Posted on 12/15/2004 5:39:10 AM PST by FairfaxVA
Can you imagine if an al Qaeda bureaucrat had ordered the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists to wear "I heart Osama" T-shirts when they embarked on their murderous flights?
No idiot would send his men on a covert mission wearing clothes that would so blatantly give them away, right?
Wrong. Meet Federal Air Marshal Service Director Thomas Quinn. The man in charge of our in-flight cops, who are supposed to be spying secretly on would-be terrorist hijackers, refuses to allow his employees to dress undercover. Quinn insists that air marshals abide by military-style grooming standards and a rigid business dress policy regardless of weather, time of year or seating arrangement. He wants them to look PROFESSIONAL.
That means collared shirts and sports coats -- even if a pair of marshals is traveling in coach from Los Angeles to Orlando.
As The Washington Times recently reported, Quinn blew his top on Thanksgiving when he spotted nearly 30 marshals at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., in violation of his insipid dress code. Some were reportedly threatened with suspension.
This nonsense has been going on for two years. The result is that the federal government has not made air travel any safer, and is instead endangering the people who are supposed to be protecting us. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents over 22,000 federal agents including air marshals, notes that civilian passengers have publicly outed marshals on countless flights since the Sept. 11 attacks. Air marshals have recounted receiving thumbs-ups and thanks from travelers nationwide. No doubt al Qaeda's operatives who are surveilling flights are mumbling thanks under their breath, too.
Indeed, on an infamous American Airlines Flight 1438 from Chicago to Miami, two air marshals, dressed conspicuously in their professionally mandated suits, received the following greeting from a passenger walking down the aisle: "Oh, I see we have air marshals on board!"
Another air marshal working out of the Las Vegas field office, who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, told the government watchdog group Airline Passengers for Safer Skies (APSS): "Under the current policies of Director Quinn, airline passengers are actually safer flying on aircraft that do not have air marshals on them." Marshals refer darkly to Quinn's dress requirements as the "kill-me-first dress-code policy." The Las Vegas field officer remarked: "If all the passengers know we are carrying the guns on the plane, then so do the terrorists -- we just don't want to get our throats slit."
Quinn's response to critics? Kill the messengers! As online journalist Annie Jacobsen reported in September, the air marshals service threatened to take action against the passenger who pointed out the marshals made vulnerable by Quinn's own dress-code policy. The passenger, Quinn protested, had disclosed "sensitive security information." Meanwhile, according to APSS, Quinn himself participated in a NBC Nightly News segment that revealed classified and sensitive information on marshals' boarding procedures, credentials, equipment and look-out criteria.
Quinn spent two decades at the Secret Service before taking over the air marshals service, which may explain his dangerous fashion taste for the Men in Black uniforms. According to several sources inside the agency, Quinn has used his position to hire several former Secret Service cronies -- who have plenty of experience guarding high-profile politicians and celebrities, but no clue about what it takes to blend in and be effective watchdogs in the air.
There is reportedly a provision in the intelligence reform bill passed last week that will put Quinn's kill-me-first dress policy on ice. But it's not enough. If President Bush wants to rescue airline safety from the abysmal national joke that it has become, the first thing he should do is fire Thomas Quinn before the end of the year. How many more people will die before we learn that bureaucracy and security don't mix?
Sheesh, what a dumb policy.
Typical government thought process on security.
Reminds me of my time in the AF - when the undercover guys wore suits - but sported strict AFR 35-10 regulation haircuts - in the early 80's. Let's see...spend millions of dollars setting up covert offices, personnel and alibis - then give it all away with a $3 haircut. Sounds about right.
But not to worry - the TSA guys routinely identify all potential terrorists before any flight, by probing grandma's and 13-year old girls who gave themselves away by buying one-way tickets less than 2 weeks before a flight.
The stupidity at DOT is absolutely criminal.
There are business men and women on every flight I've ever been on so I don't think dressed in a sports jacket signifies 'MARSHALL' at all.
Further, I think seeing someone dressed in a suit or sports jacket sends a message of authority.
Better to discourage anything untoward than to have a situation on board.
Dumb to the nth. Back in the early 60's I heard of an Army Counter-Intelligence Corps unit commander who insisted all his agents wear blue serge suits. Imagine a covert surveillance team with a half-dozen guys running around in matching blue suits pretending not to know each other. Keystone cops time.
I'll never fly again until they get some sanity back in the process. They need to model the security measures Israel uses.
It's all about " IMAGE " looking professional.
What is complicated about this?
Seems all the more reason to arm the pilots!
At least they didn't have no stupid, commie, long-hair.
Pilots hell... let the people bear arms.
Do you really think the 9-11 attacks would have happened if 10 or 15 citizens on the plane would have been armed?
We need to be responsible and take care of ourselves - not sit around and expect somebody else to take care of us.
Of course - we have allowed laws to be passed that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons on planes. Right to keep and bear arms.
"And remember, it is better to look good than to be good. And you look MARVELOUS!" --Fernando
Same here, and I work for the FAA. Last time I flew I had my ID and ticket checked 5 time just going through security.
It is called "showing the colors" - the patrol cops on beat in the neighborhood. The only problem is that there cannot possibly be these "patrol cops" on every flight. The flights where there are no air marshals are immediately identified by the absence of the "men in black" uniforms.
The old J. Edgar Hoover FBI dress code in effect.
Quinn needs to go.
Why send ANY message? The point of an air marshal on board is so attackers will have NO IDEA WHO might suddenly plug them during an attack. "Sending a message" does not assert authority, it identifies who needs to be killed first - not exactly helpful to airline security.
Gritting his teeth and forcing a smile, the designer declared, "I'm sure these uniforms will look splendid on your palace guards."
"Palace guards? These are for my secret police!"
So you are against uniformed police officers too?
I'm all for some form of self-defense weapon on a plane, but 10 or 15 people waving firearms around on an aircraft, would be just as scary as some terrorists....those seats just would not be much to hide behind.
That's a good point.
I still don't think that the terrorists would even try - if they knew that in America, citizens carry guns all the time...
There is certainly more to it that just "anybody" carrying a gun, and I have no problem with training being mandatory... but we still have that right to take a class and carry a gun.
My safety is my own responsibility - not anybody elses.
Are ye daft, man?!
Those two situations are TOTALLY different..
Oh, nevermind....
Knives, batons, etc, cause much less collateral damage, and can be very effective. I think people should be allowed some form of defensive weapon aboard aircraft.
In that line of work, image = dead.
When a half-dozen madmen decide to kill 1000s of people by crashing a plane filled with 100s of people, the first thing they'll do is kill the 1 person on board who can stop them. Looking professional or authoritative makes that one lone armed good guy into target #1.
It's worse than that. It allows terrorists to actually plan a hijacking around killing the AM, and taking his pistol. If you know who he is, you can stab him with a ceramic knife etc. Then you have a gun which can control the passengers while your confedrerates attack the cockpit door.
Also, the AMs pre-board with the old folks and toddlers and handicapped.
"Hmmmm, who are those two buff 35 year olds, with military haircuts and jackets and ties on a flight to Orlando, boarding with the cripples and oldsters???"
Fire Quinn and hire Frank Drevin of Police Squad. What an improvement that would be.
They can then use the dead AM's gun to control the passengers, while the others crack open the cockpit door.
Oh I forgot. Anyone wearing a spoart coat is an authority figure and is the ultimate deterrent against terrorists. Why did they restrict wearing coats and ties on the 09/11 flights?
Very intelligent reply. A good sharp knife would do wonders for slowing down a terrorist with an attitude. I used to travel overseas alot. I always had a slender .005 lead mechanical pencil in my shirt pocket.
Yes, thin is good. I always travel with something like that on my person if I can.
There are business men and women on every flight I've ever been on so I don't think dressed in a sports jacket signifies 'MARSHALL' at all.
On any of the NE shuttles, they probably would blend in. But not on holiday flights, like Thanksgiving, when air marshalls were recently disciplined for trying to blend in with families going home for the holidays.
I suspect they tend to stick out on those Miami flights also. Why not let them decide?
A rat tail comb like the ladies use is really great. A couple of seconds with a file to sharpen the tail and you have yourself a potent legal self defense instrument.
I think the problem is in having a 'known' policy at all. You could easily make the arguement that having highly visible marshalls on planes could disrupt a terrorist takeover plan simply by their presence. Like having cops on the beat in high crime areas reduces crime.
The opposing argument--that most passengers somehow all dress alike in 'collarless' shirts and without suits is similarly stupid. I've worn suits on planes simply to keep them out of a bag.
If you want to create doubt in the minds of the terrorists, the best policy would be a policy that allowed marshalls to 'mix it up' in their clothing. That way the terrorists wouldn't have a clue as to whether a marshall was on board.
In the states, they are getting very paranoid about what you can carry on an airplane. As you said, a thin pen or pencil is about all one can get away with nowadays. Overseas, though, seems a lot more lax.
Wow, you've got a really screwy view of the subject.
Uniformed police officers are effective against more-or-less law-abiding citizens (handing out speeding tickets, breaking up minor brawls, etc.) and when working openly en-masse against fleeing/resisting felons (high-speed car chases, dynamic entries/arrests, etc.) or other show-of-force situations (riot control).
Undercover police officers are effective in intelligence gathering (stings) and surprise takedown of major in-progress crimes. There are some crimes - like airplane terrorism - where the act is so heinous, and the perpetrator so determined, that the first thing done is kill ANYONE who may interfere with the commission of that crime.
Your local pot dealer will curb his acts when he sees a uniformed officer.
I complied pretty dang fast when, being bored and innocently playing with a video camera in NYC, I was questioned about "suspicious activity" by proffesionally & authoritatively (but not uniformed) federal marshals.
When infiltrating and preparing to arrest perpetrators of a high-value drug/mob operation, the cops do NOT wear uniforms lest they get dead quick. Heck, just wearing black sneakers can be a tip-off to the criminals.
When a half-dozen suicidal Al-Qaida madmen are he11-bent on killing thousands in a high-profile manner, the first thing they do is look for the "professionally and authoritatively dressed" air marshal - and kill him before he can react.
There is a place for uniformed and undercover officers. Hardened motivated terrorists will NOT reconsider their ways upon sight of a uniform, much less a suit.
Not like at all.
Upon seeing an air marshal, a would-be unruly passenger might decide to behave himself. Someone determined to crash the plane will make the AM his first target.
Yes, uniformed cops on beat reduce petty crime. They're also the first target of hardcore perps he11-bent on pulling a major job.
I'm amazed at how many here seem to think suicidal terrorists will be deterred by the mere sight of a uniform or suit. Simply unbelievable.
As far as going for the suited air marshall first, I'd hate to think I'd be targeted when I wear a suit on the plane. Oh well, I suppose accepting the sacrifice of a cut throat in the name of national security is one of the 21st century's new paradigms.
However, since increased airport scrutiny has fairly well limited the possible weapons available to boarding terrorists, they might well wait for another day if they identify a armed and vigilant air marshall.
Granted there have been well-publicized stunts by journalists to successfully smuggle on box-cutters, I don't think there is much liklihood of success for a terrorist armed with a box-cutter (or something similar) vs. a air marshall with a gun.
But my major point was that the best policy was a deliberate 'no policy' where the terrorists could never be sure who was the air marshall.
Agreed on the "no policy" policy. If they don't know who is armed, they're less likely to act - or at least less likely to succeed.
Disagreed on what's available or not to terrorists, and their hesitation to act against an identified armed AM. With a little creativity, stuff can get through. Detection rates are still abysmal despite improved security. Considering that, with careful selection, the worst punishment is confiscation, multiple attempts will get something through. As an IRA goon commented "we only have to get lucky once; you have to be lucky always."
Assume the madmen can get something on board (heck, loaded guns have been found in-flight). Make sure the AM has every advantage possible - including being indistinguishable from other passengers.
IMHO the best security would be in passenger profiling through questions similar to that used by the Israelis. They haven't had a hijacking since the Lod airport massacre in the 60s.
They are the #1 or #2 target for radical Islamists so they must be doing something right to manage to deter the terrorists over that long a period of time.
But the ACLU would never permit it.
Imagine if somebody started waving a gun around at the terrorists on 9/11. Somebody could have gotten hurt that day!
Imagine if a drunk thought they saw a terrorist, and started waving a gun around and shooting! Imagine if someone had a knife and fought back against a terrorist with a box cutter! Imagine if the pilot had a gun! Imagine if someone could even have had a pointy umbrella that went beyond the reach of a terrorist with a box cutter! We can imagine all day!!
Do terrorists even try to board El Al flights?
Any chance there is some method to this apparent madness? Make the dress policy widely known, enhance its visibility with this incident with the chief, but in reality there really ARE covertly dressed agents out there? What better way to hide them than to make the bad guys believe they are all dressed alike?
Absolutley. I was asked by a fellow passenger if I was an air marshal. Now I'm ex-military, short hair, etc., but my "cover" was blown pretty quickly.
Air marshals should looke like a cross section of the population, not G-men.
I'd like to think so but after Oklahoma City, Waco, Ruby Ridge, 9-11, Robert Hanssen, anthrax, TWA 800, etc. I don't have much faith in much of their leadership. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, the waving might be scary...but 10 or 15 people shooting would be much scarier.
Also, this would give any terrorist the opportunity to carry a gun on board as well.
Question for anybody:
If I shot out one airplane window at 38,000 feet, would that be enough to bring the plane down?
I haven't heard of any attempts to board an El Al plane in years. Of course the Israelis might not publicize it, but why not since it would show the terrorists they are on the alert.
Another major difference is that the terrorists KNOW there are at least two Israeli security men on EVERY El Al flight without exception.
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.