TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I haven't read the opinion so I'm speaking with little information. If I read the conclusion correctly, the Air Marshal was able to make a whistle blower claim after he told the media that no Air Marshals would be on certain flights. If I'm correct, this is absurd. An Air Marshal tells the entire world that flights will not be protected thus putting hundreds if not thousands of passengers in danger.

While I agree with the whistle blower act, it should not apply to situations like this. His recourse was to report his concerns to someone in government or not at all.

Chas.

If I'm reading the OP correctly it said that he did report it to his direct superiors but nothing happened. A general hijacking alert goes out and the response is to pull all Air Marshals? By going to the reporter maybe he was hoping the government would change course and actually protect the planes they're tasked with protecting?

The whistle blower act is for reporting illegal activities or policy violations, not publicizing critical security information in the media simply because he didn't like decisions made by others. I said report to someone in government, not to his supervisors. Going to the media with some information may be okay, but not when putting thousands of people's lives at risk.

Chas.

I would say pulling the Air Marshals from flights put thousands of lives at risk especially after sending out a terror alert to those same Air Marshals.

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I haven't read the opinion so I'm speaking with little information. If I read the conclusion correctly, the Air Marshal was able to make a whistle blower claim after he told the media that no Air Marshals would be on certain flights. If I'm correct, this is absurd. An Air Marshal tells the entire world that flights will not be protected thus putting hundreds if not thousands of passengers in danger.

While I agree with the whistle blower act, it should not apply to situations like this. His recourse was to report his concerns to someone in government or not at all.

Chas.

If I'm reading the OP correctly it said that he did report it to his direct superiors but nothing happened. A general hijacking alert goes out and the response is to pull all Air Marshals? By going to the reporter maybe he was hoping the government would change course and actually protect the planes they're tasked with protecting?

The whistle blower act is for reporting illegal activities or policy violations, not publicizing critical security information in the media simply because he didn't like decisions made by others. I said report to someone in government, not to his supervisors. Going to the media with some information may be okay, but not when putting thousands of people's lives at risk.

Chas.

I would say pulling the Air Marshals from flights put thousands of lives at risk especially after sending out a terror alert to those same Air Marshals.

What do you think telling terrorists worldwide that the planes will be without Air Marshals does for safety?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I would say pulling the Air Marshals from flights put thousands of lives at risk especially after sending out a terror alert to those same Air Marshals.

What do you think telling terrorists worldwide that the planes will be without Air Marshals does for safety?

Chas.

In this instance you have perhaps two wrongs. But which is the greater wrong? The TSA is tasked with protecting American citizens. They deliberately chose to put people at risk by removing air marshals from their flights to save money. Apparently it never occurred to them to reduce their own pay or cut back on travel to seminars or cut back on the party budget or the limo budget. In their judgment the only proper course of action was to abandon their primary responsibility. Meanwhile, this air marshal, understanding the gravity of the situation, worked through his chain of command to get a change made. When that failed, he contacted the media and, surprise, surprise, TSA suddenly decided it really was important to do their job.

Frankly I have zero sympathy for them. In fact, somebody should be fired for this, and i'm not referring to the air marshal.

You ask if telling terrorists worldwide that the planes would be with Air Marshals endangers safety. Of course it does, but the removal of the air marshals was the original sin, and it's the one that needs to be punished. When Congress passed legislation, they put particular emphasis on the importance of having air marshals on international flights. The TSA abandoned their primary responsibility. Heads should roll.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I would say pulling the Air Marshals from flights put thousands of lives at risk especially after sending out a terror alert to those same Air Marshals.

What do you think telling terrorists worldwide that the planes will be without Air Marshals does for safety?

Chas.

In this instance you have perhaps two wrongs. But which is the greater wrong? The TSA is tasked with protecting American citizens. They deliberately chose to put people at risk by removing air marshals from their flights to save money. Apparently it never occurred to them to reduce their own pay or cut back on travel to seminars or cut back on the party budget or the limo budget. In their judgment the only proper course of action was to abandon their primary responsibility. Meanwhile, this air marshal, understanding the gravity of the situation, worked through his chain of command to get a change made. When that failed, he contacted the media and, surprise, surprise, TSA suddenly decided it really was important to do their job.

Frankly I have zero sympathy for them. In fact, somebody should be fired for this, and i'm not referring to the air marshal.

You ask if telling terrorists worldwide that the planes would be with Air Marshals endangers safety. Of course it does, but the removal of the air marshals was the original sin, and it's the one that needs to be punished. When Congress passed legislation, they put particular emphasis on the importance of having air marshals on international flights. The TSA abandoned their primary responsibility. Heads should roll.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I haven't read the opinion so I'm speaking with little information. If I read the conclusion correctly, the Air Marshal was able to make a whistle blower claim after he told the media that no Air Marshals would be on certain flights. If I'm correct, this is absurd. An Air Marshal tells the entire world that flights will not be protected thus putting hundreds if not thousands of passengers in danger.

While I agree with the whistle blower act, it should not apply to situations like this. His recourse was to report his concerns to someone in government or not at all.

Chas.

If I'm reading the OP correctly it said that he did report it to his direct superiors but nothing happened. A general hijacking alert goes out and the response is to pull all Air Marshals? By going to the reporter maybe he was hoping the government would change course and actually protect the planes they're tasked with protecting?

The whistle blower act is for reporting illegal activities or policy violations, not publicizing critical security information in the media simply because he didn't like decisions made by others. I said report to someone in government, not to his supervisors. Going to the media with some information may be okay, but not when putting thousands of people's lives at risk.

Chas.

My understanding is that there was a law requiring TSA to put air marshals on any "high risk" flight. The marshal received notice of such a situation and then TSA canceled the marshals without a lowering of the threat level. As such the marshal was reporting an illegal act. The whistleblower law says the agency cannot punish

“(A) any disclosure of information by an employee orapplicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences
“(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

“(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,

“if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.”

So you could call it breaking the law and mismanagement and firing is punishment. Seems to be exactly what the law was meant for. He did not violate law, he violated rules made by an agency that can have legal consequence. The court believed there was a difference between the two things. Maybe he created added risk by telling terrorist the planes wouldn't have marshal coverage but at best that is an argument it doesn't rise to any criminal conduct I know about aside from the violation of TSA rules which the court held as not "Laws" as described in the whistleblower law.