It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sky marshals not worth it, says study

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Sky marshals not worth it, says study


www.news.com.au

HIJACKERS planning a repeat of the September 11 attacks are more likely to be thwarted by secure cockpit doors and passengers and crew fighting back than sky marshals, a study says.

Armed marshals failed the cost-benefit analysis because there was only a 10 per cent chance one would be aboard any individual flight.

Furthermore, passengers and crew might be reluctant to confront a hijacker if they believed a sky marshal was on board.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Well, there we have it. A waste or not?

It seems that passengers and crew are more or less deputised to take whatever action will be necessary to overcome a threat on an airplane.

The whole concept of sky marshals works well with a hand-in-hand fear campaign to make us feel that we all need to be protected.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I wish I was a sky marshal. Talk about a cushy job...



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I've always understood Sky Marshalls to be only a token measure anyway. A case of the government being seen to be doing something at a time when the people were demanding something be done. I'm fairly sure that the government never really thought Sky Marshalls would really be change anything, at least in terms of deterring terrorists.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
they work for el al - the israeli state carrier



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


They don't need to be deputised - in the event of a terrorist action, they are defending themselves, which is a universal right. As long as they don't over-do it, by say torturing the terrorists or attacking innocent people.

Air marshals are just one more instance of security theatre. It makes the uninformed feel secure, which is necessary for the survival of the airlines, and more importantly their bottom line.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I've always wondered what a sky marshall was supposed to do.

I mean a hijacker of the variety they are trying to stop is hell bent on ending his own life anyway, so isn't likely to take a drawn gun that seriously.

So what are they going to do?

Start shooting in a pressurised cabin at 30 odd thousand feet and kill everyone?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I've always wondered what a sky marshall was supposed to do.
Start shooting in a pressurised cabin at 30 odd thousand feet and kill everyone?

Dude, shooting is old school!!!

Come on, they'll rip out their tasers instead! It's the new weapon of choice!



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Okay, now sky marshals are not cost-effective. Even though, supposedly, the hijackings on 9/11 of the jets that hit the WTC disproved the claim that pilots and passengers will disarm the terrorists (--and who knows what really went down on flight 93).

However, throwing away your toiletries and bottled water and all the other off-to-the-slammer affronts foisted on the average passenger will make us safer?

It's just there's no profit in these sky marshals, and no way to spook the public into submission, since they're incognito.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join