Posted on 09/01/2002 1:58:20 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Officials Defend Air Marshals' Acts
By PATRICK WALTERS .c The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Federal officials defended the response of an air marshal who trained his gun on a passenger-filled jet cabin for 30 minutes after detaining a man, prompting protests by a judge who was on the flight.
Two armed marshals detained the man on Delta Flight 442, which was flying from Atlanta to Philadelphia with 183 people on board, because he allegedly was rummaging through other people's luggage.
One marshal then held his gun on the coach cabin passengers because some of them ignored orders to remain seated with their seat belts on, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration said Sunday.
``If people would have stayed in their seats and heeded those warnings, that would not have happened,'' said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson in Washington. ``It's our opinion that it was done by the book.''
He said the TSA, which oversees federal air marshals, was still reviewing the marshals' response on the Saturday flight. The man whom the marshals detained was released and the U.S. Attorney's office decided not to press charges, said FBI spokeswoman Jerri Williams.
Johnson said that despite the passengers' complaints, he thought the marshals did what they needed to do to make sure that the plane could land safely.
``It's a highly charged situation,'' Johnson said. ``It's (about) keeping the plane secure.''
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge James A. Lineberger, who was sitting diagonally across from the detained man, said he thought the marshals overreacted by holding their semiautomatic weapons on passengers for so long.
Lineberger also said he hadn't noticed any disturbance before the marshals suddenly took the man up to first class and restrained him.
Several minutes later, the judge said, the marshals returned to the coach cabin and pulled out their guns.
``I assumed at that moment that there was going to be some sort of gun battle,'' he said. ``I'm looking right down the barrel of the gun as though it was pointed at me.''
Lineberger said he plans to file a complaint with the TSA on Tuesday. He said about 30 other passengers also plan to complain.
David and Susan Johnson of Mobile, Ala., said they hadn't been aware of any disturbance when the sky marshals took the man first to the back of the plane and then to the first-class section.
``It never made sense,'' said Susan Johnson, 51, a social worker. ``This guy was not any physical threat that we could see. Maybe he said some things to them that made them concerned. He just appeared to us unstable, emotionally.''
One passenger, however, said he thought the air marshals handled the situation in a calm and professional manner.
``These guys looked pretty well like they had things under control,'' said Robert Venditti-Kramer, 28, who was in first class. He said the marshals only pointed their guns straight down the aisle, not at any passengers. ``I think the situation was extremely well-handled.''
Delta Airlines spokeswoman Kristi Tucker said airline officials would talk with crew members on the flight and would cooperate with federal authorities, but she declined to comment further.
After the plane landed, police boarded and briefly questioned another man sitting behind Lineberger, but did not detain him, the judge said.
So whats the problem?
This woman probably has the power to take away kids from their parents, file false charges (It appeared to me .... ) and sundry other things that should disqualify her as a legitimate social worker.
Now that I've said it, I wonder ...
What is a legitimate social worker?
Until they can come up with an actual reason for what they did, I'm going to believe that they (the air marshals) over-reacted...
Right now only two things define an air marshall: a stamped badge and a popgun. None of them will make it to retirement -- they'll either go nuts or have a blood clot or heart attack that kills them in a few years. No one can ride hours on hours in airline seats and stay healthy. The job is 99.995% utter boredom -- we'll see more of this sporadic self-assertion on their parts, not less, as they each get closer to the ragged edge of nutanity.
Just because there was one nut case on board doesn't make it seem reasonable to hold all the other passengers at the point of a gun for half an hour. If the troublemaker looked like a certified Arab terrorist, maybe, but there is nothing here to indicate that he was anything of the kind.
Also, this article doesn't make it clear what is meant by passengers getting up out of their seats. If they refused to sit down when ordered, that's one thing, but if the marshals refused to give them permission to go get up and go to the bathroom after sitting obediently for half an hour, that's something else. I suspect the latter. After all, there were TWO air marshals, which should be more than sufficient to check out and frisk passengers individually if they asked to leave their seats.
I can understand the confusion as a pasenger is taken down by an armed man. Many would want to see. Perhaps others, thinking they were averting a hijacking, would attack the Marshal. Since the Marshals are undercover (to be otherwise would diminish their effectiveness) these sorts of mis-understandings are to be expected.
What if this had been a hijacking? A passenger acts oddly and is subdued by the Marshals who have now revealed who they are. While they deal with the unruly passenger, their backs to the rest of the cabin, they are set upon by 4 or more hijackers. Having your weapon drawn and trained upon the passengers is the only way to ensure control of the flight until it can be put down at the nearest airport and additional security brought in to question the other passengers.
What this judge (and others ) seems to be suffering from is a sense of indignation that THEY were considered a suspect. They miss the point. They individually were not considered a suspect. A single officer can only consider that the entire group be under control as any of them might be an accomplice. This is a war on terrorism, and the rules of engagement have changed. If you cannot accept the possiblity of this happening to you, stay off of airplanes.
The only thing about this story that really disturbs me is that if Air Marshals are travelling in pairs, then their woefully inadequate numbers can only cover half the flights as they might. Another sign pointing out that arming the pilots is the only realistic option.
Just another group of jack booted thugs doing what the federal govt pays them to do.So are you the type that when the police tell you to remain in your car, you get out anyway?
Absolutely.
Let's see now. The Air Marshals' role was always intended to enforce the "stay in your seats rule and seatbelts on" with automatic weapons?
If that is an argument, I will throw my weight completely to opposing "air marshalls" on any flight, and rely instead on the common sense and initiative of the passengers to deal with both unruly passengergers and terrorists.
This "by the book" BS is untenable and unacceptable.
We are the dogs, they are the tail. If they can't deal with that they can go back to intimidating children and old ladies.
The rules are never the end in themselves. Anyone who thinks they are, or acts as if they are, should not be enforcing them. Period.
I can just see in the future an air marshall shoot passengers because he is "protecting" a suspected terrorist.
That will be ugly and anti-climatic. Need it come to that?
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.