Federal air marshals will be allowed to use discretion in dressing for their duties on board aircraft, as well as be able to choose the hotel in which they stay, according to a policy change announced Thursday.
Effective September 1, according to a memo (PDF) sent by Dana A. Brown, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, air marshals will be able to “dress at your discretion, recognizing that the manner of dress should allow you to blend in and not direct attention to yourself, as well as be sufficiently functional to enable you to conduct your law enforcement responsibilities, and effectively conceal your duty equipment.”
Air marshals will also be able to “to select and book reservations at the hotels of your choice, provided that you forward your hotel information electronically in advance of reaching your destination and remain within the economic and related guidelines to be published.”
Frank Terreri, an air marshal who is president of an association that represents about 1,500 of his colleagues, said yesterday he welcomed the changes.
“It’s really a huge step in maintaining the federal air marshals’ anonymity,” Terreri said.
Complaints that the loosening of the restrictions did not go far enough to help shield air marshals’ identities led the service to issue the new policy yesterday, officials said. — Washington Post
Morale within the Federal Air Marshal Service has been extremely low until earlier this year when former head Thomas Quinn resigned. Many marshals had been concerned with Quinn’s restrictive dress code policy and hostile attitude toward whistleblowers, and marshals had been leaving the service much faster than they could be replaced.
Federal air marshal Spencer Pickard, who went public in the ABC News reports, said [Thursday] he was gratified the changes were being made.
“That’s great news. That’s why I came forward. These are very important steps in the right direction. Air marshals need anonymity to be effective so the terrorists don’t know we’re there. We can be a real deterrent if we operate undercover.” — ABC News
Project on Government Oversight investigator Nick Schwellenbach points out that air marshals aren’t completely out of danger, though. “The current boarding procedures still make marshals overly vulnerable to identification,” he wrote.
Air marshals board prior to other passengers, making it easier for hostile parties to determine who they are.
Brown’s memo said that this issue does “not lend [itself] to simple solutions or immediate, unilateral decisions.”
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Join the members of the Liberty Conspiracy as they discuss issues ranging from the "Incorporation Doctrine" and gun rights, to the NBA, to protests conducted at military funerals, protests that are being challenged by government, and which will be heard by the philosopher kings in the U.S. Supreme Court.
When neoconservative Ben Stein accused Congressman Ron Paul of being antisemitic for merely wanting to ask WHY Islamic terrorists want to attack the civilians living under western governments that have meddled in the Mideast, the members of the Conspiracy could not sit by silently.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
robert fluke
Jul 26, 2007
I would like to become a FAM when i leave the USMC.What is the current tattoo policy for hiring?
Avery Abram
Nov 14, 2009
I would like to become a FAM when i leave the USMC.What is the current tattoo policy for hiring?
tramky
Dec 27, 2009
Thomas Quinn was an idiot–he should have been indicted in Federal court for reckless endangerment and failure to carry out his duties while collecting his fat salary & benefits. He should be stripped of all benefits funded by taxpayers.
Was there a U.S. Air Marshal on board the Christmas day flight to Detroit? Inquiring minds want to know. It was left to passengers to jump the Muslim thug who had set himself AND the plane on fire to put an end to the danger.
It is now permitted to carry on knives with blades up to 4 or 4.5 inches long. I’d suggest that passengers consider such instruments when dealing with Muslim terrorists on board. Hit the jugular or carotid arteries and the terrorist act will be stopped.
MIke
Jan 08, 2010
No way you can legally carry a tactical knife with 4″ blade. That’s Bravo Sierra. Tramky may be in the knife business — looking to sell some replacements for confiscated knives.
tramky
Feb 13, 2010
‘Mike’ is a twit. But I recently had an interesting experience at SFO. Got into an exchange with a TSA supervisor when the carryon x-ray showed a small pocket knife–it had a 2.5 inch blade. They ended up confiscating after I protested. At some point in the last handful of years, knives with blades up to 4 or 4.5 inches WERE permitted, I’m sure of it. I recall having exchanges about this or a similar pocketknife at a couple of airports around the country in the last few year. In every case it ended up in my pocket. At least 2 TSA agents literally held this same pocketknife in their hands, then gave it to me when they determined that the blade was short.
NOW these guys are telling me that knives of any length were ALWAYS prohibited. I don’t think so. They were for a couple of years after 9.11, but then I recall a change to TSA rules was made and short-bladed knives were permitted.
Ho longer. But these TSA guys said that the policy NEVER had changed.
Fortunately it was not an expensive pocketknife, and I just turned it over rather than mailing it to myself for nine bucks.
This whole thing with prohibited items is ridiculous; furthermore, TSA & the airlines are NOT creative in dealing with prohibited items. What I want, what I DEMAND, is a check-in system, like a coat-check room, where you can pick up confiscated items when you return. This is a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned. This nonsens of mailing this stuff to yourself for an exorbitant markup just isn’t cutting it and it completely unacceptable.