Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:35:15 -0700


|> From: Jim Dixon [mailto:jdd () vbc net]
|> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:01 AM
|> 
|> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > |> Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on 
|> US flights.
|> > |> 
|> > |> Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was
|> > |> "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to 
|> > |> put a dollar
|> > |> amount on human lives.
|> > 
|> > excuse me, but I don't think that the airlines were paying 
|> for those
|> > marshals. Please look towards uncle sugar, for that gaff.
|> 
|> The US government paid for the marshals' airplane tickets?

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).

I recall this from another life and the memory is not clear (as well as
being more than 20 years old).


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]