USA detains BA passengers for 3 hours

BA 747 from London to Dulles (Washington).,

Plane restricted to airfield away from terminal while passengers and luggage
was searched. USA said it had credible information. They found nothing and
after 3 hours, the detained passengers were released.

Our Guantanamo Bay based intelligence proves itself once again. s


"rk" wrote in message
...
xxxxxx wrote:

BA 747 from London to Dulles (Washington).,

Plane restricted to airfield away from terminal while
passengers and luggage was searched. USA said it had credible
information. They found nothing and after 3 hours, the detained
passengers were released.

From the NYT:

Intelligence developed by American officials indicated that
the route of the flight might be a target of terrorists,
and at least one name on the passenger list appeared to
match a name on a terror watch list, the security official
said.

Also, some other flights had similar treatment where passengers
weren't properly screened; screening was done upon arrival. One
flight was turned back in mid-air for not following screening
procedures.

--
rk

"rk" wrote in message
...
xxxxxx wrote:

BA 747 from London to Dulles (Washington).,

Plane restricted to airfield away from terminal while
passengers and luggage was searched. USA said it had credible
information. They found nothing and after 3 hours, the detained
passengers were released.

From the NYT:

Intelligence developed by American officials indicated that
the route of the flight might be a target of terrorists,
and at least one name on the passenger list appeared to
match a name on a terror watch list, the security official
said.

Also, some other flights had similar treatment where passengers
weren't properly screened; screening was done upon arrival. One
flight was turned back in mid-air for not following screening
procedures.

Pathetic paranoia.

On 1/1/04 12:22 PM, in article
, "Mark Hewitt"
wrote:


"rk" wrote in message
...
xxxxxx wrote:

BA 747 from London to Dulles (Washington).,

Plane restricted to airfield away from terminal while
passengers and luggage was searched. USA said it had credible
information. They found nothing and after 3 hours, the detained
passengers were released.

From the NYT:

Intelligence developed by American officials indicated that
the route of the flight might be a target of terrorists,
and at least one name on the passenger list appeared to
match a name on a terror watch list, the security official
said.

Also, some other flights had similar treatment where passengers
weren't properly screened; screening was done upon arrival. One
flight was turned back in mid-air for not following screening
procedures.

Pathetic paranoia.





CNN says there were a dozen on the flight on a terrorist watch list. Last
week the flights from France were cancelled because there were dozens of
folks on those flights on the watch list...how big is the watch list that
there are frequently dozens of listed people on a single flight. (Also note
that in both cases nobody was found to be sufficiently suspicious to
detain). And btw today's BA flight was cancelled.

"Petter" wrote in message
...

CNN says there were a dozen on the flight on a terrorist watch list. Last
week the flights from France were cancelled because there were dozens of
folks on those flights on the watch list...how big is the watch list that
there are frequently dozens of listed people on a single flight. (Also
note
that in both cases nobody was found to be sufficiently suspicious to
detain). And btw today's BA flight was cancelled.

The explanation I have heard is that "10%" of Muslim males are names
Mohammed Ali.
Stated better, there are many people with the same name as those on The
List. I wonder if William Smith or John Jones are on the list.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:22:29 -0000, "Mark Hewitt"
wrote:

Pathetic paranoia.

What would have done differently and why?

--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

I doubt that I'm disagreeing with _you_...but...

first off, what difference did it make to segregate them on the aircraft
away from the terminal? Contagious disease? (THEN that would have made
sense) If they were a threat in the air, that has passed. Identify those
interesting individuals at CUSTOMS/INS? (after all, since this was an
international arrival, there would have been more than ample oppoprtunity to
identify individuals at that point.) Paranoia is one thing, IDITOTIC
paranoia is another (that's paranoia combined with idiocy) after all, isn't
there some easy was to evade having to go thru the INS inbound check? (and
if you answer "yes", oyu obviously aren't familiar with the system) Oh,
that's right, they have access to their bags and could thus produce the
weapons they hid in their bags and attack INS (remembering, though, that
Customs/INS are also armed..)

"Lansbury" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:22:29 -0000, "Mark Hewitt"
wrote:

Pathetic paranoia.

What would have done differently and why?

--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:55:22 +0000, Lansbury
wrote:

What would have done differently and why?

Where to start?

Have faith in the physical screening system for people and baggage as
well as an alert passenger load to protect from highjacking attempts
inside the plane. Assume that if there was a bomb in the
less-well-screened luggage or cargo it would have exploded before
landing. If there are individuals of interest intercept them at
immigration. Run passenger bags through the screening system at Dulles
prior to pickup. If it's true as the stories are saying that the match
list creates a lot of false positives due to similar names, don't
detain a group of 99-100% harmless people to search for a needle in a
haystack. Get rid of the people who regard carrying an almanac as a
sign of criminality.

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:55:22 +0000, Lansbury
wrote:

What would have done differently and why?

Where to start?

Have faith in the physical screening system for people and baggage as
well as an alert passenger load to protect from highjacking attempts
inside the plane. Assume that if there was a bomb in the
less-well-screened luggage or cargo it would have exploded before
landing. If there are individuals of interest intercept them at
immigration. Run passenger bags through the screening system at Dulles
prior to pickup. If it's true as the stories are saying that the match
list creates a lot of false positives due to similar names, don't
detain a group of 99-100% harmless people to search for a needle in a
haystack. Get rid of the people who regard carrying an almanac as a
sign of criminality.

Trouble is, nobody gets fired for erring on the side of caution

So then you know exactly what the person(s) who decided to hold the
flight knew and can explain why based on that information they made the
wrong choice?


--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup