THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 19, 2004
Air Marshals Save Lives
Editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107446239216004521,00.html
On Friday, a majority of EU governments rebuffed Washington's demands to put armed air marshals on "high risk" flights to the U.S. Their argument? That the air marshals may do more to endanger passenger safety than they would to reduce the terrorist threat. They are afraid that a security guard's gun could fall into hijackers' hands and that stray bullets could damage the plane or injure passengers. "Use of weapons on board an aircraft is always potentially dangerous because there are some very sensitive electronics on board every aircraft," said Lars Lovkvist, director of the Finnish Air Transport Authority.
This is the equivalent of a man living in a disease-infested region refusing inoculation because he is concerned about possible side effects. The air marshal's job is to stop terrorists from flying planes into skyscrapers or otherwise blowing them up. He is the last line of defense protecting passengers and potentially thousands on the ground from certain death. To worry about "sensitive electronics" suggests the EU is still in denial about this reality. Rather than resisting U.S. demands, European governments should start their own extensive air marshal programs, and not just for flights to the U.S.
The problem is that much of Europe still hasn't come to grips with the threat that international terrorism poses. Stuck in a "September 10" mindset, many in Europe consider U.S. policies as extreme and alarmist. They are examples of "security fads" forced on pilots "to reassure the public, usually from the U.S.," says the British Air Line Pilots' Association. Fortunately, despite the union's stinging criticism, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair is backing Washington.
The only other country ready to comply is, surprisingly, France. Europeans could benefit from a look at the first-hand experience of the one country that has been living in a post-September 2001 world for more than 30 years. Israel's national carrier El Al is undoubtedly the most threatened airline in the world. And yet it is also universally recognized as the world's safest. A paradox? Not really, because the Israelis pioneered the use of air marshals. Since El Al put armed flight guards on their planes, they haven't suffered a single hijack.
Not taking any chances, pilots and co-pilots reportedly also carry guns in the unlikely event that the air marshals are overpowered. The guns use low-velocity ammunition with little risk of seriously damaging the plane. A majority of U.S. pilots also favor being armed and Washington has now started introducing guns into cockpits, albeit slowly.
But European critics are not convinced. They say airlines and governments should focus more on pre-flight security checks than armed air marshals. Indeed, El Al is also known for rigorous security checks on the ground. They include scrutinizing every piece of luggage and cargo, using high-tech screening equipment to detect explosives and intense questioning of passengers.
Much has been done to beef up security checks in the U.S. as well. However, European and indeed American airlines will never be able to reach El Al's level of security -- what is feasible for a small national airline with only a few domestic flights is probably impractical for the majority of airlines world-wide. Political correctness even precludes racial profiling, a practice that has allowed El Al security guards to prevent more than one disaster.
And yet not even Israel's security system is fool-proof. Last year, an Israeli Arab managed to smuggle a pocket knife onboard an El Al plane and tried to storm the cockpit. An air marshal wrestled him to the floor. What makes Europeans think that their much-less-thorough security checks are enough to protect passengers from terrorists eager to die for their cause?
Of the four planes hijacked on September 11, one did not reach the terrorists' intended target. Realizing that they were doomed to certain death if they didn't take action, a group of brave passengers fought the hijackers. Unfortunately, they weren't able to save their own lives. But they undoubtedly saved the lives of many innocents on the ground. It is easy to imagine what a couple of trained and determined air marshals would have accomplished had they been on that same flight. If Europe refuses to take adequate security precautions on selected U.S.-bound flights, Washington has little choice but to deny them entry into American air space.
January 19, 2004
Air Marshals Save Lives
Editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107446239216004521,00.html
On Friday, a majority of EU governments rebuffed Washington's demands to put armed air marshals on "high risk" flights to the U.S. Their argument? That the air marshals may do more to endanger passenger safety than they would to reduce the terrorist threat. They are afraid that a security guard's gun could fall into hijackers' hands and that stray bullets could damage the plane or injure passengers. "Use of weapons on board an aircraft is always potentially dangerous because there are some very sensitive electronics on board every aircraft," said Lars Lovkvist, director of the Finnish Air Transport Authority.
This is the equivalent of a man living in a disease-infested region refusing inoculation because he is concerned about possible side effects. The air marshal's job is to stop terrorists from flying planes into skyscrapers or otherwise blowing them up. He is the last line of defense protecting passengers and potentially thousands on the ground from certain death. To worry about "sensitive electronics" suggests the EU is still in denial about this reality. Rather than resisting U.S. demands, European governments should start their own extensive air marshal programs, and not just for flights to the U.S.
The problem is that much of Europe still hasn't come to grips with the threat that international terrorism poses. Stuck in a "September 10" mindset, many in Europe consider U.S. policies as extreme and alarmist. They are examples of "security fads" forced on pilots "to reassure the public, usually from the U.S.," says the British Air Line Pilots' Association. Fortunately, despite the union's stinging criticism, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair is backing Washington.
The only other country ready to comply is, surprisingly, France. Europeans could benefit from a look at the first-hand experience of the one country that has been living in a post-September 2001 world for more than 30 years. Israel's national carrier El Al is undoubtedly the most threatened airline in the world. And yet it is also universally recognized as the world's safest. A paradox? Not really, because the Israelis pioneered the use of air marshals. Since El Al put armed flight guards on their planes, they haven't suffered a single hijack.
Not taking any chances, pilots and co-pilots reportedly also carry guns in the unlikely event that the air marshals are overpowered. The guns use low-velocity ammunition with little risk of seriously damaging the plane. A majority of U.S. pilots also favor being armed and Washington has now started introducing guns into cockpits, albeit slowly.
But European critics are not convinced. They say airlines and governments should focus more on pre-flight security checks than armed air marshals. Indeed, El Al is also known for rigorous security checks on the ground. They include scrutinizing every piece of luggage and cargo, using high-tech screening equipment to detect explosives and intense questioning of passengers.
Much has been done to beef up security checks in the U.S. as well. However, European and indeed American airlines will never be able to reach El Al's level of security -- what is feasible for a small national airline with only a few domestic flights is probably impractical for the majority of airlines world-wide. Political correctness even precludes racial profiling, a practice that has allowed El Al security guards to prevent more than one disaster.
And yet not even Israel's security system is fool-proof. Last year, an Israeli Arab managed to smuggle a pocket knife onboard an El Al plane and tried to storm the cockpit. An air marshal wrestled him to the floor. What makes Europeans think that their much-less-thorough security checks are enough to protect passengers from terrorists eager to die for their cause?
Of the four planes hijacked on September 11, one did not reach the terrorists' intended target. Realizing that they were doomed to certain death if they didn't take action, a group of brave passengers fought the hijackers. Unfortunately, they weren't able to save their own lives. But they undoubtedly saved the lives of many innocents on the ground. It is easy to imagine what a couple of trained and determined air marshals would have accomplished had they been on that same flight. If Europe refuses to take adequate security precautions on selected U.S.-bound flights, Washington has little choice but to deny them entry into American air space.
