highjacker far sooner than I would a fed employee. In the 1970 time frame when a rash of highjackings first brought forth the "Skymarshall" program I was in the USAF. Many of the "Skymarshalls" were recruited from the NCO ranks of that very unmilitary service. A number of the people I know of being selected were the duds from the generally dim Security Police element or assorted equipement maintenance types who were tired of the long hours spent peering into the innards of an aircaft powerplants or some other device. Skymarshalls are nothing more than expensive armed security guards not unlike the people one sees standing in bank lobbies. They may be in plain clothes but they are the same thing. Does anyone really think these people would be effective in doing anything except providing the highjacker some firearms?

The real bottom line issue here is the determination on the part of a claque of bureaucrats to make sure the wicked notion of personal self defense does not get validated. Rather than have the subjects of the empire have validation that individuals can and should fight back and defend themselves rather than rely on the officially certified violence specialist corps I am certain these folks are quite comfortable with the notion of losing a few planeloads of passengers.

[archy]

Yeah there is a lot of waste in DC. But that does not mean pilots need to be armed. Someone, anyone tell me what other Country arms they're pilots? Someone, anyone show me "in fact" not emotionally, not politically, that this plan is well thought out and has a detailed procedure? Someone, anyone show me any independent studies showing cause and effect, other than the typical pro-gun (which I am a supporter of the Second Amendment) that shows support for this move.

For the sake of being consistant. I can support a weapon in the cockpit "ONLY" as a last resort for the protection of the cockpit and thats as long as there is a strick guideline

Austria and Israel, for two, have had both armed flight deck personnwel and armed security teams on board. Virtually all of the Air America cargo pilots I flew with in Southeast Asia were armed, though not always with handguns, and Alaska state law requires that a firearm be carried aboard aircraft operated in that state, for potential survival situation purposes.

-archy-/-

[bvw]

Maybe the sky marshalls are for some other purpose.

If you are going to defend a closed, tight quarters cabin from a sudden attack, a gun is not the first choice to counter-attack -- takes too much time to present, too limited in its zone of action.

As a cabin control mechanism, however, two armed men could hold a whole crowd at bay.

Now if the pilots were armed, that wouldn't work.

But say there is a short warning of a nuke or some other massive attack on DC, or NY -- and the imperial court needs to abandon the cities quickly.

Why how better to do it than to commandeer what commercial flights are in the neighboring air space, deplane the passengers and enplane the imperial court and its hangers-on.

Too much? What else explains the nonsensical, ineffectual use of sky marshalls -- who will be easy enough to take out with a surprise, sudden, vicisus attack by hand, and thus gain their guns. Why do we need marshalls -- no sane and able passenger will fail to exhausr his dying breath to stop a hijacker after 9/11? And in the face of disarming the pilots -- the ex-military pilots, whose day-to-day reason for being is to ensure the safety of all souls on board?

Occam's razor.

[PoppingSmoke]

"To my knowledge Israel and Pakistan arm flight crews"

First neither Country arms flight crews. There is a procedure with EL AL of which I will not go into detail on a public forum. But the El Al pilots and flight deck are not allowed to carry. Pakistan also does not arm its pilots. They use they're military as security. In this case I would rather trust the pilot.

Yes the Sky Marshall program of the 70's was a failure for a number of reason. Quality of the recruit, training, strategy, tactics and air/ground procedures where the top problems. It is my personal belief that this will not work much better today. We have just to many flights. It's mainly a Deterrent. Even EL AL has had major problems with it's security people on board, though you never hear about any of these.

My biggest problem is the close quarters battle (CQB). I am not impressed with the current training of the sky marshalls in this arena, forget the Pilot. A pilot does not just get out of the left seat and perform this procedure with any success. This is plainly not reality. Busting caps once a month is not even close with reagrds to training to acquire this skill.

I think that arming the pilots for the concept of protecting the cockpit with strick guidelines is something I can support. Getting a pilot wasted in a potnetial gun battle in the cabin does nothing to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Whats next when this happens? The Co-Pilot makes his move next?

[Dick Bachert]

Isn't this MORON MAGAW the same imbicile who took over BATF after Steven "Meet Me in Waco, Janet" Higgins hit the silk of his golden federal pension parachute after the Randy Weaver debacle?

Oh yeah, this Magaw dork REALLY wants PRIVATE firearms to be painted as potentially beneficial, life-saving instruments in the minds of a public just about conditioned by decades of Handgun Control propaganda that they are ONLY for the murder of innocents.

NOT!!

Mr. Bush, FIRE MINETA, MACGAW and RIDGE -- TODAY (unless, of course, you agree with the Schumer, Hollings wing of the DemoCRAP party).

Think about that NEXT incident and how you're going to feel when you pull the trigger on a plane full of citizens because you refused to allow the crew that last line of defense of their ship.

[PoppingSmoke]

"Austria and Israel, for two, have had both armed flight deck personnwel and armed security teams on board. Virtually all of the Air America cargo pilots I flew with in Southeast Asia were armed, though not always with handguns, and Alaska state law requires that a firearm be carried aboard aircraft operated in that state, for potential survival situation purposes."

Austria and Israel do not allow their pilots to carry. There is a procedure though. As far as Air American is concerned. Heck everyone in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was armed. Alaska has indeed an interesting approach, but also has some very strick guidelines and that is only for certain flights within its boundaries.

[TADSLOS]

I wonder if he included a big screen tv in order to watch the next attack from the comfort of his plush surroundings?

[monday]

Let me ask. If you were a terrorist and knew that airline one arms its pilots and airline two doesn't arm its pilots, which airlines plane would you target to hijack?

Myself, if I want to fly I will choose the airline that arms its pilots. If you believe you are safer on an airline that doesn't, you may choose the gun free airline.

Bon Voyage!

[PoppingSmoke]

"Let me ask. If you were a terrorist and knew that airline one arms its pilots and airline two doesn't arm its pilots, which airlines plane would you target to hijack?"

Makes no difference. If 911 taught you anything it was that terrorist come prepared that includes the understanding of flight. Another untrained gun in the cabin will make little difference. Now, say that, if the bulkheads were reinforced and the flight deck locked in with a weapon, that could have an impact. Then again it would depend on the situation and the Captain.

[monday]

"Getting a pilot wasted in a potnetial gun battle in the cabin does nothing to ensure the safety of the aircraft. "

Handing over control of the airplanes to the hijackers on 9-11 certainly did nothing to ensure the safty of the aircraft, did it? If you would rather surrender and place your life in the hands of a hi-jacker than fight to survive that is your choice. It sounds pretty cowardly to me.

I think you miss the point anyway. Arming the pilots is a deterrent. Assuming the hijackers know that pilots are armed, which they should if it is publicized and they are not complete idiots, they will turn to other targets that have a better chance of success. Smuggling weapons on board an airplane is difficult enough, but add to that the prospect of armed intervention and any potential hi-jacker will look elsewhere. There would never be a "potential gun battle".

[lodwick]

bttt