where is James Gordon Meek?

[sear]

Im sure that there are many - some you may like more than others!

A practical, objective standard, approximating the way we evaluate the performance of other LEO's. [law enforcement officers] *
An objective $cost : benefit ratio.

expensive compared to what? the twin towers? a plane crashing into the pentagon?

Your chronology is correct. Sky Marshals started in ~'61, the attacks of 09/11/01 in the following millennium
So that's 40 years of doodly squat, and the sky marshal program didn't even slow the attacks of 09/11/01 down a little. BUT !!
If you recall, 4 planes skyjacked, by 19 mostly Saudi Middle Easterners.
I'd read bin Laden originally planned 10 different planes be skyjacked. Evidently he couldn't find more than 19 suicidal terrorists, so settled for 3 teams of 5, and one team of 4.
Would have been nice if Beemer's bonkers could have retaken the plane and brought 'er down gentle.

* A year or two ago I submitted a written incident report to a New York State Trooper. 5 pages (it was a summary of a 5+ year crime spree). She read it in my presence, and noted in the report "L.E.O.", and she said aloud, -yea, I know, Law Enforcement Officer-. Before I could censor myself I blurted out, "It's also Low Earth Orbit." She liked me even less after I said that.

 

[mark mywords]

Your chronology is correct. Sky Marshals started in ~'61, the attacks of 09/11/01 in the following millennium
So that's 40 years of doodly squat, and the sky marshal program didn't even slow the attacks of 09/11/01 down a little.

The Sky Marshals were formed to oppose a specific threat (hijacking) which was rampant during the late 60s early 70s as the threat faded the marshal service was down sized - as you point out its expensive particularly if there are no planes being hijacked.

It was never the case that every flight had a marshal and as the threat receded marshals would have been on fewer and fewer flights after 20 years I dont suppose there were very many at all - one source claims that on September 11 2001 the entire service consisted of just 33 agents who were mainly on international flights (911 were all domestic flights so were extremely unlikely to have had a marshal on board)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3020570.stm)

33 agents isnt a lot to ensure the safety of the thousands of flights leaving US airports daily!

Evidently he couldn't find more than 19 suicidal terrorists,

that seems unlikely!

between 1982 and mid-2015 there were over 3000 suicide attacks predominantly by Islamic groups ( 82 by "Tamil Tigers" the rest Islamic)

 

[sear]

The Sky Marshals were formed to oppose a specific threat (hijacking) which was rampant during the late 60s early 70s

What distinguished the '60's version was the plane, passengers, & crew were held for ransom. But the humans were often or usually released. I think blowing up the plane was rare, but my memory of it is very faded.
Back then the pilot and air-crews were ordered to comply with the terrorist's demands, because by and large that was how to get the passengers & crew back safely.

on September 11 2001 the entire service consisted of just 33 agents who were mainly on international flights (911 were all domestic flights so were extremely unlikely to have had a marshal on board)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3020570.stm)

I'm not sure what the jurisdiction is on International flights, trans-Atlantic flights for simple example. In U.S. airspace a U.S. sky marshal would seem to have authority. In international airspace? Or once the airliner has entered the airspace of a European nation?
The U.S. sky martial may have, or may get sovereign permission.
Not sure that's even a matter of settled law. It may have been resolved, pre-crisis. Not to my knowledge.

 

[mark mywords]

I'm not sure what the jurisdiction is on International flights,

neither is any one else!


When an aircraft is on the ground, the laws of that country apply. This applies both before and after a flight. These local laws take precedence over any laws that would apply based on the aircraft's country of residence, or nationality of passengers or crew.

The laws that apply once the aircraft has taken off are not as clear! One thing to realize here is that multiple countries can apply jurisdiction at the same time. It is not necessarily the case that just one country has jurisdiction at any one time.

Whist in flight in international airspace, the laws of the country of registration of the aircraft apply.

If the incident is related to air safety, the laws of the destination country will take effect.

And in addition, If the aircraft is within a country’s airspace, then that country can impose its laws in certain situations.

The laws that apply on board an aircraft bound for an international destination are defined by the Tokyo Convention (and to a lesser extent the Chicago Convention).

The Tokyo Convention states that the laws of the country of registration of the aircraft apply to acts committed on board

It also allows for the destination country to take jurisdiction in the event of incidents affecting air safety (including hijack or causing injury to another passenger). So, for example, you would not be charged upon landing in a foreign country for underage drinking on board, but you would for a serious offense.

There are cases as well where the country whose airspace the aircraft is in can also apply their laws. In general, this applies when the act committed involves the overflown country in some way.

https://simpleflying.com/which-countrys-laws-are-enforced-during-international-flights/

bit of a mess isnt it?

 

[sear]

m #24
You and titan both seem set to snarl my sleep tonight.
It's a pet peeve of mine m #24. Seems to me when the law needs clarification law courts shouldn't wait until afterward. But it seems that's the way it is.

I'm trying to trace back my own impression about law in international waters. I suspect but don't really know, it's up to the captain. Isn't that why in international waters ships captains could marry willing adults? One man one woman I suppose. Don't know what would have happened in 1880 if two guys tried to get a sea captain to marry them mid-ocean.

m #24, I can't tell for certain. Is the world getting worse? Or has my broadband simply have given me a closer (& therefore more grim) look?

?!