Stratfor shows its true nature ...
The Strengths of the U.S. Air Marshal Program
The White House on Dec. 8 defended the shooting death by U.S. air marshals of an airline passenger who claimed to have a bomb, but the incident is certain to further stir the debate about the presence of armed marshals on commercial flights. Despite criticism in some camps that the program is too dangerous and imposes on civil liberties, the deterrence factor cannot be underestimated. Tighter restrictions on the rules of engagement could impede the marshals' ability to act when an airplane -- and its passengers -- is threatened.
The victim in the Dec. 7 shooting, 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar, turned out to be unarmed, and his wife said he behaved erratically because he suffered from bipolar disorder. The marshals involved, meanwhile, have been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.
Alpizar, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Costa Rica, was shot and killed at Miami International Airport as he tried to escape through the jetway of American Airlines flight 924 before it departed Miami for Orlando, Fla. Alpizar, who had arrived on the flight from Medellin, Colombia, some two hours before, claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on bag and began running frantically down the aisle if the aircraft, followed closely by his wife and two air marshals. In the jetway, Alpizar reportedly reached into his bag and was shot after the marshals warned him to stop.
Under the air marshals' rules of engagement, the use of deadly force is authorized once an individual claims to have a bomb. During the rapidly developing incident, there was no way for the marshals to know whether Alpizar really had an explosive device or other weapon, or if he posed an actual threat to the aircraft, which had approximately 100 other passengers on board. Relying on their training, the marshals eliminated the perceived threat.
Because of the potential for a major loss of life, commercial airliners, both in flight and on the ground, are subject to a very high level of security -- with almost no room for error on the part of those responsible for providing that security. Part of this security is the presence of armed air marshals on international U.S. airline flights and on many long-distance domestic flights.
Even while in the jetway, an individual can still pose a significant threat to an aircraft and its passengers. Aircraft on the ground are inherently dangerous because of the volatile combination of aviation fuel, oxygen under pressure, and a large number of people packed into a cramped space with few exits.
The shooting was the first since the number of U.S. air marshals was increased on passenger aircraft following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Like the incident on the London Underground in July -- when British police shot and killed a man they believed was a suicide bomber -- the Dec. 7 shooting was conducted properly and fit established criteria for the justifiable use of lethal force.
Although White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Dec. 8 that the marshals "appear to have acted in a way that's consistent with the extensive training that they have received," the fact that an unarmed man was killed could stir further opposition to the air marshal program.
The presence of air marshals on commercial flights, however, provides an element of deterrence against hijackers or terrorists. Because they work undercover -- supposedly unbeknownst to the other passengers -- air marshals represent a variable that potential attackers cannot necessarily control when planning an operation against a plane. This is an additional layer of security, beyond the heightened security and scrutiny in airport terminals.
The Dec. 7 shooting did not bring down a hijacker or terrorist, but a mentally disturbed man. Should serious restrictions be placed on the country's air marshals, however, the next incident could end with a major loss of life.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
|
