US Air Marshals flee Brazil following arrest saga

[OldChinaHand]

Two U.S. air marshals flee Brazil after being charged with assault

By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN
October 22, 2010 -- Updated 0020 GMT (0820 HKT)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/WORLD/americas/10/21/us.brazil.air.marshals/story.flight.cnn.jpg
The air marshals were arrested in Brazil after they arrested the wife of a Brazilian judge aboard a Continental flight.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Two air marshals were on a Continental flight to Rio on October 1
Sources say the marshals arrested a female passenger after a disruption
When the flight landed in Rio, the marshals were arrested by Brazilian authorities
A source says the passenger is the wife of a prominent Brazilian judge


RELATED TOPICS

Air Travel (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Air_Travel)
Janet Napolitano (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Janet_Napolitano)
Brazil (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Brazil)

Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. air marshals who arrested the wife of a Brazilian judge on a flight to Rio de Janeiro -- and were themselves arrested and had their passports confiscated by Brazilian authorities -- fled the country using alternate travel documents rather than face what they believed to be trumped-up charges, sources said.
The incident has impacted air marshal operations on flights to Brazil, officials said, and air marshals contacted by CNN said the case raises questions about Brazil's willingness to support future law enforcement actions by U.S. officials on international flights.
The incident occurred on October 1 on Continental Flight 128 from Houston, Texas, to Rio de Janeiro. During the flight, a female passenger who appeared to be intoxicated tried to serve herself drinks by going to the plane's galley, one source said. The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene, and two marshals approached the woman, who began struggling with them.
Two sources said the woman bit one of the air marshals, and she was handcuffed and placed under arrest.
At the Rio airport, the air marshals went to turn over the woman to local authorities but were themselves brought before a federal judge and charged with misdemeanor counts of assault, sources said. Brazilian authorities took the air marshals' passports, so they could not leave the country and set a court hearing for the following week, sources said.
"They (Brazilian officials) did not want them to leave. They were not free to go," one U.S. law enforcement source said.
But the air marshals used alternate travel documents and quietly departed the country on a commercial flight that same day without the knowledge of the Brazilian court officials who had sought their detention.
One source said the air marshals believed the charges against them were retaliatory because the passenger they arrested is the wife of a prominent Brazilian judge. The air marshals believed it was to their benefit to leave the country and let the U.S. and Brazilian governments resolve the dispute, the source said.
The air marshals had not recovered their passports when they left, the sources said.
A Transportation Security Administration official, contacted by CNN on the day of the incident, confirmed that air marshals had confronted a "disruptive passenger" on Flight 128, and said that U.S. officials were working with their Brazilian counterparts to resolve "an issue," which the official declined to discuss.
Shortly before midnight the day of the incident, the TSA official said the air marshal team had left Brazil, but the official did not elaborate on the circumstances.
U.S. officials on October 1 and again this week declined to discuss the circumstances in which the air marshals left Brazil. But, commenting about the incident on board the aircraft, an official said, "We believe our federal air marshals acted appropriately within the provisions of the Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention)."
Air marshals and union representatives contacted by CNN say it is important that Brazil and other nations recognize law enforcement actions taken by air marshals during international flights.
"In theory we're all working together to combat the threat of terrorism and we should not let egos or marital relations impact proper procedure and legal protocols," said Jon Adler, national president for the union that represents air marshals.
Numerous sources said the issue is still unresolved. According to court documents in Brazil, after the air marshals missed a scheduled court appointment on October 6, the court contacted the U.S. embassy in an attempt to get the air marshal's addresses.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with Brazilian Minister of Defense Nelson Job to discuss strengthening the global aviation system. The United States and Brazil signed a "joint statement of intent on aviation security." A Department of Homeland Security official said the parties did not discuss the Continental Flight 128 incident or its aftermath.
Sources said they believe the two agents remain charged in Brazilian courts. They did not know if the agents' passports had been returned to them or the U.S. government.
State Department officials have declined to comment on the incident, but said it is not affecting relations with Brazil.
"We've got broad, deep relations with Brazil," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "We have many, many areas of cooperation with Brazil. And on those areas where we have had disagreements, or rather issues to address, and challenges, we've worked through them quite effectively."
A call to the Brazilian embassy in Washington on Thursday was not immediately returned.

[Roger Dixon]

So air marshals are aboard to prevent acts of terrorism. No problem there.

Since when was an inebriated lady helping herself to another gin and tonic, however inappropriately, an "act of terrorism?"

Guess they got bored sitting around doing nothing. Another example of American pathos.

[Wizofoz]

... And in so doing, made sure every potential hi-jacker on the aircraft knew where the guns were.

[Dan Winterland]

Indeed. They should not have got involved in a 'misdemeanor' and compromised themselves. Any potential hijacker could use such a technique to identify and neutralise marshalls. And the crew should not know who they are either - that could lead to a potential compromise. However, the times I've flown on US flights, the marsahlls couldn't have been more obvious.

When some UK airlines carried them after 9/11, the crews were just told that they may be on board. There was nothing to identify them, and we would not know if our flight was designated a marshalled flight. I relaised I might have one on board once when someone I recognised from the military was sitting in economy. We made eye contact but showed no sign of recognition.

[OldChinaHand]

I too was surprised that two professionals would be sucked into a minor fracas over a few more G and Ts. Surely their training would include avoidance of minor disturbances on board that may be staged to identify Sky Marshals, On board security or enthusiastic ABPs. Having identified the aforementioned person off ill intent could quickly subdue them leave no or reduced security for more serious issues. So maybe not well trained or not that professional !!

Its a bit disturbing too that paperwork "appeared" that allowed the Marshals to depart a country in contravention of Court direction. They were charged with assault, surely not a charge worth being spirited out of a country a creating a diplomatic incident over. Seems a bit of an over reaction...................Or a well oiled machine springing into action to recover these agents as per SOPs of the TSA.

Well I suppose Mrs Brazilian Judge will have a peek over her shoulder before her next grab at a trolly full of Grog.

[J.O.]

I seem to recall my training on air marshals that said they absolutely would not intervene in simple disruptive passenger events and that any intervention would be taken only at their discretion - not at the request of the crew. Maybe a lack of "action" on so many flights caused them to let their guard down and they intervened just to have something to do.

[Max Angle]

Quite surprised they didn't shoot her, what restraint.

[Graybeard]

Why did it take two of them to respond, at any rate? Sounds like they have got too cozy with the CC.

GB

[Bruce Wayne]

dumb actions by the passenger
dumb actions by the crew
dumb actions by the air marshalls
dumb actions by the brazilian judiciary
dumb actions by the US agency


pretty much dumb a** actions all by all parties.

[glad rag]

The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene,

So all the keyboard hero's would have said NO?

[adsyj]

Bruce Wayne - Batman

When can we expect your eyewitness report, your judgement of all involved surely means you were onboard and up nice and close. Share the intimate details of the incident which will enable all aircrew to learn how Batman would handle it.

I have had a gutful of this type of crap from passengers, here is hoping she was restrained nice and tight and won't be seen on a Continental Flight again and maybe a holiday on the No Fly List might smarten her up.

Then again Batman will have all the answers as he was obviously there.

[PappyJ]

"... The Air Marshal service is meant to promote confidence in civil aviation by effectively deploying Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting the United States..."

Wow! Pouring yourself a drink at the airborne galley is a hostile act against the United States.

This is what happens when you promote baggage handlers and then give them guns & titles. USA...What a fiasco!

[p51guy]

Staying in Brazil to attend a kangaroo court would be stupid. One of our pilots was being held there after that midair when their ATC put two aircraft at the same altitude, opposite directions at night and Brazil blamed our pilots, not ATC. They were allowed finally to return to the US pending trial. Guess what? They didn't go back.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I'm pretty much staggered by this.

Imagine if she hadn't been who she was, but a more "sinister" operative. Get the two marshall idiots into the galley and then five blokes jump them. Wouldn't be hard in such a confined space.

Is it just me, or are the yanks rather quite stupid. Has an Air Marshall ever actually saved a flight?

[sky jet]

Yeah, Yanks are all morons. Thank God for the Brits or we would have never won two world wars, landed on the moon, got the internet or had the i-phone and I could not live without my Lucas electronics. Lets face it, Americans do some stupid things, but on the whole I think we are pretty far from a race of morons. Look, we have no idea what really happened on that flight. For all we know the drunk wench was making "I have a bomb" statements while she was blitzed out of her mind. I have heard and seen drunks do it myself. Until proven otherwise I will give the marshalls the benefit of the doubt.

[piggy]

Why do that? It's so much more fun to cast aspersions on character than to actually wait for the facts... and the word of the wife of a Brazilian Judge OF COURSE trumps whatever two American law officers would say, because, as we all know, all Americans are clowns and cowboys.... what dreck.

I'll tell you this, however: I've interacted with the FAMs since 9/11 and they've never been anything but consummate professionals. If they got involved they felt they had reason to.

But that doesn't play into your narrative now, does it?

[Piltdown Man]

So then, a few followers of bearded man with flip-flops living in a cave a Pakistani cave wish to "borrow" an aircraft in flight. Get a largish stooge in C-Class to have few glasses of pop too many and then take on the cabin crew - a bit of pushing and few insults might help. Now wait for the TSA's finest to come to the cabin crew's aid. I never thought it would be that simple. Admittedly you may have to take on a few passengers, but the two major obstacles have been identified so they can now be neutralised.

And as for the US Govt. arranging for their repatriation, that really is a bit beyond this site. But to skip a (friendly) country when you know full well that a country's legal system required their presence, is not on. It is arrogance and xenophobia beyond words. This is another example as to why the USA has such a poor reputation Worldwide. This also makes it more likely for US citizens to be locked up as soon as there is any whiff of judicial action.

PM

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Also what strikes me as odd, is why did it take two of them.

Surely from just a pure tactical point of view it should have been one to "tackle" her and one to keep a good watch, but not disclose themselves.

[Hotel Tango]

Now wait for the TSA's finest to come to the cabin crew's aid

I don't think Sky Marshalls have anything to do with the TSA Piltdown Man.

[rick1128]

Having to have had to deal with drunk passengers, the crew was correct in asking for assistance. You don't know what some of these drunks will do. There have been cases where they have tried to start fires in the lav, try to open emergency or main exit doors, try to get into the cockpit, etc. We were not there, so we are not totally informed on what happened.

First of all, the aircraft was a US Flagged aircraft, so under international law the Marshals had authority to act. Quite likely a FA asked the passenger to leave the galley and return to her seat. When the woman refused, the FA asked the Marshals to act. It is my understanding that they will normally ask the passenger to return to their seat or face arrest. According to the information, the woman attacked the Marshals and bit one of them. As for having 2 Marshals handle the situation, it is a standard law enforcement method. Almost any LEO will tell you, the most important thing is to go home in one piece at the end of the shift. The next is get the job done. And this is most likely accomplished by avoiding one on one. Over powering force is the order of the day.

It was definitely a political play, as the Marshals were turning the woman over to local law enforcement. If it was a real issue, all the locals had to do was release the woman. Personally, I feel the Marshals were correct in their actions and did the right thing in leaving the country. From what I read the signs were there that they were going to get really ******.

[Out Of Trim]

And the crew should not know who they are either - that could lead to a potential compromise. However, the times I've flown on US flights, the marsahlls couldn't have been more obvious.


That's probably a bit difficult.. When the crew see them being issued with their firearms..! Or, did you think that say American Air Marshals are allowed to keep there weapons in a foreign land! :rolleyes:

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't think Sky Marshalls have anything to do with the TSA Piltdown Man.

FAMS is supervised by the TSA, under the DHS.

[Lonewolf_50]

For Roger Dixon:

Care to read the article?

"The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene."

What's this about American pathos?

I'd like to ask the professional air crew why they would feel a need to ask for air marshal help with a simple case of a rude passenger. If there isn't an air marshal on your flight, what are you to do, stand there and wring your hands? From the remarks I've seen in the CC forum, NO, that isn't what you do.

Anyone care to respond to my question?

rick 1128 seems to have a sensible anaylsis of the situation.

[Avitor]

Why isn't the alleged drunken, belligerent woman standing in front of her husband, not naked but in chains.
Anybody on here been knocked back for a Marshall's job?

[Lonewolf_50]

Why isn't the alleged drunken, belligerent woman standing in front of her husband, not naked but in chains.

Why not have her stand in front of her husband naked and in chains? Might give the Brazilian media something to write about, and the Brazilian court something to do other than play games with people trying to do their jobs. :cool:

[alemaobaiano]

Might give the Brazilian media something to write about

Actually the American media is making far more of this than the Brazilian media, and the courts here have more than enough to do with murderers, drug dealers and corrupt politicians, thank you.

From what I read the signs were there that they were going to get really ******.

What did you read, if I may ask? I'm not trying to be funny, but from what is publicly available it's very hard to draw that sort of conclusion. The woman has very little sympathy here, so apart from the PF saying to the FAMs "Sorry for the delay but we are obliged to investigate complaints, have a nice trip home", I don't see how you make the leap to them being really ******.

TTFN

[Sunfish]

Why didn't they Taser her Ten times to teach her a lesson?

[Joao da Silva]

If the skymarshalls had the authority to arrest the woman in their jurisdiction, then they must accept the Brasil authority jurisdiction to detail them.

It works both ways and it is not for the detained to be the judge.

Running away makes them criminals.

[rmac]

They could have waited until after landing and then shot her on the jetway.....don't I recall that happening in Miami. Donkeys...

[pigboat]

Since when was an inebriated lady helping herself to another gin and tonic, however inappropriately, an "act of terrorism?"

Guess they got bored sitting around doing nothing. Another example of American pathos.
If they had taken a page from the Vancouver RCMP manual and tazered her to death, would it still have counted as American pathos? We deserve to know.

[racedo]

Doesn't seem to say anywhere that the 2 Marshalls were the only 2 on the flight hence someone using a stooge could find there were only 2 or 10 depending on a risk scenario done beforehand.

[p51guy]

I think these guys had a very good reason to intervene with the whacked out drunk woman who happened to be a Brazilian judges wife. Justice in Brazil is a joke. Don't even go to that corrupt country. Barbados is much safer and saner. Skip the next summer olympics unless you can bring a gun for protection. The Brazilian government can not control their muggers so plan to be mugged. My friend just lost his 2,000 dollar watch there with a gun held to him. He was a crewmember so knew the risks.

[gtf]

This is probably one story we'll never read the end of... Too bad.

and the word of the wife of a Brazilian Judge OF COURSE trumps whatever two American law officers would say
The problem is, they didn't stick around to make their point. Curious to know whether it was their own initiative or they were told to get out.

Bad thing in all of this is, now the world knows, if a FAM has done something even remotely suspicious, throw them in jail first to keep them from leaving... Short term benefit for the FAMs here. But long term?

[RatherBeFlying]

There are some interesting jurisdictional questions:

Did the incident for which she was apprehended take place in Brazilian airspace?

Can the woman be charged under Brazilian law for actions aboard a US a/c outside Brazilian airspace?

Are the FAMs required to remain in Brazil to testify at the woman's trial if she happens to have been charged by Brazilian authorities?

Mind you, I am confident that if she is not charged in Brazil that the FBI will be only too happy to put the cuffs on her she happen to be found stateside -- and that the FAMs will show up to testify:E

[grounded27]

My friend just lost his 2,000 dollar watch there with a gun held to him. He was a crewmember so knew the risks.

Sounds like you keep great company... I like the the crewmember reference. This same sucker could have lost his watch or more in more than a dozen cities in the usa, was lucky to live through it.


WAKEUP air marshals have no power in other soverign countrys, same as a a ordinary person slapping handcuffs on another civilian. I personally think there should be international stanards.

Your idiot friend hopefully has better situal awareness in his aircraft than the playground it lost it's toy in.

[alemaobaiano]

Did the incident for which she was apprehended take place in Brazilian airspace?

Apparently not, the few reports here suggest that she was handcuffed for 5 hours, which would put the offence outside Brazilian airspace. However, if this woman posed a continued risk to flight safety the aircraft should have landed at the first suitable airport in Brazil to offload her and the FAMs. There were apparently 4 FAMs on the flight so protection would still have been available.

Can the woman be charged under Brazilian law for actions aboard a US a/c outside Brazilian airspace?

Yes, in this case the destination was a Brazilian airport. Brazil and the US have reciprocal agreements.

Are the FAMs required to remain in Brazil to testify at the woman's trial if she happens to have been charged by Brazilian authorities?

Not necessarily, if they had filed an official report they would probably not have to give evidence in court. However, fleeing the country makes it very easy for the defence.

My friend just lost his 2,000 dollar watch there with a gun held to him. He was a crewmember so knew the risks.

Obviously he didn't, as the advice from the State Department makes clear. "Travelers should "dress down" when outside and avoid carrying valuables or wearing jewelry or expensive watches." In 15 years living and working here I have never been the victim of any crime, yet in a 3 month stay in Boston I was mugged at knifepoint.

The reason the FAMs had their passports retained is quite simple. The woman filed a complaint of assault on arrival, and there was eyewitness testimony that excessive force was used during incident. How reliable such testimony was and who provided it is another matter, but the police were obliged to investigate both complaints, and to do so they required the presence of the FAMs. Fleeing raises the suspicion that there may have been a case to answer.

Some here are seriously overestimating the influence of a Federal judge and his ability to interfere in such cases. This woman is a typical self-important windbag type of Brazilian with an overinflated sense of her own importance who got what she deserved, but that doesn't mean that she or her husband have any leverage over criminal proceedings.

TTFN

[hetfield]

The two marshalls are just identified...

http://www.cowboyhatsandmoreblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/cowboys-rodeo.jpg

[ConstantFlyer]

Presumably American marshalls travelling on international flights disembark with all the other passengers so as not to identify themselves, pass through the arrival country's passport and customs controls, and maybe have a period of rest before checking in for their return flight, and going back through airport security. How do they manage this if they have guns? Or do they go into a transit lounge? Surely they don't remain on the aircraft during its turnaround?

[Sallyann1234]

Do you really think it sensible to ask such questions, or to expect accurate answers?

[ConstantFlyer]

Fair point, Sallyann1234. I just don't see how armed marshalls can maintain anonymity - in which case the fact that they revealed themselves on the flight to Brazil through intervening is less serious.

[Capot]

AIR PIRACY FOR DUMMIES

Step 1. If you suspect that there might be covert armed guards aboard, one of your party should flush them out by behaving in a manner guaranteed to do that. There will not be more than 2, for financial reasons.

Step 2. Another member of your party helps the flusher to neutralise the guards who have now identified themselves.

Step 3. All members now carry on with the action, free of interference.

It's not a new idea; it was practised in the 1970's in the Middle East. That's why armed guards are/should be taught not to interfere in or respond to disruptive passenger situations.

As for the CC identifying them by calling for help...words fail me. That's why they should NOT be known to the CC.

But of course awareness of history is a no-no for today's gung-ho leaders.

As with Afghanistan.

[tailstrikecharles]

Fair point, Sallyann1234. I just don't see how armed marshalls can maintain anonymity
I dont believe they even try.
At any rate, they are known to the crew and are in first class -a bone of contention with the airlines whom would rather roll the dice than pay for a first class seat on an uneventful flight.
Airlines seek to move air marshals from first class - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-10-18-air-marshals-first-class_N.htm)

My verdict is out on this one.
To those who ask why it takes (or took) 2 armed marshals to subdue 1 drunk woman, think about it.

Kick her ass=1 Marshal
Subdue her without breaking a limb or serious force=2 or more.

A quick show of force is better than a situation that could lead to an all out brawl on the airplane with innocent passengers being hurt.

It IS internal policy to react forcibly to what would seem minor passenger disturbances because the press coverage draws attention to the role (always useful come budget time) and from a security perspective, makes it look like there are more FAM's than they actually are.

[JP1]

I am not sure why there are so many Yank bashing posts in this thread!

The issue here is that they were Law enforcement officers who had been asked to intervene by the crew of the aircraft, and by doing so found that they were in effect then held hostage in Brazil! They were then denied the right to return home, see their wifes, family, friends, return to their work and in general get on with their day to day activities. All this for carrying out a duty that I assume they have the legal right to do.

The Brazilian authorities should have simply taken their details, and pursued any action via official channels.

[Chu Chu]

If the Brazilian officials were corrupt and incompetent, that could be an explanation in itself. But if they did have a case under Brazilian law, they must have felt a little like the dog that finally catches the car. Maybe cooler heads were winking and nodding about "alternate travel documents."

[alemaobaiano]

Do people actually read the thread before leaping in with their preconceived notions of the world? :ugh:

JP1, they were not held hostage, a complaint of assault was filed against the two officers, with a corroborating witness statement. The police, even in this "developing third world sh!th@le", have a vague tendency to investigate alleged crimes and as such retained the passports of the two FAMs. In all probability the charge laid by this woman would not have held up, BUT that is for an examining magistrate to decide after reviewing the facts presented by the investigators.

It may come as a surprise to some, but the FBI and Federal Police have a very good working relationship, which I would assume carries over to other US agencies such as FAMs. Guess who would have investigated this case? That's right, the Federal Police, who were also just carrying out a duty that they have a legal right to do.

BTW FIGJAM_SEA, the "non-western legal system" in use here is actually based on the very "western" European legal system with some elements from the USA.

TTFN

[cavortingcheetah]

Perhaps the Brazilian government will apply to the US government to have the two fugitives extradited if their alleged crimes fall within the terms of the extradition treaty between the two countries? But then again they probably won't bother. The Brazilian constitution prohibits the extradition of Brazilian citizens. This prohibition over rules the 1961/1964 extradition treaty with the USA. While no such constitutional prohibition might protect an American citizen, the Brazilian authorities could hardly expect singular sided cooperation.

[Globally]

Good discussion, but I haven't heard much about why the Brazilian authorities arrested the US marshals. Why would they believe the woman, and not the marshals? Did the captain or other crewmembers back up the mashals' story?

Regardless of what happened on the airplane, the Brazilian authorities should have listened to the marshals' story, taken custody of the woman, and dispose of the situation from there as they saw fit - either released her and then have the marshals submit a written statement, or other similar action. Ask the marshals to be available for testimony during any investigation, etc...

For the Brazilian authorities to arrest the US marshals on the spot, at the airport, to me doesn't fit the situation.

[Bruce Wayne]

For the Brazilian authorities to arrest the US marshals on the spot, at the airport, to me doesn't fit the situation.


from further back in the thread the woman claimed assault, which was it seems verified by a witness or two, that undue force was used in restraining her.

[FIGJAM_SEA]

from further back in the thread the woman claimed assault, which was it seems verified by a witness or two, that undue force was used in restraining her.
...and as we all know in Brazil police brutality is taken very seriously, right? LOL!!

Let's get real here folks, if in Brazil "a witness or two" is all it takes to arrest 2 police officers on the spot their entire police force would be in the monkey house......

And BTW, those 2 Air Marshals should have witnesses of their own as it's reported that they were asked to intervene by the very plane's crew.

I have a very hard time imagining American(/Italian/British/...) cops arresting on the spot a couple of Brazilian police officers handing them over a drunk disruptive American(/Italian/British/...) passenger whom they restrained after being asked to by the plane's crew...

[Neptunus Rex]

The original alleged offence was committed on board an American registered aircraft. Unless things have changed, that aircraft is the sovereign territory of the United States, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Brazilian authorities. Discipline on board is vested in the Captain, via various Air Navigation Acts, and delegated to the crew. Normal procedure would be for the Captain to request security personnel to meet the aircraft and take the alleged perpetrator into custody. The crew can give statements to the local authorities without leaving the sanctity of US sovereign territory.

Unless the Air Marshalls manhandled the lady on Brazilian territory, I do not think there is a case to answer.

Perhaps Flying Lawyer could give us the benefit of his counsel?

[alemaobaiano]

I have a very hard time imagining American(/Italian/British/...) cops arresting on the spot a couple of Brazilian police officers handing them over a drunk disruptive American(/Italian/British/...) passenger whom they restrained after being asked to by the plane's crew...

They would if that passenger filed a complaint of assault, which is what happened here. Whether that complaint could be substantiated by further investigation is a different matter, and the FAMs could have called all the witnesses they wanted to back up their statements. That's a bit more difficult now that they have fled the country without waiting for due process.

FIGJAM_SEA, I'm not sure what your problem is with Brazil, but it's not "my" country. I live and work here for a US company, much as I've done around the world for more than 35 years, so I have seen my share of crap countries. Brazil isn't the best or worst place I've lived, but neither is the USA. Each to their own.

TTFN

[hetfield]

Have not been there, didn't get the t-shirt.........

But my impression(!) is, the marshalls simply overreacted.

[alemaobaiano]

Neptunus Rex, things don't appear to be quite that cut and dried, if you are REALLY bored you could have a read through the Tokyo Convention of 1963....

I'm not......I'm off out for a beer or three :}

TTFN

[FIGJAM_SEA]

They would if that passenger filed a complaint of assault, which is what happened here. Whether that complaint could be substantiated by further investigation is a different matter, and the FAMs could have called all the witnesses they wanted to back up their statements.
I can speak with absolute certainty only for Italy (but I would be willing to bet not a small sum of money on the USA, UK etc being the same) and they WOULD NOT release the drunken disruptive passenger and arrest police officers operating on a foreign registered aircraft under request of the very plane's crew and seize their passports just because of "a witness or two" UNLESS there were immediate and patent evidence of severe misconduct on the part of the officers AND the physical injuries were serious. Assault, unless the physical injuries are serious AND evidence is deemed by a judge (Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, "Judge for the Preliminary Investigation") "overwhelming" does not entail the restriction of the personal freedom of movement, in Italy.
Moreover, I would like to know the country which trusts the word of a private citizen over that of police officers... Usually they all tend to lean more or less EXCESSIVELY in favor of the police officers (and once again, I have found that to be the case even more in 3rd world countries).

That's a bit more difficult now that they have fled the country without waiting for due process.

FIGJAM_SEA, I'm not sure what your problem is with Brazil, but it's not "my" country.
I have got no particular problem with Brazil, my problem is with those who believe you usually get "due process" in the 3rd world...

Maybe you could have already understood where I'm coming from if you answered this:
"Just one of the many traits that I have found most "developing countries" around the world have in common despite vastly different geographic location and racial and cultural origins is the fact that when something like a mugging, a rape, a theft happens calling the police is NOT among the first things "the general public" does... Now you either tell me that Brazil is not like that (while in my experience it's a perfect example of that) or you explain us why it's so (which would itself explain why I wrote what I wrote...)."

I live and work here for a US company, much as I've done around the world for more than 35 years, so I have seen my share of crap countries. Brazil isn't the best or worst place I've lived, but neither is the USA. Each to their own.
Brazil isn't the worst one I have lived in either, far from it actually. The worst, by a very long shot, have been the Middle Eastern ones and (mostly for different reasons) the African ones.
In the many Asian ones and the 4 Latin American ones I have lived in I actually had a ball. That has not prevented me to see them for what they are. I would never vacation in any one of them with my wife and chlidren or take there my elderly parents...
Even in the best ones among them where it seems it's all fun and smiles and where many Westerners on 2 week holidays fall in love with the place and keep coming back with the rose colored glasses on (Thailand would be a great example of that) when something serious goes wrong you see the abyss between them and the West...

[Out Of Trim]

AIR PIRACY FOR DUMMIES

Step 1. If you suspect that there might be covert armed guards aboard, one of your party should flush them out by behaving in a manner guaranteed to do that. There will not be more than 2, for financial reasons.




In my experierience; that figure is wrong; but, I'm not going to tell you how many I usually see! :rolleyes:

[parabellum]

It also appears to contravene international law, surely they should only have one passport.....


Not in the UK, as along as you can give satisfactory reasons. In my case, (had two passports for almost 36 years), I used to specify; "For travel between countries of religious/sectarian difference", where it is important to separate the stamps of countries that disagree with each other, have territorial disputes etc. Bahrain and Iran was the case in point for original issue but there are plenty of other scenarios that fit the bill. I would strongly recommend any pilots that travel to the third world to carry two passports if they can.

[Hiflyer1757]

First off the incident was occurring in the F galley next to the cockpit door...that alone raises the threat level. Secondly...past reports have shown that if there were 2 then one 'uncovered' during an incident so it very well could be that there were not only 2 onboard. Third...appears this is local politics regarding the wife and judge husband...and thus an embarrassment to other Brazilian gov officials...other wise the issuance of replacement passports and the exit of the 2 would not been as tacitly 'approved' as it appears it was...IMHO senior Brazil officials wanted this over immediately and no official 'resistance' was given to the solution...

Lastly don't feel like refighting the revolutionary war and don't care about who invented the net so won't comment on that....other folks must have a lot more time on their hands....;);)

[rick1128]

alemaobaiano, these FAM's undoubtedly knew about the aftermath of the 737/Legacy accident. Add in the their detainee was the wife of a federal judge and they were taken, from what I can discern, almost immediately in front of a judge. I don't know about you, but that would not give the warm and fuzzies about my chances. And holding of passports for a misdemeanor?

As for the force used. They were in a small area, dealing with a combative person with many innocent bystanders (or should it be bysitters?). You really can't muck around. Since they were charged with a misdemeanor, they most likely didn't pistol whip her, use a tazer, asp or nightstick on her. If she had any injuries, it was quite likely from the handcuffs and she most likely did that to herself. Since both FAM's were most likely male, they wouldn't have searched her as it is totally against DOJ policy. While the FAMs are controlled by DHS, they are trained by DOJ and DOJ has most likely laid down a lot of ground rules. I have run it many that were in the U.S. Marshal Service and transferred to the FAM program. And they tend to be quite calm when dealing with detained persons.

[42...]

To say they were "spirited" out of the country for their own sake is incredibly patronizing to Brazil.
**** Brazil, whats more patronizing than contravening common and international law, treaties and proper procedure and common law enforcement etiquette? This is nothing less than pandering to the elitist relatives of the corrupt Brazilian legal system and placing folks who are doing nothing more than their job protecting the likes of YOU from harms way. Hell yes they left the country.

I suppose your attitude carries to those pesky Yanks helping you all out after Neville sealed your fate? I thought not. Carry on, and God save the Queen, because guys like you sure won't.

[cavortingcheetah]

In order for that precedent, even if there were one, to be regurgitated the precise crime with which the two marshals were charged by the Brazilian authorities would have to fall within the purlieu of the USA/Brazil extradition treaty. Money laundering, for example, is not covered by the extradition treaty whereas trafficking in wild life is.

It does seem rather, reading through back issues of Pprune that it's a particularly British preoccupation to scrabble around in the dirt and dust looking for pebbles to chuck at the Americans. In Germany Britain is sometimes called Ape Island but that's really very rude and of course entirely born from jealousy derived from a lack of military supremacy among other differences in style, isn't it?

[alemaobaiano]

Right, so bashing the USA is totally off limits but laying into Brazil with unpleasant stereotypical generalities is perfectly OK???

42... do you actually know what a Federal judge does in Brazil? He's not the equivalent of a Supreme Court judge, or a Crown Court judge, or whatever your national higher legal chamber is. His work will mostly involve constitutional law, not criminal law. Claiming that he is a member of the corrupt legal elite is a bit much, you don't even know the guy and yet he's automatically corrupt because he's Brazilian? Do US law enforcement officers never make mistakes?

I would recommend a read of the Tokyo Convention of 1963 about jurisdiction over crimes committed on aircraft.

cavortingcheetah, what interest would Brazil have in requesting extradition, even if it was covered by the treaty? Despite what many here seem to think, Brazil and the USA have a very good relationship on many levels and screwing that up over an allegedly drunk passenger is something of an over-reaction wouldn't you think? An insincere diplomatic complaint about sovereign rights followed by an equally insincere diplomatic apology would probably cover it.

FIGJAM_SEA, I took the opportunity to informally research your question last night over a beer, and of those asked 100% would call the police first. As we seem to have shared a similar nomadic lifestyle I think I would enjoy discussing international perceptions of justice with you, however that is for another place and time, not this thread, which has degenerated into a bash fest.

TTFN

[changer]

alemaobaiano, it's already been pointed out, but nobody's paying attention. The two American pilots that were held in Brazil is quite relevant to Air Marshall's decision to leave Brazil, I think...

2 U.S. Pilots Still Held in Brazil as Air Collision Inquiry Plods On - NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DE113EF93AA15752C1A9609C8B63)

[alemaobaiano]

Changer, you're right, nobody is paying attention to anything. Are you seriously comparing an multi-agency investigation into an accident in which 154 people died to a police investigation into an in-flight dispute with minor injuries?

TTFN

[changer]

Yeah, I am.

Brazilian authorities took the passports of the FAMs, just as they took the passports of the pilots.

[AQ737Driver]

How can you ignore it?

Here is a country that criminalizes aviation accidents for political reasons, and people should just ignore it?

On top of that, how is it that 2 LEO's get arrested for assault right away after landing in Brazil because they arrested a wife of a Brazilian judge?

Come on man.... wake up.

As for US bashing... I love it. We all know that everything American is grossly inferior to anything European. Pilots in particular... European pilots invented and reinvented flying and everything else. Orville and Wilbur are Europeans by heritage!

Despite all that, every 4th of July, I celebrate the successful stick removal out of our colonial asses. :D:ok:

[alemaobaiano]

I-FORD, I am not a lawyer, and if you are I bow to your greater knowledge, but from my reading of the text, had the Brazilian authorities themselves instituted the action against the FAMs you may well be correct. However the accusation was made by the alleged "victim", a procedure seemingly covered by Article 10, and therefore the FAMs were required to justify their actions. That wouldn't be difficult in this case as, despite the woman's claims, there would presumably be many more witnesses to support the FAMs report and the immunity implied by Article 10 would be maintained.

This was all a storm in a teacup until CNN ran their piece, and that's probably the way both countries would have preferred it to stay.

TTFN

[Jabiman]

I think the two US security agents did the best thing fleeing home until the case will reach a clearer conclusion.
And I would suggest the same for any crewmember or security agent involved in similar cases, even in the old US of A, you never know how the local judge or law enforcer would interpret the various and complicated issues ....
It is much better to answer questions through a lawyer from the comfort of your hometown better than in a cell or court in a foreign and maybe hostile country.

Very interesting advice. So what you are saying is that should anyone ever be arrested abroad, then fleeing is the best alternative, regardless of whether or not you are guilty.

[con-pilot]

It also appears to contravene international law, surely they should only have one passport.....

No, it is not. I carried two passports for ten years. One was the standard civilian passport and the other was the official US Government Diplomatic passport. I am sure that the Air Marshals surrender their Diplomatic passports and left Brazi on their personal passports, as that was our instructions in case of problems.

[grounded27]

[QUOTE][Here is a country that criminalizes aviation accidents for political reasons, and people should just ignore it?
/QUOTE]

The USA does the same.. EG valuejet. People do not ignore it they thirst for it.

Furthermore the marshalls and the pilots detained are two completely different scenarios.

The marshalls accused of abuse upon this woman, sure should be investigated by the country they land in.

Pilots who's potential neglect resulted in the death of 150 people just like valuejunk, damb right they will seek out someone to blame.

[42...]

The Convention, for the first time in the history of international aviation law, recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any person(s) he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good order and discipline.
Maybe you need to read the Tokyo convention alemaobaiano. It gives immunities to the exact people your castigating.

Go and USA bash all you want, I'm fine with that. Your crime is the bashing of the very folks charged to protect others in a very precarious situation, I'm not fine with that.

There was nothing nefarious about the FAM's departure, SOP for foreign nation issues, multiple passports? How niave are you to think they don't have other means of identification? This is the real world we live in, not a paperpback novelet. This would have all been handled intraagency per previous events, however as mentioned, you find out about it because CNN found out about it AND the drunk judges wife blabbed. Nothing wrong with that though, right?

[cavortingcheetah]

And just possibly they made an unaided decision, that they didn't want to run the risk of being sodomised in a Brazilian jail?

[Jabiman]

Your crime is the bashing of the very folks charged to protect others in a very precarious situation, I'm not fine with that.

So lets see, to paraphrase and summarise previous posts:
We have a bloated government unit (with up to 10 airmarshalls per plane); which has so far accomplished little or nothing, trying to justify its existence by bashing defenceless old ladies, and who has been instructed that should they every have to justify their actions, they should flee instead.

[Teddy Robinson]

Justifyiably or not, I would hope that my company would expatriate me by fair means or foul, enter the correct process after the media have had their day, and see what happens. The fate of peoples careers, as are the processes in international aviation law SHOULD be transparent, rather than made on the fly.
ICAO sign up states are supposedly adhering to the rules .. if those rules have been trangressed fine .. if company (and therefore state based) SOP's have been transgressed by a rogue state within ICAO the understanding should be that the transgressor is dealt with within home rules.
But if that state becomes increasingly marginalised because of their insular mindset ( in this case two) there will be a problem.

In short .. remove crew, assess facts, face music if required.

[Di_Vosh]

It also appears to contravene international law, surely they should only have one passport.....

Better study up on your international law then. EU citizens often have two passports (home country and EU). And as Con-Pilot mentioned, many people travelling on government business will have an "Official" passport in addition to their own.

Very interesting advice. So what you are saying is that should anyone ever be arrested abroad, then fleeing is the best alternative, regardless of whether or not you are guilty.

Probably some of the best advice to come out of this thread, IMHO! :ok:

[rick1128]

Many countries have policies that allow their citizens to hold 2 passports if their employment requires regular international travel. Getting Visas can be an extended process even with Visa expediters like G2.

[p51guy]

JMAN, yes I would recommend fleeing from Brazil if you have the opportunity. You will not get any justice there. They did the right thing along with our American pilots who were cleared on a collision course with a 737 did. The drunk judges wife could have caused a diversion to an unfamiliar airport for the pilots in Brazil which would have been a risk to the passengers. She needs to take responsibility for her misconduct and not expect her husband to retaliate for her. Just glad I'm not married to her. I feel sorry for him.

[Teddy Robinson]

we are a community of pilots here .. perhaps it is we make rather than defer to policy ? If the marshalls transgressed SOP.. then they are off duty pending their fate , at home., end of .. as I would expect to be. Called to account when required .. fine .. but it must be said things look less than right here

[Varig]

Lets try to make this as simple as possible:

1 - FAMS mission is to "... detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting the United States..." , act agains a drunk women and the fact that the CC knew who they were is strategicaly stupid.
2 - After this disrupt in flight the correct procedure should be a Landing in the nearest airport and disembark the passenger, not handcuff her until the destination airport
3 - Leave this passenger handcuffed for nearly 5 hours can be understood as a crime of torture, authority abuse, illegal consternation, private gaol, accordingly to Brazilian laws.
4 - If the airplane was 5 hours out of the arrival it was probably already over Brazilian airspace, over the amazon jungle maybe.

[alemaobaiano]

42... I did read it thanks, the immunity is not carte-blanche, as the following article makes clear.

Article 4: "A Contracting State which is not the State of registration may not
interfere with an aircraft in flight in order to exercise its criminal jurisdiction
over an offence committed on board except in the following cases:
(a) the offence has effect on the territory of such State;
(b) the offence has been committed by or against a national
or permanent resident of such State;[...]"

TTFN

[punkalouver]

Lets try to make this as simple as possible:

2 - After this disrupt in flight the correct procedure should be a Landing in the nearest airport and disembark the passenger, not handcuff her until the destination airport
3 - Leave this passenger handcuffed for nearly 5 hours can be understood as a crime of torture, authority abuse, illegal consternation, private gaol, accordingly to Brazilian laws.
4 - If the airplane was 5 hours out of the arrival it was probably already over Brazilian airspace, over the amazon jungle maybe.

Yeah right, lets land a widebody jet at the nearest Amazon airport to kick off some drunk. Oh sorry folks we are out of duty and there are no hotels around and the runway is too short anyways to get out of here with a load.

The inconsiderate A****le of a passenger got what she deserved. By the way, prisoners are routinely transferred for many hours on aircraft with handcuffs.

More like the corrupt, third world Brazilian system at work again. Just like in the midair collision case.

[GarageYears]

skyjet: I think getting to the moon was due mainly to german know-how.But no small amount of US $$$ and indeed blood, sweat and tears.

Back to the question in hand. Having lived in Brazil for 2 years previously and knowing how unfriendly Brazilian jails can be (not personally... fortunately - but I did have a friend who spent 10 weeks in jail... another story entirely) and having experienced the rampant corruption within the Brazilian justice system (local police and up) and indeed government generally (another story related to a $15M simulator, money deposited in a UK bank, and the reason I spent 2 years in Brazil... just for example) - I WOULD RUN AWAY TOO, given half a chance.

And to be clear - I loved every minute I spent in Brazil and would have no problem returning. You just have to understand the rules are different.

And I'm rather surprised that anyone thinks having more than one passport is unusual - my wife has 3, my kids and myself 2 each... triple and dual-nationality. And as others have noted, it is not unusual to have a diplomatic and personal passport, should you be employed in such a role.

- GY ;)

[blind pew]

Mugged twice in Rio.
Reported the second event, Brazilian Police excellent! Arrested three of them.

Flew with armed air marshals for nearly twenty years.

They were all in the state militia, serving police officers and specially trained.

Many stories about accidently discharging firearms including one where one accidently shot two First class passengers!

Train the crew how to deal with disruptive passengers and leave the cowboys at home!

Have seen enough brutality from Brit police!

[Graybeard]

From a friend and former FAM:

THIS OCCURED IN U.S. TERRITORY, AS THE U.S. FLAG CARRIER REMAINED US TERRITORY UNTIL THE END OF THE LANDING ROLL IN BRAZIL.

IT WAS US TERRITORY FROM THE MOMENT TAKEOFF POWER WAS APPLIED.

Sorry for the shout; it's his way.

GB

[Ex Cargo Clown]

THIS OCCURED IN U.S. TERRITORY, AS THE U.S. FLAG CARRIER REMAINED US TERRITORY UNTIL THE END OF THE LANDING ROLL IN BRAZIL.

IT WAS US TERRITORY FROM THE MOMENT TAKEOFF POWER WAS APPLIED.

I really hope nobody thinks that is the case :eek:

Just take the recent thread about the bloke on the Virgin 744 that diverted to Gander. He was a British national, on a British aircraft that is being tried by a Canadian court!

[DingerX]

With all due respect, Article 4 refers to state interference "with an aircraft in flight". Arresting FAMs after landing does not constitute such interference.

The "take-off roll" line is straight from the scope in Article 1:

Article 1 This Convention shall apply in respect of: offences against penal law; acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board. Except as provided in Chapter III, this Convention shall apply in respect of offences committed or acts done by a person on board any aircraft registered in a Contracting State, while that aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas or of any other area outside the territory of any State. For the purposes of this Convention, an aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take- off until the moment when the landing run ends. This Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services.

Article 3 establishes jurisdiction as belonging to the state of registration, but "does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law." In other words, if a state declares an act criminal irrespective of where it is committed, or specifically on aircraft, the Tokyo convention does not impede that the state exercise its jurisdiction there. So the Canadians can try someone for disrupting a London-Miami flight if their law permits it, irrespective of the Tokyo Convention.

On the other hand, Article 10 is pretty clear:

Article 10 For actions taken in accordance with this Convention, neither the aircraft commander, any other member of the crew, any passenger, the owner or operator of the aircraft, nor the person on whose behalf the flight was performed shall be held responsible in any proceeding on account of the treatment undergone by the person against whom the actions were taken.

So the Convention applies specifically in this case.
The only possible argument that could be used would be that the FAMs subjected the wife to "unreasonable restraint" (as Article 6 envisions "reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary"), and that appears to be the angle the judge was going for: treatment out of line with Article 6 means that Article 10 does not apply, and he can hold the FAMs responsible for beating his wife senseless.

In a fair court, it would be pretty difficult to make a persuasive case that the measures taken were unreasonable (even when in fact they were). The more sane line of argumentation here is that SOP for Air Marshals and their ilk in the event of being arrested overseas for actions taken while onboard is to leave the country and let the diplomats sort it out. Likewise, for the Brazilian government, allowing them to leave is a great face-saver. The judge gets to make a small stink, everyone gets a good swear at the Americans, and the whole embarassing incident is quietly dropped the next week without breaking any treaties or jailing anybody.

[alemaobaiano]

treatment out of line with Article 6 means that Article 10 does not apply, and he can hold the FAMs responsible for beating his wife senseless.

The judge that the FAMs appeared before was NOT the husband of this idiot, loudmouthed, woman :ugh:

When will people begin to understand that this guy IS NOT IMPORTANT! He is not a VIP, he's not Supreme Court, he's not the attorney general, he is simply what is known here as a Federal judge, a term that doesn't mean the same down here as it apparently does in other countries. Rio de Janeiro has around 250 Federal judges, São Paulo probably more, and every large city will have a significant number of them.

TTFN

[rick1128]

Please keep in mind a couple of facts. One is that the FAM's are sworn law enforcement officers. Second is that it is a US Federal Felony to interfere with a crew member in the performance of their duties. So if the FA requested assistance, they were obligated to act. As for leaving the woman handcuffed for 5 hours, remember she was combative to the point of biting one of the officers. She was a potential threat to the aircraft, the crew, the passengers and herself. So, the FAM's really didn't have any choice but to restrain the woman.

She got off easy. Normally when the US Marshals move prisoners, they are not only handcuffed, but also have a belly chain which the cuffs are attached to with a locked metal box over the cuffs and leg irons. And if they are really bad boys and girls, they are also strapped into a wooden chair with leather mittens over their hands and these mittens do not have a thumb. And with a plastic mask over their face and a nylon hood over their heads.

[grimmrad]

"She got off easy. Normally when the US Marshals move prisoners, they are not only handcuffed, but also have a belly chain which the cuffs are attached to with a locked metal box over the cuffs and leg irons. And if they are really bad boys and girls, they are also strapped into a wooden chair with leather mittens over their hands and these mittens do not have a thumb. And with a plastic mask over their face and a nylon hood over their heads."

Hannibal Lecter...?

[Daermon ATC]

Or Guantanamo... :rolleyes:

[Jabiman]

Original story:
During the flight, a female passenger who appeared to be intoxicated tried to serve herself drinks by going to the plane's galley, one source said. The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene, and two marshals approached the woman, who began struggling with them.

Rick1128 take on this incident:
So, the FAM's really didn't have any choice but to restrain the woman.

And yet on the Virgin Atlantic flight the crew were able to handle the drunken 44 year old male without assistance. Just makes you wonder if the FAMs are the solution or the problem.

[paulftw]

The answer is simple, what we should do is dress the FAM's in the carriers uniform, and then get them to serve the drinks, so they can determine who has had enough, who needs more G&T and who should be handcuffed for 5 hours! :ok: On another note, this women more than likely had a few in the lounge before departure, and then a few more on the plane, if she was heading down the wrong road, stop serving her drinks, water it down or put nothing in the coke or Tonic or what ever. AND if we put the FAM's in the ladys uniforms, I hope they shave there legs :yuk:

P

[rick1128]

Jabiman, neither of us were there for either incident. So we do not know the whole story. I don't know how it is where you are, but normally if you struggle with law enforcement officers, they tend to detain you in handcuffs. It does matter where you are located. If she had returned to her seat when asked by the FA or the FAMs, that would most likely have been the end of that. Airlines don't want to create problems with their passengers. But the instant she started to struggle and assaulted a FAM it became a whole different situation. And on your last quote you left out a very important point. The passenger posed a potential threat to the safety of the aircraft and everyone on board. That is an important thought to keep in mind.

[Jabiman]

rick1128,
I actually agree with what you are saying but the point that I am trying to make is not in regards to this issue but a much wider one:

Weapons do not belong on aircraft.

There is a lot of effort, cost and inconvenience to the travelling public imposed so as to keep weapons off the plane so why do we then send onto the aircraft exactly what a terrorist wants and needs?

Merchant shipping has rightly refused attempts to bring small arms onboard despite the much higher risk of pirate attack in some waters.

The FAMs are at best a gross waste of money and will probably never prevent terrorists taking over an aircraft. On the contrary, they make themselves a ripe target and heighten the danger of a hijacking by their very presence and the risk of being disarmed.

[PBL]

The situation appears to be the following.

A passenger on a US-registered airplane, and therefore on US territory, was held to be contravening US law, and was restrained against her will by US law enforcement agents who are empowered to do that.

She was escorted over the border (namely, down the airstairs or into the tube) by those agents, who are now outside their jurisdiction, and inside another.

Difficult situation, this. Had those agents, in enforcing US law, been thereby contravening Brazilian law? If so, then when on Brazilian territory they might expect the usual legal measures (detention, passport confiscation, etc). They might be wise not to step off the plane if they do not have complete understanding of the situation.

The way to solve such situations is to have resolution agreements in place between the two countries (US and Brazil). If there are no such agreements, then law enforcement agents who have exercised their responsibilities on board a US airplane (and therefore within their jurisdiction) are probably well advised to stay there!

An interesting question is whether you, as such a marshal, take the restrained person back with you to be arraigned by a court? As a human matter, it probably works out best to let them free providing they go down the airstairs (don't push, no matter how tempting!).

Let's think how this works out in general.

Pick your favorite rogue state, XXYY. Say it has a law that chewing gum is forbidden, punishable by a immediate death. Say you get on XXYY airlines and start chewing gum; and enforcement agents come up, and "terminate" you. And say this becomes known instantly, through a passenger who blogs for a global news agency. We may assume the world is outraged. Say the airplane lands in country ZZZ. The enforcement agents are well advised to stay on board, and fly back to XXYY. But what if ZZZ has a law that says that anyone on board an airplane which lands in ZZZ may not have killed, on penalty of death? Are ZZZ enforcement agents entitled to go on board and try to arrest the XXYY enforcement agents?

You figure it out. There ain't a clean legal solution, although there might be a clean moral one (for ZZZ, and maybe an opposite clean moral one for XXYY).

PBL

[protectthehornet]

better a night in peoria than a night in a brazillian jail

[aterpster]

PBL:


The way to solve such situations is to have resolution agreements in place between the two countries (US and Brazil). If there are no such agreements, then law enforcement agents who have exercised their responsibilities on board a US airplane (and therefore within their jurisdiction) are probably well advised to stay there!

An air carrier aircraft is not an embassy. Once on the ground it certainly was not in any way United States territory. I question that concept even when airborne within another state's airspace.

[PBL]

An air carrier aircraft is not an embassy. Once on the ground it certainly was not in any way United States territory. I question that concept even when airborne within another state's airspace.

On those three assertions I think you're right; wrong; wrong. Here is the quickest reference I could find: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/nr/1962/pio196214_e.pdf

Here is another: http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/airterr.pdf

So, what's the right answer here? Can some legleegl help?

PBL

[DingerX]

I'm not a leeglegle.

Well, PBL, the first document is a 1962 newsletter announcing the development of a treaty. The second is a summary of the 1963 Tokyo Convention's import and history (and I was citing from the letter of the text).
The Law School at the University of British Columbia have put the Tokyo Convention online, and Google's
cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Site%2520Map/compendium/Compendium/Instruments/Universal%2520Conventions%2520%28Terrorism%29/Tokyo%2520Convention%25201963.doc) makes it available in a handy URL.

I'm assuming that the Rome newsletter is talking about what became the Tokyo Convention.

I'm no lawyer, but the convention is clear: Jurisdiction applies from the application of take-off power to the end of the landing roll, and the Commander's authority to enforce the powers of the Convention applies from when the doors are closed until when the doors are opened.

Chapter II covers Jurisdiction, and limits the cases where a state may "interfere with an aircraft in flight to exercise jurisdiction over an offence committed on board". The key is "in flight". Even then, there are significant exceptions that limit the cases.

For example, let's assume (for the sake of a thought experiment) there were Brazilian counterparts to the FAMs on the flight as well. And let's assume too, that the two uncovered FAMs really were beating the Judge's wife senseless. Now, the Brazilian "marshals" can invoke 4b, alleging that assaulting the woman constitutes an offense against a Brazilian national, and attempt to arrest the FAMs. At that point, things become interesting.

The scope of the treaty is purely for "offences on board" and solely to sort out the grounds on which each party can interfere. It says nothing about, for example, states interfering with flights with regards to offence committed elsewhere, nor does it limit or extend states' general claims to jurisdiction (article 3, paragraph 3 makes it clear that the jurisdiction granted is non-exclusive -- all parties agree that the State of registration can exercise jurisdiction, but that does not mean others can't as well. So a departing foreign-flagged aircraft with, say, a grinning foreign-passported bankrobber sitting on a carryon full of $100 bills can still be forced back).

The "Jurisdictional gap" mentioned in the summary of the Tokyo Convention is contained in Article 9 paragraph 1: the commander delivers to the local authorities anyone believed of committing an offence against the state of registration. So, if the local laws covering those offences do not exist, or do not envision jurisdiction over them when committed on foreign soil or aircraft, and the case is too minor to warrant extradiction, then the local authorities really can't do much with the prisoner.

What all this boils down to: if the local authorities decide that an act committed anywhere in the world constitutes a crime to their state, they can and will detain the suspects, and they have the authority and jurisdiction to board aircraft at their airports to do so. They can also exercise any number of exceptions to the Tokyo Convention to intervene on board aircraft in flight, or to force aircraft in flight to go where they weren't planning to go. At that point, how far they go is limited more by diplomacy and possibly treaties other than the Tokyo Convention.

[PBL]

This thread started off talking about the authority and behavior of Air Marshalls, and there were some interesting - and different - interpretations of the treaties governing it. DingerX has just provided some useful information, and I was well on my way to learning something.

Then the thread was hijacked.

Please let's return here to the topic of legal jurisdictions and enforcement efforts on airplanes flying internationally.

If others want to talk about something else, then they are very welcome to start a new thread about it.

PBL

[RJMII]

I have yet to see one thing in the Brazilian media about this situation. But censuring the press, especially when high ranking officials or their families are involved is par for the course in this country.

Unfortunately, judges, their families, politicians, and people with money act with impunity in this country and believe they can do so anywhere. When a law enforcement official has the "audacity" to hold them to the same letter of the law as everyone else they are appalled, and this is far from the first case of this in Brazil. It happens on a daily basis, hence the familiar statement here of," voce sabe com quem voce esta falando?" Do you know who you are talking to?

In Brazil we have a saying, "For those I don't know nothing, for my friends everything, and for my enemies the law!"

[Evanelpus]

I wonder if we would have 6 pages of comments had the woman not been related to a Brazilian judge!

[Jabiman]

I wonder if we would have 6 pages of comments had the woman not been related to a Brazilian judge!
Regardless of that, there would have been no comments if glorified security guards were not given free licence aboard aircraft. We now have the ludicrous situation that during their brief history, the number of Air Marshals arrested is greater than the number of arrests that the Air Marshals have made. And at what cost to the suffering tax payer?
Following quote from this website: Duncan Blasts "Useless" Air Marshal Service | Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr.: Serving Tennessee's 2nd District (http://duncan.house.gov/2009/06/22062009.shtml)

We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest.

[Machaca]

spending approximately $200 million per arrest


...or about $65 per flight.