North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof

  • From: Dan Hollis
  • Date: Wed Sep 12 05:50:31 2001

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...?


[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]