Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

[Reheat]

And there are quite a few factors to consider of which the big one is political justification both domestic and international. And that is into "rubbery numbers" territory.

Still this topic is specific and detailed so I'll leave this potential derail where it is for now - maybe for another thread and another time.

This thread is a waste and has been from the beginning, so an aside brief discussion may just rescue it....

The cost benefit/risk factor that you keep mentioning has been addressed on several occasions already... True, it hasn't been a separate thread and I'm not at all sure that's justified. The problem is that it can not be quantified because of the unpredictability of where a disabled aircraft would have or will crash... That factor results in sheer speculation... There is simply no way to control that by anyone...

The aspect of International passengers and the resulting legality/liability has also been addressed. Unless someone here is an expert in International law it will also result in a lot of speculation as well. It is perhaps left alone as there are simply too many unknowns. I think the best way to address it is to say that the shoot down of a civilian airliner by air defense fighters is truly an undesirable last resort (maybe), not at all a desirable outcome. It is only a subject of twoofer presumptions that a shoot down was a desirable outcome that would have prevented the devastation of the 9/11 attack and is simply another venue for them to continue an anti-government diatribe. I just don't think it is a subject that we should proactively discuss, It is best discussed in response to twoofer assertions that it should have been a desirable outcome on 9/11, not necessarily as a separate issue among ourselves.

 

[BCR]

This thread is a waste and has been from the beginning, so an aside brief discussion may just rescue it.

Hardly a waste of time. The discussion(s) led me back to my files. In doing so I found several key files that tied up some loose ends for not only myself, but for Miles and Cheap Shot. I am now able to scratch off one of my last unresolved questions.

I have only one left, and now I'm ready to get back on attempting to resolve it. That would be the 'missing' Pentagon videos. Most likely I'll have to go back to court to resolve that, but this thread has inspired me to take one last all-out shot at it.

Hardly a waste.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil
Frank was reffering to this:


Shortly after the second World Trade Center crash, calls from fighter units begin “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’” From Syracuse, New York, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard calls and tells Colonel Robert Marr, the battle commander at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS): “Give me 10 [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 6/3/2002 ; NEWS 10 NOW, 9/12/2006 ]



Is there any trace of this in the NORAD tapes? If so when was the call made?

I had a quick listen to Channel 2 between the 0900 and 0940 and didn't hear it (although I was skipping parts), however this does ring familiar in my head, I'm sure I have heard it before on one of the NEADS tapes. Will have a better look later.

I assume that if it were in the tapes, or at least in them close to time truthers think they would have trotted it out by now. Is it possible your read it rather that heard it before, or perhaps heard it as read back in some toofamantary? Though not quite up there with 'pull it', 'not a drop of blood' and 'no evidence of a plane...' this is one of those quotes toofers love to repeat

 

[Oystein]

...
The aspect of International passengers and the resulting legality/liability has also been addressed. Unless someone here is an expert in International law it will also result in a lot of speculation as well. It is perhaps left alone as there are simply too many unknowns. I think the best way to address it is to say that the shoot down of a civilian airliner by air defense fighters is truly an undesirable last resort (maybe), not at all a desirable outcome. ...

I've reported on the following before, and got generally booed down by the Anglosaxon/Texan crowd, but I'll try again. Perhaps with a different lead-up this time.

But before I do, just one remark/opinion: The aspect of international passengers is probably less a legal than a diplomatic problem. Foreigners travelling abroad are subject to the laws of the host nation; so it is legal under international to, for example, sentence and punish a foreigner to death if he has committed a crime in the host country that is punishable by death in that country. Only thing is that, by way of treaties, those foreign nationals enjoy a few privileges, such as access to assistance by their home country consulates. It's just that executions of Europeans frequently raise outcries over here - but that is not a legal problem.

The action of the hijackers is best classified as a crime, not an act of war, and thus subject to domestic criminal law and the domain of police powers. It is, as such, not subject to international law, or the rules of war.



Ok, now on to the legal arena: As far a I am aware, the question of whether or not the goverment can order or authorize the shoot-down of a civilian airliner has not been tested in any court of law - except the German Federal Constitutional Court. True, German law doesn't apply in the USA; and continental law traditions differ from Anglosaxon ones, but I don' think the differences are so great that this precedent isn't worth cosidering here.

Following 9/11, the German government realized that it could not have responded with military force to such an emergency, and felt that another attack like 9/11 was a distinct possibility, and thus felt the urge to give itself the legal power to order shoot-downs (if I remember correctly, the idea was to arm police helicopters with air-to-air missiles, as use of the armed forces domestically is quite a taboo). So a law was quickly draftes and passed that would give the government, under specified condition and by specified individual offices, such powers. The law was promptly sent to the Constitutional Court, and in short order struck down.

The Court reaoned (this is from memory, so probably neither complete nor entirely accurate - just to give you the drift):

• Citizens must never be mere subjects of government action, without regard of their individual personality and rights (that's the Court's interpretation of the "dignity of man", the protection of which is the state's supreme obligation, according to Article 1 of our Constitution)
• Ordering a shoot-down to prevent a crime and potentially save others would ensure the killing of individuals, while expressedly not considering them individually. Therefore, the order would violate Article 1
• The Court considered that the government can't predict the future, and can never be 100% sure that a hickacked plane would really be crashed; there is always a chance, however minute, that the plane is retaken in time, or the hijackers change their minds, or they never actually intended to crahs - and the passengers survive. So the government would take a decision to take away their chance to survive, thus violating Article 2 of the constitution, which posits that all powers of the starte must protect the lives and well-being of humans (this Article in theory allows for exceptions, but none that apply here).
• As for the lives of the passengers on the ground that the shoot-down would aim to protect, the Court opined that the state cannot weigh life against life, not even unequal numbers of lives against each other, again citing Article 1, because a decision based on mere numbers would again disregard the individual dignity of the potential victims
• It is recognized that people die at the hands of criminals, and that the state cannot fully protect all people from such harm. This is a reality that the state (and her citizens!) has to suffer, and always has - it cannot go to any length it wants to remediate that situation
• Self-defense is a right that can't be applied here, as it can only be directed at an offender, not at by-standers or other victims.

While the US Constitution doesn't have the German constitutional Articles 1 and 2, I am sure that some of the reasing would apply there, too. Surely, it is well embedded in the American legal tradition that individual rights must always be considered, and that the state's power to tread on them must be reined in tightly. And equally surely every American would recognize that it is not a good idea in principle to give the government the explicit right to shoot innocent citizens. Just imagine such a law had been proposed and enacted pre-2001. What would CTers have made of it??

 

[ozeco41]

This thread is a waste and has been from the beginning, so an aside brief discussion may just rescue it....

See my last comment in this response

...The cost benefit/risk factor that you keep mentioning has been addressed on several occasions already...

Your concept of "addressed" is far less than mine. Without detailing them here there are probably at least six factors - of which where the aircraft crashes is only one. (BTW Another one for you professionals is "can you guarantee a shoot down?" So not merely where would it come to ground.) So for the issue to "be addressed" I would look for a complete assessment which identified all the factors and some order of their relative importance. of al

... True, it hasn't been a separate thread and I'm not at all sure that's justified. The problem is that it can not be quantified because of the unpredictability of where a disabled aircraft would have or will crash...

your focus still on one factor. The issue is one which falls into the political policy area. It is normal that in such situations assessments have to be made of multi-factor issues where some factors may not be accurately quantified. Governments still have to make decisions when the issue is not one that can go into the "too hard" basket.

That factor results in sheer speculation...

That is part of the bread and butter of risk managing - having to put numbers on things that are hard to quantify. The preferred approach (or one of them) is to quantify each factor separately then look at the weighted interaction between factors and their accumulation into a single whole for decision. It isn't as impossible as your post suggests. And, remember, the context in which it has to be done makes political evasion of the decision difficult.

And that difficulty becomes another factor to go into the mix.

There is simply no way to control that by anyone...

That is a given - but it only applies to one factor. sure other factors may also have awkward aspects.

...The aspect of International passengers and the resulting legality/liability has also been addressed....

First I disagree that it has been addressed. Mentioned maybe. Addressed - hardly. If someone has put the whole picture into a coherent overall explanation please point me to it.
Second the big issue as I have hinted is politics - not law. With international politics coming first then domestic politics. summary killing of innocent citizens would not, I suspect, fit well with domestic constitutional law for many western countries. And would trigger international human rights law issues. My legal training is in Australian law and I'm not strong on the relevant legal stuff so I won't try to elaborate.

Now in this next bit you move into aspects of the topic where I agree with your conclusions - possibly for similar reasons:

...
Unless someone here is an expert in International law it will also result in a lot of speculation as well. It is perhaps left alone as there are simply too many unknowns.

Remember I introduced these "bigger picture" issues because for the umpteenth time we see a thread down in the details where the truthers and trolls want the discussion so it goes round in circles. My premise being that discussing the details is a waste of time when the issue the truthers are pursuing is not possible for big picture reasons. So those are my words - you say much the same using different words.

I have another reason why I think it would not work to discuss the topic - wouldn't progress to agreed outcomes I mean. That is because using the Internet forum mechanism heavily since about 2006 we still cannot get agreement on the simple issue of no CD at WTC on 9/11. So no hope for this more complex and inherently more emotive issue.

... I think the best way to address it is to say that the shoot down of a civilian airliner by air defense fighters is truly an undesirable last resort (maybe), not at all a desirable outcome..

That should go without saying but you are right - it will need to be said.....repeatedly.

...It is only a subject of twoofer presumptions that a shoot down was a desirable outcome that would have prevented the devastation of the 9/11 attack and is simply another venue for them to continue an anti-government diatribe....

Given your use of "was" we are referring in hindsight to the events of 9/11. If so why don't we show them "No window of opportunity" and "No proper risk analysis" (I know - wishful thinking - we all enjoy discussing details even when they are irrelevant.)

THEN, if we were to discuss "What do we do next time", the issues become very different. If the policy was to become "Shoot-down" after "Trigger points x, y and z satisfied" THEN the likely time windows and short response times would require "significant" extra resources.....and that is putting it mildly.

I just don't think it is a subject that we should proactively discuss, It is best discussed in response to twoofer assertions that it should have been a desirable outcome on 9/11, not necessarily as a separate issue among ourselves.

I agree with that suggestion as to tactics. So that says "no" to "...an aside brief discussion may just rescue it..." And the objective should not be resuscitation of a thread.

 

[cjnewson88]

Hardly a waste of time. The discussion(s) led me back to my files. In doing so I found several key files that tied up some loose ends for not only myself, but for Miles and Cheap Shot. I am now able to scratch off one of my last unresolved questions.

I have only one left, and now I'm ready to get back on attempting to resolve it. That would be the 'missing' Pentagon videos. Most likely I'll have to go back to court to resolve that, but this thread has inspired me to take one last all-out shot at it.

Hardly a waste.

Looking forward to it BCR, although I cannot help but think the remaining videos probably wouldn't show much more than what we already have;

 

[ozeco41]

I've reported on the following before, and got generally booed down by the Anglosaxon/Texan crowd, but I'll try again....

Welcome to the Club. When I make a "significant statement" I usually get ignored. Not even booed down - except on those occasions when I praise some true statement by an alleged truther.

...But before I do, just one remark/opinion: The aspect of international passengers is probably less a legal than a diplomatic problem....

Exactly. I think I have been referring to it as "interntional politics" when your chosen word "diplomatic" communicates better.

...The action of the hijackers is best classified as a crime, not an act of war, and thus subject to domestic criminal law and the domain of police powers. It is, as such, not subject to international law, or the rules of war....

Yes!! (But beware of the overlap of Human Rights issues which could bring in the International Law aspects. Not my area of law so I won't comment further.)

...Ok, now on to the legal arena: The law was promptly sent to the Constitutional Court, and in short order struck down....

The UK common law derived systems all have a form of "three arms of government" sort of similar to the US and which lets the superior court rule against legislative decisions on constitutional grounds.

...the government can't predict the future, and can never be 100% sure that a hickacked plane would really be crashed; there is always a chance, however minute, that the plane is retaken in time, or the hijackers change their minds, or they never actually intended to crahs - and the passengers survive...

That is one of the half dozen or so factors I have been referring to - see my previous posts.

the Court opined that the state cannot weigh life against life, not even unequal numbers of lives against each other, again citing Article 1, because a decision based on mere numbers would again disregard the individual dignity of the potential victims...

Whilst you refer to German legal precedent/decision I have identified the same issue in a recent post where I framed it in "political realities'. Part of my reasoning being that if Pres/Govt ordered shoot-down the collateral damage deaths which resulted would be blamed on the Pres/Govt WHILST the putative lives saved would not be deaths to blame on terrorists (Plus - the "it may not have happened" issue as per the previous comment.)

While the US Constitution doesn't have the German constitutional Articles 1 and 2, I am sure that some of the reasing would apply there, too. Surely, it is well embedded in the American legal tradition that individual rights must always be considered, and that the state's power to tread on them must be reined in tightly. And equally surely every American would recognize that it is not a good idea in principle to give the government the explicit right to shoot innocent citizens.

I've been slowly learning some US Constitutional; Law - but mostly related to the "gay marriage" progress in California. So once again I cannot comment.

...Just imagine such a law had been proposed and enacted pre-2001. What would CTers have made of it??

 

[ozeco41]

Hardly a waste of time.
......
......
Hardly a waste.

Understood and agreed - not a "waste of time" for you.

Similar to the dust analysis threads. A waste of time in the bigger picture because there was no CD therefore thermxte wasn't used for CD.

BUT a valid detailed discussion for those who are into those details.

Which is why I suggested a separate thread.

 

[Reheat]

Hardly a waste.

John, I intended no insult toward you for starting the thread. However, I think you'll agree that it is a minute detail regarding how that flight plan or track got into the system... My comment about the waste was more pointedly aimed at the ensuing crap involving the twooferism we've had to endure on the way to finally getting an answer how that got into the system...

It was no surprise to me at all, but more of the dotting of the "i" and crossing of the "t" than anything else...

I keep telling you that FOIA's are a PITA for the Government. The person responsible has that as an "additional duty" and it is an irritant for them.. Nobody wants to research for what they consider a waste of time... Were there any REAL issues involved it would be different as that is the only venue for a private citizen to get access to Government documentation... In this case they have been inundated with spurious requests from the twoofer crowd for years and probably don't take it seriously at all... Most real conspiracies have been uncovered by someone from the News Media anyway and not by private citizens who don't know how to work the system anyway.. Were there any true indications of nefarious activity someone or a group within the media would be all over it... As it is there is none...

I truly believe the same thing exist with the video from the Pentagon issue... I know you want it simply for the historical record, but you'll have to fight the bureaucratic resistance to get anything... As far as they are concerned it was all over years ago and your efforts are viewed as just a PITA for them. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is and you or I are not likely to change it....

 

[gumboot]

I've reported on the following before, and got generally booed down by the Anglosaxon/Texan crowd, but I'll try again. Perhaps with a different lead-up this time.

But before I do, just one remark/opinion: The aspect of international passengers is probably less a legal than a diplomatic problem. Foreigners travelling abroad are subject to the laws of the host nation; so it is legal under international to, for example, sentence and punish a foreigner to death if he has committed a crime in the host country that is punishable by death in that country. Only thing is that, by way of treaties, those foreign nationals enjoy a few privileges, such as access to assistance by their home country consulates. It's just that executions of Europeans frequently raise outcries over here - but that is not a legal problem.

The action of the hijackers is best classified as a crime, not an act of war, and thus subject to domestic criminal law and the domain of police powers. It is, as such, not subject to international law, or the rules of war.



Ok, now on to the legal arena: As far a I am aware, the question of whether or not the goverment can order or authorize the shoot-down of a civilian airliner has not been tested in any court of law - except the German Federal Constitutional Court. True, German law doesn't apply in the USA; and continental law traditions differ from Anglosaxon ones, but I don' think the differences are so great that this precedent isn't worth cosidering here.

Following 9/11, the German government realized that it could not have responded with military force to such an emergency, and felt that another attack like 9/11 was a distinct possibility, and thus felt the urge to give itself the legal power to order shoot-downs (if I remember correctly, the idea was to arm police helicopters with air-to-air missiles, as use of the armed forces domestically is quite a taboo). So a law was quickly draftes and passed that would give the government, under specified condition and by specified individual offices, such powers. The law was promptly sent to the Constitutional Court, and in short order struck down.

The Court reaoned (this is from memory, so probably neither complete nor entirely accurate - just to give you the drift):

• Citizens must never be mere subjects of government action, without regard of their individual personality and rights (that's the Court's interpretation of the "dignity of man", the protection of which is the state's supreme obligation, according to Article 1 of our Constitution)
• Ordering a shoot-down to prevent a crime and potentially save others would ensure the killing of individuals, while expressedly not considering them individually. Therefore, the order would violate Article 1
• The Court considered that the government can't predict the future, and can never be 100% sure that a hickacked plane would really be crashed; there is always a chance, however minute, that the plane is retaken in time, or the hijackers change their minds, or they never actually intended to crahs - and the passengers survive. So the government would take a decision to take away their chance to survive, thus violating Article 2 of the constitution, which posits that all powers of the starte must protect the lives and well-being of humans (this Article in theory allows for exceptions, but none that apply here).
• As for the lives of the passengers on the ground that the shoot-down would aim to protect, the Court opined that the state cannot weigh life against life, not even unequal numbers of lives against each other, again citing Article 1, because a decision based on mere numbers would again disregard the individual dignity of the potential victims
• It is recognized that people die at the hands of criminals, and that the state cannot fully protect all people from such harm. This is a reality that the state (and her citizens!) has to suffer, and always has - it cannot go to any length it wants to remediate that situation
• Self-defense is a right that can't be applied here, as it can only be directed at an offender, not at by-standers or other victims.

While the US Constitution doesn't have the German constitutional Articles 1 and 2, I am sure that some of the reasing would apply there, too. Surely, it is well embedded in the American legal tradition that individual rights must always be considered, and that the state's power to tread on them must be reined in tightly. And equally surely every American would recognize that it is not a good idea in principle to give the government the explicit right to shoot innocent citizens. Just imagine such a law had been proposed and enacted pre-2001. What would CTers have made of it??

I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the problem. I'd only add that the only way a government could really justify a shoot down is by arguing that the suicide attack constituted an act of war by the non-nation organisation the hijackers belonged to, and thus shooting down the airliner would constitute a legitimate military action.

I think your statement that such a hijacking attack is best described as a crime rather than an act of war is very much open to debate. While that was certainly the case prior to 9/11, I think since then international attitude has started to turn towards viewing these sorts of terrorist attacks as military action by non-state belligerents. This is reflected in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being prosecuted on the basis that the 9/11 attacks were a war crime, in violation of the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

I suspect, were such an event to happen again, and the US were forced to shoot down an airliner, this is the line of reasoning they would follow.

 

[Justin39640]

I suspect, were such an event to happen again, and the US were forced to shoot down an airliner, this is the line of reasoning they would follow.

I don't think you'll ever see another successful hijacking in the US again. Well, at least not for a very long time. Passengers know that if hijackers get into the cockpit, they're most likely all dead and will respond accordingly (and have already).

 

[Oystein]

I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the problem. I'd only add that the only way a government could really justify a shoot down is by arguing that the suicide attack constituted an act of war by the non-nation organisation the hijackers belonged to, and thus shooting down the airliner would constitute a legitimate military action.

Lots to be said against that. Briefly:
a) No one knew until all was over who was in those planes
b) Those were Saudis, an Egyptian... USA is not at war with the KSA or Egypt
c) Aiming at civilians is explicitly forbidden under the international laws of war

I think your statement that such a hijacking attack is best described as a crime rather than an act of war is very much open to debate. While that was certainly the case prior to 9/11, I think since then international attitude has started to turn towards viewing these sorts of terrorist attacks as military action by non-state belligerents.

This was a one-off thing - the attack was not sustained, it wasn't carried out with military weapons, etc.

No one is required to accept the US government twist. I think thos twist is very much open to debate.

This is reflected in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being prosecuted on the basis that the 9/11 attacks were a war crime, in violation of the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

No. If that were the case, he would enjoy certain protections. The US claimns explicitly that KSM is NOT a combattant subject to the international laws of war.

I suspect, were such an event to happen again, and the US were forced to shoot down an airliner, this is the line of reasoning they would follow.

And it would be an outrage and a crime. IMO.

 

[DGM]

I'd only add that the only way a government could really justify a shoot down is by arguing that the suicide attack constituted an act of war by the non-nation organisation the hijackers belonged to, and thus shooting down the airliner would constitute a legitimate military action.

Lots to be said against that. Briefly:
a) No one knew until all was over who was in those planes
b) Those were Saudis, an Egyptian... USA is not at war with the KSA or Egypt
c) Aiming at civilians is explicitly forbidden under the international laws of war

Aside from point "c", I believe he covered these points(bold). As any explanation would be after the fact, point "c" could be justified as casualties of war.

Anyway you slice it, it would be a political/sociological mess.

 

[ozeco41]

...No one is required to accept the US government twist. I think thos twist is very much open to debate...

Beat me to it.

...

...I suspect, were such an event to happen again, and the US were forced to shoot down an airliner, this is the line of reasoning they would follow.

And it would be an outrage and a crime. IMO.

How would the US be "forced"? It would be a US decision leading to an action which would lead to outrage. Whether Oystein's opinion as to it being a crime is correct it is not the issue. The issue is how would the action pan out in world opinion whatever the grounds chosen for justification.

...As any explanation would be after the fact, point "c" could be justified as casualties of war....

If that was the basis on which justification was defended which is still the moot point.

...Anyway you slice it, it would be a political/sociological mess.

without doubt - and throw "legal" in there as well.

 

[DGM]

If that was the basis on which justification was defended which is still the moot point.

l

This would lead into a debate of what/who could be considered a combatant in the terms of war. After 9/11 this definition was broadened to include entities that were not necessarily connected to one nation.

 

[Cheap Shot]

"What If"

Some of the people who suggest that there was a stand down, and think that not Only should they have intercepted the airliners but that they should have shot at least one or two down.

Now we are debating the legality as well. On 9-11 the military's responsibility was to only escort hijacked aircraft domestically. Outside 12 NM ICAO rules apply which are the "rules over the high seas". They could intercept outside 12 NM.

There were no ROE for civilian airliners. My understanding was that a set of ROE was issued to Col. Marr on 9-11 and he thought they were not specific enough. I also believe that the unit out of Andrews AFB, who were not under the command of NEADS and may have had a set of ROE and were prepared to follow through.

As much as some would have liked the military to have taken some action or to be a little more "gun ho", what if they did and took action what would have happened to DAL1989. Would have the potential been there to shoot down an innocent airliner that was falsely accused by me as being a hijacked aircraft. How would the goverment dealt with that.

As the day wore on we sat and listened on the Security Telcon, one incident that stood out was a UAL airline pilot was adamant about landing at Fairbanks, AK, which is a joint/civil field. All civilian traffic was being diverted from Fairbanks. It was a tense 15 or 20 minutes where the military basically said that the aircraft would never make it to Fairbanks. Eventually the UAL pilot blinked and landed at an alternate.

Maybe it was a good thing that the military never had the opportunity to have to make that decision.

 

[beachnut]

Some of the people who suggest that there was a stand down, and think that not Only should they have intercepted the airliners but that they should have shot at least one or two down.

Now we are debating the legality as well. On 9-11 the military responsibility was to only escort hijacked aircraft domestically. Outside 12 NM ICAO rules apply which are the "rules over the high seas". They could intercept outside 12 NM.

...
As much as some would have liked the military to have taken some action or to be a little more "gun ho", what if they did and took action what would have happened to DAL1989. Would have the potential been there to shoot down an innocent airliner that was falsely accused by me as being a hijacked aircraft. How would the government dealt with that.

As the day wore on we sat and listened on the Security Telcon, one incident that stood out was a UAL airline pilot was adamant about landing at Fairbanks, AK, which is a joint/civil field. All civilian traffic was being diverted from Fairbanks. It was a tense 15 or 20 minutes where the military basically said that the aircraft would never make it to Fairbanks. Eventually the UAL pilot blinked and landed at an alternate.

Maybe it was a good thing that the military never had the opportunity to have to make that decision.

What would they crash into in Fairbanks? ... Not surprised they would not let them land; it took two hours to get on base as they checked all the cars and people.

Your post sums up what the military was to do... and then the change. Can't believe Congress/911 Commission was clueless on what they had before 911 - that is if they thought the military was suppose to intercept the planes.

It took two hours to get on base on 911; I wanted to smart off to the Gate Guards, the terrorists come in planes, but did not want to change jobs. Inspecting hundreds of cars for bombs etc, is not my idea of fun. Albeit, they left us in long lines outside the safety of the Base. Sad that they did not bring us into the base and then inspect, us. At the base I worked at we have miles of space to hold cars. As I sat waiting in the two hour line, I was imagining if I was UBL, I would have had some more nuts with guns taking out the cars one at a time as they wait in line. Lucky UBL was a fringe nut, and most avoid joining The I want 72 virgins now Club. I would have asked UBL to demo the 72 virgin stuff first, and get back to us.

 

[gumboot]

Lots to be said against that. Briefly:
a) No one knew until all was over who was in those planes

You don't need to know who your enemy is, to know he's attacking you.

b) Those were Saudis, an Egyptian... USA is not at war with the KSA or Egypt

It has been recognised for quite some time in the ILAC that wars need not necessarily be between only states. It's sometimes referred to as fourth generation warfare.

c) Aiming at civilians is explicitly forbidden under the international laws of war

Deliberately targeting civilians is forbidden, but deliberately targeting combatants who are concealing themselves amongst civilians and/or using civilian vehicles/infrastructure is not forbidden. The moment the hijackers are defined as combatants the aircraft becomes a legitimate military target.

This was a one-off thing - the attack was not sustained, it wasn't carried out with military weapons, etc.

This is not relevant.

No one is required to accept the US government twist. I think thos twist is very much open to debate.

I am sure such an event would trigger an enormous amount of debate. But it would still be the USA's likely legal justification.

No. If that were the case, he would enjoy certain protections. The US claimns explicitly that KSM is NOT a combattant subject to the international laws of war.

In 2008 his original charges were filed under the laws of armed conflict, in fact at least one charge specifically references the laws of armed conflict:

"destruction of property in violation of the law of war"

Some of the other charges, including "attacking civilian objects" only exist under the Laws of Armed Conflict.

While the charges were dropped so that he could be tried as a civilian in a Federal Court, this plan fell apart and they reverted back to a Military Tribunal, prosecuting him for actions in violation of the laws of armed conflict.

And it would be an outrage and a crime. IMO.

The question is what the US Judiciary would think of it. I wouldn't be very confident of the outcome, as I think the US could make a solid case for it being a justified military action.

 

[gumboot]

There were no ROE for civilian airliners.

There were, actually. The military were explicitly prohibited from firing on terrorists.

The ROE was CJCSI 3610.01A “Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects”(June 2001).

 

[gumboot]

This would lead into a debate of what/who could be considered a combatant in the terms of war. After 9/11 this definition was broadened to include entities that were not necessarily connected to one nation.

Combatants haven't really been limited to members of a national armed forces since the Fourth Geneva Convention. (Actually you could argue Hague IV recognised this too).