mailing list archives
RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 03:22:43 -0700
|> From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon () anime net]
|> 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.
- Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof, (continued)