Posted on 07/27/2002 8:21:56 AM PDT by PJeffQ
Hollings' refusal of 9-11 widow's gun testimony triggers media attention
Saturday, July 27, 2002
BY SCHUYLER KROPF
Of The Post and Courier Staff
The story of the South Carolina senator who said "no" to the widow of the 9-11 airline pilot is fast gaining national attention.
Democrat U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings rejected a request by Ellen Saracini to testify at Thursday's Senate hearings in favor of letting airline pilots be armed in the cockpit.
Her husband, Richard, was the captain of United Flight 175, the second plane to crash into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
Hollings, D-S.C., opposes the bill and refused to let Saracini testify before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. He did suggest that her comments be included in the record.
Hollings' stance has become fodder for cable TV news shows, with the likes of Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel targeting what O'Reilly called a lack of compassion.
"Sen. Hollings, incredibly, refused to hear the woman, saying the committee didn't have time, even though Mrs. Saracini petitioned for a hearing months ago," O'Reilly editorialized.
"This is, No. 1, an outrage, No. 2, disrespectful to a woman who has endured tragedy and No. 3, undemocratic," he added. "Sen. Hollings should be ashamed of himself on humanitarian grounds alone. The rejection of Mrs. Saracini has caused her even more pain, and she deserves to be heard."
O'Reilly even used the "A-word" - "arrogant" - to describe Hollings; it's a term his critics often have used against him.
The media attention, including Saracini's news interviews, caused Hollings' office to be "rushed" with calls beginning Friday morning, some from as far away as California and Texas, his office said.
Hollings' Washington, D.C., press spokesman said the senator is being unfairly attacked by the talking-head circuit. Spokesman Andy Davis said the committee covered an extensive list of issues facing aviation security nationwide, including funding for transportation security, training and deployment of federal security screeners, logistic challenges facing airports, the deployment of explosive detection equipment and cockpit and air cargo security measures. Arming pilots was one issue on a long list, he said.
"We needed time to talk to the secretary (Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta) about a lot of issues beyond arming pilots," he said.
Thursday's lengthy hearing actually was slanted more in favor of those who support arming pilots than those who opposed, Davis added. The committee heard from the bill's sponsors, Sen. Bob Smith R-N.H., and Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and also pilot Capt. Stephen Luckey, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's national security committee.
One pilot, Capt. Ed Davidson, director of flight safety for Northwest Airlines, testified against it, Davis said.
Hollings is against arming pilots and instead favors making passenger plane cockpits secure from forced entry by adding such things as Kevlar-lined bullet-resistant doors. He also favors the mandate of El Al airline that when the cockpit door is locked, it stays locked.
O'Reilly was blunt in his attack against the South Carolina senator who has two years left in his current term.
"Hollings is against guns in the cockpit," he said. "He doesn't want someone like Ellen Saracini swaying sentiment. And he's arrogant enough to dismiss this woman even though her husband was a victim of our country's lax security."
O'Reilly also invited Hollings to appear on his show to defend his position.
"I don't expect that he will," Davis said of his boss.
More hearings on the issue could be held.
Commercial airlines are under Federal Aviation Administration orders to install new, heavier cockpit doors by April 9, 2003. They must lock from inside the cockpit and be strong enough that terrorists can't shoot off a lock or blow up the door.
But even the new doors can be opened to let pilots go to the bathroom and let flight attendants bring in meals. Hollings doesn't want the doors opened at all while the plane is aloft.
"The door has got to be fixed - impenetrable - and never opened in flight," Hollings said on Thursday. "Once that's fixed, we've solved the problem of an airliner flying into the Empire State Building. We've solved the problem of guns in the cockpit."
Luckey said, "Neither the current cockpit doors nor the new cockpit doors are impenetrable," and therefore pilots should be allowed to carry guns.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yes, that would probably be sensible (if someone Doesn't Want To Have A Gun then probably he should not be trusted with one. Whether such a person ought to be trusted with a passenger plane is a discussion I don't really want to get into).
Anyway: yes, a good start would be to let pilots carry if they want to. Currently they are forbidden, hence the debate.
A years ago, I was asked by company management, along with some others, to meet hollings when he toured the new manufacturing plant where we worked. Management forgot to ask me my opinion of hollings. We had a designated time and place to meet him. I refused to shake the scalawag's hand and just glared at him. He refused to look me in the eye and moved on. The management got ticked off with me. I could not bring myself to shake the hand of such a low-life as hollings.
Wink. Wink. ;-) 202-224-4293
And what about the flight attendants being cut to pieces by terrorists bearing box cutters?
I have signed numerous petitions on the Internet for arming pilots and will never fly again until they are. And most Americans want armed pilots. And Hollings "doesn't want the doors opened at all while the plane is aloft". See what I mean about Hollings being a stupid old fart politician. When the pilot has to use the bathroom, what's he supposed to do? I'll bet Hollings can't go more than five minutes without having to use the bathroom. God save America from politicians!
If Hollings truly believes this, he ought to sponsor a bill making it illegal for any hijacked airliner to be shot down by the military. Secured cockpit doors also make this step unnecessary, after all.
He should put his money where his fat, old, gaping maw is. But like most effing politicans, they lack the stones to propose anything that puts their sorry asses on the line.
Mean while, the F-16's are ready to blow you travelers out of the sky. The people who think this stuff up are fools with inflated egoes, believing they know better than anyone else.
I guess their take is: why give the pilot a lil-ole gun when we already got a pilot up there with a heckuva gun. OUR pilot will blast that nasty ole hijacker to kingdom come, plane and all.
The important thing is, it's a Federal pilot that's carrying the gun!
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.