U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace
Earl Evleth
Names of 2 passengers appear on 'no-fly' terrorist list
Sunday, April 10, 2005 Posted: 2:21 PM EDT (1821 GMT)
(CNN) -- U.S. authorities refused to allow a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 747 to
fly over the United States, officials said Sunday.
Flight 685 from Amsterdam to Mexico City was denied permission to fly south
across the Canada-U.S. border on Friday because the names of two passengers
aboard were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list, KLM spokesman
Bart Koster said.
The flight, carrying 278 passengers, returned to Amsterdam, Koster said. He
told The Associated Press that on Saturday, a flight without the two listed
passengers departed Amsterdam and arrived in Mexico City.
"I hope this was a once-in-a-lifetime incident," Koster said. "It's, of
course, very frustrating for passengers and crew to be more than 10, 11
hours in the air, to come back where you departed."
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI decided to bar the flight
because of security concerns involving certain passengers, said
Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Andrea McCauley. She
would not elaborate.
U.S. anti-terrorism laws require airlines to provide passenger manifests to
the U.S. government before their planes enter U.S. airspace.
Koster said the two listed passengers -- who he said were not Dutch citizens
-- returned to their home countries. Citing privacy concerns, Koster
wouldn't disclose any other information about the two passengers.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Earl Evleth wrote:
> U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace
>
> Names of 2 passengers appear on 'no-fly' terrorist list
>
> Sunday, April 10, 2005 Posted: 2:21 PM EDT (1821 GMT)
>
>
>
> (CNN) -- U.S. authorities refused to allow a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 747 to
> fly over the United States, officials said Sunday.
>
> Flight 685 from Amsterdam to Mexico City was denied permission to fly south
> across the Canada-U.S. border on Friday because the names of two passengers
> aboard were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list, KLM spokesman
> Bart Koster said.
But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the
origin and destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.?
What jurisdiction does our government have over either
Dutch or Mexican authorities?
Gregory Morrow
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> > U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace
> >
> > Names of 2 passengers appear on 'no-fly' terrorist list
> >
> > Sunday, April 10, 2005 Posted: 2:21 PM EDT (1821 GMT)
> >
> >
> >
> > (CNN) -- U.S. authorities refused to allow a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
747 to
> > fly over the United States, officials said Sunday.
> >
> > Flight 685 from Amsterdam to Mexico City was denied permission to fly
south
> > across the Canada-U.S. border on Friday because the names of two
passengers
> > aboard were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list, KLM
spokesman
> > Bart Koster said.
>
> But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the
> origin and destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.?
The US and other governments routinely share passenger manifests. This is
true even if the flight is simply over - flying US airspace.
> What jurisdiction does our government have over either
> Dutch or Mexican authorities?
It doesn't - but the flight was going to overfly US airspace, which we *do*
control.
I'm glad this happened - apparently someone was doing their job....
--
Best
Greg
Marvin
>But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the origin and
>destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.?
Evidently you did not read this line:
> U.S. anti-terrorism laws require airlines to provide passenger manifests
> to
> the U.S. government before their planes enter U.S. airspace.
--
Marvin & Sue
Frank F. Matthews
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
The flight needed to transit thru US airspace to get to Mexico. The US
government can refuse access to US airspace.
Earl Evleth
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the
> origin and destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.?
> What jurisdiction does our government have over either
> Dutch or Mexican authorities?
This was an over flight and for those too there is control
by US authorities. A plane could be hijacked over US
airspace one could repeat a 9/11 kind of "incident". This
in itself is not an unrealistic fear but with today's passenger
controls plus a resistance on the part of other passengers to
"go quietly" to their deaths. Flight AA63, Paris-Miami, following
the example of the downed 9/11 flight, established that we
the passengers will defend ourselves and not depend on big
government to boss us around and decide what our best interests
are.
International law treats a non-US carrier plane and its interior as
under being under foreign sovereignty (as I understand it) but not
where it is. That is, of course, an issue which should be thrashed
out in an international court but the US no longer accepts the
jurisdiction of an international court. We all have the goal
of "reasonableness" with it comes to policy.
The problem with the no-fly list is that it is not transparent, we
ordinary folk can't call up find out if we are individually "OK"
until we get to the air port. The fact that Ted Kennedy was refused
the right to get on a plane because he was on "the list" does not
fill one with confidence that the keystone cops in the US know what
they are doing. So using the standard of "reasonableness", the impression
of the application of no fly list seems unreasonable at this point
in time.
A renewal of the Patriot act is currently before the US Congress.
They want to renew the "right" to snoop who reads what in the library,
the right to search your home without a court order, and not tell you
about it, and to prosecute people who "illegally" release the information
that they have been snooping.
This hit a friend of ours who runs a University related foreign language
program in Washington. One day an FBI agent showed up in her offices
and wanted to see the school records of one of their language students.
The student was the son of an important Korean politicians and why the
FBI was looking him over is strange. Our friend told the FBI agent
that she would have to check with the University's administration (and
lawyer) before she could let him look at the student's file. The agent
got blustery and told her she was not allowed to tell anybody that
they wanted this information. She still insisted that she would have to
check and the agent got mad and left.
All of this would be less worrying if it were not for the track record of
the FBI in the days of J. Edgar Hoover when secret personal files were
kept by the director himself and the FBI had special harassment programs
going, like the illegal INTELPRO which went after certain designated people,
Martin Luther King being the most famous. The power of the state was used
to attack people the power structure did not like, not people who were
a true danger to us all.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> The flight needed to transit thru US airspace to get to Mexico. The US
> government can refuse access to US airspace.
As I posted, that is not the issue. The issue comes down to refusing
for a "guess and a golly". I personally don't trust the manner in which
the "no fly list" is applied. It is secret and therefore subject to abuse.
And has been used abusively in the past.
Earl
Richard
news:BE7F5538.6016E%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace
>
> Names of 2 passengers appear on 'no-fly' terrorist list
> Flight 685 from Amsterdam to Mexico City was denied
> permission to fly south across the Canada-U.S. border
> on Friday because the names of two passengers aboard
> were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list,
> KLM spokesman Bart Koster said.
>
> The flight, carrying 278 passengers, returned to Amsterdam,
> Koster said. He told The Associated Press that on Saturday,
> a flight without the two listed passengers departed Amsterdam
> and arrived in Mexico City.
Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace then head west
across the Caribbean?
Why not make an unscheduled stop in Montreal, get the two passengers off the
plane and onto the next flight to Amsterdam and send the rest of the
passengers to MEX?
Why didn't KLM check whether they had clearance for US airspace prior to
takeoff?
Richard
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
Not surprising because you like to commit felonies like sneaking off
to Cuba in direct violation of US law that you would like to keep
quiet. Hey what felon doesn't want to hide from the law? They might
just catch you and haul you off like you richly deserve. You're right
for once. People like you like to keep your felonies secret from the
law and regularly abuse your passport. If you're so concerned ace,
why don't you openly tell the US authorities what you are doing and
there will be no abuse? Hypocritical ass.
j...@piasystems.com
>"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:BE7F5538.6016E%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace
>>
>> Names of 2 passengers appear on 'no-fly' terrorist list
>
>> Flight 685 from Amsterdam to Mexico City was denied
>> permission to fly south across the Canada-U.S. border
>> on Friday because the names of two passengers aboard
>> were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list,
>> KLM spokesman Bart Koster said.
>>
>> The flight, carrying 278 passengers, returned to Amsterdam,
>> Koster said. He told The Associated Press that on Saturday,
>> a flight without the two listed passengers departed Amsterdam
>> and arrived in Mexico City.
>
>Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace then head west
>across the Caribbean?
Airlines have to fly the routes to which they are assigned by
controllers. Besides, what are you saying? If they know they have
suspected terrorists on a watchlist instead of getting them off the
plane they should just fly another route and deposit them in Mexico
where they could try to cross the border into the US?
>
>Why not make an unscheduled stop in Montreal, get the two passengers off the
>plane and onto the next flight to Amsterdam and send the rest of the
>passengers to MEX?
Ask the Canadians this. Maybe they didn't want the suspected
terrorists themselves. Why should they? Or perhaps it is the
airline's responsibility to get them off at the point of origin and
the Canadian government thought that a nice expensive roundtrip would
be a good way of getting the point across.
>
>Why didn't KLM check whether they had clearance for US airspace prior to
>takeoff?
>
They undoubtedly did have the clearance, BUT conditioned on the fact
that they did not have no fly passengers on board. Once that
happened, of course, the US had every right to ban just as any other
country would.
Frank F. Matthews
Earl Evleth wrote:
No problem with that. The issue, however, was the silly twits saying
"How can the US be involved in a flight from Amsterdam to Mexico?"
The comment was an explanation for them.
See Evelyn's post that I was responding to.
Earl Evleth
I thought that just a slip on her part. Obviously if a plane is flying over
the territory of a nation, air space is subject to the control of that
country. Ironically it does not apply to passage of space satellites
but those in air space. Why the difference I don't know but I suspect
it is merely a pragmatic rule, one can't control satellites.
I raised the thornier issue about occurs in the the interior of a plane.
This was raised several years back and I seem to remember that the
interior of an foreign carrier aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the
nation that aircraft is registered in even if on the ground. It has
a legal status similar, in some ways, to that of a Embassy territory.
But not exactly the same. I also think as on a boat, the captain
of the aircraft has some extended authority.
For instance, can the police of a particular country mount on
board an aircraft without the approval of the captain to arrest
a person? The US might consider this an abusive arrest if
the person arrest was an American citizen and was arrested
for something which is not a crime in the USA.
The situation the world is facing now is the US possibly assuming
unreasonable extralegal powers resulting from the hysteria of
the anti-terrorist campaign.
Earl
j...@piasystems.com
><j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
>news:6h1l519aqalktu8k5...@4ax.com...
>
>> "Richard" <th...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> >Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace
>> >then head west across the Caribbean?
>
>> Airlines have to fly the routes to which they are
>> assigned by controllers.
>
>So talk to the controllers and have a new route assigned.
The transatlantic is one of, if not the most, heavily travelled air
corredors in the world. What makes you think this is so easy to do,
especially when you need aircraft documentation to enter a country's
airspace before you even take off, barring an emergency?
>
>> If they know they have suspected terrorists on
>> a watchlist instead of getting them off the plane
>> they should just fly another route and deposit
>> them in Mexico where they could try to cross
>> the border into the US?
>
>Okay, let's pretend for a second that the watchlist is a definitive list of
>people who have intentions to blowing up all sorts of important stuff and
>causing everyone lots of harm and grief.
It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to just that of
course. Which is why it is called a terrorist watchlist in the first
place.
>
>Why would KLM - keep in mind that they're a Dutch company - put American
>national security above that of the Netherlands by taking these two would-be
>terrorists to Amsterdam?
Because they are responsible for having taken them on in the first
place, that's why. A US airline would be just as responsible if the
situation is reversed. And just how are they putting US national
security above that of the US? What makes you think these two
wouldn't be just as interested in doing the same in The Netherlands?
See Van Gogh murder.
>
>Okay, you can stop pretending now.
Pretending what ace?
>
>Back in reality, where the task of maintaining the list is a dimwitted,
>bigoted control-freak's wet dream (it shows), your question is intrinsically
>flawed in that you assume people outside the US take the list seriously. If
>they did, I'm sure they'd be paying good money so they could cross-reference
>it themselves before letting people through security in airports around the
>world.
Which shows just how ignorant and stupid you are. It was a British
terrorist on an American Airlines plane that tried to blow it up after
the French so called security let him on the plane after refusing him
the day before. Apparently in their dimwitted eyes (if you're looking
for dimwits) a good night's sleep and brushing his teeth made him
acceptable the next day brain surgeons that they are. But why should
that justify a watchlist to a moron like you? Cost them enough money
and they will take it seriously, won't they? In the real world.
>
><snip: responses that make it clear you're nothing more than a clueless
>troll>
>
As opposed to a witless, uniformed ignorant ass like you?
Earl Evleth
<th...@is.invalid> wrote:
> <j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
> news:6h1l519aqalktu8k5...@4ax.com...
>
>> If they know they have suspected terrorists on
>> a watchlist instead of getting them off the plane
>> they should just fly another route and deposit
>> them in Mexico where they could try to cross
>> the border into the US?
> Back in reality, where the task of maintaining the list is a dimwitted,
> bigoted control-freak's wet dream (it shows), your question is intrinsically
> flawed in that you assume people outside the US take the list seriously. If
> they did, I'm sure they'd be paying good money so they could cross-reference
> it themselves before letting people through security in airports around the
> world.
Certainly now those terrorists wishing to have access to Mexico from Europe
will not fly a route which takes them over US territory! I would suggest
a KLM flight to Saint Martin (St. Maarten), flying on to Mexico from there.
In fact, there is not much information indicating that potential terrorists
are using Mexico as a transit point. The fear mongers, and their duped
followers, in Washington have been talking about that.
The next move from Washington it to imposed the "no fly list" on all foreign
carrier flights even if a particular flight does not go over US territory.
If the carrier does not agree they will yank the right to any flights
into US airports. It is the kind of law the Tom Delay Republican congress
would like to impose on those wishy washy foreigners.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"j...@piasystems.com" <j...@piasystems.com> wrote:
Go back and attend your business in Sante Fe, JBK, when you have
earned you way through life and are retired then you can post a lot.
But time is money and now is the time for you to try and make make money.
Unless you are currently unemployed.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"j...@piasystems.com" <j...@piasystems.com> wrote:
>> The next move from Washington it to imposed the "no fly list" on all foreign
>> carrier flights even if a particular flight does not go over US territory.
>> If the carrier does not agree they will yank the right to any flights
>> into US airports. It is the kind of law the Tom Delay Republican congress
>> would like to impose on those wishy washy foreigners.
>>
>
> For which, as usual, you have no proof for your babbling
Still another Tom Delay Republican.
Earl
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 11/04/05 17:40, in article jg6l51le7ukoeolde...@4ax.com,
What's the matter you babbling felon? Don't like the fact that your
silly lies, distortions, felony admissions, etc. etc. get exposed for
the crap they are? Don't post them then moron.
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 11/04/05 16:32, in article 6Uv6e.52890$1H3....@tornado.texas.rr.com,
>"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> No problem with that. The issue, however, was the silly twits saying
>> "How can the US be involved in a flight from Amsterdam to Mexico?"
>>
>> The comment was an explanation for them.
>>
>> See Evelyn's post that I was responding to.
>
>I thought that just a slip on her part. Obviously if a plane is flying over
>the territory of a nation, air space is subject to the control of that
>country. Ironically it does not apply to passage of space satellites
>but those in air space. Why the difference I don't know but I suspect
>it is merely a pragmatic rule, one can't control satellites.
Rather obvious isn't it?
>
>I raised the thornier issue about occurs in the the interior of a plane.
>This was raised several years back and I seem to remember that the
>interior of an foreign carrier aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the
>nation that aircraft is registered in even if on the ground. It has
>a legal status similar, in some ways, to that of a Embassy territory.
>But not exactly the same. I also think as on a boat, the captain
>of the aircraft has some extended authority.
>
>For instance, can the police of a particular country mount on
>board an aircraft without the approval of the captain to arrest
>a person? The US might consider this an abusive arrest if
>the person arrest was an American citizen and was arrested
>for something which is not a crime in the USA.
You mean like the Europeans routinely do when they don't like capital
punishment?
>
>The situation the world is facing now is the US possibly assuming
>unreasonable extralegal powers resulting from the hysteria of
>the anti-terrorist campaign.
>
Only to a moron like you. They are simply looking for admitted felons
like you to catch and put away like you richly deserve. Perfectly
reasonable to anyone who would like to see felons put away.
nospam...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
> The next move from Washington it to imposed the "no fly list" on all foreign
> carrier flights even if a particular flight does not go over US territory.
How, if (a) the U.S. doesn't release the contents of its no fly list,
and (b) non-U.S. carriers don't have to notify the U.S. of their
passenger lists unless they're going into U.S. territory or airspace?
Are you really forecasting that the U.S. will insist on having
policing rights to every airline flight in the world?
--
-- Chris.
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 11/04/05 17:12, in article d3e45p$cgs$1...@dns3.cae.ca, "Richard"
><th...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> <j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
>> news:6h1l519aqalktu8k5...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> If they know they have suspected terrorists on
>>> a watchlist instead of getting them off the plane
>>> they should just fly another route and deposit
>>> them in Mexico where they could try to cross
>>> the border into the US?
>
>> Back in reality, where the task of maintaining the list is a dimwitted,
>> bigoted control-freak's wet dream (it shows), your question is intrinsically
>> flawed in that you assume people outside the US take the list seriously. If
>> they did, I'm sure they'd be paying good money so they could cross-reference
>> it themselves before letting people through security in airports around the
>> world.
>
>Certainly now those terrorists wishing to have access to Mexico from Europe
>will not fly a route which takes them over US territory! I would suggest
>a KLM flight to Saint Martin (St. Maarten), flying on to Mexico from there.
>In fact, there is not much information indicating that potential terrorists
>are using Mexico as a transit point. The fear mongers, and their duped
>followers, in Washington have been talking about that.
Why not? They're as stupid as you are admitting felonies openly here.
>
>The next move from Washington it to imposed the "no fly list" on all foreign
>carrier flights even if a particular flight does not go over US territory.
>If the carrier does not agree they will yank the right to any flights
>into US airports. It is the kind of law the Tom Delay Republican congress
>would like to impose on those wishy washy foreigners.
>
For which, as usual, you have no proof for your babbling.
Richard
news:6h1l519aqalktu8k5...@4ax.com...
> "Richard" <th...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace
> >then head west across the Caribbean?
> Airlines have to fly the routes to which they are
> assigned by controllers.
So talk to the controllers and have a new route assigned.
> If they know they have suspected terrorists on
> a watchlist instead of getting them off the plane
> they should just fly another route and deposit
> them in Mexico where they could try to cross
> the border into the US?
Okay, let's pretend for a second that the watchlist is a definitive list of
people who have intentions to blowing up all sorts of important stuff and
causing everyone lots of harm and grief.
Why would KLM - keep in mind that they're a Dutch company - put American
national security above that of the Netherlands by taking these two would-be
terrorists to Amsterdam?
Okay, you can stop pretending now.
Back in reality, where the task of maintaining the list is a dimwitted,
bigoted control-freak's wet dream (it shows), your question is intrinsically
flawed in that you assume people outside the US take the list seriously. If
they did, I'm sure they'd be paying good money so they could cross-reference
it themselves before letting people through security in airports around the
world.
<snip: responses that make it clear you're nothing more than a clueless
troll>
Richard
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 11/04/05 17:53, in article 597l51t4fkasb687e...@4ax.com,
Hardly. I detest him just as much as I detest you. Birds of a
feather on opposite sides; e.g. liars, distorters, etc. Should be
locked in the same room to bore each other to death IMHO.
Frank F. Matthews
j...@piasystems.com wrote:
Oh for God's sake. I know that you don't like liberals but Ted Kennedy
as an example of a terrorist. It's a list of bloody name abbreviations.
Ones which have multiple matches of completely innocent people.
Richard
news:hk6l51h00ni8rqcdo...@4ax.com...
> "Richard" <th...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >So talk to the controllers and have a new route
> >assigned.
> The transatlantic is one of, if not the most, heavily
> travelled air corredors in the world. What makes
> you think this is so easy to do, especially when you
> need aircraft documentation to enter a country's
> airspace before you even take off, barring an
> emergency?
What makes me think it can be done, is the fact that they did it. They were
somewhere near the US/Canadian border just outside US airspace when they
were denied entry and from there they managed to get clearance to fly to
Amsterdam which certainly wasn't in their travel plans - but does require
crossing the Atlantic.
Obviously, last-minute clearance is obtainable.
So I'll ask again, wording my question differently this time: Why get
clearance to cross the Atlantic and fly to Amsterdam rather than head south
and fly to Mexico over international airspace?
> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to
> just that of course. Which is why it is called a terrorist
> watchlist in the first place.
Then whoever's in charge does an awful job figuring out who is suspect.
> >Why would KLM - keep in mind that they're a Dutch
> >company - put American national security above that
> >of the Netherlands by taking these two would-be
> >terrorists to Amsterdam?
>
> What makes you think these two wouldn't be just as
> interested in doing the same in The Netherlands?
That's my point. Why would the Dutch take two terrorists to Amsterdam when
they could leave them in Mexico?
> >Okay, you can stop pretending now.
> Pretending what ace?
Go back and look at my last reply to you. Now find the string "pretend". Go
on, it's not hard. You probably need to press Ctrl-F or F3. Take your time,
it's okay. You will find it twice. The first is when I told you what to
pretend. The second is when I told you to stop pretending. Mouth the words
on your screen as you read if it helps you understand. Read it two or three
time if you need. Don't worry, reading comprehension doesn't come easily to
everyone.
> It was a British terrorist on an American Airlines plane
> that tried to blow it up after the French so called security
> let him on the plane after refusing him the day before.
I'm talking about a KLM flight that left from Amsterdam destined for Mexico
City. How does a Brit on an AA plane that left from France fit into this?
> But why should that justify a watchlist
No one is asking for justification of the watchlist itself. Personally, I'm
more interested in how the powers that be decide what names appear on the
list.
Richard
Robert J Carpenter
week or so ago. That makes the third chief of TSA to leave in the
four years it's been around. This one was apparently unwilling to
accept the downgrading of the agency in the bureaucratic pecking
order.
The comment was that the TSA is going to become even more like the
Post Office with lots of employees doing routine jobs not involving
much thinking.
Deep Foiled Malls
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>Oh for God's sake. I know that you don't like liberals but Ted Kennedy
>as an example of a terrorist. It's a list of bloody name abbreviations.
Why haven't you plonked him yet, Frank?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
j...@piasystems.com
>>>Okay, let's pretend for a second that the watchlist is a definitive list of
>>>people who have intentions to blowing up all sorts of important stuff and
>>>causing everyone lots of harm and grief.
>>
>>
>> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to just that of
>> course. Which is why it is called a terrorist watchlist in the first
>> place.
>>
>
>Oh for God's sake. I know that you don't like liberals but Ted Kennedy
>as an example of a terrorist. It's a list of bloody name abbreviations.
> Ones which have multiple matches of completely innocent people.
A. I didn't say it was a perfect list. None ever is. Of course, it
needs to be culled. But that hardly means you throw out the baby with
the bathwater.
B. If some dumb airline staff doesn't know who Ted Kennedy is he or
she must live on another planet, though given his Sein Finn backing
maybe, indeed, he does qualify. See recent IRA murders.
C. Kennedy did clear, didn't he? So just what was the problem?
j...@piasystems.com
><j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
>news:hk6l51h00ni8rqcdo...@4ax.com...
>
>> "Richard" <th...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> >So talk to the controllers and have a new route
>> >assigned.
>
>> The transatlantic is one of, if not the most, heavily
>> travelled air corredors in the world. What makes
>> you think this is so easy to do, especially when you
>> need aircraft documentation to enter a country's
>> airspace before you even take off, barring an
>> emergency?
>
>What makes me think it can be done, is the fact that they did it. They were
>somewhere near the US/Canadian border just outside US airspace when they
>were denied entry and from there they managed to get clearance to fly to
>Amsterdam which certainly wasn't in their travel plans - but does require
>crossing the Atlantic.
>
>Obviously, last-minute clearance is obtainable.
Oh don't be so obtuse. Of course, once denied clearance they would go
somewhere wouldn't they? And, of course, clearance would be given for
that.
>
>So I'll ask again, wording my question differently this time: Why get
>clearance to cross the Atlantic and fly to Amsterdam rather than head south
>and fly to Mexico over international airspace?
Why don't you ask KLM? They're the ones flying the plane and asking
for the routing.
>
>> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to
>> just that of course. Which is why it is called a terrorist
>> watchlist in the first place.
>
>Then whoever's in charge does an awful job figuring out who is suspect.
Says who? I haven't seen anything about these two not deserving being
on the list. Where is that printed? And don't give us some guff
about them being released. The Europeans having been releasing lots
of them that deserve to be locked up due to their dumbass laws. Which
is just why we need such a list and enforce it.
>
>> >Why would KLM - keep in mind that they're a Dutch
>> >company - put American national security above that
>> >of the Netherlands by taking these two would-be
>> >terrorists to Amsterdam?
>>
>> What makes you think these two wouldn't be just as
>> interested in doing the same in The Netherlands?
>
>That's my point. Why would the Dutch take two terrorists to Amsterdam when
>they could leave them in Mexico?
Uh, because we don't want them traipsing over our border courtesy of
the Dutch? They brought them and they can take them back.
>
>> >Okay, you can stop pretending now.
>
>> Pretending what ace?
>
>Go back and look at my last reply to you. Now find the string "pretend". Go
>on, it's not hard. You probably need to press Ctrl-F or F3. Take your time,
>it's okay. You will find it twice. The first is when I told you what to
>pretend. The second is when I told you to stop pretending. Mouth the words
>on your screen as you read if it helps you understand. Read it two or three
>time if you need. Don't worry, reading comprehension doesn't come easily to
>everyone.
>
>> It was a British terrorist on an American Airlines plane
>> that tried to blow it up after the French so called security
>> let him on the plane after refusing him the day before.
>
>I'm talking about a KLM flight that left from Amsterdam destined for Mexico
>City. How does a Brit on an AA plane that left from France fit into this?
Uh, because he was a terrorist that they let on the plane? Which, for
all you know, is exactly what these two were.
>
>> But why should that justify a watchlist
>
>No one is asking for justification of the watchlist itself. Personally, I'm
>more interested in how the powers that be decide what names appear on the
>list.
>
Go ask them. They have kept at least two of these murderous bastards
from doing what they came here for already, which is plenty
justification enough.
??
I believe that I heard "the list" explained as including all suspected
terrorists plus drunks who drive off bridges and who emerge from the
water with a bottle of booze in one hand and a pair of dead girl's
panties in the other hand. ;-)
No Spam
news:425a...@alpha.wvnet.edu...
> I believe that I heard "the list" explained as including all suspected
> terrorists plus drunks who drive off bridges and who emerge from the water
> with a bottle of booze in one hand and a pair of dead girl's panties in
> the other hand. ;-)
Really? George W. Bush is on the list? How about his
wife the drunk-driving manslaughterer
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Marvin wrote:
> Evelyn wrote:
>
>
>>But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the origin and
>>destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.?
>
>
> Evidently you did not read this line:
>
>
>>U.S. anti-terrorism laws require airlines to provide passenger manifests
>>to
>>the U.S. government before their planes enter U.S. airspace.
Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
Earl Evleth
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
> U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
As other postings have mentioned, it appears that KLM was under
no obligation to release passenger lists to the US and had not
done so. The current news is that the information that two
of the passengers were on the no fly list came from US
"informants" in Mexico. Or at least that is the US story.
I suggest that the US has already infiltrated foreign air
companies computer networks but not want that known.
So they hand out a piece of disinformation. I would
guess that now all foreign air carriers have their own
computer security people scrambling to see if this is
in fact the case.
I also suggest that the names of the passengers showed up
early after take off but US authorities were uncertain
how to handle this one and eventually the decision was
made to send the plane back.
One has not noted a high success rate with regard to US
actions. Nobody has been arrested and charged with a
terrorist crime. We do now know of the case of one
Canadian national, formerly a Syrian national who was grabbed
at a US airport (he was in transit, returning to Canada
from Tunisia) and sent by private plane by the CIA
to Syria to be "questioned". He as eventually released.
But the US authorities got it wrong and, worse, illegally
deported this individual.
The US sent back the plane which brought Cat
Stevens to the US for no particular reasons of security
but because his name was "on the list". Over a year
ago we had a rash of cancelled air flights to the US
around Christmas, from both London and Paris. It was
later concluded that these were false alerts.
So on and on it goes.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"Henry" <henr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
>> U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
>
> Erm...by refusing overflight access?
In this particular case KLM did not release the passenger list to the
US, they were not required to for over flights. So the over flight
was refused on an ad hoc basis.
Earl
Keith W
"Henry" <henr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1guwo8n.1vq6zh4ffyuwN%henr...@eircom.net...> It seems that all the facts are not yet clear. One relevant detail would
> be just where they were when they had to turn back. One report said that
> they were over Canada, approaching the US border. but another said that
> they were _approaching_ Canada.
>
> Even if they had got as far as Montreal, why couildn't they have swung
> south and gone around Florida? That would have added only about 15% to
> the planned distance--surely they have more than that in reserve fuel?!?
The place south of Montreal is called the United States To fly around US
airspace would have meant crossing all the main transtlantic air corridors
and this is rightly seen as a BAD idea.
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keith W
"nitram" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:kf9n51p1dsl1eap5t...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:47:58 +0300, henr...@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
>
>
> Is the Canada route the shortest route to Mexico?
Shortest in terms of air miles, not necessarily in terms of
ground miles. Airlines fly great circle routes adjusted for
prevailing winds
The northern route is preferred westbound since it avoids the
eastbound jet stream. Since this can add or subtract 100mph
to ground speed its a rather significant factor.
j...@piasystems.com
>Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> So they hand out a piece of disinformation.
>
>It seems that all the facts are not yet clear. One relevant detail would
>be just where they were when they had to turn back. One report said that
>they were over Canada, approaching the US border. but another said that
>they were _approaching_ Canada.
>
>Even if they had got as far as Montreal, why couildn't they have swung
>south and gone around Florida? That would have added only about 15% to
>the planned distance--surely they have more than that in reserve fuel?!?
>If they had got the word before reaching Gander, such a diversion would
>have added only 700 miles to their original 5700 mile flight. But,
>instead, they turned around and flew back 2500-3500 miles to Amsterdam,
>pissing everybody off in the process? Doesn't really make sense.
>
>cheers,
>
>Henry
Yes, it does. Airlines these days fly with as little as 5% reserve
fuel because of cost and weight reasons.
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 12/04/05 5:31, in article d3ffe...@news1.newsguy.com,
>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
>> U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
>
>As other postings have mentioned, it appears that KLM was under
>no obligation to release passenger lists to the US and had not
>done so. The current news is that the information that two
>of the passengers were on the no fly list came from US
>"informants" in Mexico. Or at least that is the US story.
>
>I suggest that the US has already infiltrated foreign air
>companies computer networks but not want that known.
>So they hand out a piece of disinformation. I would
>guess that now all foreign air carriers have their own
>computer security people scrambling to see if this is
>in fact the case.
Of course, you do given your complete lack or knowledge about
intelligence operations. i have news for you ace. The US, Russia,
England, France, etc. etc. has been doing this for decades as normal
intelligence operations. A big surprise only to an idiot like you.
Perfectly normal and legitimate under international law.
>
>I also suggest that the names of the passengers showed up
>early after take off but US authorities were uncertain
>how to handle this one and eventually the decision was
>made to send the plane back.
You usual assertion for which you have absolutely no proof as usual.
Just like all your babbling. I don't suggest you are a complete idiot.
Your babbling posts are proof positive.
>
>One has not noted a high success rate with regard to US
>actions. Nobody has been arrested and charged with a
>terrorist crime. We do now know of the case of one
>Canadian national, formerly a Syrian national who was grabbed
>at a US airport (he was in transit, returning to Canada
>from Tunisia) and sent by private plane by the CIA
>to Syria to be "questioned". He as eventually released.
>But the US authorities got it wrong and, worse, illegally
>deported this individual.
Really? Missed Moussawai, the terrorist crossing the border to bomb
LAX and all the rest didn't you? Of course, you did. You are a
complete idiot that fabricates non-stop bullshit like this to further
your leftist loonie fantasies don't you? While you are lying on a
Cuban beach violating US law.
>
>The US sent back the plane which brought Cat
>Stevens to the US for no particular reasons of security
>but because his name was "on the list". Over a year
>ago we had a rash of cancelled air flights to the US
>around Christmas, from both London and Paris. It was
>later concluded that these were false alerts.
Yeah, all Cat Stevens did was agree with the murder fatwa of Khomeni
against Salmon Rushdie causing him to live underground for years now,
support Hamas with money, and make endless anti-semetic statements
against Jews. Just you kind isn't he moron?
>
>So on and on it goes.
>
Thank God. I hope these types all go to France where they can
entertain the likes of idiots like you with their attempts to take
down the Eiffel Tower.
j...@piasystems.com
Is there no end to your complete stupidity? Any country can require
compliance to its laws by anyone within its jurisdiction.
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 12/04/05 7:07, in article 1guwbs3.qf8biuy8d8cjN%henr...@eircom.net,
A typically completely stupid Evleth comment. The US obviously had
the information. It used it to match against the no fly list. It
found these two on it and refused entry. Real ad hoc alright. It
operated just as the no fly list is supposed to moron.
Richard
news:bs1m51lt7glapn382...@4ax.com...
> Oh don't be so obtuse. Of course, once denied
> clearance they would go somewhere wouldn't they?
> And, of course, clearance would be given for
> that.
Right. Somewhere. I'm asking why somewhere couldn't be Mexico City rather
than Amsterdam. I'm just curious. So when you're done calling me every name
you can think of, at that point will you finally answer the question or will
you recycle your list of names?
> Why don't you ask KLM? They're the ones flying
> the plane and asking for the routing.
Because, while I'm curious about it, I don't need an official answer so
badly as to go track down the proper people at KLM. For an unauthoritative
alternative, r.t.e is filled with people who seem to be well-versed on a
number of different topics. I figured one of them might be able to answer my
question. At this point it's blatantly obvious that you're not that person.
> >> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to
> >> just that of course. Which is why it is called a
> >> terrorist watchlist in the first place.
> >
> >Then whoever's in charge does an awful job figuring
> >out who is suspect.
> Says who?
Some guy named Kennedy, for one.
> I haven't seen anything about these two not deserving
> being on the list. Where is that printed?
I haven't seen anything saying that they are deserving of being on the list.
Where is that printed?
> And don't give us some guff about them being released.
And don't try and tell me the list is valid because there are a handful of
known terrorists mentioned on it amongst thousands of innocent people who
happen to be named Mohammed.
> The Europeans having been releasing lots of
> them that deserve to be locked up due to their
> dumbass laws.
Funny, the way I see it, the US are harassing and locking up plenty of
innocent travellers due to their laws.
> >Personally, I'm more interested in how the powers
> >that be decide what names appear on the list.
> Go ask them. They have kept at least two of these
> murderous bastards from doing what they came here
> for already, which is plenty justification enough.
How do you know that they're murderous bastards if you don't know the
criteria folks must meet to have their names added to the list?
Richard
Earl Evleth
<th...@is.invalid> wrote:
> <j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
> news:bs1m51lt7glapn382...@4ax.com...
> >>> Then whoever's in charge does an awful job figuring
>> I haven't seen anything about these two not deserving
>> being on the list. Where is that printed?
>
> I haven't seen anything saying that they are deserving of being on the list.
> Where is that printed?
>
In fact there is nothing anywhere saying why specific people are on the
master "no fly list" at all.
Remember a few months ago that a celebrity figure, Cat Steven's was returned
to England because he was on the list. Nobody in the US Government presented
any proof of his being involved in terrorism. To my knowledge, Steven`s
is not under investigation. At the time Ridge said
"Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge accused Yusuf Islam, the singer's
Muslim name, of having some unspecified relationship with terrorist
activity."
"Celebrity or unknown, our job is to act on information that others have
given us," Ridge said. "And in this instance, there was some relationship
between the name and the terrorists' activity with this individual's name
being on that no-fly list, and appropriate action was taken."
Remember this is the same government which gave us the WMDs and has a
miserable intelligence track record. When Ridge makes an accusation as
vague as he did, how does one defend one's self? The nation has returned
to the 1950s.
Earl
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> Rather obvious isn't it?
I suspect it's rather a limitation on a certain altitude of the nation's
airspace.
Stanislas
--
inversez "kertanguy" et "de" pour me joindre
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> >
> >Okay, let's pretend for a second that the watchlist is a definitive list of
> >people who have intentions to blowing up all sorts of important stuff and
> >causing everyone lots of harm and grief.
>
> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to just that of
> course. Which is why it is called a terrorist watchlist in the first
> place.
A list that seems to contain only NAMES and SURNAMES according to the
cases where homonyms have been denied the right to embark.
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> For instance, can the police of a particular country mount on
> board an aircraft without the approval of the captain to arrest
> a person? The US might consider this an abusive arrest if
> the person arrest was an American citizen and was arrested
> for something which is not a crime in the USA.
In France, the Commandant de Bord has any power over his airplane,
passengers and load, following the old marine's saying "Le seul maître à
bord après Dieu". That's clearly stated in law.
There has been a cases when an Air France CdB refused policemen who were
conveying a clandestine back home in spurious conditions (tied and
gagged). They had to disembark (but flew the next day, apparently in
more respectful manners).
Keith W
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BE81A70B.604A3%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
All countries including the UK, France and other Schengen members reserve
the right to deny entry to those foreign nationals they regard as
undesirable.
The Schengen countries use the Schengen Information System.
This is a computerised database for registering data on wanted and unwanted
persons
and objects. Each of the Contracting Parties has its own section of the
information
system referred to National Schengen Information System (NSIS) and a joint
Central
Schengen Information System (CSIS) is located and operated in Strasbourg,
France.
Data recorded in the SIS include:
· names,
· objective and permanent physical features,
· data and place of birth,
· sex,
· nationality,
· whether the persons concerned are armed or violent,
· reasons for the report and action to be taken.
This action can be
· Arrest for extradition purposes,
· Detain as witnesses or reported as missing persons,
· Entry refusal for foreign national (aliens),
· Flag for discreet surveillance
Doug McDonald
>> across the Canada-U.S. border on Friday because the names of two
>> passengers
>> aboard were included on a U.S. "no-fly" terrorist watch list, KLM
>> spokesman
>> Bart Koster said.
>
>
> But how would the U.S. "authorities" KNOW, if both the origin and
> destinations of the flight were not in the U.S.? What jurisdiction
> does our government have over either Dutch or Mexican authorities?
>
It has none ... but it DOES have jurisdiction over US airspace.
The Dutch, of course, provided the passenger list to us. If they had
not done so, the plane would have been turned back also, because they
did not give us the passenger list. I support this idea fully ...
we clearly have the right to protect ourselves.
Doug McDonald
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Henry wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Marvin wrote:
>
>
>>>Evidently you did not read this line:
>
>
>>>>U.S. anti-terrorism laws require airlines to provide passenger manifests
>>>>to the U.S. government before their planes enter U.S. airspace.
>>
>>Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
>>U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
>
>
> Erm...by refusing overflight access?
Well, it's true the U.S. no longer seems to care much about
world opinion, but somehow I can't quite imagine the rest of
the world complacently sitting by while our government
scrambled fighter planes to attack a commercial airliner!
(Especially one merely "passing over".) Citizens in the
U.S. may still believe "it can't happen here", but I think
Europeans still remember the Nazis too well to let our
American government replace them.
>
> 'We can't make you do it...but we can surely make you wish you had'.
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry
j...@piasystems.com
><j...@piasystems.com> wrote in message
>news:bs1m51lt7glapn382...@4ax.com...
>
>> Oh don't be so obtuse. Of course, once denied
>> clearance they would go somewhere wouldn't they?
>> And, of course, clearance would be given for
>> that.
>
>Right. Somewhere. I'm asking why somewhere couldn't be Mexico City rather
>than Amsterdam. I'm just curious. So when you're done calling me every name
>you can think of, at that point will you finally answer the question or will
>you recycle your list of names?
No. It's obvious to everyone but you. They would have had to overfly
the US to do that which was being prevented. Can't figure out that if
they had that option they would have taken it can you?
>
>> Why don't you ask KLM? They're the ones flying
>> the plane and asking for the routing.
>
>Because, while I'm curious about it, I don't need an official answer so
>badly as to go track down the proper people at KLM. For an unauthoritative
>alternative, r.t.e is filled with people who seem to be well-versed on a
>number of different topics. I figured one of them might be able to answer my
>question. At this point it's blatantly obvious that you're not that person.
Ask Evleth. He can and will make up all the uniformed bullshit that
you want to hear instead of the truth. Why didn't you just say you
wanted to hear a bunch of uniformed bullshit and I would have given
you lots of references from the coterie of idiots.
>
>> >> It IS a definitive list of those suspected of wanting to
>> >> just that of course. Which is why it is called a
>> >> terrorist watchlist in the first place.
>> >
>> >Then whoever's in charge does an awful job figuring
>> >out who is suspect.
>
>> Says who?
>
>Some guy named Kennedy, for one.
>
>> I haven't seen anything about these two not deserving
>> being on the list. Where is that printed?
>
>I haven't seen anything saying that they are deserving of being on the list.
>Where is that printed?
Uh, beyond you to figure out that this is a government responsibility
done by the government huh, who wouldn't be so stupid (though
admitedly being a government, I might be wrong here) to publicize the
list to the public so terrorists would know how to avoid capture?
>
>> And don't give us some guff about them being released.
>
>And don't try and tell me the list is valid because there are a handful of
>known terrorists mentioned on it amongst thousands of innocent people who
>happen to be named Mohammed.
For which you, like Evleth have no proof whatever.
>
>> The Europeans having been releasing lots of
>> them that deserve to be locked up due to their
>> dumbass laws.
>
>Funny, the way I see it, the US are harassing and locking up plenty of
>innocent travellers due to their laws.
Like who for example?
>
>> >Personally, I'm more interested in how the powers
>> >that be decide what names appear on the list.
>
>> Go ask them. They have kept at least two of these
>> murderous bastards from doing what they came here
>> for already, which is plenty justification enough.
>
>How do you know that they're murderous bastards if you don't know the
>criteria folks must meet to have their names added to the list?
>
Uh, because they confessed, had the explosives in the truck, etc. ace?
Do you want them to explode them in your face to get the message? If
so, go ask the Frogs why they arrested the group that were going to
blow up the Eiffel Tower before actually allowing them to do it then.
j...@piasystems.com
Intelligence is something that completely eludes you, including in
your own body. Cat Stevens was on record backing Khomeni's fatwa,
ace, against Rushdie which would make him undesireable in every place
apparently but your home. Only citizens have a right to enter their
own country. All others can be excluded on whatever grounds the home
country sees fit. Which, unfortunately, is why a complete idiot and
felon like you can still come back here.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:25:47 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>On 12/04/05 15:58, in article d3gk5n$pg8$1...@dns3.cae.ca, "Richard"
j...@piasystems.com
I've never seen the list myself, but I would have a hard time
believing that is all it contains. This is, however, why biometrics
are being introduced to get more accurate identification, which you
can be sure the loonie left will also oppose.
Doug McDonald
> Citizens in the U.S. may still believe "it can't happen here",
Uh ... it DID happen here, on Sept. 11, 2001, AND WE DON'T INTEND
TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. We will do all we can to prevent it.
The Europeans, who appear to be different, seem to "tolerate"
mass murder in the form of terrorism, more than we do. Sure, they
do try to arrest their home-grown terrorists, but apparently don't seem
to get as upset as we do at mass murder.
Doug McDonald
Earl Evleth
1guvc68.k4no078258nbN%stanislas....@laposte.net, "Stanislas de
Kertanguy" <stanislas....@laposte.net> wrote:
I know these facts and possibilities. I don't know what the limits are.
Earl
Earl Evleth
<keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> All countries including the UK, France and other Schengen members reserve
> the right to deny entry to those foreign nationals they regard as
> undesirable.
>
Of course. France also exercises the expulsion of foreigners who
they judge a danger to public order. This is a catch-all kind of thing.
But exercising this "right" is another thing. The people who get hit are
unknowns, no Cat Stevens would have been subjected to the same insult
in France, for instance.
Earl
Earl Evleth
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well, it's true the U.S. no longer seems to care much about
> world opinion, but somehow I can't quite imagine the rest of
> the world complacently sitting by while our government
> scrambled fighter planes to attack a commercial airliner!
The US currently goes out of its way to provoke world negative opinion
so it can howl about "anti-Americanism"!
Would it shoot down a foreign carrier?
It did in the case of a Iranian airline perceived as being a threat
to US ships in the gulf. Below is a prime example of self-justification
and excuse making.
******
Statement on the Destruction of an Iranian Jetliner by the United States
Navy Over the Persian Gulf
July 3, 1988
I am saddened to report that it appears that in a proper defensive action by
the U.S.S. Vincennes this morning in the Persian Gulf an Iranian airliner
was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz. This is a terrible human tragedy.
Our sympathy and condolences go out to the passengers, crew, and their
families. The Defense Department will conduct a full investigation.
We deeply regret any loss of life. The course of the Iranian civilian
airliner was such that it was headed directly for the U.S.S. Vincennes ,
which was at the time engaged with five Iranian Boghammar boats that had
attacked our forces . When the aircraft failed to heed repeated warnings ,
the Vincennes followed standing orders and widely publicized procedures ,
firing to protect itself against possible attack.
The only U.S. interest in the Persian Gulf is peace, and this tragedy
reinforces the need to achieve that goal with all possible speed.
*******
The shooting down of an air liner got mixed upped with something else
and that was used as a justification for the goof. If the US was
totally in the right why did it agree to pay and indemity? Because it
is often done.
In 1973 Israel shot down a Libyan Boeing 727 airliner that mistakenly flew
over the Israeli-occupied Sinai, killing 106 passengers. We are informed
that Israel made an ex gratia payment to Libya.
During the 1967 war, Israeli aircraft attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, killing a
number of U.S. servicemen and causing extensive damage. Israel maintained
tbat the attack was a justifiable accident but, nonetheless, paid the United
States ex gratia compensation.
If the US does, in the future shoot down a foreign airliner perceived as
a 9/11 type threat, it will do the same thing if it turns out that is
not the case. Often nations say "we are sorry" when in fact they are not.
Basically, the US will "get away" with it as did the Russians in shooting
down the Korean Airliner. But the American armor will have been tarnished.
That tarnishing is going on now.
Earl
Earl
Earl Evleth
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> It has none ... but it DOES have jurisdiction over US airspace.
>
> The Dutch, of course, provided the passenger list to us.
It turns out they did not. The information on who was on the flight
came from American "agents" in Mexico.
> I support this idea fully ... we clearly have the right to
> protect ourselves.
That seems to be the excuse for doing any stupid thing these days.
Like invading Iraq.
Hitler used it for invading Poland, after all a "Polish commando"
attacked a German radio station.
After that excuse, it was dominos all the way.
Earl
Mxsmanic
> Uh ... it DID happen here, on Sept. 11, 2001, AND WE DON'T INTEND
> TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. We will do all we can to prevent it.
There isn't any way to prevent it with 100% certainty, or even anything
close to 100% certainty. Even police states cannot stop terrorism (and
the U.S. is rapidly approaching a police state).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> During the 1967 war, Israeli aircraft attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, killing a
> number of U.S. servicemen and causing extensive damage. Israel maintained
> tbat the attack was a justifiable accident but, nonetheless, paid the United
> States ex gratia compensation.
It wasn't an accident.
Mxsmanic
> What's the matter you babbling felon? Don't like the fact that your
> silly lies, distortions, felony admissions, etc. etc. get exposed for
> the crap they are? Don't post them then moron.
Your posts are singularly unpersuasive. They seem to contain nothing
but personal attacks.
Mxsmanic
> Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace then head west
> across the Caribbean?
It's way too far.
Mxsmanic
> Are you really forecasting that the U.S. will insist on having
> policing rights to every airline flight in the world?
The U.S. already claims police rights over the entire world, and not
just for airline flights.
Mxsmanic
> But exercising this "right" is another thing. The people who get hit are
> unknowns, no Cat Stevens would have been subjected to the same insult
> in France, for instance.
Why should famous people be exempt?
Richard
news:k9tn51d6ft5utf3be...@4ax.com...
> No. It's obvious to everyone but you. They would
> have had to overfly the US to do that which was being
> prevented. Can't figure out that if they had that option
> they would have taken it can you?
If you can't see that a plane can make it from Amsterdam to Mexico City
without entering US airspace, you're in serious need of some geography
lessons.
Now obviously they didn't take that option because they turned around and
went back to Amsterdam. My question is: _why_ didn't they take that option?
> Ask Evleth. He can and will make up all the uniformed
> bullshit that you want to hear instead of the truth. Why
> didn't you just say you wanted to hear a bunch of
> uniformed bullshit and I would have given you lots of
> references from the coterie of idiots.
I'm sure that if Earl had an answer to my question he'd have answered it by
now.
> Uh, beyond you to figure out that this is a government
> responsibility done by the government huh, who wouldn't
> be so stupid (though admitedly being a government, I might
> be wrong here) to publicize the list to the public so terrorists
> would know how to avoid capture?
Guilty until proven innocent, in other words.
> >And don't try and tell me the list is valid because there
> >are a handful of known terrorists mentioned on it
> >amongst thousands of innocent people who happen to
> >be named Mohammed.
> For which you, like Evleth have no proof whatever.
Of course there's no proof. They don't publicise their methods of
researching new additions to their list. As a result all we've got to go on
are the incidents reported in the media and thus far it's caused far more
inconvenience than it's done good.
> >Funny, the way I see it, the US are harassing and
> >locking up plenty of innocent travellers due to their
> >laws.
> Like who for example?
The Canadian who got deported to Syria by US officials when he was
transiting through the US on his way from Tunisia to Canada, for one.
> Uh, because they confessed, had the explosives in the truck, etc. ace?
Again. What are you talking about? There was no truck. There were two people
on a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Mexico City.
Richard
j...@piasystems.com
That's exactly what the US did do with the Nazis. It replaced them.
With Europeans cheering in the streets.
j...@piasystems.com
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:38:56 -0500, Doug McDonald
><mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>
>>> Citizens in the U.S. may still believe "it can't happen here",
>>
>>
>>Uh ... it DID happen here, on Sept. 11, 2001, AND WE DON'T INTEND
>>TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. We will do all we can to prevent it.
>>
>>The Europeans, who appear to be different, seem to "tolerate"
>>mass murder in the form of terrorism, more than we do.
>
>and your proof of that is?
Bosnia. Iraq.
>
>>Sure, they
>>do try to arrest their home-grown terrorists,
>
>and succeed. Why home grown?
Missed the Hamburg terrorist cells that provided 9/11 terrorists huh?
>
>The US only arrested their home grown terrorists after the event.
>
>> but apparently don't seem
>>to get as upset as we do at mass murder.
>
>Rubbish.
Bosnia. Iraq.
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 12/04/05 18:04, in article d3griv$bls$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu, "Doug McDonald"
><mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> It has none ... but it DOES have jurisdiction over US airspace.
>>
>> The Dutch, of course, provided the passenger list to us.
>
>It turns out they did not. The information on who was on the flight
>came from American "agents" in Mexico.
Gee, the ones you claim to be so incompetent all the time? You owe
them an apology don't you idiot?
>
>
>> I support this idea fully ... we clearly have the right to
>> protect ourselves.
>
>That seems to be the excuse for doing any stupid thing these days.
>Like invading Iraq.
No listening to the likes of you would be stupid.
>
>Hitler used it for invading Poland, after all a "Polish commando"
>attacked a German radio station.
>
>After that excuse, it was dominos all the way.
>
Yeah, and guess who saved Europe from them moron?
j...@piasystems.com
wrote:
>On 12/04/05 18:01, in article d3gr...@news1.newsguy.com,
>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's true the U.S. no longer seems to care much about
>> world opinion, but somehow I can't quite imagine the rest of
>> the world complacently sitting by while our government
>> scrambled fighter planes to attack a commercial airliner!
>
>The US currently goes out of its way to provoke world negative opinion
>so it can howl about "anti-Americanism"!
It doesn't take anything to provoke leftist loonies like you. You
have been bawling since birth, all while sucking up Social Security
and commiting felonies under US law.
>
>Would it shoot down a foreign carrier?
>
>It did in the case of a Iranian airline perceived as being a threat
>to US ships in the gulf. Below is a prime example of self-justification
>and excuse making.
>
And you, as usual, are too stupid to tell the difference between an
accident, which this was, from deliberate murder, which is what
Kaddafi did to the Pan Am jet as supposed retaliation aren't you?
Moron.
Dave Smith
>
> >>U.S. anti-terrorism laws require airlines to provide passenger manifests
> >>to
> >>the U.S. government before their planes enter U.S. airspace.
>
> Oh, I read it - that's what prompted my question. How can
> U. S. laws of ANY sort "require" other countries to comply?
Funny how the US can capture in places like Afghanistan, label them as illegal
combatants and take them to a US base in Cuba and then claim that US law does
not apply to them so that they can be held without charges, abused maybe eve
tortured. At the same time, they expect US law to apply to everyone else in
the world. There is some irony in the US administration moving people around
to pretend that the Americans on the government payroll can violate US law,
but then expect foreigners to respect and obey US law.
Mxsmanic
> Too far for what?
Too far to fly economically. Plot the route on a globe.
Frank Clarke
<1v6o51psbqjcff1s3...@4ax.com>
>
>No listening to the likes of you would be stupid.
PLONKed for ungrammattical ad hominems and lack of anything beyond his own
ill-formed opinions.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<d3griv$bls$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
>It has none ... but it DOES have jurisdiction over US airspace.
>
>The Dutch, of course, provided the passenger list to us. If they had
>not done so, the plane would have been turned back also, because they
>did not give us the passenger list. I support this idea fully ...
>we clearly have the right to protect ourselves.
There's just this one problem...
The DHS is willy-nilly violating international agreements relating to passage of
airliners. When Europe gets adequately pissed off about this you're going to
see this kind of scenario:
1. the EU passes its own version of the "passenger list up-front or no
overflight" rule;
2. at random, one of the EU countries denies overflight to an aircraft
transporting a "listed" passenger;
3. all other EU countries similarly deny overflight/entry to that aircraft
because (say) Spain did;
Now, when this happens to Air France or Air India, they just plunk down in
Montreal or Halifax, refuel, and reroute the flight. When it happens to Delta,
there won't be any place to refuel; they had better be carrying enough fuel for
a round-trip.
Mika
>
> Richard writes:
>
> > Why not fly over the Atlantic in international airspace then head west
> > across the Caribbean?
>
> It's way too far.
>
I flew FRA-MEX-FRA in October 2004. My LH flight did enter US airspace
in Florida overflying Lake Okechobee. Would not have been a major detour
to avoid Florida altogether.
Should not be much different for AMS-MEX.
M
nospam...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
> Well, it's true the U.S. no longer seems to care much about world
> opinion, but somehow I can't quite imagine the rest of the world
> complacently sitting by while our government scrambled fighter planes
> to attack a commercial airliner!
No? That's what happened when the U.S. Navy deliberately shot down a
commercial airliner in the Gulf some years ago. Some hundreds of
passengers were killed as I recall.
--
-- Chris.
nospam...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
> The U.S. already claims police rights over the entire world, and not
> just for airline flights.
So if I, a UK citizen, fly from (say) Scotland to Italy on Ryanair, I
can be arrested by US police that happen to be on board and taken to
the US and tried in a US court, or thrown in a US torture chamber in
Cuba/Egypt/Kazakhstan, or whatever? Seems a tad unlikely?
--
-- Chris.
Earl Evleth
"nospam...@dcs.ed.ac.uk" <nospam...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> So if I, a UK citizen, fly from (say) Scotland to Italy on Ryanair, I
> can be arrested by US police that happen to be on board and taken to
> the US and tried in a US court, or thrown in a US torture chamber in
> Cuba/Egypt/Kazakhstan, or whatever? Seems a tad unlikely?
No well stated.
First---
The CIA cooperates with other services in other countries. It does
not maintain prison facilities in Egypt, for instance, but knows
the kind of treatment a person would receive in an Egyptian facility.
Second, a semi-clandestine seizure would not occur on the
scheduled flight of any commercial carrier, foreign or American.
Persons might be seized on the ground, in a US airport, put on
a private carrier and given to some foreign service for "examination".
Earl
`
****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 30, 2005
1:30 PM
CONTACT: Center for Constitutional Rights
Mahdis Keshavarz, David Lerner 212-260-5000
Federal Aviation Records Corroborate Story of Rendered Canadian Citizen
New York Times Confirms Maher Arar's Account of Rendition from the United
States
NEW YORK, NY -- March 30 - - A front page story in the New York Times today
reported the discovery of flight records which corroborate the story of
Canadian citizen Maher Arar. Mr. Arar, who is represented by the New
York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, was detained in the United
States while en route to Canada after a family vacation. He has
consistently described the first horrific hours of his journey which took
him to Syria where he was abused and tortured for nearly a year.
Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen was detained at J.F.K. Airport in
September 2002 while en route to Canada. He was held in solitary
confinement and interrogated without the benefit of legal counsel. The Bush
Administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda, and sent him not to Canada,
his home and country of citizenship, but to Syrian intelligence authorities
renowned for torture. Mr. Arar was held for 10 months and 10 days in a cell
he described as a ³grave² in Syria, where he was brutally interrogated and
tortured, without charge. After nearly a year of confinement, Syrian
authorities released Mr. Arar, publicly stating that they had found no
connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity. Upon his
return to Canada, Mr. Arar was never charged with any crime; nor has he been
charged with any crime by the United States. The Canadian Parliament has
convened a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the details and reasoning
behind Mr. Arar's rendition. The United States has categorically refused to
cooperate with the Inquiry.
"With the revelations from FAA flight logs confirming the details of Maher
Arar's rendition to Syria from the United States, Mr. Arar's case against
the government for its unlawful decision to send him there for detention and
interrogation under torture becomes even stronger,² said Barbara Olshansky,
Deputy Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which
represents Mr. Arar. "With each piece of evidence that comes to light from
investigations here in the U.S. and the Public Inquiry in Canada,² she
continued "another stone falls into place in the foundation of governmental
responsibility for his inhumane and illegal treatment. The U.S. needs to
come clean about the scope of their program of rendition and what has
happened to those who fell under its policy.²
"My family and I deserve to learn the truth about what happened to me. Who
was responsible for my torture and interrogation? Was I tortured on behalf
of US or Canadian agencies, or both? Those who participated in my rendition
and subsequent torture must be held accountable,² stated Mr.Arar.
The flight records obtained by the New York Times fully corroborate Mr.
Arar's detailed description of his rendition. "Although the U.S. government
does not dispute the fact that it sent Mr. Arar to Syria, it has refused to
disclose who was involved in that decision," said Maria LaHood, a staff
attorney at the Center. She also noted that "there is still a question
regarding the degree to which the Canadian government participated in the
decision to send him to Syria for interrogation under torture."
Mr. Arar's case was the first publicly-known example of the practice of
"rendition" under which the U.S. sends foreign nationals to be interrogated
in countries that engage in state-sponsored torture. News reports have
confirmed other instances of rendition but Mr. Arar is one of very few
people known to have survived to tell the story. A lawsuit filed by the
Center for Constitutional Rights asks for full disclosure of the facts and
government accountability for the injuries suffered by Mr. Arar .
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> I don't know what the limits are.
In France, there are virtually no limits to the powers of the Commandant
de Bord:
Code de l'Aviation Civile
Article L422-3
Le commandant de bord a autorité sur toutes les personnes embarquées.
Il a la faculté de débarquer toute personne parmi l'équipage ou les
passagers ou toute partie du chargement qui peut présenter un danger
pour la sécurité, la salubrité ou le bon ordre à bord de l'aéronef. En
vol, il peut s'il l'estime nécessaire, larguer tout ou partie du
chargement en marchandises ou en combustible, sous réserve d'en rendre
compte à l'exploitant. Il doit, si le choix est possible, jeter les
marchandises de faible valeur.
Il assure le commandement de l'aéronef pendant toute la durée de la
mission.
<< The pilot has authority on all people on board. He may disembark
anybody of the crew or passengers who may endanger safety, health and
order onboard the aircraft. While flying, he may drop if he thinks
necessary, all or part of goods and fuel load, provided he informs the
Company. If he faces a choice, he has to drop low-value goods. He takes
responsibility for aircraft commanding for the whole mission >>
I don't know if this applies only to French national pilots or over the
whole French airspace, disregarding the nationality of the aircraft and
crew.
Stanislas
--
inversez "kertanguy" et "de" pour me joindre
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> >Hitler used it for invading Poland, after all a "Polish commando"
> >attacked a German radio station.
> >
> >After that excuse, it was dominos all the way.
> >
>
> Yeah, and guess who saved Europe from them moron?
Not only Americans, but also fellow Britishers, and 20 million Russian
young men who died. *Twenty million*.
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> When it happens to Delta, there won't be any place to refuel; they had
> better be carrying enough fuel for a round-trip.
Keflavik? Morocco? Oslo? etc...
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> Uh ... it DID happen here, on Sept. 11, 2001, AND WE DON'T INTEND
> TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.
Lockerbie? N'Djamena? Paris Saint Michel? Paris rue de Rennes? Munich
1973? Madrid Atocha? Bologna Stazione?
These operations were not as huge or bloody than 9/11 but they did
happen.
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> If
> so, go ask the Frogs why they arrested the group that were going to
> blow up the Eiffel Tower before actually allowing them to do it then.
Are you referring to the 1994 Algiers-Paris Air France flight that was
hijacked, with the pirats killed at Marseille?
If so, you should know that they had already killed several people in
Algiers and were repeatedly saying they'll blow the A300 off.
The plan to crash the Airbus into Eiffel Tower was revealed some years
later.
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> Navy deliberately shot down a
> commercial airliner in the Gulf some years ago.
IIRC, It was a Iran-Air A300 or A310.
Stanislas de Kertanguy
> I've never seen the list myself, but I would have a hard time
> believing that is all it contains. This is, however, why biometrics
> are being introduced to get more accurate identification,
Are you naive enough to think that actual terrorists will gently give
their own biometric identification?
Earl Evleth
1guyq8w.145x0sc1v9x5vxN%stanislas....@laposte.net, "Stanislas de
Kertanguy" <stanislas....@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, and guess who saved Europe from them moron?
>
> Not only Americans, but also fellow Britishers, and 20 million Russian
> young men who died. *Twenty million*.
I think you must mean that it was the Red Army which save Europe from
fascism? Followed by NATO saving Europe from the Red Army!
Earl
Anonymous
Earl Evleth wrote:
who also holds syrian citizenship.
> was detained in the United
> States while en route to Canada after a family vacation.
to syria
> Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen was detained at J.F.K.
Airport in
> September 2002 while en route to Canada.
traveling between the 2 contries he's a citizen of
> Administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda, and sent him not to Canada,
> his home and country of citizenship, but to Syrian intelligence authorities
> renowned for torture.
so they returned him to where he came from, where he is also a citizen.
seems like you should be complaining about the syrians
> "My family and I deserve to learn the truth about what happened to me. Who
> was responsible for my torture and interrogation?
his birth country of which he is a citizen, syria.
Earl Evleth
Kertanguy" <stanislas....@laposte.net> wrote:
> <j...@piasystems.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen the list myself, but I would have a hard time
>> believing that is all it contains. This is, however, why biometrics
>> are being introduced to get more accurate identification,
>
> Are you naive enough to think that actual terrorists will gently give
> their own biometric identification?
>
The facts are that the Americans have a long track record of keeping
people out the USA who are not terrorists but just "politically suspect".
JBK apparently is not old enough to remember the 1950s when
American passports were yanked for political "misbehavior".
I knew one of them, since he was my college teacher, Linus Pauling.
His treatment was an example of the kind of political "racism" which
has been practiced in the USA at times. In the 1950s the JBKs were in
control and they are in control now.
Some of the language sounds like today, a US Senator saying
"Are you in the State Department allowing some group of people in some
foreign country to determine which Americans get passports?"
Imagine mentalities like that. John Bolton is one of them.
Earl
***
During World War II Pauling worked on various "war" projects as did everyone
at Cal. Tech. He chose not to work on the Manhattan Project, however. At
the same time his wife was becoming more and more involved in socialist
politics. They fought the internment of their Japanese-American gardener
and, with the American Civil Liberties Union, the internment of all the
Japanese-Americans. He was also becoming more and more worried about the
atomic bomb and the radiation it produced. He became involved in the
Scientists Movement, a more-or-less nation-wide group of scientists working
for safe control of nuclear power. The Movement believed in ?the necessity
for all nations to make every effort to cooperate now in setting up an
international administration with police powers which can effectively
control at least the means of nuclear warfare.? His wife was a member of
the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. In fact, at this
time, she was probably more outspoken on the issues of human rights, peace
and the banning of nuclear testing than Pauling was. In 1947 President
Truman awarded him the presidential Medal of Merit for his work on crystal
structure, the nature of the chemical bond, and his efforts to bring about
world peace.
In November of 1950, he was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate
Investigating Committee on Education of the State of California. He
testified for over two hours, "mainly about my reasons for objecting to
special loyalty oaths involving inquiry into political beliefs." He wrote
the next day, "My own political beliefs are well known. I am not a
Communist. I have never been a Communist. I have never been involved with
the Communist Party. I am a Rooseveltian Democrat." However, he also
believed that no governmental body had the right to ask him to answer those
same questions under oath. This was during the early days of the McCarthy
"witch hunts", which were stronger at the time in California than at most
other places. His position upset some of the trustees and some professors
at Cal .Tech., who tried to oust him.
This was just after Pauling, working with Corey, had used the idea gained
from his paper model to work out the structure of many different protein
molecules, all of which contained his alpha-helix. His proposed structure
was not immediately accepted by the scientific world, however, especially by
scientists in England. Therefore, in January of 1952, Pauling requested a
passport to attend a meeting in England, specifically to defend his ideas.
The passport was denied because granting it "would not be in the best
interest of the United States." He applied again and wrote President
Eisenhower, asking him to arrange the issuance of the passport since, "I am
a loyal citizen of the United States. I have never been guilty of any
unpatriotic or criminal act." The answer came back asking him to provide
the State Department with some evidence supporting his claims. He sent a
statement, made under oath, stating that he was not a communist, never had
been a communist, and had never been involved with the Communist Party. The
state department replied that his "anti-communist statements were not
sufficiently strong" and again denied the passport on the very day he was
supposed to leave for the conference. This pattern of Pauling requesting a
passport to attend various conferences and the state department denying the
application continued for a little over two years. During this time
Einstein wrote a letter to the state department supporting Pauling's right
to have a passport. He also wrote Pauling telling him, "It is very
meritorious of you to fight for the right to travel."
In 1953 Pauling published his book, No More War. Again in April of 1954,
when he requested a passport, he was denied it. On November 3 of that year,
while he was giving a "routine lecture" on hemoglobin at Cornell University,
he was called to the telephone to learn that he had just been awarded the
Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His first worry was, would he be able to get a
passport so he could accept the prize in person? He applied immediately and
for weeks he heard nothing. In Washington there were strong voices opposing
the granting of the passport. One senator asked, "Are you in the State
Department allowing some group of people in some foreign country to
determine which Americans get passports?" On November 27, however, barely
two weeks before the ceremony in Sweden, his passport did arrive.
****
Some of the language sounds like today, a US Senator saying
"Are you in the State Department allowing some group of people in some
foreign country to determine which Americans get passports?"
Imagine mentalities like JBKs in charge. John Bolton is one of them.
Earl Evleth
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Federal Aviation Records Corroborate Story of Rendered Canadian Citizen
>> New York Times Confirms Maher Arar's Account of Rendition from the United
>> States
>>
>> NEW YORK, NY -- March 30 - - A front page story in the New York Times today
>> reported the discovery of flight records which corroborate the story of
>> Canadian citizen Maher Arar.
>
> who also holds syrian citizenship.
Syrian, capitalized. He is a Canadian Citizen and should not have been
shipped off for torture in Syria. Many ex-patriate Syrians still hold
Syrian citizenship, I have a personal friend who does but he also
more recently holds French citizenship. The problem with Syria is not
knowing if you will be arrested if one returns for a visit, so he does not!
>
>> was detained in the United
>> States while en route to Canada after a family vacation.
>
> to syria
The press says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
"On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in
Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has
links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a
Canadian passport.
>
>> Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen was detained at J.F.K.
> Airport in
>> September 2002 while en route to Canada.
>
> traveling between the 2 contries he's a citizen of
Not according to the press reports I see.
>
> so they returned him to where he came from, where he is also a citizen.
Half way around the world!
>
> seems like you should be complaining about the syrians
Syrians, capitalized.
>> "My family and I deserve to learn the truth about what happened to me. Who
>> was responsible for my torture and interrogation?
>
> his birth country of which he is a citizen, syria.
Perhaps one reason why he left!
The Syrians can be nasty and unreasonable. I was once listed as an Israeli
spy by one of their services. One reason I took an interest in this case.
No, he should be been returned to Canada, the US clearly acted out of line.
Earl
Go Fig
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On 13/04/05 16:17, in article
> 1guyq8w.145x0sc1v9x5vxN%stanislas....@laposte.net, "Stanislas de
> Kertanguy" <stanislas....@laposte.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, and guess who saved Europe from them moron?
> >
> > Not only Americans, but also fellow Britishers, and 20 million Russian
> > young men who died. *Twenty million*.
>
> I think you must mean that it was the Red Army which save Europe from
> fascism?
They saved themselves, and in the process murdered some 3 million
Russians... as Stalin did not believe in Russian POWs
jay
Wed Apr 13, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
Go Fig
Stanislas de Kertanguy <stanislas....@laposte.net> wrote:
And it was ONLY the action of the AF pilot that convinced them that
there was not enough fuel to make Paris that prevented a possibly much
worse outcome.
The video of the French storming the plane (rightly so) is some of the
most compelling around....
Dave Smith
> > >Hitler used it for invading Poland, after all a "Polish commando"
> > >attacked a German radio station.
> > >
> > >After that excuse, it was dominos all the way.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, and guess who saved Europe from them moron?
>
> Not only Americans, but also fellow Britishers, and 20 million Russian
> young men who died. *Twenty million*.
You had to know that it would be a matter of time before some American
came along and tried to claim credit for saving Europe from the Nazis. It
was Britain and France that stood up to the Germans. France was invaded
but Britain held out for more than two years before the US even decided
which side they were on.
Mxsmanic
> So if I, a UK citizen, fly from (say) Scotland to Italy on Ryanair, I
> can be arrested by US police that happen to be on board and taken to
> the US and tried in a US court, or thrown in a US torture chamber in
> Cuba/Egypt/Kazakhstan, or whatever? Seems a tad unlikely?
Not to people who have actually endured this.
Earl Evleth
<go...@mac.com> wrote:
>> I think you must mean that it was the Red Army which save Europe from
>> fascism?
>
>
> They saved themselves, and in the process murdered some 3 million
> Russians... as Stalin did not believe in Russian POWs
That was not the issue raise, the issue raised is who saved
Europe from Hitlerian fascism?
Earl
Bill Moore
I certainly don't agree with our resident moron, but to be fair,
America certainly deserves a fair amount of credit, as do all the
other parties involved.