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

Skip to comments.

JOHN MAGAW SUPPORTS TERRORISM
Sierra Times ^ | Captain Dennis Jackson

Posted on 05/22/2002 10:19:39 AM PDT by Sir Gawain

JOHN MAGAW SUPPORTS TERRORISM
(Only law enforcement officers should carry firearms)
By Captain Dennis Jackson
Published 05. 21. 02 at 14:44 Sierra Time

Mesa, AZ May 21, 2002 In a common display of political cowardice, the undersecretary for transportation security, John Magaw told a congressional committee that pilots would not be allowed to carry firearms as a last line of defense against hijackers.

Hopefully, Congress will exhibit more fortitude in passing HR 4635. This bill will make it a federal law that airline pilots who are qualified, investigated and trained will be allowed to carry a firearm on board commercial aircraft for the defense of the passengers, crew and those on the ground, in the event of a hijacking, as outlined by the following:

Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program

`(a) ESTABLISHMENT- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish a program to deputize qualified volunteer pilots of passenger aircraft as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the flight decks of aircraft of air carriers engaged in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Such officers shall be known as `Federal flight deck officers'. The program shall be administered in connection with the Federal air marshal program.

`(b) QUALIFIED PILOT- Under the program, a qualified pilot is a pilot of an aircraft engaged in air transportation or intrastate air transportation who--

`(1) is employed by an air carrier;

`(2) has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under Secretary fitness to be a Federal flight deck officer under the program; and

`(3) has been the subject of an employment investigation (including a criminal history record check) under section 44936(a)(1).

Magaw claims that only law enforcement should carry firearms on aircraft. Magaw has suggested a plan to provide all law enforcement officers with a special ID card that will allow them access to the aircraft with a firearm. Since this plan does not include pilots, I wonder if Magaw has a plan to create ‘super’ law enforcement officers to fly aircraft if the pilots become incapacitated during flight, or during a hijacking attempt?

There is no guarantee, as Magaw claims, that a law enforcement officer will be on board a hijacked commercial airliner, or that it will prevent a future hijacking. In fact, there was a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA on September 11, 2001. Why did this officer not prevent the hijacking? Did the terrorists defeat him early on during the hijacking? The government is not talking! It is certain that if the pilots were armed with lethal self-defense tools these terrorists would be “picked off” by the pilots as they came through the narrow flight deck door.

Instead, Magaw is implementing a toll free 800 number for passengers to call the authorities in the event of a hijacking. There were several passengers and crewmembers that made cell phone calls on September 11, and not one of those calls prevented the horrific tragedy that followed. The only logical reason for an 800 number for this purpose is to provide the government with an ‘early alert’ for the dispatch of the military fighters that will use missiles to shoot down the aircraft.

Can you imagine the embarrassment to the United States if Osama bin Laden dupes us into shooting down one of our own aircraft? The propaganda advantage to OBL and al Qaeda would be better than another WTC style attack! We would be the laughing stock of the world.

Magaw said the pilots could use in-flight maneuvers to keep the hijackers off guard and suggested installing cameras in the cabin so pilots can see the results of any actions they take. Magaw also stated that pilots should “concentrate on flying the aircraft”. If this is true, how is a video screen in the flight deck going to keep the pilots concentration on flying the aircraft? In addition, the FAA has already advised pilots not to use unusual maneuvers in flight. Such action could cause structural damage to the aircraft and also injure crewmembers in the cabin.

Magaw claims that he would possibly favor the use of less-than-lethal weapons for the defense of the flight deck such as stun guns or Tasers. While John Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, I am certain he would not send his agents into a potentially hazardous situation armed only with a “stun gun”. The use of a stun gun in the flight deck of a fly-by-wire aircraft could have devastating results to the entire electrical system and may cause the loss of the aircraft. Pilots and passengers deserve the same logical consideration when it comes to the potential hazard of a deadly hijacking.

This only illustrates the ignorance of the TSA director and shows that he has not done his homework before making such a broad statement that he will not allow armed pilots. I can guarantee that John Magaw did not meet with proponents of the armed pilot program or any industry leaders familiar with the complexities of the issue before making his ridiculous statement to Congress.

John Magaw is bowing to the wishes of the terrorist organizations that wish a safe work environment for their evil activities and the airlines that are only concerned about their liability and bottom line.

With the daily warnings of more terror attacks every concerned citizen should contact their Congressman and encourage them to support the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act (HR 4635)


Captain Jackson is a pilot for a major US air carrier and a technical advisor to Armed Females of America. He has also been an active proponent of arming pilots and is a certified firearm instructor.



TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: Thumper1960
LOL. The only thing laughable and absurd is your poor reading comprehension.
21 posted on 05/23/2002 7:19:35 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
If you can't engage in mature discourse perhaps you should throw your little tantrum elsewhere.
22 posted on 05/23/2002 7:22:56 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I don't believe Magaw is siding with the terrorists, but he sure does have his head up his butt on this issue.

A person who uses his authority to further the interests of those engaged in war against the USA is subject to prosecution for treason. The net result of any action which does not provide for armed asircraft crew members is to increase the likelyhood of a successful act of air piracy by adherents of Al Qaeda. The only excuse Mcgaw has for the policy he has instituted is his belief in a reliigion called gun control. It is long past time for allowing a religous belief =to determine government policy most especially when any logical examination shows that sucvh policy instituted for any other reason would be treason. McGaw in the policy making positrion he is in makes about as much sense as a radical islamic cleric that is devoted to Bin Laden in that position.

We have mCGaw flirting with acts of treason as in giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the USA.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

23 posted on 05/23/2002 12:22:16 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paddles
2. Despite the fact that the pilots claim that 70% of them are "proficient" with handguns, this "proficiency" differs greatly. Generally speaking, Marines are very proficient with the Air Force and Navy pilots running a distant second.

Given that pilots with firearms will be shooting at a distance of seven to ten feet at someone forcing their way into the cockpit I am decidely unsure of your point, I suspect anyone who can qualify with a sidearm will make esily make the grade.

For the most part, a military pilot's level of proficiency is far below that of a law enforcement officer.This is crap having seen numerous local state and federal LEO's qualify and seen how welll they shoot on the range having also trained Navy pilots in small arms in the past I defy you to produce a scap of evidence of this assertion.

Further, a law enforcement officer is trained to employ firearms in a completely different manner than a member of the armed forces.

Thus since we are talking last ditch defensive stand of a cockpit on a military flight rather than in support of an arrest I would submit that the law enbforcement officers who would seek to carry on a plane are the ones less qualified than the pilots. We are talking about employing lethal force when all else has failed. We are not talking aboiutr trying to apprehend. This is a hiujacking which if done like some of the 9-11 hijackings are threatening thousands of dead and you are talking about law enforcement restrictions on the use of deadly defensive force and trying to apprehend the prepetrators. This is by definition a military situation and military rules of engagement are what is needed.

Thus, some formal, standardized syllabus will be required. At a minimum, attendance at the Federal Firearms Training Facility in Glynco, GA,--or something comparable--will be required. Who will pay for this? The above is of course necessary for any program other than a simple qualification course with a handgun that then authorizes pilots only to use a handgun in defense of a cockpit. You are obviously either not examining the issue or are purposely trying to obfuscate. statistically civilians are less likely to resort to lethal force in a self-defense situation unjustifiably than law enforcement officers. Here we are talking a last ditch defensive situation where the alternative is the plane shot down and presumably all aboard dead or the plane used as cruise missle and thousands of additional dead yet you argue against guns for pilots over issues like liability and who is going to pay for some unneccesary countrer productive courses. i shall give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you have merely not thought this through. Please, consider the implications of your position.

24 posted on 05/23/2002 12:44:29 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: paddles
Re your #21.

LOL. The only thing laughable and absurd is your poor reading comprehension.

You are engaging in a direct personal attack on a poster who engaged in merely an attack on the statements you made. You are crossing a line. you have mnade assertions of fact for which there is no evidence in other posts and now you support those attacks by personal attacks. I am revbising my opinion of you from ignorant totroll please show me I am wrong and that you are willing to reasonably discuss issues raised by John McGaw and his idiotic anti-american decision.

25 posted on 05/23/2002 12:49:30 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
I am back posting for this aftenoon gotta see the flying fish that landed in my lap during dog watch in a little while. Some things have priority over posting on Free Republic. Its been cold up here and its nice to get warm.

Stay well - Stay safe -Stay armed - Yorktown

26 posted on 05/23/2002 12:55:10 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: paddles; safisoft; Thumper1960; Squantos
It looks like in paddles we have someone who when challenged for logic and fact because his statements have none of them we have someone who tries to resort to flames. Interestingly enough he claims to be pro RKBA which I guess he thinks himself to be but he at the same time does not seem to be a frequent commentator on the bang list. Open challenge to paddles back up some of your assertions of "fact' with some hard data most especially that law enforcement officers as a group are more qualified with pistols than most former military pilots.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

27 posted on 05/23/2002 1:09:42 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
One of the "stupid" LEO's, I see.

It's amazing you can use a computer. Did the home intern help you? Of course!

28 posted on 05/23/2002 2:06:22 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Meant to be posted to Piddles......err...."Paddles".

Mea culpa!

29 posted on 05/23/2002 2:08:16 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: paddles
If you can't engage in mature discourse perhaps you should throw your little tantrum elsewhere.

What part of my discussing FACTS about the airline industry and my first hand knowledge about the so-called security issues would you consider immature, or a "tantrum"? There are about 80,000 Air Line Pilot Association members that wish they could give people like you a private briefing (our government sponsored briefings are labelled as "priveledged" and not for discussion outside - Security briefing is a part of our jobs. We also know full well how "many" (not a good word to use when discussing the numbers of these people) Air Marshalls are flying on our planes (they MUST report to the Captain on any flight). We also know IN DETAIL the facts around the "secure cockpit door" issue. We know much more about this than anyone else. As a group, airline pilots went from OPPOSING firearms in the flight deck by about 60% right after 911 - to being about 80% in FAVOR after we learned what the government's response would be...

An interesting aside: Airline pilots also know that our government has let us down in the past on this issue. Since 1986, when government-sponsered security training became a part of every airline pilots' annual training, we have sat through literally hundreds of hours of threat briefings that taught us to SURRENDER, instead of fight. We heard EVERY YEAR that we should let the "professionals" in law enforcement do their jobs - we should always give in to the demands of hijackers... Well, our brothers on those aircraft on 911 did what our GOVERNMENT TRAINED THEM TO DO. Is it no wonder that the airline pilot in 2002 no longer trusts our government "experts" in law enforcement to do what is best.

A passenger's best friends on a dark and stormy night is a flight crew that has been trained and equipped to make wise decisions and act with courage. A passenger's best friend on a scary day when 6 men take over an aircraft would be a pilot who has been trained and equipped to kill them.

I pray someday you do not learn how right I am by experience...
30 posted on 05/23/2002 3:04:47 PM PDT by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Let's start with U.S. Marine aviators. I presume you won't argue with my statement that among aviators they are the most proficient with firearms? Marines qualify with the pistol after less than a week of shooting at The Basic School in Quantico, VA. After that, they will at best spend less than one day annually re-qualifying. Most Marine aviators are not fortunate enough to re-qualify every year.

On average, this is significantly less that most law enforcement officers.

31 posted on 05/23/2002 3:11:25 PM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
"A passenger's best friend on a scary day when 6 men take over an aircraft would be a pilot who has been trained and equipped to kill them."

And all this "ignorant troll" has been saying is that getting them properly trained and equipped is not as simple as it sounds.

32 posted on 05/23/2002 3:37:04 PM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
For my own edification:

1. How many Navy pilots have you trained?

2. Where did this training take place and when?

3. Please provide a brief description of the course of instruction.

Thanks.

33 posted on 05/23/2002 7:33:08 PM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
For my own edification:

Please give me a rough estimate of the number of military pilots you are aware who have had to employ their personal sidearms in combat in the last 20 years.

Thanks.

34 posted on 05/23/2002 7:42:11 PM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: paddles
At a minimum, attendance at the Federal Firearms Training Facility in Glynco, GA,--or something comparable--will be required. Who will pay for this?

I'm the father of a pro pilot, and I believe his attitude, and this would be true of most pilots; is that they would gladly pay their own way!

DTOM

35 posted on 05/23/2002 7:50:21 PM PDT by Ace's Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: paddles
"...Thus, some formal, standardized syllabus will be required. At a minimum, attendance at the Federal Firearms Training Facility in Glynco, GA,--or something comparable--will be required. Who will pay for this?"...

Things aren't all that complicated. Pilots and the airlines make enough money to cover the expense of this little session. The pilot's union wants it, because the pilots want it.

The concept and the techniques to be taught aren't all that complicated either. The pilots aren't expected to confront anyone except those that present an imminent danger to the folks on the plane and the plane itself, because of the former. His gun is the last defense against whatever threatens to destroy the plane and kill everyone on board. Every flight isn't going to have a marshal or two on board. If hte pilot's locked in the cabin, do you expect him to just sit by and let some jihadists kill all the passengers? If he is left defenseless and some jihadists penetrate his door, then what? Shoot the plane down?

If the pilot has to use his weapon and and innocent person gets killed, or injured, what would have happened to that person and their fellows on the plane had he done nothing? Is their a real choice. In such close quarters, ~5 yds., how much training do you think the pilot needs to plug a target? Those who would deny him the feedom to defend himself and the plane make it sound like he would be out to make a 1000yd shot at a quarter into a crowd of people.

36 posted on 05/23/2002 8:05:53 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

John Magaw is anti-American

While head of the BATF, John Magaw worked to deprive American citizens of their God given rights as affirmed by the Second Amendment.

He should be treated as a pariah. A traitor.

37 posted on 05/23/2002 8:24:00 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paddles
"...is that getting them properly trained and equipped is not as simple as it sounds."

This is an understatement. Properly training and equipping those whose "full time" job it is to use direct action/lethal force is extremely difficult. Proficiency and Mindset are the fundamental concepts behind all arms training. Boy Scouts know this. Most pilots do not...except where and when it comes to flying. Unfortunately achieving proficiency (the mindset has to be there at the get-go)in the form of expertise wrt close (confined) quarters combat and the actual application of deadly force requires years of intensive repeat intensive training and a minimum follow on weekly "maintenance" plan. A burning desire to learn this art is also fundamental. Kinda like becoming and being a pilot. A weapon (firearm) in the hands of an inadequately trained (in CQB) pilot is about the same as an airplane in the hands of a poorly proficient(in flying) DAP.

In the real world it is tough to get USMC/USA Pilots to go to the range once annualy. Getting them to clean and keep their weapons in adequate condition is like pulling the teeth out of a lioness. What "qualification" IS, is argued frequently by no-kidding, got a ball cap, got a t-shirt experts. The logistical concerns are also incredible. Funding? And what happens if the pilots don't get a pay raise for achieving this new "skill." What will their unions demands be? Have the lawyers weighed in yet? The PACs and lobbyists?

Defending an aircraft (from being hijacked)is a complex issue...but to simply hand (which is what is being figuratively advocated by your foe here) a pilot (who is probably more at home carrying a sign in a picket line) a firearm after a few days "qualification" and some feely touchy classes about use of deadly force won't cut it right now...and if some will resist carrying firearms what then?

Tough issue.

Your points are valid. Made me rethink all of this.

For now these vocals would be best spent in the hilarious prevention (airport security issues) mode.

BTW. What do the Israelis do about airport security? Are their pilots armed?

38 posted on 05/23/2002 8:28:32 PM PDT by Slam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Senators Smith and Miller Introduce Armed Pilots Bill

Contact both your Senators today and urge them to support the bipartisan Smith bill, S. 2554. And if you are in New Hampshire, please support Bob Smith, the most conservative Senator running for re-election.

39 posted on 05/23/2002 8:30:51 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slam
Good to hear from ya.

We've got a some tough talkin' wannabes on this thread. I'll bet ya a case of your favorite brew not a one of 'em ever fired a shot in anger, but are as mean as they come behind a keyboard.

40 posted on 05/23/2002 9:37:18 PM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 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