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 [mailto:[email protected]] |> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:47 AM |> |> 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...? Different country, different government, different laws, different times.