Miami: DHS and Air Marshall's credibility problem

Air Marshalls appear to have made misleading statements to the FBI.

The issue is: Are Air Marshalls trained to cover-up, make up excuses, and "justify" their deadly use of force?

If so, they've been trained well and have done quite a good job of it in Miami.

In re Rigoberto Alpizar, Anne Alpizar .



* * *

Update 14 Dec 2005: Just when they've demonstrated their incompetence/defective training/veracity problem/excitability/over-reaction, DHS will be panning out to other transporation systems using VIPER teams.

If you're suffering from a mental disorder, stay out of America's fast lane -- the communcation problem and shootings-of-civilians in Iraq -- is set to go nationwide.

"Their soldiers treat us like inferior beings, they shoot at our cars, they scream at us, and then they kill us because we don't understand what they say." Ref

* * *

Update 12 Dec 2005 -- DHS internal report says agents overreacted. Ref DisclaimerRef

However, the report isn't the end of it. For a second look, DHS/Customs officials in DC continue to review non-official information and media discussion to assess impacts, public commentary -- looking for anomolies between the internal report and external analysis.

* * *



Now the "real story surfaces":

1. There was no way for the man to have "laid down" on the ground -- he had a fanny pack on his stomach; it appears the Air Marshalls have a problem with their post-action report -- are there other inconsistencies, or will those get ignored as they were with 9-11?

2. Nobody heard the now-deceased say "b-word"; it appears the Air Marshalls imagined this; what else are the Air Marshalls imagining?

Initial claims that the Marshalls "acted appropriately" are now in question -- their behavior and after-action conduct is questionable, raising doubts about their training.

* * *

Update: 09 Dec 05

Curiously, the air marshals-FBI-DHS have said, "All the passengers confirmed what the airmarshall's versions of events."

However, the passengers were in no position to observe what the air marshall reported to happen.

We judge the air marshalls know they have a flimsy/weak defense, and are relying on worthless arguments to bolster their self-evidently-weak/unsupportable assertions.

* * *

Update: 08 Dec 05

Wife reported to have spoken in both Spanish and English.

Here's the central issue on language -- something which has come up in Iraq:

Did the Air Marshalls understand Spanish? They say one of the air marshalls were "fluent" in Spanish; unlcear about the second.

What language was the he speaking? Unclear.

Are we sening air marhsalls on flights where there the "majority of passengers speak a specific language" that the air marshalls are not familiar with? They say one air marshall was fluent in Spanish; unclear about the second.

Did the air marhsal's say, "He said b-word" as in, "He said b-word in English"? Unclear, an unnamed airmarshall [cited in the NYT link above] says commands are given in both english and spanish. Unclear if this was actually done.

Why would the airmarshalls say they did/didn't hear b-word when the wife was speaking Spanish? THis goes back to: "What did the FBI ask -- in English or Spanish?"

How many of the passengers have not been able to communicate "what happened" because the people talking to them [reporters, investigators] primary language is "something other than Spanish"? Apparently there have been many interviews; but it is unclear what the interviews consisted of.

End later update

* * *

It appears the DHS wordless picture training for the air marshals did not include the following scenarios and suggestions:

Listen to other passengers for useful information

Ask the individual whether they suffer from a mental disorder, or are in need of medication

Avoid making up stories about explosive devices after scaring passengers

Make truthful statements to the FBI

Avoid making statements about passenger conduct that defy the laws of physics, or are not possible given the location of obstructing items

Identify yourself as an Air Marshall before you point the shotgun barrel into the kindergartener's face: "Attention -- I am Federal Air Marshall"

* * *

We judge the following conclusions are best supported:

Facts do not support the assertions that there were bonafide claims of an explosive device;

Erratic behavior was explained, but the explanations were not incorporated; and

We doubt the orders to stop were made with knowledge of what was going on.

We find there is no reasonable basis for the air marshals to be relied upon -- they appear to have made factual statements to the FBI that cannot be corroborated by those who were well aware and closer to the incident.

We judge the air marshal’s assertions of what happened to be unreliable and not supported by other passenger statements. It is not credible that the shooting was based on "best information available" as the wife-passenger made repeated statements that were ignored. It is curious that the Air Marshalls claim to have "heard" something that was not stated; but failed to hear something that was repeated.

We conclude there is insufficient information to support the Air Marshall's contentions of what did or did not happen. It is not clear that the orders to "disarm" were based on anything, or that the order occurred.

We judge the air marshals overreacted, failed to heed the vocal-repeated statements of other passengers providing meaningful and relevant information.

We judge the incident materially undermines confidence in the Air Marshall veracity and training; and raises reasonable questions about the appropriateness and relevance of the air marshal training program.

* * *

This is starting to sound like the London Subway incident: A convenient story that doesn't add up -- -- officers are facing charges. [See more and here More]

* * *

Perhaps there will be a cell phone transcript with audio information showing what was actually said. Curious how they can find a 9-11 audio transcript from cell phones despite them being out of range, but "nobody can find their cell phone recordings" after this.

113 passengers: Someone probably made a contemporaneous audio recording on their cell phone.

It appears as though guns were pointed in passengers' faces, passengers were crying, and they didn't understand what was going on -- some may have thought the Air Marshalls were hijackers. It is reasonable to assume someone made a cell phone call or left a recording somewhere. Ref

Cell phone use reported: "I was on the phone with my brother." Ref.

* * *

After the LAX missile attack on flight 612 not 621 on an MD80 to Chicago, the Miami incident is another reason to keep your distance from America, and stay off the airlines.

Americans are arrogant liars.

* * *

The issues of the London Bombing and the apparent disconnects between "time required to train Air Marhsals -v- time to train Iraqi troops" will raise issues:

What are the American contractors doing when they train US marshals;

Is the actual rate of troop-training in Iraq a better indication of how long it really takes to train someone to competently handle stressful situation involving explosives;

Does the way the air marshals interacted with the public shed light on training deficiciens and cultural issues getting the eway of timely providing training to Iraqi troops;

* * *

Issues to review:

Last time the air marshalls attended training;

Time air mashals spent, if any, in Iraq assigned to American combat units;

Nature of training received in both military, civilian, and contracted training sources;

Type of training compared to contractor-provided security training for the Iraqi forces;

Comparison of progress in Iraq-training to the training provided to US Marshals;

Why are US marshalls able to get trained at the rate that they are, but the forces in Iraq have a harder time?

What are the air marshal-contracted training services doing right or wrong that is being incorproated into the Iraqi army training;

What lessons from the Iraqi training schedule shed light on what would be a more reasonable length of time for air marshals to get adequate training on "how to effectively deal with non-combat/civilian" siutuations?

* * *

[ Click ]

DHS Caught lying again in re case of Leander Pickett

Couple of points:

1. It doesn't matter why the DHS personnel are or are not doing what they are doing.

2. Notice how the officers will accuse the public of wrong doing, after teh DHS personnel have refused to obey reasonable directions to protect children. DHS personnel will accuse the public of wrong doing. They learn this well. DHS personnel are not to be trusted. They are trained well to lie. They will even lie when there are many witnesses. Will they wave their guns to in timidate witnesses? Indeed, they'll even kill people.

3. Also notice that DHS personnel will act as if they have overall control of local regions, and act like a domestic police force. This is not appropriate. DHS pesonnel are to obey the directions of safety personnel and not act like arrogant idiots.

4. It is not appropriate for DHS personnel to question the authoirty of personnel assigned to provide directions and ensure that local rules are followed.

5. If DHS personnel have an "attitude problem" they need to get counseling, not blame the public. It is not reasonable for DHS to demand teh public do or not do certain things, but DHS personnel refuse to reciprocate.

6. it doesn't matter that personnel are or are not with DHS. They are to ensure that the children in America are safe. DHS personnel are not responsible people Rather, they will abuse others.

DHS personnel are assholes. Watch out.