[ OUR OPINION ]
Air marshal order
is late and necessaryWITHIN weeks of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, President Bush ordered expansion of the Federal Air Marshal program, which had dwindled to 33 marshals. Since then, the number of armed marshals aboard U.S. airlines has grown to thousands. Any terrorist wanting to use a plane as a weapon against the United States would have chosen a foreign plane heading for America. More than two years later, the administration is demanding that foreign airlines place armed marshals aboard planes determined to be a risk. It's about time.
THE ISSUE
The Bush administration has ordered that all foreign airlines place armed air marshals on U.S. connecting flights that intelligence has deemed to be a terrorism risk.
The obvious security gap apparently dawned on federal security officials on Christmas Eve, when safety concerns resulted in the cancellation during the holidays of six Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles. Air France has not used armed air marshals. U.S. intelligence indicated that terrorists might try to board those flights, and a few of the passengers' names appeared to match those on American terrorist watch lists.
Armed air marshals are dispatched to a small percentage of flights on U.S. carriers, but the possibility that a marshal may be on a flight is a deterrent against terrorism. Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, is asking other countries to adopt a similar system. At the very least, he is requiring that foreign airlines place armed marshals aboard flights on which U.S. intelligence has determined that a threat exists.
Most if not all foreign carriers that fly into U.S. airports are likely to abide by the new rules. A trade group that represents most carriers estimates that 10 to 20 of the 115 or so airlines that fly into the United States already use marshals. Countries whose airlines use marshals include Israel, India, Germany, Australia, Singapore and Canada. Japan has used them on occasion.
About 800 to 1,000 passenger flights a day into or out of U.S. airports potentially are affected by the new system. If American intelligence determines that a flight by a foreign airline might be a target of terrorists, the United States can demand that the airline post armed and trained air marshals. A refusal would result in a denial of entry into American airspace.
As Ridge pointed out, any nation has the right to revoke the privilege of flying to or from that country or even over its airspace, "so ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have."
The system should not result in a reduction of tourism or a significant increase in cost. If anything, it could make travelers feel more secure in the knowledge that terrorists are less likely to board a plane in which an armed air marshal might be present.
