July 30, 2003
What we've got here...
… is a failure to communicate. Either that, or its more Bush Administration bravado.
Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that terrorists may again attempt to hijack aircraft to carry out an suicide attacks similar to the one on Sep. 11.
However, the “Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights.”
Huh!?!?! Was it not cross-country flights, full of jet fuel, that the terrorists selected last time to carry out their attacks? Wouldn’t international flights hold similar attraction? So why are we reducing the security on the highest risk flights?
Anyone in the Bush administration care to explain this one? Or is this another one of Bush’s “Bring them on” challenges?
Posted by blipsman at July 30, 2003 10:16 AMEh. Not a big deal. The attack carried out on 9/11 was a one-time thing at best. Any hijacker attempting the same thing again is likely to be overpowered by the passengers before he can threaten the crew.
It’s dubious whether some poorly-paid “air marshalls” did much to secure the flights to begin with.
Smart thinking, if you ask me.
-Chris
Posted by: Chris at July 30, 2003 12:05 PMWhile passengers may try to overpower a hijacker, look at the end results to that on Sep. 11. While the hijackers didn’t hit their target, the plane also went down and all the passengers were killed. However, an armed air marshall would be more likely to repond quickly in a way that prevents the plane from going down.
And there’s also the psychological impact on potential flyers. The airlines are hurting for business and any news that makes people think twice before flying just hurts them that much more.
Is keeping air marshalls on those flights really that large an expense in the grand scheme of war, homeland security, stimulating the economy, etc.?
Posted by: blipsman at July 30, 2003 12:24 PMIt’s all pretty Orwellian if you ask me. Keep the country in a state of perpetual war, keep the populace constantly vigilant (and scared) against attacks, and then have Big Brother (Dept. of Homeland Defense, etc.) watching over everything. I’m just waiting for the government to start dictating what words are in the English language. Wait, aren’t they already deciding what can and can’t go into “scientific” studies they’ve funded and what language can and can’t be used?
Posted by: Huxley75 at July 30, 2003 12:38 PMblipsman, flight 93 was shot down. I’m not going to bother debating anyone on it because if they haven’t figured that out by now, nothing I say or prove will convince them (even though a simple search on google will tip the scales in proof).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 30, 2003 12:53 PMWhat we have here is news that now non-news: Flip-flop on air marshal schedules. Double plus good.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 30, 2003 01:04 PMStephen,
While I am not as certain about the fate of flight 93 as you are (although I’m not convinced that’s not what happened either), ultimately the plane hit the ground and the passengers all perished. Maybe air marshalls could help foil hijackings in a way that still results in the plane landing safely…
Posted by: blipsman at July 30, 2003 01:10 PMThat’s now twice in 2 day that the Bush administration has had to severely back-pedal on stupid policy announcements. Yesterday it was the terrorism futures market, today the air marshalls, tomorrow…
Posted by: blipsma at July 30, 2003 01:25 PMno, another one today :)
Bush fessed up to the uranium lie.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 30, 2003 01:29 PMSo the tax cuts to the rich is funded by Bush but the FAA is short cash? I just wanted to make sure I read that correctly?
I am growing more optimistic about 2004
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at July 30, 2003 02:50 PM93 shot down? You can add it to the list of the three jets out of JFK that went down with no explanation. Don’t haev all the numbers. Two off Long Island and one off Nova Scotia.
Of course, the one off Long Island had *witnesses* that it was shot down. But to no avail.
And that was under Clinton, so I guess I am an equal opportunity conspiracy theorist!
Posted by: Robbie D at July 30, 2003 04:28 PM
