by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The debate going on in Washington and elsewhere concerning the advisability of arming pilots is being shuffled this way and that.
Much of the opposition to arming volunteer, trained pilots seems even more organized than that of the pilots and passengers, who overwhelmingly support the concept. Much of that opposition is couched in newspaper editorials that seem stamped out by an anti-gun, anti-freedom cookie-cutter. Just such an editorial appeared in The Buffalo News on June 24, even as Gun Week was working on its report of House subcommittee action and the prospects for passage of a bill to force the Bush Administration to allow pilots to be armed, as an ultimate line of defense for plane and passengers. F-16s won't protect either when they shoot down a hijacked plane.
The recent incident with the small plane that strayed near the White House is a good indication that the F-16s might not even arrive in time.
The main argument against arming pilots is the reliance on sky marshals. But that's another murky scheme as indicated by the following report in the Chicago Sun Times on June 16.
Not Enough
"When the Bush Administration denounced the idea of guns for pilots, it said trained air marshals would be able to handle terrorists on planes, The Sun Times began.
"But there aren't enough marshals to cover every commercial flight, and some lawmakers say there aren't even enough armed officers to protect passengers on the long-range trips considered most likely to be targeted by terrorists.
" 'Your chances of having an air marshal on your flight are not as good as winning some of the lotteries,' said Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, an advocacy group.
"The exact number of marshals remains classified, but proponents of arming pilots say there should be guns in the cockpit, no matter what.
"Transportation Security Administration chief John Magaw said the marshals, who before Sept. 11 flew only on international flights, are now on domestic routes as well.
"Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) said there are about a thousand air marshals. Before Sept. 11, there were fewer than 50. But there are 33,000 to 35,000 commercial flights a day to protect, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Aviation Security Bill
"The aviation security bill enacted last fall requires marshals on the most high-risk flights, including nonstop, cross-country routes.
"Even on flights with air marshals aboard, there may not be enough of them to stop a terrorist attack, said Rep. John Mica (R-FL). 'If you had two air marshals against four or more hijackers, I just don't believe the odds are fair,' he said.
"Would-be air marshals are put through a 14-week training program, including the highest level of firearms training of any federal law enforcement officers. They also are trained not to respond to every disturbance on board, lest terrorists first stage a distraction to identify air marshals on board," The Sun Times concluded.
As Congress and the Bush cabinet continue to grapple with transportation security and related issues connected with the war on terrorism, time appears to be on the side of the terrorists.
One deadline was set in Washington involving better screening of passengers at airports. That deadline comes up sometime in November, fully 15 months after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Also months after the anthrax mail attacks, government agencies are still sifting through what evidence they have, inching toward a definitive conclusion. Many months have passed in that investigation, and in spite of occasional wisps of news that are released, the American public knows no more than it did last year.
We have a serious crisis on our hands and few in government seem to be able to respond effectively, or to propose things that hold the promise of greater security without trampling on the Constitution.
Liberty Concerns
While polls seem to show Americans willing to give up civil liberties for the promise of more security, there seems little evidence that they know what they are getting into. Almost every proposal being considered by Washington politicians and bureaucrats seems to threaten some phase of our constitutional rights.
And yet it is amazing that people will think so little before they answer the pollsters. This may indicate an overwhelming fear on the part of the American public, or an unbelievable lack of understanding of what this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Along with the polls previously mentioned are many others, plus umpteen studies, that show the public knows frightening little about our history, our institutions or even the reason for our system of government.
Increasingly we hear how little so many people know about the US and even its Founding Fathers. The political cartoon by Chuck Asay that accompanies this article makes a statement that is critical at this time.
If the majority of Americans don't know and value their civil liberties, nothing the people playing their minds games in Washington do will ever save our nation as some of us have known and loved it.