U.S. bars KLM flight entry into airspace

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.

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.

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?



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.

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?



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) 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

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.
--
Marvin & Sue

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.? What jurisdiction
does our government have over either Dutch or Mexican authorities?



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.




The flight needed to transit thru US airspace to get to Mexico. The US
government can refuse access to US airspace.

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.? What jurisdiction
does our government have over either Dutch or Mexican authorities?



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.




The flight needed to transit thru US airspace to get to Mexico. The US
government can refuse access to US airspace.

On 11/04/05 2:25, in article ,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" 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

On 11/04/05 2:25, in article ,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" 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

On 11/04/05 4:42, in article ,
"Frank F. Matthews" 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