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

Yes, WP23, I do recall this strange story. I assume the crash was due to all onboard suffering from lack of oxygen - hypoxia? Because of the utter destruction of the craft on impact, it was no doubt impossible to locate the cause of the loss of cabin oxygen or pressurization. I guess this will join the Mary Celeste as one of those unsolvable mysteries.

From the story on CNN
On Monday night accident investigators were in South Dakota to probe the cause of the crash of a runaway Learjet that carried golf champion Payne Stewart and four others to their deaths.

The plane had flown halfway across the United States before nose-diving into a field in South Dakota. USAF fighter pilots said its windows were frosted over - leading to the theory that the plane had depressurized after leaving Orlando - quickly killing all onboard. The crash happened in a marshy pasture two miles south of Mina, 20 miles west of Aberdeen. SD. The Learjet plunged into the ground at a 90-degree angle. There was no explosion, just a puff of smoke.

Payne Stewart, Robert Fraley, Van Ardan and the two pilots Michael Kling and Stephanie Bellegarrigue were on the plane. An Air Force spokesman said 2 USAF F-15s from Eglin AFB intercepted the plane after it lost contact with aircraft controllers and followed it to Missouri. Pilots reported the plane's crew was "non-responsive." Over Missouri, 4 F-16s from an ANG unit based in Fargo, ND, took over the escort, and stayed until it crashed. The FAA said the plane was a 1976 Learjet operated by Sunjet Aviation, of Sanford, Florida.

Shoot down not considered by Pentagon
The Pentagon said it never came close to shooting down Stewart's plane to prevent a possible crash into a heavily populated area. A Pentagon spokesman said, "Once it was determined it was apparently going to crash in a lightly populated area, we didn't have to deal with other options, so we didn't.

The plane seemed to be on auto pilot. The tracker planes reported the Learjet’s altitude varied wildly from between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. One possible explanation for the "porpoiseing" effect is the plane's autopilot was having trouble maintaining air speed and was diving and climbing in an attempt to adjust.

At 1:16 p.m. EDT on October 25, 1999, the F-16s following Stewart's plane reported the jet had run out of fuel and was spiraling downward through the clouds. The fighter planes circled the area until they were told the scene of the crash had been located and their assistance was no longer needed. END.
[Edited by Don W]

[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

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?

From my understanding of what you defined CAP as being, they would shoot down any aircraft that proves to be a threat to our millitary. How do I feel about that? What do I think? I think that the men and women in our millitary deserve it. They risk their lives, sacrifice many things that we take for granted to keep us safe despite the constint criticism. I also know that nothing other than millitary aircraft are allowed in those areas. If I was on a plane that was hijacked, I would GLADLY lay my life down to protect those men and women. HOWEVER, I do think that there should be a space of time allowed before hand just incase the people on the plane are able to handle the situation.

posted by JIMC5499

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. [Edited by Don W]

This is my point, J9, you're blithely saying, “ . . you have to consider the passengers on a hijacked plane as already dead . . “ I’m at the least asking who is to do the last rites?

Why do not we face each event with courage, determination, fortitude, resourcefulness, and let the chips fall where they may? As events unfold, we may or may not find alternatives. I’m prepared to accept we will win some, and we’ll lose some. I just do not believe anyone in America has the power or the right to unilaterally and what I regard as extra-legally, to decide who shall live and who shall die, all the more to kill one to save another. Why am I proud to be an American if we can act like Saddam Hussein? Or Edi Amin?

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.

Have the perpetrators of the Nine Eleven Event won? Are we now having to abandon our Constitution under the promise or premise of security? Who the heck wants to be so durn secure anyway? Isn’t it better to die with your head up than to go to the slaughter with your head hung low? Can you imagine Sir Winston counseling the Brits to give up some so others can live? I can’t. In a war you don't kill your own kind. (Unless you are darned hungry.)

I know 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.

Look, our government does a lot of things it ought not to do. We killed 30 people trying to kill Muammar Qadafi. Reagan would have gotten the death penalty in Texas and B43 would have been happy to add him to his 154 executions, but instead we mostly just laughed about it. Now because Libya has “converted” into a non-nuclear state, we hail ourselves as victors with wisdom. Maybe on a faith based mission for God?

We still hold Manuel Noriega in a hole in the ground in Miami, extra-legally. You would be shocked to learn how we are treating Robert Hannsen who we are now holding in eternal custody. It is no wonder we have torture and rendition. We have Alberto Gonzales.



[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

Flight 93 (Pennsylvania) WAS headed toward Washington DC, possibly the Whitehouse. So by your reasoning the President should of let it destroy our nations capitol?

Yes, Flt 93 was shot down.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
From my understanding of what you defined CAP as being, they would shoot down any aircraft that proves to be a threat to our millitary. How do I feel about that? What do I think? I think that the men and women in our millitary deserve it. They risk their lives, sacrifice many things that we take for granted to keep us safe despite the constint criticism. I also know that nothing other than millitary aircraft are allowed in those areas. If I was on a plane that was hijacked, I would GLADLY lay my life down to protect those men and women. HOWEVER, I do think that there should be a space of time allowed before hand just incase the people on the plane are able to handle the situation.

The problem is that there may not be time to give them. If the planes from 9-11 that hit the WTC had left from JFK airport instead of Boston, they would have already been too close to Ney York City to give them any time. Say they had been 250 miles out over the Atlantic Ocean, then I would have no problem with waiting until they were say 25 miles away from NYC before giving the order to fire. Just remember at 500 KIAS, 225 miles is less than 1/2 hour. My greatest concern is what if they take control of an aircraft and start circling over say New York City or LA, so that even if you shoot them down, you have hundreds of people underneath the aircraft.

Well, if they are out of time, then shoot them down. I have no problem with that. Sad as that may seem to some people.

As for circling over NY or LA, let me just say that they could persuade the aircraft further out. Not too long ago, the president was in town. Airforce one landed at an airport not too far from where I live (we are on a hill and watched it land, it was quite a site since no other plane hand landed there in years). There was this old fella who was going out for an evening fly I guess you would call it. (there is a small airport in the opposite direction where small aircraft fly out of) You should have seen the fighter jets that night. WOW talk about antimidating. They made sure he landed at an airport just north of here. Poor fella was scared to death. LOL serves him right for not checking the flight rules before he left. Anyway, after watching that, I must say that I have full faith that our airforce would be able to handle the situation.

posted by mrsdudara

From my understanding of what you defined CAP as being, they would shoot down any aircraft that proves to be a threat to our military. How do I feel about that? What do I think? I think the men and women in our military deserve it. They risk their lives, sacrifice many things that we take for granted to keep us safe despite the constant criticism. [Edited by Don W]

I cannot give credence to your argument, MrsD. The volunteer Armed Forces uniform wearer is not a theater usher. They are adults who offered to serve in what was known to be a hazardous occupation. Periodically they have the opportunity to leave. Maybe they can quit anytime. I don’t know. But they taking risks is part of the territory.

Personal Aside: How do you think I felt after I had volunteered for the USAF in 1952, expecting to go to war, then when I did arrive in Korea at K47, Chun Chon, to find myself the radio operator of a jeep mounted 3 man forward observation team? An Army EM driver, an AF pilot to spot targets and call them to his compatriots loitering overhead, and me to maintain the 2 radios? Just a bit south of the DMZ. You can’t imagine how happy I was that I did not get there until just after Labor Day, 1953! The Truce was in effect. That was too close for comfort.

HOWEVER, I do think there should be time allowed before hand just in case the people on the plane are able to handle the situation.

Who knows what one will do until the moment of truth comes?

Q. to you, MrsD. Do you think the sitting president, whoever he or she is, should have to make that final decision himself or herself, and sign off on it? Or would you trust a guy like VP Cheney to make it “In His Name?”

In other words, do you think of this as a delegable authority? Or should it be a non-delegable responsibility?

Maybe this issue rises to the level of a Constitutional amendment defining the powers in the Commander in Chief status? This is the crux of the argument.



[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

Calls to shoot down a passenger airplane comes directly and only from the President of the US. i.e. FLT 93.

Yes I do believe that it should be the president who makes that call.

Maybe if people thought about that part more, they would think a lot harder about who they vote for, and they would be more active in deciding who gets to run.

I might not agree 100% with the president. However, he is our president and just like all the others, I will show respect. He has a difficult job. I'm not sure that many people think about that when they slamming who ever it is at the time. We have to understand that we dont know everything that is going on. We have no clue why he decides what he does half the time. That is why voting is so important. Some people argue that there is no point in voting. I think that is just an excuse for things not going their way. Mainly because I dont want to even begin to think that way. Because if that were true, and our president, or the process of voting for a president is indeed usless then we are no longer the United States of America. This country is no longer run by "we the people". That is something that I cant believe. I cant believe that this country is so full of spinless butt kissing slaves, that they would allow for that to happen. The people of this country are very intelligent individuals, not to mention stubborn. There are always people sniffing around for corruption and conspiricy, and they find it when it is there and exploit the hell out of it. No one trusts the govt. not even me. I do trust the people of this country however. The people voted for Bush. Therefore, I trust him to make the call.

How about if we find out that one of our planes in the U.S. is hijacked, how about the President, the Vice President, all the senators and congressmen could all come together and discuss about the situation. I'm certain it shouldn't take too long to reach a decision.

Originally posted by donwhite
In other words, do you think of this as a delegable authority? Or should it be a non-delegable responsibility?

Maybe this issue rises to the level of a Constitutional amendment defining the powers in the Commander in Chief status? This is the crux of the argument.
[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

It is a delegated authority. The citizens of the US delegate it to someone every four years in the Presidential Election. The powers of the Commander in Chief are already quite well defined.

posted by mrsdudara

Yes I do believe that it should be the president who makes that call. However, he is our president and just like all the others, I will show respect. He has a difficult job. I'm not sure that many people think about that when they slamming who ever it is at the time. [Edited by Don W]

Until January 20, 2009. About 2 years 5 months. Nearly 900 days. Almost as long as JFK served. This sure as heck is not Camelot. This guy makes about 3 serious mistakes a year. Whew! Can we survive? Is there any such thing as too many mistakes? Or is it our job, as in Tennyson, “Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die . . ?“

poetry.eserver.org...

We have to understand that we don’t know everything that is going on. We have no clue why he decides what he does half the time. That is why voting is so important. Some people argue that there is no point in voting.

A disturbing proposition you are positing, MrsD. Should a citizen vote at all if he does not at least think he knows enough to make an intelligent choice? Part of what is to be a successful politician, you are into it 24/7 whereas most of us have to work for a living. But we hear this president has made “800 sign-offs” whereas all prior presidents did not do that more than 400 times in total. And the practice, as far as I know, is extra-constitutional and has not been definitively addressed by the Supreme Court. Of course I dread to have the Roberts Court take the question.

Because if our president or the process of voting for a president is useless then we are no longer the United States of America. This country is no longer run by "we the people". That is something that I cant believe. I cant believe that this country is so full of spineless butt kissing slaves, that they would allow for that to happen.

MrsD, “ . . allow for that to happen” are the operative words. Go to - - opensecrets.org - - You can see what is happening. Polling has become a science which as late as the 1948 election was definitely an art. If you were a candidate for office, you’d want your district polled 2 or 3 times a week. An accomplished pollster charges you $5,000 a week for this service. TV ads in a medium size market cost $750 for 20 seconds, and you furnish the ad. Good ads cost 1000s of dollars, each. You cannot make a run for national office with less than $500,000 available. I’d want a Million Five for a senate race. Once you get elected, you still want to raise as much money as you can for 2 reasons. 1), to use in case there is a serious opponent and 2), to discourage most others from even thinking about a run against you.

CFR. Campaign Finance Reform. To ever regain control of our country, we must have CFR. There must be no private money in our public elections. It contaminates the process irreversibly. Until we have CFR, you will feel y0ur frustration.

The people of this country are ntelligent individuals, not to mention stubborn. There are always people sniffing around for corruption and conspiracy, and they find it when it is there and exploit the hell out of it. No one trusts the govt. not even me.

It’s a tragic thing you say, “No one trusts the govt . . “ And therein you have exemplified a very serious matter that goes almost totally unnoticed except for pol-feaks like me.

We use “the government” most often to refer to the top 5,000 political appointees who are visible on the tv screen. The Ken Browns of FEMA, and etc. There are behind them, hard at work, about 2,000,000 thankless public servants that are, IMO, “the government.” The people who process the forms, the people who you encounter at the National Parks, not the high appointees sitting behind an oversized desk in W-DC.

In other words, we thoughtlessly bad-mouth those who serve us. We shoot ourselves in the foot. It is Republican mantra to have smaller government. In government, small is good, in business small is bad. Hmm? When corruption is uncovered, it usually involves the top dogs, not the bottom feeders, and yet, we reenforce the ultimate GOP aim which is to dismantle government, especially the part that regulate business and collects taxes.



[edit on 8/14/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Should a citizen vote at all if he does not at least think he knows enough to make an intelligent choice?

That is kind of the point I am making. When you are voting for the person you trust with your life, it would be foolish not to do the research. That being said I think it is clear where I stand on the whole not voting part.

CFR. Campaign Finance Reform. To ever regain control of our country, we must have CFR. There must be no private money in our public elections. It contaminates the process irreversibly. Until we have CFR, you will feel y0ur frustration.

I am not sure that I agree with that 100% to be honest.

I don’t think anyone has agreed with all of my arguments on the shoot down of passenger planes in the United States. Well, maybe none? Geez. Ferretman2 says Flt 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania. I am not convinced. He offered no proof.

I asked MrsD if she thought the power or authority to order a shoot down was delegable to another person, usually a lower ranking official. She opined that only the president should make the decision. Like Harry Truman, the buck stops here.

JimC5499 was being facetious - I suppose - when he said the power had been “delegated” to the president. He says its included in the Commander in Chief status. He also said it was “quite well defined” but I have to confess I am unaware of where to go to see those powers enumerated. Bush43 and his eclectic AG, Alberto Gonzales, seems to think the power is limitless. And maybe both of them think it is also timeless. Gosh. Congress can go home and save us all about $50 million a day. B43 and Gonzales can do it all! Needless to say, I regard that as GOP crapola.

I raised the issue of excessive money in our Congress, mostly for re-elections unless you are Duke Cunningham or Jack Abramoff. And we’d all be dunces to imagine Duke and Jack are the only 2 men in Washington stealing out of the public trough.

But MrsD says she is not sure she wants to tackle this problem, at least the way I suggested. I have heard Hillary Clinton will spend $30 million and her GOP opponents will spend $50 million between now and November7. I see that as a national disgrace and the quintessential selling of our government, but others just say “Que sera, sera.”

I would like to see what JimC5499 was referring to when it said the Commander in Chief powers are “quite well defined.” Article II is the Executive article of the Constitution. Section 1, Clause 8 sets forth the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The very next sentence found in Section 2, Clause 1, is as follows: “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 the actual service of the United Stats . . “ Last, the only provision remotely related to this discussion, is in Section 3. “ . . he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses or either of them . . “ which we say is to “Call a Special Session of Congress.” I honestly do not see an shoot down authority there. Maybe I have missed something. Fill me in, Mr JimC5499. Not necessarily a link, but just your own explanation why you think it is already "clearly defined."



[edit on 8/15/2006 by donwhite]

The fact that the debris field for Flt 93 was over 5 squre miles. That would not happen to a plane that was crashed into the ground.

You notice that only the twin towers planes are talked about but never the Pennsylvania crash site.

posted by ferretman2

The fact that the debris field for Flt 93 was over 5 square miles. That would not happen to a plane that was crashed into the ground.

FM2, if you take 6,600 feet from the point of impact, and find debris scattered around within that distance, then you are talking about “5 square miles.” I have no idea how fast the plane was going or at what angle when it hit the ground, but you can be sure it was pretty fast. So I find nothing sinister about the “5 square miles.”




[edit on 8/15/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
The very next sentence found in Section 2, Clause 1, is as follows: “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 the actual service of the United Stats . . “ Last, the only provision remotely related to this discussion, is in Section 3. “ . . he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses or either of them . . “ which we say is to “Call a Special Session of Congress.” I honestly do not see an shoot down authority there. Maybe I have missed something. Fill me in, Mr JimC5499. Not necessarily a link, but just your own explanation why you think it is already "clearly defined."

it's how your looking at it don. as i see it, commander in chief implies full authority over the military and its actions (excluding, of course, declaration of war). do you realize that washington took the term CIC quite literally? during the whiskey rebellion he actually led the troops as the CIC.....going by that example, i would say that the decision to shoot down an aircraft that has become a weapon is within his authority as CIC....that is, a command decision in the heat of battle. and lets face it, we were in the midst of battle on 9/11.

posted by snafu7700

“It's how you’re looking at it Don. I would say the decision to shoot down an aircraft that has become a weapon is within his authority as C-I-C . . that is, a command decision in the heat of battle . . and lets face it, we were in the midst of battle on 9/11. [Edited by Don W]

Well, S7, I don’t agree with your characterization of the Nine Eleven Event. But that’s for another thread.

On the issue of shooting down a passenger plane in the US. You have pushed me to re-think my position. Why does everyone here disagree with me? So, let me see if I can better explain my position. I think I have the correct approach to this puzzle that looked like a conundrum.

The president acts as C-in-C under the laws of the land. Yes, he is in charge, but he is only in charge of carrying out the laws on the books. He doesn’t make laws, he executes them.

(No pun intended this time.)


[edit on 8/16/2006 by donwhite]