RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof

From: Dan Hollis []
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:47 AM

> 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.