North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals > didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a > big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An > aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic > flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was > also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push > to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That > was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple > assailants, per man). Israel's El-Al Airlines has plainclothes armed air marshals... they seem to have figured out how to address those problems...? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
|