(no subject)

[bzarcher]

Mmm. Call me paranoid, but does anyone else worry about the amount of Air Marshalls (responsible to the DoJ and DoT) being lowered by 'undisclosed amounts' (in fact quite a few Marshalls are apparently having jobs cut), while the newly Homeland Security controlled Secret Service and the BATF are apparently going to increase the amount their officers use commercial flights to 'take up the slack'?

I know it shouldn't, but it does worry me.

Comments

[bredmold.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm under the impression that armed Air Marshalls in airplanes are a stupendously bad idea. Hence, reducing their numbers is totally unproblematic to me.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

I disagree, if the marshalls are A) extensively trained on how to operate while in the air, and B) armed with weapons that are as safe as possible for the airplane. We'll see what happens.

[bredmold.livejournal.com]

Point B is my big one, there. To me, it implies "no firearms". I think an Air Marshall with a gun is worse than no security in the air. I should also point out that no security on the plane itself has been a perfectly viable solution for a long time.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

When it was learned that El Al had no security on its' flights in the mid to late 70s, hijackings and worse went through the roof. The only way found to deter the hijackers effectively was to place security on them. I can't entirely object to that, given the historical proof.

That said, I will agree that Marshalls ought to be using tazers and similar nonlethal, nonpenetrating weapons, but we'll see how it works out.

[flying-landon.livejournal.com]

Of course, another solution would be to limit carry on luggage to a few objects, not a few bags, save for needed things, such as baby supplies, and those be searched. Unless you plan on hi-jacking the plan with your shoe....