So the US is spying again. Given the track record in
Iraq, possibly not too accurately.

Earl


*****

KLM in showdown with US
over privacy breach claims

11 April 2005

AMSTERDAM ‹ Dutch airline KLM has demanded the US explain how it gained
insight into passenger details of a flight US authorities turned back from
its airspace despite the fact it was not scheduled to land on American
territory.

KLM said on Monday US authorities are not allowed to have access to
passenger details on flights that do not land in America. The airline said
US authorities are only given restricted access to details on US-bound
flights.

The airline discussed the incident with the Justice Ministry on Monday and
said it always inspects passenger lists for suspicious travellers.
"Apparently our information differs from that of the American authorities,"
an airline

spokesman said.
*
Despite the fact the weekend's incident was the first of its kind and the
spokesman stressed that it was a one-off occurrence, KLM wants to know how
the US gained access to passenger details.

The flight with 278 passengers left Schiphol on Friday and was approaching
Canada when the pilot was informed that US authorities had refused the plane
permission to enter US airspace.

The pilot was told two of the passengers were considered to be a risk,
apparently due to terrorism fears. Landing and refuelling for a diverted
flight to Mexico was not possible, forcing the plane to turn back to
Schiphol.

The two passengers who were on the US 'no-fly list' were not arrested at
Schiphol and were flown via England back to Saudi Arabia, their land of
origin, where they were not refused entry either. Neither British nor Dutch
authorities decided to detain them.

"Why they were refused entry for the United States is not clear to us," the
KLM spokesman said.

US authorities examine passenger details themselves and the airline only
provides the obligatory information. America uses a no-fly list with 70,000
names. New names are placed on the list if they are suspected or terrorist
activities.

People included on the list are not necessarily definite terror suspects and
other nations are not obligated to arrest them. Airlines are only forced to
refuse boarding rights to people included on the US list for US-bound
flights.

Meanwhile, main opposition party Labour PvdA is also demanding answers in
the Dutch Parliament. MP Peter van Heemst is questioning whether agreements
with the US are adequate and what the two suspected passengers were accused
of.

Van Heemst has also questioned why the plane was allowed to fly back to the
Netherlands. The MP is demanding to know why the passengers were not under
suspicion in Europe and were released after their return to Amsterdam.

The other 276 passengers were given accommodation in an Amsterdam hotel on
Saturday before boarding another flight for Mexico. They arrived on Sunday,
a day later than originally planned.

The incident could cost KLM hundreds of thousands of euros.

[Copyright Expatica News + ANP 2005]

Earl Evleth writes:

    > America uses a no-fly list with 70,000
    > names. New names are placed on the list if they are suspected or terrorist
    > activities.

Seventy thousand terrorists???

    > The incident could cost KLM hundreds of thousands of euros.

If the U.S. can't get its act together well enough to refuse overflight
permission before the flight leaves, it should reimburse KLM for the
cost of turning the flight back. Of course, if those were really
terrorists aboard the flight, just letting it get into the air might
have been sufficient to allow them to carry out some dastardly deed.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:50:06 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >So the US is spying again. Given the track record in
    >Iraq, possibly not too accurately.
    >Earl

So let's see you moron. First, you accuse the US of not being able to
find anything. Now you accuse it of finding something. Is there a
3rd choice you idiot?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:08:51 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Earl Evleth writes:
    >> America uses a no-fly list with 70,000
    >> names. New names are placed on the list if they are suspected or terrorist
    >> activities.
    >Seventy thousand terrorists???

There's at least that many in Saudi Arabia alone ace.

    >> The incident could cost KLM hundreds of thousands of euros.
    >If the U.S. can't get its act together well enough to refuse overflight
    >permission before the flight leaves, it should reimburse KLM for the
    >cost of turning the flight back. Of course, if those were really
    >terrorists aboard the flight, just letting it get into the air might
    >have been sufficient to allow them to carry out some dastardly deed.

Never crossed your mind that it might have been KLM screwing up and
not getting the information processed before they made it to Canada
did it brain surgeon. As with all your stupid crap, you immediately
accuse the US of being to blame without having one ounce of evidence
or one clue what you're talking about. Which surprises no one that
ever sees the crap you spew. Let's see. Since 9/11, there has been
the French American Airlines incident. An active terrorist caught.
Then the Cat Stevens one. Go read his anti-Jewish babbling, which is
reason enough to dump his dumb ass. And now this one, which who
knows? Gee, three out of probably tens of thousands of flights
entering the US since 9/11. Obviously, the US can't manage this issue
you blithering idiot.

[email protected] wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:50:06 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >So the US is spying again. Given the track record in
    > >Iraq, possibly not too accurately.
    > >
    > >Earl
    > >
    > So let's see you moron. First, you accuse the US of not being able
to
    > find anything. Now you accuse it of finding something. Is there a
    > 3rd choice you idiot?

Yes, there is a third choice. However, that third choice would involve
Earl receiving proper medical treatment for the Alzheimer's-induced
dementia that prompts him to post this dross to begin with, so don't
hold your breath for him to annunciate it.

[email protected] writes:

    > There's at least that many in Saudi Arabia alone ace.

No, I don't think so. With 70,000 people, you don't need terrorism; you
can just form an army, or a political party. Terrorism is for people
who are so small in number that they cannot achieve their ends by any
other means.

    > Never crossed your mind that it might have been KLM screwing up and
    > not getting the information processed before they made it to Canada
    > did it brain surgeon.

I thought KLM said it wasn't supposed to be sharing that information at
all. There are privacy laws in Europe.

    > Go read his anti-Jewish babbling, which is reason enough to dump
    > his dumb ass.

Exercising one's freedom of speech is not reason enough to deny anyone
the possibility of air travel.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[email protected] writes:

    > So let's see you moron. First, you accuse the US of not being able to
    > find anything. Now you accuse it of finding something. Is there a
    > 3rd choice you idiot?

It could be making stuff up. There certainly is no lack of precedents.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:07:16 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> There's at least that many in Saudi Arabia alone ace.
    >No, I don't think so. With 70,000 people, you don't need terrorism; you
    >can just form an army, or a political party. Terrorism is for people
    >who are so small in number that they cannot achieve their ends by any
    >other means.

It's an option for groups, who can't take on the might of the US by
conventional means. Forming an army of 70,000 isn't going to win wars
against Uncle Sam.


--
It's not it's, it's its.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/m...phe.htm#plural

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:41:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:


    >>If the U.S. can't get its act together well enough to refuse overflight
    >>permission before the flight leaves, it should reimburse KLM for the
    >>cost of turning the flight back. Of course, if those were really
    >>terrorists aboard the flight, just letting it get into the air might
    >>have been sufficient to allow them to carry out some dastardly deed.
    >Never crossed your mind that it might have been KLM screwing up and
    >not getting the information processed before they made it to Canada
    >did it brain surgeon. As with all your stupid crap, you immediately
    >accuse the US of being to blame without having one ounce of evidence
    >or one clue what you're talking about. Which surprises no one that
    >ever sees the crap you spew. Let's see. Since 9/11, there has been
    >the French American Airlines incident. An active terrorist caught.
    >Then the Cat Stevens one. Go read his anti-Jewish babbling, which is
    >reason enough to dump his dumb ass. And now this one, which who
    >knows? Gee, three out of probably tens of thousands of flights
    >entering the US since 9/11. Obviously, the US can't manage this issue
    >you blithering idiot.

Ha! Hooked a tosser!

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:07:16 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> There's at least that many in Saudi Arabia alone ace.
    >No, I don't think so. With 70,000 people, you don't need terrorism; you
    >can just form an army, or a political party. Terrorism is for people
    >who are so small in number that they cannot achieve their ends by any
    >other means.

Really? That must have made the entire Vietnam War--a classic
terrorist insurgency involving millions--non-existent huh? You don't
come close to having one clue what you're talking about.

    >> Never crossed your mind that it might have been KLM screwing up and
    >> not getting the information processed before they made it to Canada
    >> did it brain surgeon.
    >I thought KLM said it wasn't supposed to be sharing that information at
    >all. There are privacy laws in Europe.

Maybe, but when terrorists are, and have been for years, actively
trying to attack you one would think that screeing all passengers
wherever they are going as possible terrorists would be completely
routine. The Netherlands had already had one terrorist murder against
a prominent citizen there and many threats against others. Does KLM
have to be told to do this?

    >> Go read his anti-Jewish babbling, which is reason enough to dump
    >> his dumb ass.
    >Exercising one's freedom of speech is not reason enough to deny anyone
    >the possibility of air travel.

Bullshit. No one has freedom of speech to support Khomeni's fatwa
against Rushdie, give money to terrorists like Hamas, etc. etc.

[email protected] writes:

    > No one has freedom of speech to support Khomeni's fatwa
    > against Rushdie, give money to terrorists like Hamas, etc. etc.

Why not?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > No, I don't think so. With 70,000 people, you don't need terrorism; you
    > can just form an army, or a political party. Terrorism is for people
    > who are so small in number that they cannot achieve their ends by any
    > other means.

It is also for the disenfranchised, those who have a legitimate cause and
popular support, but no means to meet a conventional army head on.

How do you expect people from a third world country to do battle with a
modern army, especially one that has WMDs? It is much easier and much cheaper
for them to strike soft targets and force their enemy to spend vast sums on
security and to act so aggressively that they end up looking like the bad
guys.

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Earl Evleth writes:

    > Of course, if those were really terrorists aboard the flight, just letting
it
    > get into the air might
    > have been sufficient to allow them to carry out some dastardly deed.

Absolutely right. If their primary interest was the passengers' safety they
should have at least forced the plane to land at a nearby remote military
airport (I'm sure they have plenty of them in the US) and have the two
suspects taken out of the plane.

But to make things even worse.... after the plane landed back at Schiphol
airport they let the two suspects walk away.

So much for the Dutch co-operation with the USA in the battle against
terrorism.

On our Dutch teletext service I just read the following and thought it would
be useful to place a translation in this thread:

******************
NOS Teletekst - 17-4-2005.

On board the KLM plane which was denied access to US airspace 2 weeks ago
were two Saudi-Arabian brothers. They attended flying lessons at the same
school also attended by one of the 9-11 high-jackers. The American magazine
Newsweek learned this from anonymous sources. Certainly one of the two was
interrogated by the US authorities shortly after the 9-11 attacks and was
expelled from the country. The couple is said to have contacts with
al-quaeda.

On returning to Amsterdam Schiphol airport the brothers were not detained.
Eventually they have returned to Saudi-Arabia.
******************

Charles J. van Doornewaard wrote:

    > "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Earl Evleth writes:
    >
    >
    >>Of course, if those were really terrorists aboard the flight, just letting
    >
    > it
    >
    >>get into the air might
    >>have been sufficient to allow them to carry out some dastardly deed.
    >
    >
    > Absolutely right. If their primary interest was the passengers' safety they
    > should have at least forced the plane to land at a nearby remote military
    > airport (I'm sure they have plenty of them in the US) and have the two
    > suspects taken out of the plane.
    >
    > But to make things even worse.... after the plane landed back at Schiphol
    > airport they let the two suspects walk away.
    >
    > So much for the Dutch co-operation with the USA in the battle against
    > terrorism.

Or is it merely that the Dutch, being aware of incidents
such as the one involving Ted Kennedy, might appreciate more
evidence than the inclusion of a name on an (American) "no
fly" list, before they detain a legitimate traveler and risk
a lawsuit?