Analysis from a JHU CS Prof

Wed Sep 12 10:22:43 UTC 2001

|> From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon at 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.