Two Federal Air Marshals escape Brazil after in-flight assault charge

[medhead]

It's not blind faith in the air marshal it about the fact that the captain of the aircraft is responsible of order in board and safety and can call on the assistance of anyone. (most likely as that is how this type of legislation is usually drafted)
As for the question about what would happen if they refused to help. I'd guess that the law doesn't allow people to refuse to a request for assistance.

 

[samh004]

While not really wanting to get into it…

I'm really not sure how this clarifies issues. You are still assuming that their intervention was not over-zealous, that their handcuffing of her was a reasonable response, and that the fact that the Brazilian authorities took a different view of the situation stemmed wholly and solely from their corruption.

Regardless of if they were over zealous or not, their job on flights is to maintain order, and take orders from the person in command of the aircraft, they did so. There was a story on here only the other day about a man being handcuffed by the FA’s on route to Singapore before being arrested.

They did their job, it doesn’t matter if she didn’t really need the handcuffs, once you get unruly on a plane it’s hard to take things back and I’m sure if anyone noticed the commotion they’d feel safer knowing the person was cuffed than free to drink some more

Only one criminal offence is clear beyond doubt in this story - and that is the offence committed by the marshals in absconding. Why commit a crime to leave the scene when you supposedly have the protection of law and the US govt behind you?

The thing about that is, they could be there for months while things go on in the background. Thrown in an awful jail, treated badly, all the while the law does it’s thing.

Regardless of whether they’re innocent and can prove it, spending time in a foreign country, stuck there, no job, and not knowing when they’ll be able to leave is not a good situation to be in. Protection can mean very little when there are bigger issues on the table and they have leverage… but of course, I’m sure they wouldn’t be pulling dirty tricks like that and I’m sure the marshals would have been free within a day had they stuck around

I guess we’ll never know, but I’m not so naive that I think they’d be better off had they stayed put.

 

[drron]

I'm really not sure how this clarifies issues. You are still assuming that their intervention was not over-zealous, that their handcuffing of her was a reasonable response, and that the fact that the Brazilian authorities took a different view of the situation stemmed wholly and solely from their corruption. Rather a big leap of faith in my book. You can't fill all the gaps in this story by simply saying, "Oh yes, but the crew asked them to intervene," so they must have acted appropriately when they did.

Only one criminal offence is clear beyond doubt in this story - and that is the offence committed by the marshals in absconding. Why commit a crime to leave the scene when you supposedly have the protection of law and the US govt behind you? As to whether the woman committed a crime, that much is in dispute - and I don't have all that much faith in the word of marshals who by their own admission committed a crime in preference to having their actions scrutinised. Why overlook that? Because the word of an air marshal is more reliable than that of a Brazilian? Or because it's safe to assume that they'd never get a fair hearing amongst such lawless barbarians?

I'm sorry Egg but you are letting your prejudices show and make assumptions as does the reporter.There is no evidence that the marshalls had been before a court and had an order made that they were not to leave the country.So they used a legal travel document to leave Brazil-I do think it is safe to assume that the alternative documents were legal as would have been issued by the US government.
As to your feisty Brazilian i dont think there is much doubt that she disobeyed a directive of airline crew.Whether the request you think is reasonable or not disobeying is a crime.
Then you seem to have ignored this part of the story-
" Arresting the marshals violates the Tokyo Convention - which allows aircraft operators on international flights to restrain passengers "who are committing or about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who are jeopardising good order and discipline"."
The incident occurred on a US plane.Did the Brazilian police have the right then to confiscate the travel documents and detain the air Marshalls.Though obviously when they left Brazil they were not being detained.
So take your own advice and stop making assumptions.

 

[Egg]

I'm sorry Egg but you are letting your prejudices show and make assumptions as does the reporter.

I don't have any prejudices about this issue. And I have no beef with air marshals. I fully concede that she might well have been in the wrong and that the marshals might have acted appropriately. My only beef is that I'm not sure that people are entitled to assume that when they do not know the whole story. What concerns me is that that attitude is born out of prejudice. If this happened in Australia, people would probably think, "Well the Australian authorities wouldn't do that without reason - maybe there is more to this story," but because this happened in Brazil, everyone assumes that those dodgey Brazilians were looking for revenge. That smacks of prejudice.

Then you seem to have ignored this part of the story-
" Arresting the marshals violates the Tokyo Convention - which allows aircraft operators on international flights to restrain passengers "who are committing or about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who are jeopardising good order and discipline"."

That part of the story just confirms that the reporter already made up his mind as to what happened. The marshals are not entitled to the protection of a treaty if they acted in contravention of their duty. This doesn't given them immunity to do whatever they want. They can't very well turn up to Sydney Airport and say, "Hi there I'm an air marshal and by the way I just shot a passenger on my flight over. I'll be on my way now. Tata." I think the point is that it is not unreasonable to think that the Brazilians asked them to stay so that they could investigate exactly what transpired and whether the marshals acted in accordance with their function.

The incident occurred on a US plane.Did the Brazilian police have the right then to confiscate the travel documents and detain the air Marshalls.Though obviously when they left Brazil they were not being detained.
So take your own advice and stop making assumptions.

What difference does it make who owned the plane? They were in Brazil and subject to its laws. I don't think it is a wild assumption to think that the Brazilian authorities were acting in accordance with Brazilian laws. You seem to think that it is equally plausible that they just made up the rules as they went along. Do you assume that Australian Federal Police do that?

Brazil has its problems with crime and corruption, as do alot of countries, but it's not Somalia as people seem to assume. It's a country of 190 million people and the 8th biggest economy in the world. I dont think it's particularly fair to assume that everyone of them is a lying criminal.

 

[drron]

What difference does it make who owned the plane? They were in Brazil and subject to its laws. I don't think it is a wild assumption to think that the Brazilian authorities were acting in accordance with Brazilian laws. You seem to think that it is equally plausible that they just made up the rules as they went along. Do you assume that Australian Federal Police do that?

A very big difference.read the Tokyo convention.
"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."
As this occurred on a Continental plane the incident occurred under the jurisdiction of the USA not Brazil.
And Article 10-
"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. "
But there is speculation that leaving the country was not a decision taken just by the FAMs but that 1 or possibly 2 governments were involved.As well the FAMs could well have been aware of this precedent-
2 U.S. Pilots Still Held in Brazil as Air Collision Inquiry Plods On - NYTimes.com
"
The two pilots of an American-owned executive jet that collided with a Brazilian airliner over the Amazon jungle two months ago are still being kept in the country by Brazilian authorities, even though a growing pile of reports by Brazilian and international investigators indicate that they made no error contributing to the crash."

 

[Egg]

What you're saying is, "Well they didn't need to hang around because they had a defence to any charge." That's like saying, I didn't bother turning up to my murder trial because I knew I'd be acquitted with my defence of insanity.

Invoking the treaty might constitute a defence to a charge of assault, but the point is that the fact that a defence might exist does not meant that an investigation should never take place. The real question is whether the circumstances of the incident entitled them to protection of the treaty and I think that is worthy of investigation.

And moreover, if your point is that it is irrelevant whether or not they used excessive force because either way, they are protected by the treaty, I don't see how that means their conduct was vindicated and she was in the wrong. My point is not to engage in a dissection of the possible legal defences that air marshals might deploy - i am simply saying that maybe the facts of the matter are not so black and white.

And in any event, unless you are a lawyer specialising in international law, you will forgive me if I don't just accept your interpretation of an excerpt of the Tokyo Convention - not that it's relevant to my original point anyway.

If I end up being assaulted one day by an unscrupulous air marshal, I would like to think that upon arrival back home in Australia, my complaints to my government might be heeded. It's pretty clear that I won't get much sympathy round this way tho!!!

As for the American pilots who were detained, pretty big difference I'd say!!! I assume that was in relation to the crash with the GOL plane in which 150 people were killed!! Why wouldn't they detain the pilots until the investigation concluded, particularly given that, from memory, it transpired that the US plane did not have its TCAS on at the time of the accident (it had been accidentally disengaged by the pilot as it turned out)? Respectfully, i don't think that falls into the same category as the incident we're discussing.

 

[drron]

"As for the American pilots who were detained, pretty big difference I'd say!!! I assume that was in relation to the crash with the GOL plane in which 150 people were killed!! Why wouldn't they detain the pilots until the investigation concluded, particularly given that, from memory, it transpired that the US plane did not have its TCAS on at the time of the accident (it had been accidentally disengaged by the pilot as it turned out)? Respectfully, i don't think that falls into the same category as the incident we're discussing"
The proceedure in that investigation is very relevant to the current case.The Brazilian investigators did not question the ATCs involved until 2 months after the crash-surely should have been amongst the first things done and the US pilots story would have been confirmed.Similiarly in this case if the Brazilian police talked to the crew things could have been resolved quickly.And where is there any evidence that excessive force was used-surely that could have been ascertained quickly.
Also you are obviously assuming that the FAMs acted on their own initiative leaving Brazil.I would think there was a better than even chance that they at least contacted their supervisor before doing this.
"What you're saying is, "Well they didn't need to hang around because they had a defence to any charge." That's like saying, I didn't bother turning up to my murder trial because I knew I'd be acquitted with my defence of insanity."
And you accuse me of bringing in irrelevant arguments!

 

[Egg]

Once again, you jump to conclusions about what did and should have happened. You have determined that the Brazilians' investigation of an air crash was faulty when you know nothing about it apart from this early American article saying that they were slow to interview the traffic controllers - even in circumstances where a reason for it was given.

The whole premise of this article was that they were being held "even though a growing pile of reports by Brazilian and international investigators indicate that they made no error contributing to the crash." Well that turned out to be wrong: it was ultimately found that the pilots did err by accidentally disengaging the TCAS. I think history vindicated the investigators on that point. The "growing pile of reports" turned out to be wrong.

I think it is far from clear that their investigation was faulty, and in any event, they were trying to get to the bottom of the death of 150 people. If the pilots involved had to hang around for a couple of months while that took place then so be it. I'm not sure Americans are in any position to lecture others about detaining people without charging them by the way.

Your point seems to be that the air marshals were acting legally when absconding on alternative documents. I dont share your confidence. I dont think it is up to the air marshals to decide whether or not they have broken any of Brazil's laws.

So having determined that the Brazilians conducted a dodgey plane crash investigation on your rather flimsy knowledge of the ins and outs of that case, you then make this determination on this case:

Similiarly in this case if the Brazilian police talked to the crew things could have been resolved quickly.

How do you know just what the Brazilian police did in this case? And how do you know that the crew did not corroborate the woman's account? You say the facts could have been ascertained quickly. How do you know that they were not? Perhaps they were and that's precisely why the marshals' documents were taken.

In a nutshell, all i am saying is that maybe the rights and wrongs of this case might not be so clear-cut because we haven't heard both sides of the story. In response you say the marshals were protected by a treaty which you cannot know because you don't know the allegations made against them; that they acted legally in leaving Brazil which you do not know because you don't know on what basis their documents were confiscated; and that in any event that they acted reasonably in leaving because some pilots were detained for a couple of months a few years back during an investigation into the death of alot of people, when you have no detailed knowledge whatever about the circumstances of that investigation.

Maybe you're right - but it's an exercise in acrobatic logic to get there.

 

[serfty]

... but it's an exercise in acrobatic logic to get there.

So is this thread becoming - I've switched off long ago ... :-|

 

[Egg]

So is this thread becoming - I've switched off long ago ... :-|

Why participate in a thread that doesn't interest you just to announce your lack of interest? I stop reading threads that don't interest me but I'm happy for others to bang on about whatever they want to.

 

[medhead]

Why participate in a thread that doesn't interest you just to announce your lack of interest? I stop reading threads that don't interest me but I'm happy for others to bang on about whatever they want to.

Well I guest as a moderator there is a need to read all threads no matter how boring they may seem.

I think that you are missing a major point. The treaty that applies to responsibilities of air marshals is irrelevant as they assistance was requested under a totally different treaty. (i didnt realise this at first) So there can be no question of them overstepping the authority of their role.

Further they acted within US jurisdiction so there is no role of the brazilian authorities at all. There is no need to present a defense to brazil as the event occurred outside of brazil's authority.

 

[Egg]

I guess you have a point. Sorry for boring you serfty. Who knew moderators were such a tough crowd?

As to the other point, you may well be right. To be honest, I doubt that any of us here can state with authority the legal position under treaties or the laws of Brazil given that our knowledge of these matters are probably less than complete. And anyway, who knows what the discrete arguments involved could be? If an air marshal inappropriately drags you through a Brazilian airport in handcuffs without due cause, is that an assault on Brazilian soil?

But this is all such a digression from my one and only point. There was a confrontation on a plane between a Brazilian judge's wife and some air marshals. The comments in this thread basically assumed that she was in the wrong, that the air marshals acted honourably, and that the Brazilian authorities were motivated by malice/corruption. I think they were most unfair conclusions to draw from that article given its lack of balance.

And if the legal position really is as cut and dry as you suggest, why flee the scene? There's an old legal presumption that evidence of flight is evidence of guilt. I'm not sure it's such an easy aspect of the matter to dismiss.

It just occurs to me that if this story came out of Australia, it would have provoked an entirely different reaction from people. I happen to know a few of Brazilians - they're not all criminals.

 

[Moody]

...But this is all such a digression from my one and only point. There was a confrontation on a plane between a Brazilian judge's wife and some air marshals. The comments in this thread basically assumed that she was in the wrong, that the air marshals acted honourably, and that the Brazilian authorities were motivated by malice/corruption. I think they were most unfair conclusions to draw from that article given its lack of balance.

And if the legal position really is as cut and dry as you suggest, why flee the scene? There's an old legal presumption that evidence of flight is evidence of guilt. I'm not sure it's such an easy aspect of the matter to dismiss.

It just occurs to me that if this story came out of Australia, it would have provoked an entirely different reaction from people. I happen to know a few of Brazilians - they're not all criminals.

Egg - every society is racist, and Australia is more racist than the average. Every administration is corrupt, and Brazil is more corrupt than the average. I don't think either of these points is very illuminating or interesting for that matter.

Also the media is full of lazy liars, so it pays to have a healthy measure of skepticism.

But all of the available evidence seems to corroborate that the marshals were asked to render assistance in controlling an unruly passenger. Certainly there have been zero passenger reports that she was roughed up, and in this day and age it is unusual for no dissenting opinion to be offered to the media. And yet with all that, she was able to get the marshalls charged, a hearing date for them set, and their passports confiscated.

If I was one of those marshals and had alternative documents to enable me to leave the country, then would I???? YOU BET!!!!!

Apparently you wouldn't, and it's really nice to hear from an idealist who is willing to put their faith in the Brazillian justice system. Not many would.

 

[serfty]

Why participate in a thread that doesn't interest you just to announce your lack of interest? I stop reading threads that don't interest me but I'm happy for others to bang on about whatever they want to.

Apologies.

However, the more recent posts in this thread discussing what should be a basic topic are simply rehashing the same or similar discussion points, going around in circles, as it were.

I came to the conclusion that you have your point of view and, you are entitled to it. My POV differs from yours but I see no point in posting it as similar viewpoints have already been posted.

 

[drron]

Well Egg I didn't say that the Brazilians conducted a dodgy investigation but they could have ascertained the facts quicker and not detain the US pilots as long.Brazil and the US do have an extradition treaty so if something had come out later in the investigation suggesting the pilots were guilty of a criminal offence the Brazilians had legal avenues to get them back.
Second the woman committed a felony-disregarding the directive of airline crew winhen under US jurisdiction is considered this.The only way she did not commit a crime is if she wasn't on the CO plane.the evidence does not support this.
And why couldn't the FAMs handcuff her-the fellow taken off a QF flight in HKG recently had plastic restraints in place-so you consider the QF FAs committed an illegal act.Sorry it is happening very frequently around the world.The stories are all consistent-airline crew asked the FAMs for help.I see no suggestion that backs up your possible scenario that they acted illegally on the plane by arresting her.Certainly they are not allowed to use excessive force but once again if evidence came up that they did then there are legal avenues open to the Brazilian authorities.My guess is though that they are glad the FAMs have gone.
And certainly where have I suggested any Brazilians are criminals.I would suggest to you that not all US FAMs are criminals either.It does appear that you feel some of us are guilty of predujice-in your words-
" My only beef is that I'm not sure that people are entitled to assume that when they do not know the whole story. What concerns me is that that attitude is born out of prejudice"
But from my reading you seem to have an anti US bias.This may not be true but it certainly is my feeling.The US authorities are quoted as saying the FAMs acted legally.So it is not just an assumption of mine.

 

[Egg]

Well i accept what serfty says, so i won't bang on about the corroboration issue again.

Slightly off the point tho, I'm not sure i should have more faith in air marshals than i do in Brazilian justice. According to the article i posted a few rants ago, more than 3 dozen have have been convicted of criminal offences and hundreds have been cited for misconduct, which sounded kinda bad... until i read that there's only 4,000 of them!!! That's a fairly high "bad egg" rate. How much mischief can you get up to while sitting in J watching movies (and monitoring the bar)??

 

[samh004]

How much mischief can you get up to while sitting in J watching movies (and monitoring the bar)??

Smuggling drugs is the big one I think, as they have "immunity" and are respected and can probably bypass certain areas when they arrive. Eventually the money isn’t good enough.

 

[Egg]

The US authorities are quoted as saying the FAMs acted legally.So it is not just an assumption of mine.

The US says they believe the marshals acted within the treaty whilst on the plane. I haven't seen them state that it was legal for them to have fled. The Brazilians have a different take on the whole issue and I don't consider their position less credible than the Americans', particularly as the witnesses and the complainant were all in Brazil after the incident, not the US:

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

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 marshals' addresses.

It's not me who has come up with this notion that the air marshals broke the law - which appears to offend you so much. It is the Brazilian authorities who have. They were brought before a Federal court judge and charged. Your bush lawyer analysis of extradition treaties and terrorist conventions dont convince me that the Brazilians are wrong plain wrong. And i think that is the difference in this case - you mentioned other examples of people being restrained on aircraft, but in none of those cases did the authorities on the ground determine that the passenger was illegally treated. That's a pretty big difference IMHO.

I don't hate Americans but I dont accept that they are always right. Is that really a matter that's up for debate? I'm not sure that that makes me a racist. But ambivalent as I may be towards America, if i heard a story about US authorities arresting Brazilian air marshals in Washington after they allegedly manhandled a Supreme Court justice's wife, I wouldnt simply assume that they arrested them without proper cause.

I dont quite understand how wanting to hear both sides of a story before making my mind up makes me prejudiced.

 

[Happy Trails]

"Every administration is corrupt"


I'm sure that AFF admin is an honourable exception.

 

[straitman]

I dont quite understand how wanting to hear both sides of a story before making my mind up makes me prejudiced.

Egg,

I have to agree with serfty on this one. The points both ways have been made time and again.

Some here are willing to give the Air Marshalls the benefit of the doubt and believe they were merely doing their jobs and others, including yourself, believe they have overstepped the mark.

IMHO it is probably time for some people here to agree to disagree.