Earl Evleth

A bit of a hot potato. Some French comment is that
the US would not have made this much fuss over nothing
and that clear indications were that something was "afoot".

Yet, there is also a sentiment that the US made similar
errors in intelligence judgments in the past. Basically,
it is better to live with that in the area of terrorism
than brush warnings aside. The press still does not
report the profiles of those who did not make the flight.
Knowing the DST they are likely to say "we haven`t found
anything" when they are hot on the trial. Smart people
never talk to the media unless they want to manipulate it.

Earl

******

France is denying tension with U.S. on canceled flights

advertisement

John Burgess
Washington Post
Dec. 27, 2003 12:00 AM

PARIS - Air France resumed its canceled Paris-Los Angeles schedule on
Friday, as French and U.S. officials denied reports of tensions over whether
U.S. terrorism warnings warranted grounding the flights.

Cooperation with the United States "has been exemplary," said Jean-Claude
Mallet, permanent secretary for national defense in the French Prime
Minister's Office. There was a frequent and ongoing exchange of intelligence
and consultations with the CIA and FBI, Mallet said in an interview. He said
the decision to cancel six flights on Wednesday and Thursday was mutual,
because the warnings were so credible and specific that there was no choice.

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that it was still not clear if the
cancellation of the flights had successfully thwarted a terrorist operation.

Late Thursday, French officials announced that the specific threat to the
Los Angeles route had abated, and so, at 3:50 p.m. on Friday, Air France
Flight 68 took off from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport. That was about 2
hours and 15 minutes late, a delay that Mallet attributed to highest-level
security measures that remain in effect at the airport, requiring exhaustive
screening of passengers and luggage. A second flight, on Friday night, also
departed more than 2 hours late.

The French Interior Ministry reported Thursday that police questioned 13
people who had come to the airport to board two of the canceled flights and
whose names appeared on a watch list. But no evidence of terrorist intent by
any of the 13 came to light, the ministry said, and all were released.

U.S. officials said that certain passengers who had bookings but failed to
appear for the flights could have been planning a terror attack. The concern
was "certainly not limited to one particular flight or airline," a U.S.
official said, nor did it pinpoint a particular day, but rather a period of
time.

Officials reviewing flight manifests came across suspicious names, and "you
don't have a whole lot of time and it's certainly not something you can
ignore," the official said. That was when the Bush administration asked Air
France to cancel those specific flights.

Mallet declined to discuss specifics of how authorities are proceeding, but
said that even people who did not check in will come under scrutiny.

Some media reports have depicted French officials as initially skeptical
that the warnings were sufficiently credible to justify the extreme step of
canceling the flights and that in response, their U.S. counterparts applied
pressure. Le Figaro newspaper reported Friday that the American side raised
the possibility, directly or by implication, of denying Air France planes
heading for Los Angeles permission to enter U.S. airspace, leaving French
authorities with no real choice but to ground the flights.

Though France and the United States remain at odds over the Iraq war, they
have continued close cooperation against international terrorists. French
forces took part in the war against the Taliban movement and al-Qaida
network in Afghanistan and remain part of an international peacekeeping
contingent in Kabul, the Afghan capital.

On Friday, officials from both sides disputed accounts that tensions emerged
over the Air France flights.

"In our view, the cooperation was excellent," said a U.S. official in Paris,
who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mallet said, "We have always had excellent relationships with the American
(security) services."

Go Fig

In article <BC1325D4.20B1B%>,
Earl Evleth <> wrote:

    >
    > A bit of a hot potato. Some French comment is that
    > the US would not have made this much fuss over nothing
    > and that clear indications were that something was "afoot".
    >
    > Yet, there is also a sentiment that the US made similar
    > errors in intelligence judgments in the past. Basically,
    > it is better to live with that in the area of terrorism
    > than brush warnings aside. The press still does not
    > report the profiles of those who did not make the flight.
    > Knowing the DST they are likely to say "we haven`t found
    > anything" when they are hot on the trial. Smart people
    > never talk to the media unless they want to manipulate it.

Has it been revealed why a sting was not successfully performed, here
they just say it was a leak from someone.

jay
Sat, Dec 27, 2003
mailto:

Earl Evleth

On 27/12/03 12:24, in article
gofig-, "Go Fig" <>
wrote:

    > Has it been revealed why a sting was not successfully performed, here
    > they just say it was a leak from someone.


You were the person who spread the disinformation that Air France
personnel were suspect of being involved on this NG! So enough of
your disinformation!

Earl

Go Fig

In article <BC136143.20B37%>,
Earl Evleth <> wrote:

    > On 27/12/03 12:24, in article
    > gofig-, "Go Fig" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Has it been revealed why a sting was not successfully performed, here
    > > they just say it was a leak from someone.
    >
    >
    > You were the person who spread the disinformation that Air France
    > personnel were suspect of being involved on this NG! So enough of
    > your disinformation!
    >

What an ingnorant fool. Look at the worlds newspapers of the day. I
specifically said 'suggested."

To commandeer a plane today, you are going to need a weapon, it is very
doubtful that that weapon can get past passenger screening... that
leaves air-side.

Is it now your suggestion that a sting wasnt originally planned ?

jay
Sat, Dec 27, 2003
mailto:

Miles

Go Fig wrote:

    > To commandeer a plane today, you are going to need a weapon, it is very
    > doubtful that that weapon can get past passenger screening... that
    > leaves air-side.

Alot of small items can be effectively used as a weapon. Pretty easy to
get something past screening IMHO. 9/11 showed us just how easy.

Jeremy Henderson

On 27/12/03 6:10 pm, in article t%iHb.24319$J77.18674@fed1read07, "Miles"
<> wrote:

    >
    >
    > Go Fig wrote:
    >
    >> To commandeer a plane today, you are going to need a weapon, it is very
    >> doubtful that that weapon can get past passenger screening... that
    >> leaves air-side.
    >
    > Alot of small items can be effectively used as a weapon. Pretty easy to
    > get something past screening IMHO. 9/11 showed us just how easy.

On a recent trip from Paris to Pau I unpacked in my hotel room and found
that I had brought through my Leatherman Micra mini-tool which includes
quite a vicious little blade in my hand luggage without it being spotted by
the X-ray people. I brought it back to Paris the same way.

A coupe of weeks later I was making the same trip, remembered my mini-tool,
and couldn't find it. Cogitating on the irony of having lost it so recently
after having it been undetected by the X-rays I packed my overnight bag and
went to the airport.

You guessed it - my Micra was in my bag, and this time they found it. I
expressed surprise and happiness, having thought it was lost. They said "oh
yes, we find everything, even if people think it's lost".

I checked my bag without further comment.

J;

Go Fig

In article <BC137D71.3B1B9%>,
Jeremy Henderson <> wrote:

    > On 27/12/03 6:10 pm, in article t%iHb.24319$J77.18674@fed1read07, "Miles"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Go Fig wrote:
    > >
    > >> To commandeer a plane today, you are going to need a weapon, it is very
    > >> doubtful that that weapon can get past passenger screening... that
    > >> leaves air-side.
    > >
    > > Alot of small items can be effectively used as a weapon. Pretty easy to
    > > get something past screening IMHO. 9/11 showed us just how easy.
    >
    > On a recent trip from Paris to Pau I unpacked in my hotel room and found
    > that I had brought through my Leatherman Micra mini-tool which includes
    > quite a vicious little blade in my hand luggage without it being spotted by
    > the X-ray people. I brought it back to Paris the same way.
    >
    > A coupe of weeks later I was making the same trip, remembered my mini-tool,
    > and couldn't find it. Cogitating on the irony of having lost it so recently
    > after having it been undetected by the X-rays I packed my overnight bag and
    > went to the airport.
    >
    > You guessed it - my Micra was in my bag, and this time they found it. I
    > expressed surprise and happiness, having thought it was lost. They said "oh
    > yes, we find everything, even if people think it's lost".
    >
    > I checked my bag without further comment.
    >
    > J;
    >

You think a Leatherman is going to be sufficient to commandeer a plane,
post 9/11 ?

jay
Sat, Dec 27, 2003
mailto:

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > To commandeer a plane today, you are going to need a weapon, it is very
    > doubtful that that weapon can get past passenger screening... that
    > leaves air-side.

Weapons get past screening all the time; but the airside risk is in
_addition_ to that.

Earl Evleth

On 27/12/03 17:54, in article
gofig-, "Go Fig" <>
wrote:

    > Is it now your suggestion that a sting wasnt originally planned ?

Whatever, there is no mention of a sting operation. A google search
on google new came up with nothing.

Are you listening to a tune in your own head or what?

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 27/12/03 18:10, in article t%iHb.24319$J77.18674@fed1read07, "Miles"
<> wrote:

    > Alot of small items can be effectively used as a weapon. Pretty easy to
    > get something past screening IMHO. 9/11 showed us just how easy.
    >


Basically there is no way a hijacked plane is going to get from Paris to Las
Vegas, the now designated city.

The Miami flight never made it because the passengers revolted. We are
the counter weapon now.

Earl