U.S. air marshals flee Brazil

[W5]

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)


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
•Janet Napolitano
•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.

[crazy_aviator]

Can you say stinking rotten 3rd world CORRUPTION,,,,, coming to a nation near you !!!

[2R]

I am no expert but i think i could judge brazillians, although there are probably far more qualified persons on this site able to judge brazillians.
How much does a Brazillian Judge get paid ?
Does it require any special training or would an on-line course satisfy the requirents to become a good judge of brazillians.
How many bare asses does one have to inspect before becoming a qualified Brazilian Judge ?
Maybe Steven Colbert would know?

[Brewguy]

Yet another great example of how the US feels their whims (laws, or whatever) should prevail the world over; while completely disrespecting / ignoring the sovereignty and rule of law in other nations.

If a foreign law enforcement person was arrested and charged while in the US, and then fled the country, all hell would break loose. Yet a US law enforcement person feels they have every right to high tail it back home and damn the consequences. Their behaviour is shameful!

[Expat]

+1

[sakism]

Yet another great example of how the US feels their whims (laws, or whatever) should prevail the world over; while completely disrespecting / ignoring the sovereignty and rule of law in other nations.

If a foreign law enforcement person was arrested and charged while in the US, and then fled the country, all hell would break loose. Yet a US law enforcement person feels they have every right to high tail it back home and damn the consequences. Their behaviour is shameful!

Sorry, but that is a very naive take on the situation. If arrested in the US, regardless of the circumstances or legitimacy of the charges, one could expect to receive a certain level of protection and advocacy on their behalf.

Unfortunately the whole world does not operate on a level playing field. I do not have intimate knowledge of Brazil's legal system, and neither would the Marshalls. South America in general is not known for strict adherence to law, unaffected by outside influences such as graft and nopotism. They were faced with a situation where they did their job and were facing trumped up charges as a result - not the most auspicious beginning to the situation.

You then expect them to meekly await their fate. No way. I commend them on getting the hell out.

As an added note - Air Marshalls or not, as the captain of an aircraft I have the authority to restrain a disruptive passenger if necessary for the safety of the flight. I also expect that authorities on the ground will support me when I land - not throw me in jail.

[teacher]

After what happened to the Legacey crew I don't blame them for leaving and FAST! What are the legalities of this? When on an airplane is the air marshal bound by the laws of country that the aircraft is registered under or the destination?

[mike123]

Yet a US law enforcement person feels they have every right to high tail it back home and damn the consequences. Their behaviour is shameful!

There is nothing shameful in avoiding being judged by kangaroo court in a corrupt third-world country.

As for that bitch - she should be put on a no-fly list.

[jpilot77]

+

[Brewguy]

If you're not going to respect the laws of another sovereign nation, stay home.

It is the decision of the US to put their law enforcement people on these aircraft. If they don't want to have official dealings with Brazil, recall your ambassador and keep your government agents at home.

A commercial aircraft is not the same as a state aircraft or a warship, it's not a small piece of your own country that comes along with you. You can't fly to another country and turn around and say, well I was on a US aircraft so your laws don't count. If you believe the place to be 'corrupt', '3rd world' or whatever other label you want to give it, don't bother going there.

[Living 5500ASL]

As far as I'm concerned none of us were there so none of us has anything to say on this one.

[sakism]

If you're not going to respect the laws of another sovereign nation, stay home.

It is the decision of the US to put their law enforcement people on these aircraft. If they don't want to have official dealings with Brazil, recall your ambassador and keep your government agents at home.

A commercial aircraft is not the same as a state aircraft or a warship, it's not a small piece of your own country that comes along with you. You can't fly to another country and turn around and say, well I was on a US aircraft so your laws don't count. If you believe the place to be 'corrupt', '3rd world' or whatever other label you want to give it, don't bother going there.

Exactly what Brazilian law did these Marshalls contravene? Are you telling me that it is illegal to restrain an air passenger in Brazil?

The issue is not that they broke a Brazilian law - it is exactly the opposite. They were arrested without regard to the law of the United States (where the flight originated), Brazil (where the flight concluded), whatever airspace they were occupying when the incident took place, or of ICAO initiatives. Brazil is a member state.

From ICAO's website:

All of ICAO’s initiatives in the field of aviation security rely, both globally and regionally, on cooperation amongst States and all other stakeholders. The overarching goal is to enhance global security by implementing uniform security measures around the world, a goal that cannot be achieved without an unswerving commitment by all concerned.

We all know that the US has a habit of forcing themselves and their beliefs on the rest of the world - that does not, however, make them wrong in all instances. This is one instance where they did, and have done, no wrong. Airplane crews must have support on the ground for dealing with security and safety issues.

[jpilot77]

If this happened on board a Canadian carrier what would have been the difference? The crew would have allowed her to grab drinks off the cart? They would have looked the other way?

[SuperchargedRS]

So air marshals only follow the laws when it is convenient for them.



So, if I get in trouble in Canada and decide I dont like the court system and skip bail and go on the run, you guys would condone my actions=-[8???

[sakism]

So air marshals only follow the laws when it is convenient for them.

So, if I get in trouble in Canada and decide I dont like the court system and skip bail and go on the run, you guys would condone my actions???

Again, missing the point.

They did not break any laws. Of anywhere. And they were arrested regardless.

Yet you ask them to then trust the system that arrested in the first place.

Would your opinion change had it been the pilots who restrained the passenger?
What if it was a non-American flight?

[nacho]

Ther was a court order for them to stay in the country , if they were under arrest they would still be there.

The point here isn't if they did wrong or not on the incident aboard the plane , they completely disregarded another country law by fleeing .

It could have been solved by diplomats and not just by their own decision .
Just imagine the other way around.

It seems to me that by calling Brazil a 3rd world country some here are ok with US officials disregarding a court order.

Then it is Ok, as someone else said, for them to come here and do as they please.

[mike123]

I see hatred of the U.S. is strong on this forum ....

It seems to me that by calling Brazil a 3rd world country some here are ok with US officials disregarding a court order.

Absolutely. I bet you also wouldn't want to spend time in jail in a country where police sometimes kill suspects without trial ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4463010.stm ) because drunk wife of some big honcho though she was above the law.

[nacho]

There is no hatred.
It has to be taken how it is, no one can go disregarding a foreign country court order.

I for sure wouldn't want to see soemthing like this here in Canada.
Is calling ourselves better than the rest, what creates the differences that bring countries into war.
Of course this is and issue that will be resolved at the diplomatic level for sure, there is a lot more at stake than these two guys.
I, for sure, wouldn't want to spend any amount of time in any jail of any country. But woudn't also consider myself above the law.
They tell me to stay, I stay.
Wouldn't want to be lablelled a threat to security and be in jail south of the border, big brother has a lot more power now.

[short bus]

What a bunch of BS. these guys get arrested/court order/whatever for doing their job as air marshalls, subdoing someone causing trouble on the plane and are then the ones in trouble because of the "status" of said person causing problems? and some of you think they shouldn't have left if they had the chance? i sure as hell would have, that situation sounds ridiculous. All of you saying they did the wrong thing would have bailed at the first chance just like they did if you were in their shoes. and if you did stay, having done NOTHING wrong, then you're a moron.

[sakism]

Thank goodness not everyone throughout history has been so afraid to stand up to unjust actions by a government.

What was that famous defense at Nuremburg?

I was just following orders.

[crazy_aviator]

Nacho, if you were in iraq 15 yrs ago and saddam detained you because you arrested his brother,,,what would YOU do ? kiss his arse and trust in HIS legal system? Are you NUTS man ?

[crazy_aviator]

Wasnt the first Iraq incursion in 1990 ? Boy does time fly !!

[nacho]

C'mon guys,

Whatever happened to being entitled to an opinion without the name calling ?
And please do not assume what my course of action would have been, you don’t even know me.
Now comparing Brazil to Irak is a bit too much, wouldn't you say?

I just hope all of these opinions come from knowledge of the country.
And do you really think these two guys were facing death penalty or execution ?
I believe Brazil's democracy has the same flaws we see in "first world 'countries. Yes there is corruption but are we really free of that around here ? We might see less of that around here but..
Cops using their tazers left and right is one example that comes in mind. Yes over there you might get shot at but the point is, at least in my mind, you go visit a country and respect their laws or stay home.
And I am not saying the marshall did right or wrong on the plane, that wasn't my point.
You get a court citation, you attend , period.
Fleeing just sent the wrong message, like they give a rats ass about the law.
You lead by example.

[Sultan]

As I have been to Brazil on many occasions and witnessed the BS that goes on there, I would have done the same. I wouldn't give a rats arse what message I was sending if my life was in the hands of a corrupt legal system. Period.

[nacho]

Your opinion, everyone has one .
That was my point too.
No need to get bent out of shape if we see or hear something we disagree with,