http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=76&articlei d=836 Terror in the Skies SeriesMORE FROM THIS COLUMNTerror in the Skies, Again?Part II: Terror in the Skies, Again?Part III: Terror in the Skies, Again?Part IV: Terror in the Skies, Again?Another Passenger from Flight 327 Steps Forward With Disturbing New DetailsRussian Airliners Were Likely Exploded From Their ToiletsGentlemen, Why Can't We Get it Right?Tired of Hearing About the Federal Air Marshals? Congress Isn'tWhat Happened on United Airlines Flight 925?Who Is Steering the "No-Fly" List? How Intelligent Are We? This is Part XI of the ongoing series entitled "Terror in the Skies, Again?" By Annie Jacobsen 12/20/2004 Nearly six months have passed since I began writing this series, Terror in the Skies. Ten installments later, a lot has been reported. Hardly a day passes when issues involving air safety don't make headline news. The TSA, the "no-fly" list, Federal Air Marshals -- these terms, unheard of three years ago, have all become part of our nation's vernacular. But with all the news coverage and the increased public awareness, the question remains. Has anything really changed? The Intel Bill: The "No-Fly" List Gets its General Patton The National Intelligence Reform Act was just passed, making the most sweeping changes in our intelligence agencies since the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1947. The need for change couldn't have been more obvious. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), a co-sponsor of the bill, summed up the state of the nation's intelligence affairs on the eve of its passing by saying, "Our intelligence forces today are like an army without a general. That will change now." Passage of the Act -- commonly referred to as the Intel Bill -- will put a number of intelligence reforms in place, including the creation of a new Cabinet-level position, the Director of National Intelligence. The individual appointed to this post will oversee our 15 federal intelligence agencies and will presumably ensure that critical information is shared among them. To date, despite multiple Congressional mandates (post 9/11) and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have still faced major hurdles in this area. (Click here to read "Who Is Steering the No Fly List?") Critics of the Intelligence Reform Bill say that the new position only creates more bureaucracy. With Lieberman's above-mentioned metaphor in mind, I'm going to remain optimistic that our President will appoint a veritable Patton to lead our intelligence agencies. advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} It's important to remember that it was the recommendations of the September 11 Commission that set this bill in motion. Thirty-nine of the commission's 41 recommendations were included in the legislation. A few weeks ago, it looked as if the bill might fail. It didn't and we owe a debt of gratitude to the families of the victims of 9/11 for pushing this bill through. They never stopped fighting for change -- just as they never stopped fighting for the creation of the Commission in the first place. Suspicious Behavior Gets a Real-Time, Central Reporting Depot With the passing of the Intel Bill (but separate from its initiatives) commercial airline pilots will now be required to report suspicious incidents directly to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This is a major step in the right direction -- a reform both pilots and flight attendants have been urging for years. As previously reported, many airlines had policies in place to "intercept" this kind of information first -- much of which then went missing. With the new TSA directive, pilots will be required by the government to report dubious activity to the TSA Operations Center in Herndon, Virginia - in real time, which means as events are unfolding in the air. It comes as no surprise that the airlines are not happy about this. Doug Willis, spokesman for the Air Transport Association (a major airline lobby) criticized the new directive saying it only adds "another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy" to the system. To bolster his argument, Willis used as an example the plethora of reports filed by airline passengers each day, including ones for rudeness. But complaints about rudeness aren't the reports at issue, and they're certainly not the ones pilots are going to phone home to the TSA. As reported by WomensWallStreet.com, The Washington Times, the Christian Science Monitor and others, there have been a number of recent, suspicious incidents involving groups of Middle Eastern men acting strangely on aircraft -- spending extended amounts of time in the bathroom, trying to access the cockpit by removing bathroom fixtures, videotaping the cockpit, photographing the cabin, suddenly rushing toward the front of the plane and then backing off -- all incidents that deserve the TSA's immediate and real time attention. Kudos to the people who have paid attention to the reports and enacted change. Word on the street (or rather in the air) about this new reporting procedure is optimistic. advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} The Federal Air Marshals: Director Quinn's "Pearl Harbor Day" Memos The National Intelligence Reform Act was passed by the House on December 7th - Pearl Harbor Day - one of the nation's most significant days for democracy and an auspicious day for enactment of security legislation. With the significance of this Act's passage, it's interesting to note and report on the rather undemocratic actions of the Director of the Federal Air Marshals, Thomas Quinn -- on the very same day. We've previously reported numerous egregious policies and practices by the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), which make the agency appear to be running less like a democracy and more like the Director's own personal fiefdom. One of these outrageous practices involves the FAMS "dress-code" policy. To recap, Director Quinn's insists that FAMS wear a coat, collared shirt and sometimes ties while flying "undercover." Rank-and-file Air Marshals say this attire makes them sitting ducks. Everyone, and I mean everyone, seems to agree with the rank-and-file Air Marshals; Quinn's policy is downright dangerous. I'm thrilled to report that one of the mandates of the Intelligence Reform Act is for FAMs to "wear less conspicuous clothing." And yet, Director Quinn and some of his cronies are hanging on to the enforcement of his sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb dress code policy until the bitter end -- and at taxpayers' expense. Earlier in the month, FAM supervisors (known as ATSACs, or Assistant to a Special Agent) sent out memos to all Air Marshals informing them that if they weren't wearing a sports coat and a collar shirt, they'd be subject to disciplinary action. Furthermore, the memo warned, teams of ATSACs would be at airports enforcing this policy -- this despite the fact that Congress wants the policy changed! Here are some highlights from these "Pearl Harbor Day" memos: New York Memo: "Recent incidents have shown all FAMs are not adhering to dress code policy.All FAMs transiting Washington D.C. will wear a tie." Boston Memo: "Recent events have disclosed numerous instances of FAMs from several field offices.who are still not in compliance with the Standards of Dress policy. These policies have received a great deal of attention and discussion over the past two and a half years. The time for discussion is over. Compliance with these policies is mandatory, not optional. Failure to meet the standards will result in administrative action." advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} Miami Memo: "Effective immediately, rotating ATSACs will be assigned to and will be present in each of our airports, everyday. You will also observe that supervisors from every field office will be doing the same -- assigning ATSACs to their airports to facilitate FAM movements and to monitor professionalism.they will take corrective action if necessary." Guess who is footing the bill for ATSACs to enforce what is now an obsolete policy. You and me. ATSACs are among the highest paid bureaucrats in the industry -- purportedly earning over $100,000 a year. When asked about on this odd juxtaposition between new policy and old practices, Dave Adams, the FAMS Head of Public Affairs, had "no comment." But during a December 16th appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country (during which Pat Buchanan stood in for Joe Scarborough), Adams did comment: BUCHANAN: . Let me ask you this, Dave, though. In a piece written by Michelle Malkin An air marshal from the Las Vegas field office says if passengers can identify the marshals, doesn't that compromise their mission? Here's the quote: "Under the current policies, airline passengers are actually safer flying on aircraft that do not have air marshals on them. If all the passengers know we are carrying the guns on the plane, then so do the terrorists -- We just don't want to get our throats cut." Now, what they seem to be saying, Dave, is, look, we have got to go undercover. Like, if you're going to make a drug bust in Anacostia, you don't go over there in a suit and tie and, you know, the floor shined shoes and the whole bit. And can you tell us that we have people that are on those planes that passengers, as well as terrorists, would not, in a second, be able to identify as air marshals? ADAMS: Yes, I can, Pat. We have actually had federal air marshals on flights in conversation with passengers on the flight saying that they didn't even know if there is such a thing as a federal air marshal program, when in fact they are actually talking to a federal air marshal. Okay, let me interject here. Adams has missed the point, again. Just because a few passengers aren't aware of the federal air marshals program doesn't mean your air marshals are undercover. Newsflash Dave: ALL the terrorists know there IS such a program. The goal is to fool them, not the flying public. BUCHANAN: What about this fellow Quinn, who is apparently -- they had about 30 of these air marshals come in to Reagan Airport, was it? And he [Quinn] went bananas because they were dressed so slovenly. And so what is going on? You guys are going to lose your jobs? Get the coats and ties out there? advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} ADAMS: That is misinformation. That information was put out by Audrey Hudson in "The Washington Times." Director Quinn, yes, he was at the airport on Thanksgiving thanking the dedicated men and women who are flying the skies every day for doing an outstanding job. There was a very small minority of our FAMs that weren't dressed appropriately that we felt that presented a professional image. But it's not a massive [issue], yes, we're going to take disciplinary action against these people. They just need to start following policies and present a professional image. Do you get the feeling that Adams, and Quinn, don't get it? We, the general flying public, don't care about a professional image. Perhaps Bob Lonsberry in a letter to Director Quinn said it best: "All of us who travel by plane -- or work in tall buildings -- would be happier if your air marshals looked like the rest of us. If some old lady with a picture of her grandkids on her sweatshirt can stand up and snap a terrorist's neck, nobody is going to criticize her wardrobe." Flight Attendants As I continue to write about airline safety, I become a bigger and bigger fan of flight attendants. Not only do they work extremely hard under stressful conditions, they truly are the eyes and ears of what's going on in the air. That they have to do their jobs with a veritable gag order in place (no talking to the press or you lose your job) must be frustrating enough - but that they yell and scream for reform and no one listens remains appalling. Shortly after 9/11, the Aviation Transportation Security Act required that flight crews be trained in self-defense. Two years passed and nothing (and I mean nothing) had been done. Even in a post 9/11 world, flight crews were still trained to cooperate with hijackers. Flight attendants grew increasingly vocal through their unions, lobbying Congress and writing to public officials incessantly. Patricia Friend, International President of the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), lobbied Congress and made many high-profile television appearances demanding change. Dawn Deeks, AFA spokeswoman, presented the need for self-defense training this way: "When the passengers and flight attendants are locked up in the back of the plane without assistance, [self-defense training] gives us a fighting chance to protect our lives and the lives of our passengers. The people in the plane deserve at least that." Last December, a second act passed, this one called the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act. It gave the TSA a one-year deadline to offer self-defense training classes for flight attendants. Spring, then summer rolled around -- still no classes. A group of outraged Democratic Senators pressed for mandatory security training, writing in their letter to Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, "cockpit doors on commercial aircraft [are now] secured to prevent future flight takeovers, but flight attendants [are] increasingly concerned that they will be 'on their own' trying to protect passengers and themselves in the event of an attack. Flight attendants need training so they can take steps to deter potential attacks." We're talking about training here. Not better benefits, not more vacation time, but training. advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} Finally, earlier this month, on December 7, 2004, (four days shy of the Congressionally-mandated deadline, and yes, also Pearl Harbor Day) the TSA offered its first, voluntary, self-defense training classes for flight attendants. At the government's behest, in five cities across the country (Washington, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles), flight attendants could use their time-off to learn self-defensive measures they might need on the job. Only problem: TSA made the announcement on November 30, 2004, giving flight attendants four business days notice to trade days off with colleagues so that they could participate in the classes -- without pay. I called TSA to find out why the short notice: "We're early on in this program," TSA Spokesperson Amy Von Walter explained. "We aim to have a delivery schedule that will be released with more than 30 days [notice] next time." I asked Ms. Von Walter how participation in the program was. "We don't have numbers for you," she told me, adding, "and because it's a voluntary program, we need to see supply and demand. We need to see if it's even a popular program -- so we can use TSA resources accordingly." Captains and Pilots While many pilots remain optimistic about the new TSA reporting center, other security issues remain at a stalemate -- specifically the "Arming Pilots" program. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 includes a program designed to deputize qualified, volunteer commercial airline pilots as Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs). The idea behind this is that pilots with firearms can defend the cockpit of an aircraft against terrorist acts effectively and efficiently, with no extra cost except training. About 95% of pilots showed interest in participating. The Act directed the Administrator of the TSA to establish policy and carry out the program within three months. According to Captain Dave Mackett, President of the Allied Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), "by last spring, TSA had trained approximately 3% of our 100,000 pilots as armed federal officers." In other words, according to Mackett, "after two years, only one-half a percent of our daily flights were protected by a team of armed pilots as Congress mandated." Mackett also pointed out that "training pilots to use firearms [could] protect over 95% of our flights. It's cheap, it's effective and its not being utilized." Last spring, yet another act passed. On April 1, 2004, Congress passed the Cockpit Security Technical Corrections and Improvements Act to amend the law and revise requirements for the Arming Pilots program. This act shifted responsibility for the program from TSA to the Department of Homeland Security; but in shifting bureaucrats, nothing changed. The vast majority of pilots remain untrained. Captain Thomas Heidenberger, whose wife was a flight attendant killed on September 11, put it to me this way, "It's a joke. I'm a single dad. Who can afford to volunteer to fly to a different city and stay there at your own expense for firearms training on your days off?" According to an APSA poll (soon to be released), Heidenberger is just one of more than 50,000 commercial pilots who would like to become FFDOs but find it near to impossible to participate in a week-long, volunteer program that the TSA has set up in a remote, desert training facility in Artesia, N.M. -- four hours from Albuquerque and four hours from El Paso by car. advertisementif ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/2.") >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} So, Is Change In the Air? In this article alone, I've mentioned six Congressional Acts that have been passed. But does that mean change is finally in the air? Yes. I'm optimistic that the Intel Bill, the proposed relaxed FAMs dress code, and the requirement that pilots now report suspicious activity directly to the TSA are all steps in the right direction. Change also comes in small packages. I can't tell you how many emails I've received from readers who have noticed changes to in-flight protocol. Here's one example from a business traveler who reads WomensWallStreet.com: "I have noticed in the last weeks that prior to departure the captain is now coming on the speaker and saying all congregating in groups near the toilets and galleys is prohibited. This is new and has prompted remarks by the passengers. It should be fairly obvious to your readers what prompted this new policy. It should also be noted that as this is a direct order from an aircraft captain that it carries significant weight in defining what is now "interference with an aircraft and flight crew." Just thought you would like to know. Thanks for the reporting. - Keith" Unfortunately, not everyone who is critical of the system gets nice, supportive emails. Homeland Inspector Clark Kent Ervin lost his job. I interviewed Ervin for the previous installment of this series. He authored the most recent (scathing) report on the Department of Homeland Security, citing failed security systems, lack of leadership and overall ineptitude throughout the department. This report was only one of a slew of investigations Ervin oversaw which included lavish spending by TSA officials (namely the $500,000 awards party at a Washington Hotel for airport screeners), and the revelation of huge gaps in screening for nuclear materials at U.S. ports. As a thank you for all his hard work, Ervin lost his job. Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight put it this way: "I think his was a voice that was a little too critical. It made the Administration a little uncomfortable." I, for one, am sorry to see him go. Meanwhile, the American public continues to show its appetite for airline related news. The TSA has been in the spotlight (or rather the hot seat) for its thugish, pat-down procedures involving female passengers (and now being referred to in the news as "illegal strip searches"). Kudos to the many women who have spoken out about this invasive and ineffective practice -- women who've risked embarrassment (heavens, you're not wearing a bra under that camisole tee-shirt!) and spoken with various journalists and news organizations about their experiences. Earlier in the month, TSA officials told the Washington Post that they would be "keeping their pat down procedures in place." And then, just last week (and hundreds of news reports later) the TSA suddenly decided to change its procedure effective immediately: TSA Will Revise its Pat-Down Procedures on December 13: In an effort to provide more customer-friendly screening procedures, especially during the busy holiday season, TSA has decided that it will start implementing slight changes to the physical pat-down procedures at security checkpoints starting on Monday, December 13. (Source: American Association of Airport Executives) So, change is possible; the squeaky wheel does get the grease. Here's to the hope that we really are working to reform our nation's intelligence; it's a collective effort. If hope fails you, apply more grease. Annie Jacobsen writes about business, finance and terrorism for a variety of national and international magazines and webzines. A graduate of Princeton University, she lives in Los Angeles, California with her husband and son ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
