Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
Posted on 07/25/2002 12:20:21 PM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The new acting director of the Transportation Security Agency says he is "hesitant" about proposals to train and voluntarily arm commercial airline pilots with deadly weapons to defend against terrorist attacks.
Adm. James Loy, acting Undersecretary for Transportation Security, made the statement to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Thursday morning.
"I need to learn about this and get up the learning curve very quickly," he said of proposals that the TSA screen, train, and arm pilot volunteers to serve as a last line of defense against potential terrorist hijackings. "I can say that on the upshot, I'm hesitant, but I'm also being directed to conduct a review, and I will do that."
Loy said the TSA is currently investigating the potential ramifications of arming pilots and he wants to "be objective" in examining the results of that review.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) says he's looking forward to Loy's answer, but feels there may already have been too much investigation and not enough action.
"I think some of these cases, whenever we start talking about homeland security, have to be based, sometimes, on gut feeling and common sense," he said. "And I think we'd better start making these decisions right away."
More to follow.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I don’t like them getting any FLEO status. I don’t like the fact that it would be voluntary - I don’t particularly want to participate in their “safety” lottery. I also don’t like the fact that the main people pushing it, at least the only ones I have heard, are a group of labor unions and the political lackeys they can control and influence.
And to top it off, I’d bet money that simulations have been conducted that show an armed pilot can be picked clean just as quickly and easily as an unarmed one.
I don’t particularly care if they are armed but they need to conform to the same rules as everyone else. They pop some old lady by mistake and they face the music just as you would have to if you were shooting at an attacker and missed and hit a bystander by accident. They have a little too much to drink or get in an altercation and have an “accidental discharge” and they face the music just like you would under the same circumstances.
Which, IMO, would NOT be the case as currently proposed. They’d end up with a wrist slap just like all the other LEOs that discharge rounds in lounge parking lots and PD locker rooms or have a Lon Horiuchi type incident. I personally think we need a little less of that sort of thing.
Pardon my french, but where the hell does President Bush keep finding these clueless pricks, and why doesn't he put somebody in charge of the TSA who will get the job done?
Another misconception, IMO. Unless the Air Force has 24 hours notice of a drill or something, nobody is going to take a missile anywhere - accidents excepted.
There have already been at least two examples of fighters scrambled and arriving at a location one to two hours after the fact. It had nothing to do with federalizing private employees though.
I'd say the AF would shoot down a plane if they could... I don't think they could get there soon enough to do it though. I'll just let the 9/11 incident speak for itself on that one.
[In case link does not work, picture is of an ANG F-15 darn near inside the wing of a civilian airliner. The F-15 is clearly armed with at least one Sidewinder missle and one Sparrow missle.]
I don’t know… not many do, evidently.
So far fighters have escorted jets with unruly or drunk or mental passengers – oh there was that one with the “shoe-bomber”. But none of those flights were hijacked and being piloted toward a building. Still, I suppose you have to treat each incident as if it was a hijacking.
To me it’s just a tool to manipulate – “give me what I want or you risk being shot down by the USAF.” It’s rings hollow considering that on 9/11, when three of four planes were indeed being flown into buildings, approximately zero of them were shot down.
I don’t like the idea of a non-federal employee being given the legal authority and status of a federal law enforcement officer. I don’t like the idea that this great “Arm The Pilots” proposal is voluntary in nature. I don’t like the idea that pilots MUST be armed (voluntarily) yet they are still flying (unarmed) because _____ (fill in the blank for me because I can’t.)
From the proposal (the APSA site) that I read, they want to be “deputized” FLEOs. Their legal authority is not limited to when they are on an airplane, while they are on airport property or anything else. And yet they are not LEOs. – they will not be conducting interviews or compiling information on any terrorist suspects, or doing any other LEO-type work during their non-flying hours. They are LEOs in name only, and only for the reason of circumventing existing gun laws and to limit their liability. They are not even federal employees – usually that is nice because the federal government is at least somewhat (supposedly) responsible for, and can control, their actions to some degree – that would not be the case here as they would not be federal employees. They’d essentially be licensees. Or something.
I don’t like it. I didn’t like the idea of making the guy that holds the plastic tray with your car keys while you walk through the metal detector a federal employee either, and you see what that got me.
It was a pretty picture though (your link). Even though that fighter is not in a position to fire a missile at or shoot down anything…
I really don't like their proposal (seriously). If they want to be armed while in flight or while on airline/airport property, that is fine. Otherwise they are just Joe Citizen... And even while on the job, they are Joe Citizen with a carry permit... all fine with me. The way it is currently proposed is not. Not that it matters...
fighters have escorted
I disagree. Fighters have intercepted commercial flights. This difference is crucial. The fighter is not there to protect the airliner, the fighter is there to protect the world against the airliner.
To me it’s just a tool to manipulate – “give me what I want or you risk being shot down by the USAF.” It’s rings hollow considering that on 9/11,
I have to agree with you here, and it does ring hollow. Hijackers must now be assumed to place no value on their lives, and the intimidation of offering them one death serving Jihad versus a different death serving Jihad would likely have no effect.
I don’t like the idea of a non-federal employee being given the legal authority and status of a federal law enforcement officer.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. Do you dislike full-time FLEO's losing the monopoly on nationwide right to apply force? Do you dislike the fact that such bizarre legal constructs are being fashioned in order to avoid the sense and appearance that citizens can effectively provide for their own defense? Maybe you, like me, just can't believe that President Bush keeps throwing clueless freedom-hating bimbos into these position, or is something else entirely?
It was a pretty picture though (your link). Even though that fighter is not in a position to fire a missile at or shoot down anything…
This is a red herring. If needed, that F15 could offensively engage the plane the picture was taken from in under 5 seconds.
all fine with me. The way it is currently proposed is not. Not that it matters...
I still don't understand your objection.
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.