Who would provide the weapon?

My question was why FPS is part of ICE, but after doing a bit of research I guess it's really part of the the Border and Transportation Security directorate. It just seems upon first look that the missions of FPS and ICE aren't exactly the same. Additionally, I guess FPS needed somewhere to go, unlike USSS which reports directly to the secretary. To me, it seemed like FPS and USSS are much closer than FPS and ICE, but I guess there were other reasons.

I don't know if I am the only one, but I find this new DHS thing very confusing, especially the immigration stuff. It seems like there is now U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This website is supposed to explain it, but it just confuses me more.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display...3&content=3345

ICE handles investigations. CBP is patrol (or port of entry). It would be like a patrol division and a detective division. CIS handles admin matter and is more about processessing paperwork for immigrants as well as things like marriage fraud.

Just as the military provides weapons to MP's, they would provide them to these soldiers. Just as the MP is required to carry the weapon, so would these soldiers. Just as the MP is not required to make a citizen's arrest, neither would these soldiers. Just as the MP is permitted to take action in an emergency situation, so would these soldiers.

I still believe that if the military provides the weapon to the soldier and forces them to carry it they are doing so under color of the government's authority. To carry a weapon on a plane you need the blessing of the government. If the government provides the weapon and then insists they carry it they will need to do so under some kind of authority - and if they do so in a LEO status it is posse commitatus.

Provide the weapon and demand they carry it but to then absolve and say, "well, we didn't MAKE them use it" would not fly in any court.

This point is certainly arguable but it is clear that if Congress were to authorize the carrying of weapons as I outlined, and the President were to sign it into law, it would be legal.

Posse commitatus is not enshrined in the Constitution. It is a federal law passed in 1878 and, like any other federal law, can be repealed and/or amended.

Of course, all this is theoretical. For some strange reason, Congress never accepts my suggestions. For years I have been arguing with them to require the airlines to provide me with Michelle Pfeiffer, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, as a seat mate on every flight and my bill hasn't even had one single Congressman willing to support it!

Good point on posse commitatus as well. And I have worked with military personnel in LE matters, but they were unarmed and were utilized in a support/intel role, so maybe it could be done.

And if your bill passes, please advise me ASAP. Salma Hayek and I have a date with destiny...;)

It was stipulated when the airlines took their cut of the multi-billion dollar bailout post 9/11 that one of the conditions was the presence of FAMs on board their planes. I guess free security doesn't count towards compensation?
FAMIAM

What, forever? You accept bailout money in 2001 and have to carry air marshals for free until the sun explodes? Get real, please. The airlines simply can't afford to do this, as they have explained to Congress repeatedly. I happen to agree.

Bruce

I don't agree. FAM's only cost the airlines any real money when they occupy a seat which would otherwise be sold. I am certain that this happens, of course, but on most flights I have taken there have been some empty seats.

In most cases, F is not sold out -- although often filled up with people on upgrades. What an FAM's presence in F means is that somebody is not going to be upgraded from Coach.

Dude, that "explanation" they gave to congress about how the FAM program is financially crippling the airlines is a bold faced lie. Look at the numbers: Fams are on 5% of flights at best........the percentage of first class seats that are actually sold is 18-20%, the rest are non-revs and upgrades.....you do the math. The airlines are losing money because their business model is an complete failure, period. Any airline exec's contention to the contrary is bullshi it.

There is a full fare tax write off the airline can claim for each seat taken by a FAM, contrary to the claims of some on FT. Course the write off only benefits the airline if they're actually making money. As has been pointed out numerous times, almost all of the seats taken by FAMs would otherwise be one of 2 things: Either empty or occupied a non rev upgrade.

The full fare tax write off needs to be asked about to accountants who are specifically handling a commercial passenger airlines financial statements in compliance with US GAAP. I don't believe your characterization is wholly correct for a variety of reasons and may even generate a P&L hit on an airlines statements if said write-off was claimed in an airline's tax filings. I am not an accountant and I could be wrong about the above, but I do know the SEC jumped on at least one firm for having financial statements that did not gel well with their tax filings and indicated "compliance-related" write-offs that created the apperance of misrepresentations in the financial statements. US GAAP and the tax code taken together do create interesting twists and foster turns, but "write off" has to be described clearly somewhere, especially if the tax credit (or deduction) carryover could have a material impact -- and one full fare first class ticket for each flight has a material impact.

On th 2nd point, a frequent flier upgrade is not a "non rev upgrade"; they are essentially and often pre-paid and have brought the revenue to the airline for the upgrade. ;)

No Tax WriteOff
 

As discussed in other forums, the claim that "there is a tax writeoff for full fare" or anything like that appears to be untrue. At a minimum, no poster has ever been able to give any information to make it appear to be true, other than saying "I was told it." Based on some posts I have made, and based on the fact that research has found contrary information, it appears to be untrue.

Absolutely. Whether the airline has sold the miles I earn to my telephone company, credit card company, or as the incentive in some short term promotion, I have paid for those miles. If the airline offers me miles as an incentive to fly their planes on competitive routes, I have fulfiled my part of the bargain and earned those miles.

When I upgrade or fly an award, it is not free, I am paying with a "currency" called miles or points.