JackOneill

Patty,
You're right: They can't "go anywhere." That was poor phrasing on my part.
The concern seems to be that by originating from a foreign location, they might be able to by-pass the security at the foreign airport. then, when they board the connecting flight in Atlanta (or wherever) is when they might strike.
See MSNBC and the Washington Post for more details.

smileworld

Why don't I just tell you what I believe. I believe the tax cut was irresponsible - because it prevents the US from making necessary investments. Such as investments in security and fighting terrorism.

If we didn't have a $450B (actually $650 plus B deficit), with more predicted (we have a strucural deficit in our Federal budget), then we'd be able to spend to protect ourselves.

And to maintian a society we want.

We are over extended, everywhere. We have a tax policy that robs us of the funds we need to take care of ourselves.

Bush is a mistake. Because his moves are normally the exact opposite of what reality demands.

He came into offic esposing a break with every treaty and ally. Then 9-11 happens, and we need every ally. He advocates tax cuts, at the very toime we need every penny for securty, Iraq, etc.

And yet, you will go back to the poll sna votes for Bush next year. Oh, please tell me what part I got wrong. Did I leave out something?

BoulderCO

According to Reuters, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security just denied reports that they were cutting back on the number of air marshals deployed on flights. Apparently an "unauthorized" email was the source of the initial reports of cutbacks.

orangetravelcat

Before rushing to judgment on the air marshall cutback, shouldn't we determine if there really will be a cutback? Just because there was an article on MSNBC doesn't make it fact.

sunnydelite

stop blaming BUsh for everything! montgomery! you fmaling liberals need to put a sock in it.!!!!!!!!!
Air marshalls are everywhere! theyre plain clothes cops!

Jacksen

Smileworld,

I totally agree with your assessment.

E

AP reports today that while there was a plan to cut spending on the air marshall program, that plan has now been tabled, no doubt because some bureaucratic genius realized that announcing new Al Qaeda threats and air marshall cutbacks on the same day might panic those still brave enough to fly. sigh. I am amazed and disappointed that the gov't is still chasing its own tail on security issues.

smileworld

Lets be accurate about what TSA said. It reversed the plan to cut marshalls' missions on "some" of the high security flights served by marshalls in the Washington field office.

Note "some". Note Wash. field office. Aren't there some other offices somewhere?

Per dien, per TSA, will be paid to all marshalls who are stuck out of town overnight - until 9/31/03. FY 2004, no!!! The per diem cost was the reason for the cutback in marshall flights.

TSA will not train marshalls in FY 2004, due to the Budget shortfall of $900 million. No training, but they still get to fire off a round in a fusilage? Gee, isn't that shortfall actually in Bush's 2/03 budget submission to Congress? Gee, whose idea was it to cut back? Hmmmmmm.

Yesterday, he said only 25% of the record deficit was attributable to the tax cuts. Most of the remaining 75% was caused, he said, by a revenue problem at Treasury.

But here's the good news: if you're an air marshall with a law degree, you can be hired over at Justice to reserach how to codify a ban on gay marriages.

Would that be an example of multi-tasking or cross dressing?