Log in

View Full Version : Re: another "either you are with us ..." story


Jeff Franks
December 30th 03, 06:51 PM
And the problem is?

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/12/30/national0543EST0
468.D
> TL> or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5E425BE6>
>
> ---snip
> Security stepped up for international airlines over United States
> JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
> Tuesday, December 30, 2003
> ©2003 Associated Press
>
> URL:
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/30/national0543EST0468.DTL
>
>
> (12-30) 05:44 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
>
> Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday hailed the response of
other
> nations so far in the U.S. quest to get air marshals deployed, if
necessary, to
> protect commercial airplanes against terrorist attack.
>
> "I'd put the family on the plane," Ridges said when asked about how
strongly he
> felt about new safety measures the Bush administration has undertaken.
>
> Ridge made the rounds of morning news shows a day after the Department of
> Homeland Security issued a new directive giving the government the option
of
> denying access to U.S. airspace to airlines which do not cooperate.
>
> "Working with our partners around the world, I think we have made great
progress
> in this area," said Ridge. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" show,
he
> called the move "an added level of security."
>
> "People travel. People must travel," Ridge said. "We cannot submit to the
fear
> associated with the continuous scream that they (terrorists) would use
aviation
> as a means of attack."
>
> Under the new policy, foreign airlines risk being denied access to
American
> airspace if they don't obey the new directive that some international
flights
> crossing over or headed to the United States must carry an armed law
enforcement
> officer to thwart terrorists, Homeland Secretary officials said earlier.
>
> "Any sovereign government retains the right to revoke the privilege of
flying to
> and from a country or even over their airspace," Ridge told a news
conference
> Monday. "So ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have."
>
> There has been no indication so far that any country will refuse U.S.
demands to
> place guards on designated flights.
>
> Ridge also said the nation would remain at the "Code Orange" high alert
through
> the New Year's holiday and perhaps beyond. "We are as concerned today as
we were
> yesterday," he said Monday. "We'll be concerned as much this week as we
were
> last week."
>
> The new directive requires selected international flights that enter U.S.
> airspace to carry an armed law enforcement officer aboard. The Homeland
Security
> Department will require such officers on airplanes where intelligence
> information leads to a specific concern about that flight.
>
> For months, U.S. security officials have feared that al-Qaida operatives
would
> again hijack planes to use them as missiles. The most recent concerns
centered
> not on domestic passenger flights, but on airliners or cargo planes that
take
> off from overseas and cross over U.S. airspace, either on their way to a
U.S.
> airport or to a foreign one.
>
> "I think the level of security this time around within the United States
is
> absolutely unprecedented," Ridge said on CBS's "The Early Show."
>
> "International aviation security isn't just a priority for the United
States,"
> said Ridge, who called it "an international priority."
>
> On ABC, Ridge said the notion of grounding another nation's commercial
flight
> would be "seen as a last alternative" if the United States cannot resolve
> concerns about passengers on a given flight before that plane's scheduled
> takeoff.
>
> The administration raised the terrorism alert level to orange, or high, on
Dec.
> 21, citing nonspecific but credible threats of an imminent terrorist
attack.
>
> Air France canceled six flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday
and
> Thursday, after security discussions between U.S. and French officials.
>
> Aviation security experts said the announcement marks a significant change
in
> that, up until now, international security guidelines have been voluntary.
>
> "In the past, no country has ever tried to impose on other countries any
> measures of aviation security," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age
Security
> Solutions, a Washington-based consultancy, and the former security
director for
> the Israeli Airport Authority.
>
> The next logical step will be for the international community to push for
global
> aviation security standards, including mandated reinforced cockpit doors
and
> better airport perimeter defenses.
>
> Homeland Security officials said governments frequently set security and
other
> standards for planes bound for their airspace.
>
> Homeland Security reviews the passenger and crew manifests of all planes
bound
> for U.S. airspace, generally after the plane has taken off, because
passenger
> lists are usually finalized only minutes before the plane taxis from the
gate,
> department spokesman Dennis Murphy said.
>
> Some passenger lists are reviewed beforehand, he said.
>
> Some international airlines said Monday they would cooperate with the new
U.S.
> requirement. Others, including airlines in Canada and Germany, said they
already
> were using armed marshals on some flights.
>
> Britain said Sunday it had tightened security for trans-Atlantic flights
and
> suggested, as it has in the past, that it might put armed sky marshals on
some
> planes.
>
> ©2003 Associated Press
> ---snap
>
> #m
> --
> harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the
story):
> http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
> oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the
free.

Martin Hotze
December 30th 03, 10:41 PM
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:51:21 -0600, Jeff Franks wrote:

>And the problem is?
>

de facto forcing out of state airlines into a policy they might not like.

yeah, one can argue: if you want to come here you have to play by these
rules, you can stay outside if you don't like it. I wanna hear you when
such a thing is done to you (not to you personally), you are the first
complaining about it.

but it is all for 'security' ...

#m

>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>>
><http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/12/30/national0543EST0
>468.D
>> TL> or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5E425BE6>
>>
>> ---snip
>> Security stepped up for international airlines over United States
>> JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
>> Tuesday, December 30, 2003
>> ©2003 Associated Press
>>
>> URL:
>sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/30/national0543EST0468.DTL
>>
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Bob Noel
December 31st 03, 12:04 AM
In article >,
wrote:

> >And the problem is?
>
> de facto forcing out of state airlines into a policy they might not like.

But that was happening prior to 9/11. A lot of US carriers didn't
like RVSM and the 8.33 radios for European airspace access, but each
nation has the right to control access to its airspace.


>
> yeah, one can argue: if you want to come here you have to play by these
> rules, you can stay outside if you don't like it. I wanna hear you when
> such a thing is done to you (not to you personally), you are the first
> complaining about it.
>
> but it is all for 'security' ...

--
Bob Noel

Google