Combat Air Patrol - America’s Shoot-Down Policy - KAL007 Revisited?

Combat Air Patrol - CAP - originated in the Navy when a number of fighter planes were routinely assigned the task of providing security over aircraft carriers and other Navy ships at war in the Pacific. The CAP concept has been extended to the Air Force in reference to gaining and keeping air superiority in a combat zone. Every military commander wants a CAP over the area assigned to him.

How do you feel about the United States of America adopting a policy to shoot down a civilian passenger plane loaded with human beings not to say American citizens? Are you as angry as I am? Coupled with disappointment and disillusion to live in such a country as would make this decision? With no debate in Congress? Does this sound like the men at The Alamo? Or the men who went up San Juan Hill? Or who defended on Corregidor? Or who went ashore at Normandy on D-Day? I don’t think so.

The Department of Homeland Security spokesman was reported today to have confirmed there is a CAP policy in place. So that no one will doubt how I feel about this policy, let me say, I hate this policy and I hate the person(s) who ordered it.

Answer me this: Why should one man die so another man may live? Or, is a life on the ground worth more than a life in the air? Who decides this life and death issue? When does the pilot down the passenger plane? Is this not KAL007 revisited? What did we say about the Soviets then? Who even deigns to consider this kind of extremist policy more suited to our medieval ancestors?

Who takes it upon himself to make and issue such an order to the Air Force and presumably other members of the Armed Forces of the United States? Augustus Caesar was elected by the Roman Senate to be Dictator for Life. Has our own Senate also chosen such a person? Who did they choose? Lest we be confused, this power is claimed under the undefined war powers claimed to be embodied in the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution. See references below.

Let’s not mince words. We know it was George W Bush, America’s 43rd president who claims, asserts or took this power unto himself. There is no law authorizing the president to order the killing of an undetermined number of United States citizens for any reason, not to say the questionable reason that it is somehow better for a plane to be shot down than it is for the plane to be crashed. Not one of our 42 prior presidents even dreamed of issuing such an order or claiming such power. Not Washington, not Lincoln, not Wilson nor Roosevelt. Only Bush43.

Does not this standing order by necessary implication mean that any person buying a ticket to ride an airplane within the borders of the United States is giving his implied consent to be killed by the Air Force, and if he or she is taking with him his children of tender years, he is approving in advance the government’s right to kill his children? For what great cause is this sacrifice called for? Will it save the country? Will it win the War on Terror?

Do you think Air Force One would be shot down if it was captured by some disaffected citizen who had sneaked on board? Do you now that Israel Air Lines - El Al - has equipped every one of its airliners with anti-missile defense equipment just like that on Air Force One, but that the same United States government that is prepared to kill you has not ordered such defensive devices be installed on a single American passenger airliner? This leaves our planes vulnerable to the Stinger type should fired missiles. Anywhere. No thanks.

May I quote to you the Commander-in-Chief clause? It is found it Article 2, Section 2. “The president shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service of the United States . . “ That's it! I see no basis for a shoot-down power.

The clear intent of this clause is to establish civilian control over the military services. This clause does not make the president dictator for life despite what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may say or think. I disdain any man (or woman) sitting as president who even dreams of such a situation and who would take on himself that kind of unlimited power. It is unnecessary. If the Congress had been atom bombed out of existence, then for a short time, maybe, but that is not the case. This is a usurpation of power we have seen only in a Latin American coup d’etat.

I refer you to Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power: Cl. 9, To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; Cl. 11. To declare War . . and make rules concerning capture son land and water; Cl. 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; Cl. 14. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into election the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department of officer thereof.

May I also quote to you from the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which contains the definition of American citizenship, among other items. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

For reference see also the 5th Amendment. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentiment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . nor shall be compelled . . to be a witness against himself . . nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . “

For reference see also the 4th Amendment. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects . . shall not be violated . . but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation . . “

Conclusion. The Constitutional designation of the president as the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy was a clear notification who would be in charge of the Armed Forces of the Republic, so there could be no doubt. The Congress has power to make all the rules an regulations for the running of the Armed Forces and to make any other necessary and proper laws. But an elected civilian is the person in charge.

The president is the one person placed over the Armed Forces, but he can only act or exercise this power according to laws passed by Congress. Within that frame work he is indeed the chief. But he is neither a dictator nor a God. He does not have the power to PRE-ORDER my death for being unfortunate enough to be a passenger in a hi-hacked airliner. People on the ground enjoy no more right to live than a passenger in a jetplane. I say, let everyone take his chances. Don’t load the dice or stack the deck against passengers. Especially extra-legally.



[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

Interesting that your bring this up. Alot of people are under the impression that shooting down a passenger airplane means it will explode. However, KAL007 disproves this, as only the wing and engine were taken off. You can intercept and shoot down a passenger airliner without destroying it.

As far as this new shoot to kill policy. It isn't new, it was a last resort policy in existance before 9/11.

My question is, why was Bush and company not so trigger happy on 9/11 when the nation needed them?

posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

" . . people are under the impression that shooting down a passenger airplane means it will explode. KAL007 disproves this, as only the wing and engine were taken off. You can intercept and shoot down a passenger airliner without destroying it.

As far as this new shoot to kill policy. It isn't new, it was a last resort policy in existence before 9/11.

My question is, why was Bush and company not so trigger happy on 9/11 when the nation needed them?”
[Edited by Don W]

To answer your question and offer comments, in reverse order.

1) If you will read the 9/11 Commission Report where the dialogue between the AF F16 pilots and the 2 ground controllers is transcribed, you will see there was total confusion and the pilots, to their good credit, were not eager - maybe not willing - to shoot down any passenger planes. Flight 93 was thought to be in Cleveland then in West Virginia and then even 15 minutes after it crashed, it was just not certain where it was. I would not criticize anyone for that snafu. It always happens at the occurance of a totally unexpected event.

2) I am unaware of the prior existence of such a “policy” to instruct the USAF or ANG pilots to shoot down American passenger planes. Which does not make it not our policy, but it means I have missed something important and surely worth a debate on the floor of Congress. The President ought not take this authority on himself. I know of no place in our Constitution that would come close to authorizing that. No place.

3) So is it worse to die in 3 minutes of free falling or to die in a couple seconds when the AAM missiles strike?

I say the people on the ground have no higher standing than those in the air. Let everyone take his or her own risk. Let fate decide who lives or who dies.

PS. United 232 - a DC 10 - crashed at Souix City and over 50% of the pasengers survived. A crash does not necessarily mean death to all onboard. But this begs the quesion of the justification of purposefully shooting down a plane.



[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

The point Im making is not about the pilots willingness to shootdown rouge aircraft. But the failure of the president to give the orders, or take much action to begin with. especially when their precious capital was under threat.

My point also relates to my belief that flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force, but for some reason, this was covered up. Hence my explaination of how a plane shot by a fighter jet does not necessarily explode in mid air. It can be disabled.

People on the ground may not have the higher standing, but it is better to shoot down a plane and kill 100 passengers than to let the plane strike its target and kill 3,000 people on the ground.

posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

The point Im making is not about the pilots willingness to shoot down rouge aircraft. People on the ground may not have the higher standing, but it is better to shoot down a plane and kill 100 passengers than to let the plane strike its target and kill 3,000 people on the ground.
[Edited by Don W]

A hi-jacked airliner is not a “rogue” aircraft. You have made my case regardless how Flight 93 got to the ground, that in that instance only people onboard the plane died. I have heard and I feel pertly sure it is hard for an amateur to steer a plane into a building like the Pentagon.

But the failure of the president to give the orders, or take much action to begin with. especially when their precious capital was under threat.
[Edited by Don W]

Well, we know VP Cheney was hiding out at Cheyenne Mountain and Bush43 was hiding out at 40,000 feet. They could not break radio silence for fear Bush43 would be shot down. And etc.

one question don:

you assert that it is immoral to decide whether the passengers lives are less important than the people on the ground, and vice versa. but if it is known that the aircraft will be used to strike a target with 200 people in it, would it not be our moral duty to take out the plane? we should let all of those concerned die instead of just the 200 people on the plane? we should let 400 die instead of 200?

i just cant swallow that pill.

to me, that's like telling a fire-fighter not to enter a burning building because he's going to have to choose between two people who need to be rescued, so it's better just to let them both burn rather than have to make that choice.

Oh yes, lets not shoot down the poor airliner with 200 people. Lets instead let those 200 people of 0 chance of survival while potentially killing thousands on an aircraft carrier and costing billions in damage, nice logic
/sarcasm off

posted by snafu7700

“ . . one question Don: you assert that it is immoral to decide whether the passengers lives are less important than the people on the ground . . but if it is known that the aircraft will be used to strike a target with 200 people in it, would it not be our moral duty to take out the plane? . . we should let 400 die instead of 200? . . I cant swallow that pill . . to me, that's like telling a fire-fighter not to enter a burning building because he's going to have to choose between two people who need to be rescued, so it's better just to let them both burn rather than have to make that choice. [Edited by Don W]

My argument is based on the absence of any person or group of persons who have been empowered to make this decision. It is being made ad hoc, and I don’t like that. That puts too much reliance on whatever group that happens to be standing nearby when it becomes **** or get off the pot time.

I prefer to act as a group, and not so much as individualisticly. I think we should work as hard as we can in the time available to minimize casualties, but the actual taking of life should be left in the hands of the malefactors. Good guys don’t do bad things for the right reasons.

If we think such a drastic policy is essential to our survival as a nation of whatever kind of people who can handle these kinds of decisions without remorse or regret, then we ought at least pick out who gets to say when they are to die before the fact.



[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite


If we think such a drastic policy is essential to our survival as a nation of whatever kind of people who can handle these kinds of decisions without remorse or regret, then we ought at least pick out who gets to say when they are to die before the fact.



[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

i thought we did that. its called the electoral process, and it's right in that piece of paper you quoted: the US constitution. the commander in chief makes the decision, and the military carries out that decision. you may not have voted for him and you may not like his decisions, but for better or worse, he did win the election which gives him the right to make the decisions. if it can be proven that his orders are illegal, then there is the impeachment process.

posted by snafu7700

I thought we did that. its called the electoral process, and it's right in that piece of paper you quoted: the US Constitution. the commander in chief makes the decision, and the military carries out that decision . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Well, right there, you can see what makes the world go round. You’re explaining something in a way that never occurred to me. IMO, you are making this a nation of men, not a nation of laws.

It is too much of a stretch for me to see the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ designation as somehow extending to include the power to order the shoot down of a passenger plane. That has got to be a human no-no, not to say a violation of western (American) values. A war crime.

“ . . you may not have voted for him and you may not like his decisions, but for better or worse, he did win the election which gives him the right to make the decisions.

I accept the electoral outcome. Although I have no regard for B43, he is our president until January 20, 2009. I am arguing that no president, Clinton or B43, has that authority or right. I’m arguing that no person in America has that authority or that right. I am an atheist from birth, but this not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue. Frankly, I’m surprised anyone who has reflected on this accepts it so casually. I get riled up just thinking about it. This is not the USSR. Or is it?



[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

OK Don, I am gonna play devils advocate here. This reasoning IS about religion and it IS about philosophy. You are stating the president does not have the constitutional authority to shoot down planes which have been hijacked. Lets turn this situation on its head and examine a scenario:
Lets say its 9/11/2001. Bush learns about these planes and lets say he knows about them before they hit their targets. Lets say they all hit major civilian centers. Bush comes on that night and makes a speech. "Sorry folks, I could have prevented the Twin Towers from falling, and I could have kept them from flying into the Sears Tower in Chicago and Trump Tower as well, but the constitution wouldn't let me. We are sorry we made the terrorists mad, and all people have the right to voice their complaint." What the hell kind of crap is that, Don?
Bush would be well on his way out of office before the end of the next day. I would expect something like that from Carter, but not Bush.
If YOU had relatives freakin DIE in the Twin Towers, people that you loved, I think you might have different thoughts on the issue. The REAL reason you object to this is because YOU DONT LIKE BUSH. Period. If it was a liberal atheist sociology professor from Cal Berkley that was president, you would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL. If it was Bill Clinton, you would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL. Bush is a poor president with extremely poor communication skills. One thing he does understand is that although it is not in the Constitution, one of his highest priorities as president is to protect the american public, something that for some odd reason you do not understand. I guess that puts Bush one up on you.
But why do you have a problem, Don? I will tell you why. [leans close to the computer] Are you ready? The reason you dont like Christians is because our very existance reminds you that you are accountable for your actions in this life. Death is not the end. You are not the highest being and you are not an island. The intellectual philosophy of self that you worship, being an atheist, is lacking- sorely I might add.
Don't believe me? IF you are so intelligent, read "A Christian Manifesto" by Francis Schaeffer.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Houtchens]

posted by Houtchens

OK Don, I am gonna play devils advocate here. This reasoning IS about religion and it IS about philosophy. You are stating the president does not have the constitutional authority to shoot down planes which have been hijacked.
[Edited by Don W]

At first blush, I do not see how religion plays a role in this issue of whether the president as commander-in-chief has the inherent power to order the shoot down of a passenger plane. I assume you will admit he does not have direct or specific power.

Lets turn this situation on its head and examine a scenario: Lets say its 9/11/2001. Bush learns about these planes and lets say he knows about them before they hit their targets. Lets say they all hit major civilian centers. Bush comes on that night and makes a speech. "Sorry folks, I could have prevented the Twin Towers from falling, and I could have kept them from flying into the Sears Tower in Chicago and Trump Tower as well, but the constitution wouldn't let me. We are sorry we made the terrorists mad, and all people have the right to voice their complaint." What the hell kind of crap is that, Don?

First, I don’t admit it is “crap.” It’s the argument whether we are a nation of men or a nation of laws. You are using what is called an ad hominem argument. That is, directed towards the other person and not to the issue. Where in the Constitution do you see this power granted to the president?

Second, B43 would not have phrased the tragedy in those words. He could have described what happened without taking any blame himself. I would have blamed him for not having foreseen the event as we have already done, but not for ordering illegal counter measures. It is easy to follow the laws in good times, but it does get hard in bad times. What you seem to be advocating comes close to what I call the “Nuremberg Syndrome” seen in the Nazis on trial in 1945-46.

In this case, by that reference I mean to have unquestioning obedience to the most extreme order. I don’t want my soldiers blindly following every conceivable order. That is one of my 2 major fears and concerns over the volunteer army. As in ancient Rome, to whom will they owe ultimate loyalty? The country or the man who signs their paycheck? Give me a draftee anytime.

Bush would be well on his way out of office before the end of the next day. I would expect something like that from Carter, but not Bush.

I’m curios why you choose the retiring Jimmy Carter to hold up in opposition to Bush43.

If YOU had relatives freakin DIE in the Twin Towers, people that you loved, I think you might have different thoughts on the issue. The REAL reason you object to this is because YOU DON’T LIKE BUSH. Period.

I never said I liked B43.

Bush is a poor president with extremely poor communication skills.

You said it, Mr H.

One thing he does understand is that although it is not in the Constitution, one of his highest priorities as president is to protect the American public, something that for some odd reason you do not understand. I guess that puts Bush one up on you.

You don’t throw the baby out with the wash water. Most tyrants begin by claiming they are protecting the people for some imagined or enlarged enemy. This is old stuff but it is still dangerous to the Republic.

But why do you have a problem, Don? I will tell you why. Are you ready? The reason you don’t like Christians is because our very existence reminds you that you are accountable for your actions in this life. Death is not the end. You are not the highest being and you are not an island. The intellectual philosophy of self that you worship, being an atheist, is lacking- sorely I might add. Don't believe me? IF you are so intelligent, read "A Christian Manifesto" by Francis Schaeffer.
G. Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

Is that the same short tempered fellow who built the Glass Cathedral? I’ll pass on the offer if you don’t mind. You know I don’t have any regard for mega-churches. Can you imagine Jesus trying to get in, wearing a loose robe, stringy long hair, maybe a beard, and open sandals and maybe the smell of sweat. The ushers would order him “out of here or we’ll‘ call the law!” Let me close with this, Mr. H,

IF God Made me, I’m Not Worried.


[edit on 8/12/2006 by donwhite]

A wonderful reply, Don, and thank you.

You are thinking about either Oral Roberts or Robert Schuler if I am not mistaken. Francis Schaeffer is someone else entirely altogether.

He is from Switzerland- or shall I say was. He died back in 1984 or 85. A humble man of moderate means, he was a christian apologist and philosopher. Given your thoughtful reply to my post, I would say that he writes somewhat like you do.

I am sure that I could go to wikipedia and find out more, but that sums him up in a nutshell. He was a rather humble man who is to philosophers what C.S. Lewis was to writers. No mega church short tempered fellow was he. Heres a link to one site: www.rationalpi.com...

PS I agree with you in regards to mega churches-

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

OK, one last thing:

I don't think that my arguement was an ad hominem arguement in that I was asking the question "How far does it go?" How far does the argument "Bush does not have the constitutional authority to shoot down civilian aircraft" go?

What if a light twin engine Cessna is flying illegally towards the super bowl and does not respond to any communication? Upon contacting the airport we learn that the airplane is owned by a man from Pakistan. No amount of buzzing the plane will cause it to stray from its course. Workers at the airport report they loaded a large box on the plane with a forklift. Does the president (not neccessarily Bush, but ANY president) not make the call because the constitution does not give him the authority?

Additionally, you state that "Most tyrants begin by claiming they are protecting the people for some imagined or enlarged enemy. This is old stuff but it is still dangerous to the Republic." I do not call the flying of civilian aircraft into buildings imagined or enlarged. Richard Reid and his explosive shoe is not imagined, nor are the many who sought recently to make bombs from liquid explosives and cameras to blow up aircraft, either. This does not automatically make Bush *not* a tyrant. However, do you see my point?

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

posted by Houtchens

You are thinking about Robert Schuler if I am not mistaken. Francis Schaeffer is someone else. He was from Switzerland. He died in 1984 or 85. A humble man of moderate means, he was a Christian apologist and philosopher. I would say that he writes somewhat like you do. He was a rather humble man who is to philosophers what C.S. Lewis was to writers. [Edited by Don W]

Even I would rephrase your generous remark to say I write somewhat like he wrote. Yes, I do know of Francis Schaeffer. I was thinking of Mr. Schuler. Heck, for me, it was the letter “S” that threw me off. Mr. Schaeffer is still highly regarded. I am not too much into philosophy or religion and I find my interest piqued by science and history with a heavy dose of politics tossed in.

My slight knowledge of the Holy Bible and old Palestine comes mostly from buying and reading the first 10 years of Biblical Archaeological Review - BAR - published by Herschel Shanks. BAR was a quarterly in 6 X 9 then. I have read about William Albright and Kathleen Kenyon who did early work digging in the Holy Land.

Yigael Yadin excavated Masada in 1965 and I have read his book. He has now come under severe criticism because people are coming to believe the 10 lottery chits he says he found were “salted” either with or without his foreknowledge.

I have read several books about the Dead Sea Scrolls and about the Jewish group called the Essesens. There are still digs going on in the area and new information is being uncovered. I have dropped my subscription to BAR but maybe I should re-new it for a year? And, I’ve read about the First and Second Jewish Revolts. And etc.

OK, one last thing: I don't think that my argument was ad hominem in that I was asking the question "How far does it go?" How far does the argument "Bush does not have the constitutional authority to shoot down civilian aircraft" go?

For me, it goes very far. Well, maybe I should say, NOT very far. Obviously, not too many people share my POV. That’s the story of my life. But that’s for the psychologist’s couch. Being commander in chief of the Army and Navy means just that. It’s like being the elected Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although our constitution was written before the Corsican artillery captain was catapulted into the job of Marshal of France, later to crown himself Emperor, so there was a mystique in Europe that generals sometimes wanted to “cut to the chase” and usurp power. To avoid this, the FFs opted for a new C-in-C every 4 years.

The post of C-in-C was devised to keep the military under control. It was not meant to have a designated dictator for an emergency, which in today’s case, if you listen to VP Cheney or to B43, is to be a decades long emergency. B43 has already stated the troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq before his term ends. That is not a wise thing to say more than 2 years away.

What if a light twin engine Cessna is flying illegally towards the super bowl and does not respond to any communication? Upon contacting the airport we learn that the airplane is owned by a man from Pakistan. No amount of buzzing the plane will cause it to stray from its course. Workers at the airport report they loaded a large box on the plane with a forklift. Does the president (not necessarily Bush, but ANY president) not make the call because the constitution does not give him the authority?

Look, Mr H, you can conjure a scenario that leaves me no option. The reason I resist is that I do not want to move from the impossible situation into the realm of today’s politics. That is too much of a jump. As for the Cessna, let’s cross our fingers that the Pakistani will not have checked his fuel level and will run out of gas before he can find the stadium. In the meantime, I’d suggest an order to evacuate the stadium.

“ . . you state that "Most tyrants begin by claiming they are protecting the people . . old stuff but it is still dangerous to the Republic." Richard Reid’s explosive shoe is not imagined, nor the many who sought recently to make bombs from liquid explosives to blow up aircraft. This does not automatically make Bush *not* a tyrant. However, do you see my point?
G.Houtchens

You are right, Mr H. I do not think B43 is into some kind of Skull and Bones plot to take over the government. I think he is in way over his head. I think he neglected to do his homework when in college and he is just lazy. I think that being governor of Texas is no big deal because the oil industry - to which his family is connected - like 1000s of others - runs Texas. As in many states, being governor is mostly a public relations job.

I think B43 made the wrong decision on September 12. He has painted us - the US - into a corner. The foreigners who we are now labeling “terrorists” as if there were none before the Nine Eleven Event, have been given a chain, the pulling of which costs them little, but the US, on the other end, must spend billions to counter. They can “whipsaw” us into Chapter 11. We must get smarter and stop spending our national treasure on the TSA and Walls around Mexico. Fight smart. Or our grand children will have nothing left to fight with or for.



[edit on 8/13/2006 by donwhite]

Look at it this way. Before 9-11 hijacked aircraft were not used as weapons against ground targets. The majority of hijackings were resolved with minimal loss of life to people on the aircraft. Yes there were exceptions to this, but those were few and far between.

What I have found interesting is that there hasn't been a hijacking since 9-11. Want to know why? Simple 9-11 removed the chance of easy success. Before 9-11 the policy was to go along with the hijackers, get the plane on the ground and negotiate. Now the hijackers are going to be fighting for their lives because everyone on that plane is going to come after them. There is no chance for the hijackers to accomplish their goals, so hijacking has been pretty much removed as an idea to achieve those gaols.

It is my opinion that now a hijacked aircraft should be shot down immediately as soon as the hijacking is confirmed. Yes you are going to lose the people on the aircraft, but you are going to send a message that airliners cannot be used as weapons. In my opinion that will save lives in the long run. Shooting down a hijacked aircraft before it can be used as a weapon means that this is no longer an effective method of accomplishing the hijackers goals. As a matter of fact just the possibility of shooting down an airliner may have already changed terrorist tactics.

Now the tendency is towards suicide bombing of aircraft over populated areas. If what I have read about the happenings in the UK last week are correct, the objective was to bring the aircraft down over US cities, in order to cause as much damage on the ground as poissible. These people are not going to give advance warning to the passengers and crew, the first indication that they are there is going to be the bomb's detonation. This will eliminate any chance of intercepting and downing of the aircraft.

posted by JIMC5499

Before 9-11 hijacked aircraft were not used as weapons. The majority of hijackings were resolved with minimal loss of life to people on the aircraft. [Edited by Don W]

I agree.

Interesting that there hasn't been a hijacking since 9-11. Want to know why? Simple 9-11 removed the chance of easy success. Before 9-11 the policy was to go along with the hijackers. Now the hijackers are going to be fighting for their lives because everyone on that plane is going to come after them.

Again, I agree.

It is my opinion a hijacked aircraft should be shot down immediately as soon as the hijacking is confirmed. Yes you are going to lose the people on the aircraft, but you are going to send a message that airliners cannot be used as weapons. In my opinion that will save lives in the long run.

I disagree, as I have posted earlier and you are now replying to. Even so, the suggested policy needs to be debated on the floor of Congress, before the all seeing eyes of CSpan in prime time. Then, all of us are expected to abide by the decision. Unless a court should intervene.

As a matter of fact just the possibility of shooting down an airliner may have already changed terrorist tactics.

That’s like proving a negative, very difficult to do. Or know.

Now the tendency is to suicide bombing of aircraft over populated areas. I have read about the happenings in the UK last week, the objective was to bring the aircraft down over US cities to cause as much damage on the ground as possible. These people are not going to give advance warning to the passengers and crew, the first indication is going to be the bomb's detonation. This will eliminate any chance of intercepting and downing of the aircraft.

So now are you suggesting time has rendered a “shoot down” policy moot?

Oh, I think this “shoot down” stuff got started by VP Cheney when he thought he was pres.

Originally posted by donwhite
I disagree, as I have posted earlier and you are now replying to. Even so, the suggested policy needs to be debated on the floor of Congress, before the all seeing eyes of CSpan in prime time. Then, all of us are expected to abide by the decision. Unless a court should intervene.

In my opinion, since 9-11, a hijacked airliner should be considered a threat to National Security and should be handled by the President in his role as Commander in Chief. The last thing I want is for this to be debated by Congress. As I recall Congress approved the invasion of Iraq, and then four months later changed its mind. To me this is too important of an issue to be decided by which way the current political wind is blowing.
If you want a voice in this policy, make it a Presidential election issue. Just keep it out of Congress's hands.

So now are you suggesting time has rendered a “shoot down” policy moot?

Oh, I think this “shoot down” stuff got started by VP Cheney when he thought he was pres.

The "shoot down" issue has been around for quite a while. There were those who thought that the Air Force should have shot down Payne Stewert's aircraft in October of 1999. Scenarios have existed for years involving airliners with their flight crews incapacitated being shot down over unpopulated areas.

I think changes in terrorist tactics has made a "shoot down" more improbable. From what I have heard about the plot that was unraveled in the UK last week, the idea was to explode the bombs to cause the airliners to crash into populated areas below the plane's flight path. This was to be done without any warning, which would make an interception and "shoot down" almost impossible.


By the way, with my job I fly commercial airlines alot. I just didn't want anyone to think that I don't have a horse in this race.




[edit on 14-8-2006 by JIMC5499]

posted by JIMC5499

(1) IMO, since 9-11, a hijacked airliner should be considered a threat to National Security and should be handled by the President in his role as Commander in Chief.
(2) The last thing I want is for this to be debated by Congress. As I recall Congress approved the invasion of Iraq, and then four months later changed its mind.
(3) To me this is too important of an issue to be decided by which way the current political wind is blowing. If you want a voice in this policy, make it a Presidential election issue. Just keep it out of Congress's hands.

1) You seem (to me) to think of it as the making of a fire break to save the city from worse, as in Chicago’s Mrs. O’Leary’s fire? I have not changed by POV.
2) I can’t think of a better place to hold this kind of life and death debate. A determination of national policy. I don’t want anyone including the president, made into an Agent 007. At least not without a public discussion of it. I’d like to see a joint session of Congress debate. Maybe allot 8 hours one day to pro and 8 hours the next day to con, then vote the third day. This is what I think “representative” government means.
3) Well, again, you see how different people have different views, to me it is the way the political winds are blowing that ought to rule. If you’ll pardon my Yiddish, this is a slippery slope down which I do not want to slide.

(1) The "shoot down" issue has been around for quite a while. There were those who thought that the Air Force should have shot down Payne Stewert's aircraft in October of 1999.
(2) From what I have heard about the plot in the UK last week, the idea was to explode the bombs to cause the airliners to crash into populated areas below the plane's flight path. This was to be done without any warning, which would make an interception and "shoot down" almost impossible.
(3) By the way, with my job I fly commercial airlines a lot. I just didn't want anyone to think that I don't have a horse in this race. [Edited by Don W]

1) Are you sure you’re not thinking of the series of airplane movies in the 70s and 80s? Until VP Cheney “ordered” it on the Nine Eleven Event, I have no memory of it. Refresh me on the Payne Stewart incident.
2) Yes, I believe that is the report regarding the plan in the UK. That whole thing is beginning to have a certain unpleasant smell about it. One guy already has been released as an innocent bystander. That brings to mind the Brazilian guy who was also an innocent bystander, but was not so fortunate. If this one goes sour, Tony Blair is out!
3) 10-4 on horse races. I was born in Louisville, and grew up 3 blocks from Churchill Downs, so horse races I’m familiar with. I never did fly much, maybe 1-2 times a year then skip a year or two. Presently I do fly 1-2 times a year as I’ve been able to take the Elderhostel programs since retiring to FL. I flew to Corning-Elmira last fall to a 5 days program on Lake Seneca. I usually fly back to L’ville to visit friends 1 or 2 times a year. I already have a ticket bought for November. Like so many things that vex us in modern life, as in drive-by shootings, or home intrusions, it is only in the numbers that we have security. We just had #70 homicide in Jax, and not one person - well, me excepted - even mentions the availability of guns as a possible contributing factor. For a politician in the south to mention gun control would be like me trying to sell abortions in the Vatican.



[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

1) You seem (to me) to think of it as the making of a fire break to save the city from worse, as in Chicago’s Mrs. O’Leary’s fire? I have not changed by POV.
2) I can’t think of a better place to hold this kind of life and death debate. A determination of national policy. I don’t want anyone including the president, made into an Agent 007. At least not without a public discussion of it. I’d like to see a joint session of Congress debate. Maybe allot 8 hours one day to pro and 8 hours the next day to con, then vote the third day. This is what I think “representative” government means.
3) Well, again, you see how different people have different views, to me it is the way the political winds are blowing that ought to rule. If you’ll pardon my Yiddish, this is a slippery slope down which I do not want to slide.

1) Are you sure you’re not thinking of the series of airplane movies in the 70s and 80s? Until VP Cheney “ordered” it on the Nine Eleven Event, I have no memory of it. Refresh me on the Payne Stewart incident.

Yes I do think of a shoot down as way to prevent things from getting worse. As a result of 9-11, as much as I hate to say it, you have to consider the passengers on a hijacked plane as already dead. The objective should be to protect lives other than those on the aircraft. I am not saying to abandon negotiations. If a dialogue can be started between the hijackers and authorities and the aircraft can be diverted to an airfield without going over densly populated areas, then by all means do so. My main purpose in the President having the authority to order a shoot down is to avoid confusion in the event the order is to be given. Any kind of Congressional mandate will only add to the confusion. To me the knowledge that the US will shoot down a hijacked aircraft is the greatest deterrence to such a hijacking.

There has been a plan in place for shooting down an airliner, under certain conditions, long before those movies were made in the 70's and 80's. I remember a few drills along those lines from when I was in the US Navy in the early 1980's. I do know that the Saratoga's F-14's had a shoot down proceedure in the event that the EgyptAir 737 carrying the Achille Lauro hijackers didn't follow them to NAS Sigonilla in 1985. The Payne Stewart incident that I mentioned happened in 1999. His Learjet left Florida for Texas, and something incapacitated everyone on board. The autopilot flew the aircraft until the fuel ran out over South Dakota and the plane crashed.

Payne Stewart

Payne Stewart 2

The statement was made that there was no intention of shooting down Stewart's aircraft, but refer to an established proceedure that was in place.