Author Topic: At a cost of $9 billion since 2005, do we still need air marshals 14 years after  (Read 775 times)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19667
At a cost of $9 billion since 2005, do we still need air marshals 14 years after 9/11?
by Richard A. Serrano

After the 9/11 attacks, the federal government assembled a small army of undercover air marshals to protect U.S. flights and prevent similar hijackings.

The prestigious, new law enforcement job drew mostly retired, patriotic FBI agents, police officials and U.S. soldiers, who were assigned to assure jittery passengers that it was safe to return to the nation’s airports.

Fourteen years later, the federal air marshal program is mired in budget cuts, allegations of misconduct and management turmoil, prompting some in Congress to question whether the multi-billion dollar experiment has outlived its usefulness.

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), a key member of the House Oversight Committee that is investigating problems with the air marshal program, told the agency’s new director at a hearing last month that the program is “probably the least, or certainly one of the least, needed organizations in our entire federal government.” At a price tag of $9 billion over the past 10 years, Duncan called the program “ineffective” and “irrelevant.”

As he left office in January, former Sen. Tom Coburn (D-Okla.), then the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, agreed. “It is unclear what extent the [air marshal] program is reducing risk to aviation security,” he said.

It is a dramatic turnaround for a program once seen as vital in the immediate post-9/11 years to fight terrorism.

Coburn and others say improved airport-screening techniques and reinforced pilot cockpit doors have raised questions about whether air marshals still play a role. At the same time, there have been no significant in-flight terror threats in more than five years. Some air marshals have complained they feel they are merely “riding the bus” as they hopscotch around on domestic and international planes.

Much of the work by the air marshal program is classified, including the size of the staff and its budget. But several former agents told The Times in interviews that some field offices have been closed and agents furloughed, and that training and other support services have been curtailed.

In addition, the agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has been hit recently with several scandals.

In 2012 some agents were accused of setting up sexual liaisons to coincide with their work flights. More recently, some Chicago-based marshals allegedly disguised themselves as pornography producers to hire prostitutes after some trips. There also have been reports of alcohol abuse by marshals.

Roderick Allison, who served as the agency’s assistant administrator for inspections, took over as the new director in May 2014 after allegations that his predecessor and other agency officials inappropriately used their positions to obtain personal firearms from a gun manufacturer.

Duncan acknowledged at an oversight committee last month that the program “has come to be a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the DHS, when 4,000 bored cops fly around the country First Class, committing more crimes than they stop.”

Allison, however, defended the program. Though his aides would not make him available for an interview, he told the oversight panel: “Our offices operate on 30,000 feet, in restricted space and have no back up to call upon.”

He said the air marshals “work diligently every day on thousands of flights a year to protect the traveling public.”

Allison also promised to investigate the internal problems and to ferret out any corruption and abuse. “Our workforce is comprised of exceptional men and women,” he said, “who execute a difficult mission.”

Some former agents, however, complain that the agency has lost much of its prestige.

“I hated every day of it,” said former air marshal Jay Lacson, who said he is suing after being fired for inappropriately releasing confidential job information. “I couldn’t stay awake. I got colds. You get complacent.” He added, “They don’t need the agency anymore.”

Another former air marshal, John Bonacci, said in an interview that he flew almost 3 million miles in 13 years, generally back and forth from Philadelphia to Boston, two or three flights a day. The closest he came to any potential problem was protecting a European passenger whom some Islamic radicals had threatened. He said he and a fellow agent took notes, viewed the man’s passport, took pictures and then handed him over to Customs.

“We never heard any more about it, or whatever came of it,” he said.

Other former agents insisted the program is still needed. Robert J. MacLean, who joined the program three weeks after 9/11, said the risks to passengers remain. “A terrorist may be able to kill a handful of passengers until either he runs out of ammunition or is tackled by passengers,” MacLean said.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I think i would rather they reign in the TSA more. 

Although it sounds like the Air Marshal program has some issues, I don't think they should stop it.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Yes, I'd keep them.  There's so much better places to slash spending.

It's a VERY soft target, certain death if they crash, and it's 150+ guaranteed unarmed people.  Yes, if any place needs an armed guard, it's the sky.

for every flight that needs one, there are 15 congressional "aides" jerking off to youporn while collecting a paycheck.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Yes, I'd keep them.  There's so much better places to slash spending.

It's a VERY soft target, certain death if they crash, and it's 150+ guaranteed unarmed people.  Yes, if any place needs an armed guard, it's the sky.

for every flight that needs one, there are 15 congressional "aides" jerking off to youporn while collecting a paycheck.

They could also repeal the Welfare system cause all know those leaches are jerking off to youporn too.  They could take the money and give to the military who could provide real jobs to young men and women so they could die in some jungle or dessert to protect our corporations economic interests. 

I suspect these congressional aids are really jerking off the Hillary anyway.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
so they could die in some jungle or dessert to protect our corporations economic interests. 

Realism is so unattractive.   

Can't we just say we're bringing freedom & democracy?  It allows neocons to sleep soundly & removes the moral conflict they should feel with pre-emptive murder and bombings based upon what a country *might* do.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Realism is so unattractive.   

Can't we just say we're bringing freedom & democracy?  It allows neocons to sleep soundly & removes the moral conflict they should feel with pre-emptive murder and bombings based upon what a country *might* do.

Plus it also lets these neocons have gay sex and still go to church.  So long as they are speaking out against Homosexuality its ok to do anal. 

 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Plus it also lets these neocons have gay sex and still go to church.  So long as they are speaking out against Homosexuality its ok to do anal. 

A LOT of people were killed in Iraq as a result of a pre-emptive attack.

Imagine shooting your neighbor because or something he MIGHT do.  Imagine getting to the pearly gates and trying to explain "Well, we thought they'd be a threat one day, so we killed a whole lot of them"

Add in some democrazy, freedom, paint it pretty and they can sleep at night.  Lots of moral conflicts going on there.  Invading for bases, oil, dollar, power... those are all evil causes... but invading to free them or to "stop them from doing something they haven't actually done" gave them moral solace.

Just own it, admit you support conquering, imperialism, etc.   Painting it to sleep at night = pathetic.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
A LOT of people were killed in Iraq as a result of a pre-emptive attack.

Imagine shooting your neighbor because or something he MIGHT do.  Imagine getting to the pearly gates and trying to explain "Well, we thought they'd be a threat one day, so we killed a whole lot of them"

Add in some democrazy, freedom, paint it pretty and they can sleep at night.  Lots of moral conflicts going on there.  Invading for bases, oil, dollar, power... those are all evil causes... but invading to free them or to "stop them from doing something they haven't actually done" gave them moral solace.

Just own it, admit you support conquering, imperialism, etc.   Painting it to sleep at night = pathetic.

They should stand trial for war crimes.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19667
Air Marshals were a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and a public way to make passengers "feel" safer.  When the very people who used to work there are telling us that they were merely "riding the bus" and that "they don’t need the agency anymore" it's time to kill it.  The marshals are "mostly retired" folk from other law enforcement professions.  That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  $9 billion?  Really?  Time to quietly pull the plug.  

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22349
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Yes, I'd keep them.  There's so much better places to slash spending.

It's a VERY soft target, certain death if they crash, and it's 150+ guaranteed unarmed people.  Yes, if any place needs an armed guard, it's the sky.

for every flight that needs one, there are 15 congressional "aides" jerking off to youporn while collecting a paycheck.

I agree. I hate flying and will put up with taking my shoes and belt off as well as a small bit in taxes to help with the safety of my flight.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
I agree. I hate flying and will put up with taking my shoes and belt off as well as a small bit in taxes to help with the safety of my flight.

No need if you are TSA-Pre.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
I agree. I hate flying and will put up with taking my shoes and belt off as well as a small bit in taxes to help with the safety of my flight.

yeah, SO many things to cut on the ground.  a few less park rangers or congressional aides or pretty statues in nebraska.  but keep the skies safe above all.