In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Scare Marshalls
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Scare Marshalls
By Ted Langc 2002
Published 08. 19. 02 at 18:38 Sierra Time
xx
The real culprits who will be responsible for the next terrorist attack aboard an airliner will not be the incompetent, laughable, federal air marshals or Sarah Brady; it will be President George W. Bush and the mainstream establishment media, excepting Gannett's USA Today. For it was an article in USA Today by Blake Morrison on August 15th that exposed the astonishing lack of effectiveness, the inefficiencies and dismal failures of the air marshal program.
The problems cited in Morrison's article, "Air marshal program in disarray, insiders say," were exposed "unofficially," meaning that specific names of sources could not be revealed. The reason for this? As you can surmise, it is the same reason government always offers to hide the truth to preclude exposure of their inability to protect the American people: "national security."
In fact, marshals are sworn to silence. Morrison reveals: "By law, the marshals - all with top-secret security clearances - are not allowed to speak publicly about the program. All requested anonymity and say they have been told they will be fired or prosecuted for talking to the media." "Have been told?" That means that federal employees, just like the FBI agents who tried to alert the perfumed princes of our political spoils system about the imminent terrorist attacks, were summarily ignored and told to shut up!
This is yet another case in a long list of lies and cover-ups similar to TWA 800, Flight 587, Waco, et cetera. It is my position that such "national security" claims usually result in the unnecessary deaths of Americans along with the agony and suffering of family and friends. Had federal alerts been issued in a timely fashion, and had the airlines heeded the warnings that they had received but chose to ignore, some of our fellow citizens would still be among us.
The firearms marksmanship program, the primary argument for blocking the common sense solution of arming pilots, has been dramatically watered down. Morrison in his article points out "Hiring standards for the marshals added since Sept. 11 have been lowered dramatically, sources say. No longer must applicants pass a difficult marksmanship course that used to be the make-or-break test for the program. In addition, many new hires were given guns and badges and put aboard flights before extensive background checks were completed.
At some of the agency's more than 20 regional offices, the program has struggled to provide ammunition for shooting practice, sources say." Huh? Are we back to the same conditions faced by the Continental Army when facing George II's Redcoats? Almost half of our earnings are taxed away from us, and yet the government can't afford ammunition to protect us?
And then "In one incident last month, a marshal was removed from a flight in Washington after smelling of alcohol. The head of the air marshal program confirms at least two cases in which marshals accidentally discharged their weapons, one in a hotel room in Las Vegas. And sources say one marshal was suspended after he left his gun in a lavatory aboard a United Airlines flight from Washington to Las Vegas in December. A passenger discovered the weapon."
Does this sound like the "highly skilled" air marshals former TSA head bureaucrat, John McGaw, told us about? Are these the "professionals" George W. Bush was talking about when he decided he doesn't want pilots armed? And when two pilots were grounded for imbibing and relieved of their flight duties, was the air marshal removed from a flight similarly treated, or did he receive the Robert Torricelli slap on the wrist?
Why aren't these dangerous flaws in this marvelous federal program being splattered over the front pages of America's newspapers and on TV network news? Could it be it shows the government's inability to protect us? The media has its choice: George Bush or gun control. So what did they pick? Now we've got a real national security issue!
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/08/20/tedlang.htm
c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) Your Feedback.....
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Ted Langc 2002
Published 08. 19. 02 at 18:38 Sierra Time
xx
The real culprits who will be responsible for the next terrorist attack aboard an airliner will not be the incompetent, laughable, federal air marshals or Sarah Brady; it will be President George W. Bush and the mainstream establishment media, excepting Gannett's USA Today. For it was an article in USA Today by Blake Morrison on August 15th that exposed the astonishing lack of effectiveness, the inefficiencies and dismal failures of the air marshal program.
The problems cited in Morrison's article, "Air marshal program in disarray, insiders say," were exposed "unofficially," meaning that specific names of sources could not be revealed. The reason for this? As you can surmise, it is the same reason government always offers to hide the truth to preclude exposure of their inability to protect the American people: "national security."
In fact, marshals are sworn to silence. Morrison reveals: "By law, the marshals - all with top-secret security clearances - are not allowed to speak publicly about the program. All requested anonymity and say they have been told they will be fired or prosecuted for talking to the media." "Have been told?" That means that federal employees, just like the FBI agents who tried to alert the perfumed princes of our political spoils system about the imminent terrorist attacks, were summarily ignored and told to shut up!
This is yet another case in a long list of lies and cover-ups similar to TWA 800, Flight 587, Waco, et cetera. It is my position that such "national security" claims usually result in the unnecessary deaths of Americans along with the agony and suffering of family and friends. Had federal alerts been issued in a timely fashion, and had the airlines heeded the warnings that they had received but chose to ignore, some of our fellow citizens would still be among us.
The firearms marksmanship program, the primary argument for blocking the common sense solution of arming pilots, has been dramatically watered down. Morrison in his article points out "Hiring standards for the marshals added since Sept. 11 have been lowered dramatically, sources say. No longer must applicants pass a difficult marksmanship course that used to be the make-or-break test for the program. In addition, many new hires were given guns and badges and put aboard flights before extensive background checks were completed.
At some of the agency's more than 20 regional offices, the program has struggled to provide ammunition for shooting practice, sources say." Huh? Are we back to the same conditions faced by the Continental Army when facing George II's Redcoats? Almost half of our earnings are taxed away from us, and yet the government can't afford ammunition to protect us?
And then "In one incident last month, a marshal was removed from a flight in Washington after smelling of alcohol. The head of the air marshal program confirms at least two cases in which marshals accidentally discharged their weapons, one in a hotel room in Las Vegas. And sources say one marshal was suspended after he left his gun in a lavatory aboard a United Airlines flight from Washington to Las Vegas in December. A passenger discovered the weapon."
Does this sound like the "highly skilled" air marshals former TSA head bureaucrat, John McGaw, told us about? Are these the "professionals" George W. Bush was talking about when he decided he doesn't want pilots armed? And when two pilots were grounded for imbibing and relieved of their flight duties, was the air marshal removed from a flight similarly treated, or did he receive the Robert Torricelli slap on the wrist?
Why aren't these dangerous flaws in this marvelous federal program being splattered over the front pages of America's newspapers and on TV network news? Could it be it shows the government's inability to protect us? The media has its choice: George Bush or gun control. So what did they pick? Now we've got a real national security issue!
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/08/20/tedlang.htm
c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) Your Feedback.....
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878