Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No-Fly List Does Good On Korean Air Diversion  
User currently offlineNYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1387 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3809 times:

For all of our disdain and complaints about the no-fly list, and flight diversions, it seems like the Korean Airlines flight from ICN-SFO that was diverted to Japan on May 29, actually picked out a legitimate terrorist subject.

According to CNN, Hamid Hayat of California was on his way back to SFO from an al-Qaeda training camp in Pakistan. Although he was let back on the plane after questioning, he is now a suspect in a major terrorist plot: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/08/terror.probe/index.html

This gives me comfort that at least the FBI is targeting the right people when it diverts foreign carriers flying to, or over, the U.S.


excerpt: "Hayat denied attending the camp to an FBI agent in Japan, where his flight from South Korea to San Francisco was diverted May 29 when his name appeared on a "no-fly" list.

Hayat was allowed to continue his flight to San Francisco based on his denial.

His no-fly status was changed in Japan to "selectee," Slotter said, meaning more information was needed to determine whether he should be on the no-fly list.

Asked why Hamid Hayat was on a no-fly list, Charles DeMore, special agent in charge with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to answer."

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Quoting NYCFlyer (Thread starter):
This gives me comfort that at least the FBI is targeting the right people when it diverts foreign carriers flying to, or over, the U.S.

I am happy it gives you comfort, even if I have difficulties in understanding how, since the suspect was finally let on-board the plane.

But what I find interesting in your sentence is the part "foreign". In fact (but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong) all the diversion incidents have taken place with foreign carriers (AF/KL, BA, KE, ???).

Is it pure chance ?



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20505 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens flies United. I think he was even elite of some sort. Richard Reid preferred American Airlines.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineNYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Quoting TGV (Reply 1):
I am happy it gives you comfort, even if I have difficulties in understanding how, since the suspect was finally let on-board the plane.

Sorry, when I said foreign, I didn't mean foreign carriers, I meant international flights.

However, I'm a little perplexed at how denying that you've been at an al-Qaeda training camp can get you back on the plane. I mean, who is going to admit to that straight up?

My only point is that this guy's name was on the no-fly list for very good reason, and the plane SHOULD have been diverted to take him off. So I have a little more faith in the no-fly list, that's all.


User currently offlineXpat From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3644 times:

Why was he allowed to board the plane in the first place?


The only thing we have to fear is the sky falling on our heads. -Asterix
User currently offlineSoaringadi From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting NYCFlyer (Thread starter):
Hayat was allowed to continue his flight to San Francisco based on his denial

lol.....  Smile



If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going !
User currently offlineGVBIG From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting Xpat (Reply 4):
Why was he allowed to board the plane in the first place?

Apparently the US government doesnt tell airlines the names of people on the "no fly" list.



Booked it, Packed it, f*cked off!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

No matter what the United States does, someone has a complaint. After he was questioned in Japan and it was determined that they did not have enough to detain him, so they let him carry on with this trip but flagged him.

What should the FBI have done? If they had detained him in Japan, there surely would have been an outcry againts the US based on the usual litany of complaints: ignoring the law, religious bigotry, etc.

The system did work this time. It certainly could be improved to reduce/eliminate costly and inconvenient diversions but it caught what seems to be a pretty bad guy.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 7):
The system did work this time.

Huh?!? They diverted an airliner at great expense that didn't keep anyone from entering the US and they let a suspected terrorist into the US. That worked really well.  Yeah sure It would have been much more sensible to question him either before he departed Korea or after he landed in the US.


User currently offlinePlanemannyc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1008 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3534 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TGV (Reply 1):
But what I find interesting in your sentence is the part "foreign". In fact (but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong) all the diversion incidents have taken place with foreign carriers (AF/KL, BA, KE, ???).

Perhaps it's a change in tactics by terrorists? After Richard Reid, maybe they feel that it is easier to slip in to the US on foreign carriers. I think, given what happened in 9/11, having a no-fly list is not only good, it is absolutely necessary. I think the occasional inconvenience and cost associated with diversion is a small price to pay over letting terrorists in (including even in cases of false positives, as the publicity surrounding such serves as a notice to terrorists that the authorities are watching).

Best,

Wasim / Planemannyc


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Quoting N79969 (Reply 7):
The system did work this time.

Huh?!? They diverted an airliner at great expense that didn't keep anyone from entering the US and they let a suspected terrorist into the US. That worked really well. It would have been much more sensible to question him either before he departed Korea or after he landed in the US.

 bigthumbsup 
Was this a Success.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Zveda,

The guy is a U.S. citizen so they either had to arrest him in Japan or let him enter the United States. There is a legal standard that must be met before the FBI can arrest someone in general and I am not sure how it would work on Japanese soil.

I am not sure to what extent foreign carriers share manifest info with the US government relative to US based airlines. It maybe that foreign carriers do not send a list to US immigration until after the flight departs. There are many unknowns.

Insofar that the no-fly system picked up on a suspicious individual that led to his eventual arrest, I think it is a partial vindication for the system.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 11):
Insofar that the no-fly system picked up on a suspicious individual that led to his eventual arrest, I think it is a partial vindication for the system.

The only thing he has even been charged with is making false statements. That's worth a diversion???  Yeah sure I don't think so.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3487 times:

Zvezda,

The false statements charge allowed the arrest. I think there will be other, much more serious charges to follow soon.


User currently offlineHawk44 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 759 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
They diverted an airliner at great expense that didn't keep anyone from entering the US and they let a suspected terrorist into the US. That worked really well

Yes they did do the right thing, they diverted the plane interviewed him more than likely put 24 hour surveillance on him and let him go about his normal activities while they build a case against him so eventually they can capture more members of the cell. This will not be the only arrest linked to this father and son, and they both will probably be charged with Conspiracy to: (1) Levy War Against the U.S., (2) Provide Material Support & Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and (3) Contribute Services to Al Qaeda and Taliban.

Quoting Planemannyc (Reply 9):
Perhaps it's a change in tactics by terrorists? After Richard Reid, maybe they feel that it is easier to slip in to the US on foreign carriers.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers came into the US via PIT on a LH flight so I doubt carrier has anything to do with it.

Hawk44



Never under estimate the power of US
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

Quoting Hawk44 (Reply 14):
(3) Contribute Services to Al Qaeda and Taliban.

You could basically charge most of the US government in the 80s with this one


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Two-Year Old On No-Fly List posted Thu Jan 5 2006 21:09:39 by PanAm747
Tasers On Korean Air - Good Or Bad? posted Tue Nov 9 2004 11:48:45 by TWISTEDWHISPER
Updated Biz Seats On Korean Air A330-300s posted Tue Aug 8 2006 01:34:39 by DeltaGator
US No Fly List? posted Sun Apr 23 2006 18:24:45 by Curious
TSA - Again - No Fly List Babies posted Tue Aug 16 2005 00:37:25 by ANCFlyer
Service In Y On Korean Air posted Thu Dec 16 2004 15:43:43 by MCI777
Britney Spears Stalker Added To No-fly List posted Fri Oct 24 2003 13:58:07 by WNfan
Any Experiences On Korean Air posted Sat Aug 30 2003 22:08:43 by KAL744
What Is "Q" Class On Korean Air? posted Mon May 19 2003 11:33:09 by Flyinghighboy
Anyone Flown On Korean Air? posted Fri Jul 12 2002 09:08:24 by BOEING747400