Posted on 01/16/2004 12:25:16 AM PST by kattracks
The Associated PressBRUSSELS, Belgium Jan. 16 — U.S. Homeland Security officials making the case for the use of armed sky marshals on trans-Atlantic flights faced widespread fears in Europe about the risks to crew and passengers. Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security in the Homeland Security Department, will meet Friday with civil aviation officials from the 15 European Union nations to try to convince them that air marshals are needed to prevent terrorist attacks on planes.
Following the heightened security levels over the Christmas holidays, Washington is now demanding increased international cooperation to thwart new threats.
American demands, however, have been met by widespread fears in Europe that the use of armed guards on commercial flights could put crew and passengers at risk.
"We are not sure air marshals with weapons are going to guarantee safety," EU spokesman Gilles Gantelet said.
Complicating matters for Washington is that it will have to deal with each EU nation on an individual basis. The EU's executive Commission has no policing powers or legal means to negotiate on the EU's behalf on the use of air marshals.
Several EU nations, including Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, have reservations on the use of the marshals, while Britain and Germany are open to the idea. The four opposing nations have all said they would rather cancel flights if there was a strong suspicion of an attack rather than put armed guards on the planes.
"It may even create more problems than it solves," said Bo Eckerbert of the Swedish Aviation Administration.
"There are possibilities to make other efforts than putting the problem aboard an aircraft," he said. "We do not want weapons in the cabin."
Kim Salonen, head of air security at Finland's Civil Aviation Administration agreed. "We have a negative stand. Should there be a concrete threat to air security, then we would ground a flight rather than take marshals on board," he said.
Airlines too have problems with the idea, saying they not only have safety concerns over having guns onboard but also over the cost factor. Added security measures since the Sept. 11 terror attacks have cost airlines millions of dollars.
Airlines already have to supply U.S. authorities with more data on passengers on trans-Atlantic flights, but a December deal brokered between EU headquarters and Washington, limited the use of such data to comply with EU privacy rules.
Finland's national carrier, Finnair, which flies to New York and other North American cities, is against the use of marshals. Package tour operator Thomas Cook, which operates charter flights between London and Orlando, Fla., also said it would not accept sky marshals.
Pilot organizations in Britain, Spain and other countries also expressed strong reservations.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced Dec. 29 that airlines would be required to place armed law enforcement officers on flights to the United States "where necessary."
The announcement came after U.S. authorities raised their terrorism alert to orange, the second-highest level, and increased security surrounding international flights. The alert was lowered to yellow on Jan. 9, but airports remain on high alert.
More than a dozen flights to the United States on British Airways, Aeromexico and Air France have been canceled or delayed since New Year's Eve because of security fears.
EU officials doubt Friday's meeting will yield in a result, but are optimistic that the EU countries could better coordinate future aviation security policy better with the United States.
Right, and lack of security measures on Sept. 11 cost billions of dollars.
"We are not sure air marshals with weapons are going to guarantee safety," EU spokesman Gilles Gantelet said.
There is no single thing at all that can guarantee safety, nothing. If that is the standard, then they may just as well give up. Which is basically the standard policy of the EU anyway.
Note to Bo: On September 11 the hijackers used knives. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. What a typical ignorant old-world simpleton. I think that most of these people just need a good ass kicking so that they realize that the world is a physical place, and not the safe theoretical nursery that they have lived in (thanks to us) for the last ~60 years.
Don't like it? Don't fly here. No skin off our nose...
That would be the worst for Europe. That would mean a total oppression of the omni-dominant US. Uniting Europe means more competition, less customs, more power to the consumers. I would not want to give up the rights I gained through the EU. There´re many things the EU can regulate much more better than any of its member states, such like common standards on education, travelling, trade with other nations, etc. The EU is designed to create ONE market, and that´s the best the EU can do. The other wishy-washy common foreign policy is not realistic, but the economy policy is a good thing.
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.