Innocent 747 Pilot Dubbed 'Security risk' sues BA

[Ye Olde Pilot]

An innocent pilot suing BA for wrongful dismissal has been identified as Surrey-born Samir Jamaluddin. This case has all the tones of a witch hunt as far as I'm concerned and has echos of the Lotfi Raissi case.
He is an Algerian-born British resident, was arrested in the UK shortly after the 9/11 attacks amid claims that he was a key member of the plot.
He was held in custody for nearly five months before being released when a judge found there was no evidence to link him to any form of terrorism.
He has been awarded a multi million pound compensation package.

Samir Jamaluddin was judged a security risk after his arrest by Scotland Yard counter-terrorism detectives in 2007, and the airline decided it was in the national interest to ensure he never flew again.
He was eventually dismissed three years later.

Read more: 'Terror link' pilot who flew 747s for BA can be identified for the first time | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096602/Terror-link-pilot-flew-747s-BA-identified-time.html#ixzz1lUB1PXjG)

[Notso Fantastic]

Come on, let's have the whole story! If you are going to raise this horrifying (horrifying because of the implications if this man wins) story, then please put up more information about what it's about instead of peddling just the liberal, human rights side of your story!....The pilot’s brother, Yakoob Jamaluddin, an active member of the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, was questioned over the same offences but never charged.
Mr Steeds first became aware of the alleged plot on October 9, 2007, when he was briefed under the Official Secrets Act.
He was told how two men – Adam Mohamed, 32, of Chessington, Surrey, and Imad Shoubaki, 35, of Merton, South London – had ‘sought flying lessons in order to achieve a private pilot’s licence as quickly as possible’.
Mr Steeds said police ‘disrupted that activity’ because of fears about what they might be planning.
BA documents relating to 747 aircraft were discovered in Mr Shoubaki’s home after his arrest. Mr Steeds said he was told at the briefing that ‘information suggested these documents had been passed at a dinner party in Chessington. I was asked for details of BA pilots who might live in that area’.
The airline came up with Mr Jamaluddin. Not only did he live a mile away, he had also been the subject of an informal inquiry a year earlier after allegedly expressing support for the September 11 attacks while on a flight deck – a claim he denies.
Police then established the first of several links between Mr Jamaluddin and the two men. The first was that his brother Yakoob was in business with Mr Mohamed.
The pilot and his brother were arrested on October 23. Mr Steeds said police told him it ‘seemed as if Samir had been expecting to be arrested’ as they found the name and number of a prominent human rights lawyer who specialises in race discrimination issues punched into his mobile phone.
‘They also informed me that copies of the flight documents previously shown to BA had been found in Samir’s flight bag....’


Read more: 'Terror link' pilot who flew 747s for BA can be identified for the first time | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096602/Terror-link-pilot-flew-747s-BA-identified-time.html#ixzz1lVA6pXml)


I'm afraid in this day and age when it is becoming almost impossible to convict anybody of anything and get it to stand, in this case, the company had severe doubts as to the loyalties and motivation of this individual. An airline cannot have anybody fly its planes and potentially cause a holocaust in a city committing a weird suicide act (and taking thousands of innocent people with them!). I would not put any of my family on board an aeroplane flown by someone with links like this person has, and that is why this case is in court. Thanks to lawyers, we have this absurd case for re-instatement. Quite simply, the risk cannot be taken. With a brother a member of that odious organisation, how can he be entrusted. I had to go through all sorts of checks, most of which I knew nothing of, to fly jets- if this man slides through using law, what was all that for? I would feel extremely concerned knowing this person with the associations he has would have complete licence to potentially cause the catastrophe his religion and teachings amongst certain branches of it espouses. That he allegedly expressed support for 911 is beyond belief. You obviously have no respect for the damage 911 did- to quote your own words:
The world has gone mad. Let's face it,if you are a terrorist and want to create havoc in New York,London etc just detonate something on the subway.Given the reaction to 9/11 and Richard Read the effect would create ten times more hassle which is the objective. OBL must be laughing in his cave You appear to have no idea of the effect 911 had or the damage or loss of life that occurred. Well the resulting security checks have thrown up more than enough suspicion for me, a former colleague of this person. But looking at your personal posting style, you appear to be an 'opinion loudhailer' rather than a communicator. You know how everything in the world should be run! We did not need you peddling this propaganda of yours here, twice in 3 posts!

[MathFox]

How many lives and careers should """security""" agencies be allowed to ruin to prevent one killing by terrorists?

How many democratic checks are there on what the security agencies do?

Should any company act on information that government officials refuse to put in writing?

[NigelOnDraft]

My reading of it is that BA were left between the proverbial rock & a hard place... The Govt essentially said they were concerns, had the ability to deny an airside pass, but left the airline to do the dirty work. WW said as much with respect to his career. IIRC the previous article said BA offered him opportunities to work elsewhere in the airline?

BA could of course throw this back at the Govt if the Tribunal find in Jamaluddin's favour. They just go back to HMG and say "one of your Depts says he is a hazard, the other we are supposed to let him fly our aircraft - please make up your mind?". And unlike last time, now all in the public gaze ;)

Assuming the Mail article is essentially correct (it seems a balanced writeup, which is surprising for the Mail), I do not think it reflects badly on BA in any way... it does on HMG :eek:

[MungoP]

It's difficult to think of any position that holds more potential for chaos and destruction than an airline pilot guiding a few hundred tons of aircraft carrying several hundred people over a major city... I don't think that we can condemn the security services for pointing out the risk of a pilot who has known contacts with suspected fundamentalist factions. As for the pilot... he has to appreciate that if you lie with dogs you'll rise with fleas.

[MathFox]

He should never fly an airliner again.
Yes, the treatment by BA management and UK authorities certainly made him a security risk! :mad:
Good old BA selection again for you huh!
:confused: How many years did he fly BA planes safely?
I don't think that we can condemn the security services for pointing out the risk of a pilot who has known contacts with suspected fundamentalist factions.
But why didn't they dare to put that in writing? And government scored zero terrorism convictions out of four suspects in this case. Made several lives miserable though.

[Kingfisher]

It is very true that all authorities involved are damned if they do and damned if they dont. BA must think very highly of themselves to decide for the greater good that some should never fly again. This Man must have his day in court and face his accusers. The powers that be are going to have to produce evidence to justify their actions. In the end evidence in court has to win the day one way or another.

[jcjeant]

Regardless of this hypothetical, I will concede that entering into such a discussion in the environment of a flight deck is foolish and naive in the extreme, and surely if something along such lines were discussed, the chap in question would surely expect some form of investigation to occur?

No .. no expecting investigation will occur
I discuss the same many time .. on forum .. in public places .. with friends and strangers and I don't expect any investigations (and was never subject of one)
Who think it will be subject to investigations concerning this mater must thinking he is living in the EX USSR or East Germany ..
Can we think that actually UK is EX USSR or East Germany like ?
Maybe .. after what I read here :)

[racedo]

The reality is if the guy is totally innocent then he will be able to get another job.

You are being nieve.

He is now tainted as a "potential" threat and even if no evidence is ever produced you will find people will believe that somehow he must be involved because a secret govt report said he was.

A guy who was in the public eye was "alledged" to be involved in funding an act of terrorism involving attempting to overthrow a Govt.............would you then ensure by the same logic that this persons family should not be able to have any contact with members of Govt in the country they live and the family should be treated as Pariahs because the actions of a wayward member ?

[englishman]

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a religious organization, whose views don't come even close to, lets say, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's - do you think that BA would go after anyone who is a member of Falwell's Liberty Christian Academy? Won't happen.

It is simply mind boggling how people are prepared to throw away their human rights in the name of 'safety'. Goodbye constitution, hello Orwell!

[757_Driver]

It is simply mind boggling how people are prepared to throw away their human rights in the name of 'safety'. Goodbye constitution, hello Orwell!

Whilst that is quite true, its also mind boggling how many people expect that they have a human 'right' to act in whatever manner they please regarldess of the effects to society at large. Whilst there is a huge "rights of the individual vs rights of the society" argument, I beleive that people need to take their position in society seriously. If you want to fly an aircraft and have the security clearance to do so, then you must accept that will place certain restrictions on your life, on what you can say, on whom you can associate with, on which clubs, groups or relgions you can subscribe to.

I'm sure many can argue that this guy (or indeed anyone else) has a right to be a member of whatever organisation he wants, and I'll agree with that, but then he does not have a right to fly an aircraft and / or have whatever job he chooses.

[Skittles]

It is simply mind boggling how people are prepared to throw away their human rights in the name of 'safety'. Goodbye constitution, hello Orwell!

Precisely what does your ability to get on/pilot a BA aircraft have to do with the constitution or your human rights?

[DX Wombat]

How many years did he fly BA planes safely?This may not be relelvant. There are at least two crashes involving a commercial aircraft where the cause has been deemed to be the suicide of one or other of the pilots. (Silk Air 185 and Egyptair 990). I have tried to find information regarding the length of time these pilots had been flying for the particular airline but haven't succeeded. Simply because someone has flown for an airline for years does not automatically mean he or she will never resort to deliberate, lethal behaviour when flying.

[englishman]

I'm sure many can argue that this guy (or indeed anyone else) has a right to be a member of whatever organisation he wants, and I'll agree with that, but then he does not have a right to fly an aircraft and / or have whatever job he chooses.

Then make it a law: 'You are not allowed to be a pilot, if you are a member of a religious organization.' Good luck on figuring out the difference between a Sunday school religious organization and a fundamentalist one. On the other hand, in today's society 'whatever' organisation should be read as Muslim organization, since no one has beef with pilots being members of Arian brotherhood, Jerry Falwell's Liberty Christian Academy, KKK etc.

its also mind boggling how many people expect that they have a human 'right' to act in whatever manner they please regarldess of the effects to society at large.

I cannot agree with that. Look were we have come since 9.11. - you get stripped, searched about a dozen of times, liquids are of limits, if you had been to tanning saloon you will 'randomly' be picked at every single sec. checkpoint etc. People have been convinced that there is just a matter of days to another attack and if you will not comply with everything the Big Brother throws at you, well, you must have something to hide.
How can you have an effect on society if you or your friends are members of an organization?

[englishman]

In the case of Mr. Jamaluddin, he was not a member of a terrorist organization. His brother was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir which is not a terrorist organization, but a religious one and it certainly doesn't pose a threat to aviation. So why was he prosecuted? And should a pilot be prosecuted if he is a member of late Jerry Falwell's congregation (Falwell said, that 9.11. was 'probably deserved' - Yasser Arafat on the other hand condemned the attacks)?

[racedo]

No luck needed. Just common sense and experience.
Any organisation which has a history of targeting/threatening commercial aviation with terrorist acts. Islamic or otherwise.

A commercial pilot should not have any links to any organisation which has a history of threats to aviation. At the very least the pilot should be completely open to scrutiny.

You really sure you want to go with that one ?

Given your location how do you know that the guy you speak to every day on way into work and chat about English premiership is not a member of Al Qaeda.

Your conversations with him where you mention you support Arsenal and him Chelsea and you discuss previous weeks results goes on for months all the while he never mentions that a cousin was a hijacker United Flight 175 on 9/11. You kindly offer to bring him back some Chelsea stuff on next visit to London.

You bring it back and a week later get arrested for being part of a cell..........

Thats how easy it is for security services to assume you are part of it.

All fiction but unless you know the background of every single person you ever come in contact with you can never know.

[Notso Fantastic]

There's a lot of rubbish being spouted here by people determined human rights must trump everything else. This group the pilot's brother belongs to: "which is not a terrorist organization, but a religious one and it certainly doesn't pose a threat to aviation." has called for the destruction of Jews and Hindus and had its activities banned in Germany and other European countries. You libertines would not, at a guess, place your family on board a plane flown by this pilot, especially if he was travelling with his 2 businessmen friends he associates with- the ones who were taking up to 4 lessons a day to desperately learn to fly big jets. There is enough os a degree of suspicion and doubt about the associations and relationships of the people close to this individual that make it unviable for him to be in the position he wants to be in. Quite simply the risk is unacceptable and you know it. Pay him his coin and get rid of him. I would be interested to know how long he's worked and what he gets for it- I will be comparing my 34 years in the job and what it was worth to me!

[Kingfisher]

Greystoke, you make a valid argument but you are wrong. It is not acceptable to say to a court "If you knew what I knew, then you would find this man guilty."
"What do you know?"
" I cant tell you its secret"

The last time I heard this used was by Tony Blair, turns out what he knew that we were not allowed to know led to the Iraq mess. If you have wire tapped a suspect legaly present the evidence in court. One could get the feeling that the reason evidence cannot be presented to a judge is on the grounds it is bollocks and agencies are not above trying to avoid looking stupid and heavy handed.

[englishman]

As far as I know Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Germany because of antisemitism not because of terrorism So tell me, who is to decide what kind of world view should a pilot have? Will you apply the same standard with a pilot whose brother is a member of Arian Brotherhood?
At the end of the day it all comes to simple fact: was Jamaluddin member of a terrorist organization or was he plotting an attack? If you cant prove that and you still fire him, than pay up (I'm not sure how the tax payers will look at that).

[Skipness One Echo]

His brother was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir which is not a terrorist organization, but a religious one and it certainly doesn't pose a threat to aviation.They look, sound, appear and behave as a dangerous, anti-semitic, anti-Western group of hate filled people. Nothing to worry about? Google is your friend, they were rightly banned in the UK, not something we say often.

[Clandestino]

Here's the link to earlier article in the Daily Mail, in case you've missed it before the first thread about occurrence went missing:

Pilot with terror links deemed a security risk accuses airline of racism after losing his job (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089987/Pilot-terror-links-deemed-security-risk-accuses-airline-racism-losing-job.html)

[pinkaroo]

It may be hard to believe a fellow professional may choose his own religious future over the lives of a few hundred Kuffar. This infiltration is aided and abetted by diversity. When doctors are willing to bomb Nightclubs and Airports why not Pilots? And do not think he is the only Pilot either.
Islam is on a charge at the moment. The insistence this faith is peacful would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
HuT is not proscribed because it suits other purposes, otherwise it would be.
This empoyment curtailment is called disruption. Better to help an employee you fear is going to kill your staff and customers to the door than the alternative.
Just because you have not been told what is known by the Service does not make them wrong.

[cockpitvisit]

One of the biggest potential terrorist threats to aircraft is from the crew.
You'd have to be a very brave manager to gloss over security concerns related to pilots.
Regardless of whether he planned a suicide attack himself, he got caught just by pure luck - some associates of him acted in a stupid way in a case totally unrelated to his career at BA. He wouldn't have needed any helpers to commit a suicide attack himself!

How many more similar Samir Jamaluddins are out there? Guys, who are probably innocent but still cannot be 100% trusted?

Since there is finally some recognition that crews in the cockpit are a potential terrorist threat, it is time to do something about it, for example by stationing an armed security officer in the cockpit. It is just ridiculous that paying passengers have to endure all sorts of humuliation, having their possessions confiscated, sometimes unable to queue for toilets, while the biggest security threat is already in the front of the plane, having airplane controls, the fire axe and the airplane with lots of fuel at their disposal. You don't even need two terrorists in the cockpit to destroy a skyscraper, just one terrorist without any special items brought aboard would suffice. A single point of failure :mad:

The solution shouldn't be to ban this one randomly caught guy from flying. Rather, it should be impossible for this guy (or any single guy) to bring down a plane even if he keeps flying. Just like planes are engineered in a way that they don't go down when a single engine fails.

Sadly, pilot unions who usually pretend to care about the safety of air travel turn a blind eye on this issue, preferring their own little comfort to the safety of passengers paying their wages.

As for this guy, I hope he gets full reinstatement, and since BA considers allowing him to fly too risky for them, they should put him on paid leave till the end of his career.

[ETOPS]

for example by stationing an armed security officer in the cockpit.

And just how do you propose to ensure that this "armed intruder" isn't also a terrorist in waiting?

[englishman]

They look, sound, appear and behave as a dangerous, anti-semitic, anti-Western group of hate filled people. Nothing to worry about? Google is your friend, they were rightly banned in the UK, not something we say often.

They are not banned in the UK - Blair and Brown tried it, but since the group wasn't doing anything illegal, they couldn't. Hence, it's absurd to fire someone, because his brother (not him) is a member of an organisation which you would like to ban, but you can't.

[oldchina]

This is not about human rights, minority rights, religious rights, racism or even very much about the law. The latter only in the sense that BA has to be prepared to pay up. It's about running a company and minimising the threat to that company's existence.

Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.

[AndoniP]

if the court finds in his favour then he won't ever need to work again anyway, if this 'multi million pound compensation' is correct. and good for him. his life was :mad:'ed up by the government and BA, so they should pay up accordingly.

[Poltergeist]

Interesting views to which I would like to add mine.
The biggest issue here is the action of HMG. If it is as reported and quoted in the tribunal, BA had little choice. Told by the Home secretary that there was a risk and Government did not want him flying but would not order it. BA then could ignore it and the duty of care they have for passengers, other crew and people on the ground or act on it and be accused of poor judgement, procedure etc.
I am no fan of WW but I think he acted in the best way in the circumstances and took the responsibility.
Mrs Smith however, showed the streak of self serving fear by sloping shoulders knowing that BA would be in a difficult position.
For those arguing about prosecution, there are a number of reasons why sensitive cases do not get prosecuted and not all due to the state of the criminal justice system. Many cases are not prosecuted in order to protect information sources or there is a bigger picture being viewed.
British Airways will take the hit either way in this case unfairly in my view. As for the Pilot, I have a great deal of sympathy for him however I do not see what else the company could have done.

[parabellum]

Well said OldChina, so much libertarian tosh has been spouted here.

If I was head of security for an airline and I was advised that I had a pilot working in the airline who had a brother and a friend in an extremist Muslim organisation that had two members, known to the pilot, who were seeking to learn to fly at the rate of four lessons a day I would smell a rat. Imagine, one already on the flight deck as legitimate crew, (negating cockpit door security), with two accomplices in the cabin ready to pounce on a given signal and all three hell bent on suicide.

It is possible that insurance underwriters came to learn of this situation and they may have discussed withholding insurance cover, who knows?

Pay the man off, the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest he was an unacceptable risk.

[The Ancient Geek]

Just a simple case of clumsy burocracy at BA.

A sensible management would have explained their dilema to him in private and in a sympathetic manner then promoted him sideways into a non-flying job. A nice little 9 to 5 position driving a desk with an impressive job title and better salary would have solved the problem with minimal fuss.

[RoyHudd]

The issue of censorship of a number of contributions on this thread, mine included, seem worthy of debate too. Who is the censor, and to what "rules" are they operating.

I'm not offended if someone finds my contribution, or indeed conflicting ones unsavoury. Its part of the process here. But on what basis are they being deleted? And by who? Big Brother is alive and well on pprune, it seems.

Moderator, your answer please.

And is my financial contribution to the website refundable? I didn't pay to be silenced without warning and without feedback.:=

[parabellum]

The Ancient Greek -According to an earlier post they did more or less that, offered him a job within the company but not flying.

[FlexibleResponse]

oldchina

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 111

Lots of bull**** being spread here
This is not about human rights, minority rights, religious rights, racism or even very much about the law. The latter only in the sense that BA has to be prepared to pay up. It's about running a company and minimising the threat to that company's existence.

Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.

Me "oldchina" has put this problem into perspective and has done so very succinctly. What it comes down to is "duty of care" on the part of the employing airline to its passengers. And yes that concept has weight and precedent in English law. Do your own research if you find that doesn't come under your definition of basic commonsense.

[Notso Fantastic]

You're absolutely right! We have on the one hand the rights of one pilot (with an uncomfortable close terrorist connection, and stated sympathetic views to 911) and some suspiciously bizarre connections to people as stated versus the rights of a 747 load of innocent passengers and crew and their rights to as much safety and security as this PC-ridden world will allow. The several commentators here who harp on about the rights of the individual appear to believe they trump the rights of complete safety for the airline and its passengers.

The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, and they set fire to their shoes and underpants inflight, have an unholy fascination with death, murder, destruction of non-believers. We've seen they can come from any background at any time, but with one thing in common.

I, for one, am proud that my former employer has put complete safety of our passengers and crew and the general public, who may become a target, when sufficient doubt exists ahead of considerations for this one individual's 'rights' such that it may be punished for doing so. The many, many potential victims rights are paramount, not this man's. That's not BA being beastly- that's BA responding to a severe and current threat-action had to be taken, and well done!

[The Ancient Geek]

According to an earlier post they did more or less that, offered him a job within the company but not flying.

Yea, that was nice of them, AFTER he had been thrown in jail and had his life ruined.

This could have been handled sensitively AT THE BEGINNING instead of throwing him to the wolves of the press and the security circus.
"We like you and we trust you but the paranoid security service guys are giving us a hard time so we are moving you to a nice non-flying job with a pay rise for a few years until the fuss dies down"
Problem solved.

Any company that treats its staff so badly deserves to the sued for every penny until the pips squeek.

[Ancient Observer]

I'm not impressed in this debate by anyone who has total clarity about what was done and what should have been done.
This stuff is not, and never will be, black and white.
Some years ago, a mate of mine was approached by one of his mates who must have had some contacts in the security service. He was shown a photo of my mate and I with someone who the security bods thought was undesireable. (Neither of us knew about the undesireable person's status as undesireable).
The message was simple.............continue hanging around with undesireables, and we'll take an interest in you.
I'd have been extremely pissed off if a single or small series of meetings with undesireables lead me to lose my job.
However, I made very sure that I followed the advice,even though it was delivered in such a roundabout way.............so I did not lose my job.
I would completely defend my then employer's rights however, to fire me if I had continued hanging around with undesireables.
That's just my point of view. Someone else might take a different point of view.
We are not, and we cannot be, overly principled about this stuff. The nutters who blow people and things up are not principled in the slightest.
And - pleas - stop referring to Islam?moslems as any sort of enemy. They aren't. it is those that use religion as an excuse for politics that are the problem.

[Carjockey]

If he has been awarded a multi million compensation package, he won't need to fly or do anything else for a living anymore will he?

Lucky him!

As I see it, we are currently in a total mess regarding security clearance and basic competence of flight crews.

How can the situation be improved?

[Canadian Break]

Chaps - I normally linger on the military thread, but couldn't resist reading this thread because it involves all of us, and it ties in with my line of business. I have a question and a couple of points. Does anyone know what exactly what the "damages" that this guy was awarded are? If it was a couple of million then that is, if invested, an income of some 50K per year. He has also received a public apology and, whilst I acknowledge that many will believe that there is "no smoke without fire", such an apology is enough for him to sue a future potential employer who refuses him employment without concrete grounds (if indeed he wants'needs to work again) and to enable him to show his face in public. The reverse side of the coin is that the "authorities" have shown, publicly, that they are vigilant (they may also have publicly demonstrated their "clumsiness - but that's a subjective call) and sent a clear message to potential terrorists that "we are watching". Whilst I do not want to get into the Human Rights debate - especially in terms of Individual Rights v Individual Responsibilities I would point out that it is a 2-way street. There are jobs out there (Armed Forces springs immediately to mind for some reason!) where some things that people would see as my "Human Rights" have been curtailed because of the requirements of my employment - that's OK, I knew that when I signed up and, to be honest, I could have worked it out for myself without being told. There are simply some activities that are not compatible with some jobs. Finally, the big question - the "What If". Just say that this guy had crashed his aircraft into Canary Wharf and subsequent investigations revealed what we all know know after reading this thread - what would the Human Rights supporters be saying now? So, for what it's worth, my take on this is that in the overall scheme of things everyone involved in this is a loser - the individual, BA, the security services and HMG - OR, just perhaps everyone is a winner. The captain has his cash and a public apology and perhaps dopesn't ever need to work again, the security services have sent their message - etc etc. Just a thought............back off where I belong now!:ok:

[M.Mouse]

The captain has his cash and a public apology and perhaps doesn't ever need to work again...

Samir Jamaluddin was a first officer not a captain. The original post is extremely badly written, the person to receive compensation and an apology was Lotfi Raissi NOT Samir Jamaluddin.

[Sunfish]

The trouble, Gentlemen, is that we are fast approaching a state where even contributing to this thread could be deemed "evidence of terrorist sympathies". A simple check of your IP address follows, then a quiet word to your employer, the cancellation of your passport for "security reasons" and there you are, washed up. Thoughtcrime.

The problem is - who will watch the watchers? Once a security service reaches the stage where peoples careers depend on a continuing caseload of threats to the State, they will be tempted to manufacture them if their supply declines. Since much of their work can, and must, remain secret, it is easy to claim the existence of "secret evidence" of intent when fitting someone up. It takes very bright, hard working and hard nosed Judges and Civil servants to keep the security services in the fetters our forfathers applied to them.

Unfortunately it appears that those fetters are now broken. Security is now an "Industry" that will not retreat. The threat is now "Islam" and if we can't find a few terrorists to keep the public scared, we will poke and prod the Muslims till they react.

So what have we had? A shoe bomber? An underwear bomber? A lot of low IQ idiots in Britian, America and Australia whose efforts at terrorism are almost comical? Has a professional airline pilot ever committed a terrorist act? I don't think so. The only exception in the West is the backpack attack on Londons tube system.

To put that another way; does anyone remember the IRA? The bombing outside Harrods? The hotel in Brighton? The mortar attack on Ten Downing Street? Now THAT was a terrorist organisation! those were a terrorists terrorists! Yet compare our response to IRA terrorism to Islamic terrorism. Did we get our panties in knots and suspend ancient freedoms over the IRA? Did we run around denying jobs to anyone with an Irish name who was a Catholic?

Folks there are at least Two groups who profit from this paranoia; the security industry and various countries who want to demonise Muslims of various varieties for political purposes.


The cause of freedom is not helped by unquestioning believers like are friend Notso Fantastic:


The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, and they set fire to their shoes and underpants inflight, have an unholy fascination with death, murder, destruction of non-believers. We've seen they can come from any background at any time, but with one thing in common.

And of course Pinkaroo who tries to overturn the presumption of innocence:

Just because you have not been told what is known by the Service does not make them wrong.

[parabellum]

Sunfish - Freedom, for freedom's sake, is a non runner, real freedom can only be achieved by good security. Right now the security services are up against some very clever and very evil people, the security services have to think on the run and may well require to be innovative and non conforming, it doesn't matter, what ever it takes to keep the peace and save lives as well as preserve your precious freedom has to be acceptable.

The idea that you can have peace and freedom with a security service that is hide bound by a set of published rules and no latitude to operate outside those rules is just a Utopian pipe dream.

I really don't see how "are(sic) friend" Notsofantastic, by stating the bleedin' obvious, can, in any way, be detrimental to the cause of freedom.:confused:

[Blind Squirrel]

To put that another way; does anyone remember the IRA? The bombing outside Harrods? The hotel in Brighton? The mortar attack on Ten Downing Street? Now THAT was a terrorist organisation! those were a terrorists terrorists! Yet compare our response to IRA terrorism to Islamic terrorism. Did we get our panties in knots and suspend ancient freedoms over the IRA? Did we run around denying jobs to anyone with an Irish name who was a Catholic?

Actually, yes -- on both counts. The humorously-named Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, rushed through Parliament in all its stages in just two days, conferred upon the Home Secretary the power to declare certain organisations illegal by fiat, those who remained members of them being punishable by prison sentences of up to ten years. The Act also set up a system of internal exile of a kind unique to Europe west of the Iron Curtain, enabling the Home Secretary to issue indefinite "exclusion orders" to persons he didn't like the look of, either confining them to Northern Ireland, or preventing them from going there. The affected person had no right to be informed of the reasons, if any, for the making of these orders, or to challenge them in the courts. Violators got five years' stir. The Act allowed suspects to be detained without charge or trial for up to seven days, without the right to see a solicitor or any obligation on the part of the state even to confirm that the arrest had taken place; some 150,000 people, nearly all Irish, were so detained during its lifetime. A similar piece of legislation adopted at the same time abolished trial by jury for terrorist offences; the two "Real IRA" suspects convicted a few weeks ago were tried in such a non-jury court, with a single judge in the agreeable position not only of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but also adjudicating on the fairness of his own conduct of the trial. ,All of these powers were not only preserved, but extended, when the PTA was supplanted by the Terrorism Act, 2000, and its many pieces of supplementary legislation. Needless to say, the expedients pioneered in Northern Ireland, and introduced under the rubric of combatting terrorism, have now been extended to Great Britain, where today they are mainstays of regular criminal procedure: the abolition of the right to silence (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994); detention without trial (Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984); restrictions on movement (Public Order Act, 1986); wiretapping and surveillance for such "offences" as sending one's children to a school outside one's own district (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000); the end of "double jeopardy," allowing the state to use its limitless resources to try suspects for the same crime over and over until it gets the verdict it wants (Criminal Justice Act, 2003); and much else. This is one of the drawbacks of not having a written constitution: civil liberties exist only as long as Parliament is pleased to permit them to exist. The late Lord Hailsham in 1976 famously described the British political system as an "elective dictatorship." He didn't know the half of it.

As for discrimination in employment against people with Irish names or accents: the practice may not have been codified in law, but it was nonetheless widespread in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor was it illegal at the time. It would be if revived today.

[Sunfish]

Parabellum:

Right now the security services are up against some very clever and very evil people, the security services have to think on the run and may well require to be innovative and non conforming, it doesn't matter, what ever it takes to keep the peace and save lives as well as preserve your precious freedom has to be acceptable.


That is the trouble Parabellum; who says that the security services are up against some very clever and very evil people????

Why the security services of course, that is the nub of the problem. They have a vested interest in its continuation.

From my almost totally uninformed perspective:

1) A Lot of Muslim angst would disappear if we stopped dropping bombs and firing missiles at civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

2) More Angst would vanish if we pursued a more even handed policy in the Middle East in regard to the Israel/Palestine issue.

Bear in mind that these jihadis believe their cause is just and they are true patriots. I'll believe "evil" when I see a credible terrorist attack aimed at "world Domination".

To put that another way, I think most of our problems are of our own making.

I've travelled in the largest Muslim country - Indonesia - 200 million people for Thirty years and apart from a bit of sectarian barstardry in Bali and Sulawesi, I've seen nothing but happy people, liberated women and good beer.

[cwatters]

Did the pilot concerned in this case "associate" with other pilots at the airline? Anything happen to them?

[KBPsen]

Anything happen to them?

Guilty by association is only applicable to those of a certain religion and skin tone.

[parabellum]

who says that the security services are up against some very clever and very evil people????


Do I really have to explain that Sunfish? The remainder of your post suggests that you are escaping reality. I agree that Bintang Baru is excellent beer and the majority of Indonesians are peace loving but that still leaves sufficient evil people to nurture and spread terrorism, which they do.

I won't comment on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, we wouldn't agree, anymore than we would agree on why bombs are dropped on Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.

That is the trouble Parabellum; who says that the security services are up against some very clever and very evil people????

You really have to be kidding.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Clandestino]

The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, Not quite, lest I'm mistaken about religious affiliation of Timothy McVeigh an Anders Breivik.

Does anyone know what exactly what the "damages" that this guy was awarded are? None, so far. Trial is underway.

continue hanging around with undesireables, and we'll take an interest in you.Good advice, however, practical application in the actual case might be somewhat difficult as "undesirables" have been cleared by the court and one of them was, depending on version, either brother or brother in law of our fired colleague. We would all cut ties with our kin, if ordered so by security, would we?

[infrequentflyer789]

Guilty by association is only applicable to those of a certain religion and skin tone.

Well that rule certainly seems to be working for Stuart Pearce in the media today, assuming you think he's got the same religion and skin tone as the BA pilot...

Might also be worth noting that where association involves having the same parents, the same skin tone and religion are going to be highly correlated.

Wonder which route the investigators go for first - lets look at all <skin-tone> <religion> in this area, or lets look at these guys' relatives & business associates....

Did the pilot concerned in this case "associate" with other pilots at the airline? Anything happen to them?

By "associate" do you mean have the same parents ? And having passed large sums of money between them suspiciously enough to be charged with money laundering?

If there were other BA pilots associated in that way, I would be genuinely suprised if they were still flying now.

[CONF iture]

To put that another way, I think most of our problems are of our own making.
First create terror to unleash war on terror.

[Sunfish]

Parabellum:

Do I really have to explain that Sunfish?

Yes Parabellum, you do.

1. There is no credible existential threat.

2. 99% of Muslims want nothing more than a peaceful existence and have no animus towards the West. They even drown by the boatload trying to reach us because they admire our way of life.

3. 99% of commentators are biased and hype the threat for their own reasons,

like this - the wife of a former American Undersecretary of Defence:

the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.

Genocidal Arab-Bashing Muslim-Hating Rant From Pro-Israeli PAC's Founding Board Member | loonwatch.com (http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/genocida-arab-bashing-muslim-hating-rant-from-pro-israeli-pacs-founding-board-member/)


And this - from a Fake terror expert at the FBI:

Controversial training material about Islam provided to a small pool of FBI agents at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. were inappropriate and offensive, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress today.

The briefing documents, first revealed by Wired’s Danger Room blog, emphasized that mainstream Muslims are violent, and included a graphic that shows that Muslims who are, “Pious and Devout” have tended to be more violent historically than Christians or Jews. The briefing slides noted, “Jihad is motivated by the strategic themes and drivers in Islam,” while another described the prophet Mohammad as a “Cult Leader.”




There are numerous examples of such terror hype going back to the start of the Iraq war and before.

Lest you think I don't believe there is a terror threat, I do believe there is a terror threat, but if all we listen to is cant and hype, we are going to be focussing our resources on the wrong people and the wrong threat.

Just remember that the majority of the 911 hijackers were Wahabists from Saudi Arabia - mates of the guy David Cameron is now sucking up to:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/13/1326486500860/David-Cameron-with-Prince-007.jpg

[RoyHudd]

Buzz off Sunfish. You are trying to hijack this thread to espouse your personal views. Not interested, dude.

[Sunfish]

Hud, they aren't personal views.

You are subject to a wide ranging campaign aimed at demonising Islam for policy purposes by a variety of actors for their own reasons. What that does is:

(a) Result in abominations like the treatment of the Pilot in question.

(b) Lines the pockets of the "security" industry, to the consternation of passengers and Pilots alike.

(b) Prevents us from clearly analysing and dealing with the real threats.

[parabellum]

I am reminded of the proud mother who stood by the side of the rode to watch her soldier son march by and was heard to remark, "Ooh look! There goes my Sunfish and he is the only one in step".

You can have the last word Sunfish, I'm finished, this is Hamster Wheel stuff now.

[CONF iture]

Hamster Wheel stuff for those who prefer to accept the propaganda.
Is the earth still the center of the universe parabellum ?

[Jurassic Jet]

A bomb hidden in the underwear of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, now 25, caused a fire but failed to explode on a Delta Airlines flight from Amsterdam carrying 289 people on December 25.

"The jihadi is proud to kill in the name of God and that is exactly what God told us to do in the Koran," said Abdulmutallab, who had pleaded guilty in October.

[CONF iture]

The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case (http://haskellfamily.********.com/2011/09/colossal-deceit-known-as-underwear.html)
by Kurt Haskell
In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.

[stator vane]

after checking the link Contact supplied and reading 3 other articles and the comments below them, i really can't see any reason to accept that viewpoint as any more reliable as any other.

after reading Walter Lippman et al. i must admit that most of us plebs are restricted to reading several different published papers, books, shows on radio or TV and must somehow make some evaluation as to which is the truth.

and i can only verify the few small items that i witness and even that is limited to perspective and timing.

but i just cannot accept everything as truth and i cannot refuse evertything as false.

so, once again, we must make our own decisions about what we think the truth might be. we can debate but we should not dictate.

i do wonder how some people can appear to be so sure about things they have read about in a paper or a blog of any sort.

[M.Mouse]

I clicked the link posted by Contacted but didn't bother reading anything except the website name. Stuff published in the Beano would have more plausibility!

[Genghis McCann]

Sunfish - total claptrap. You have a clear political agenda, and like most people who hold the personal views you do seem unable to make sensible judgements on a whole raft of issues. There are enough Muslims holding views that regard the killing of non-Muslims under the 'right' circumstances as not just acceptable but desireable to cause concern. Given the enormous potential for destruction that a 747 in the hands of a nutter offers, it would seem reasonable to me that BA ensures the people flying them show no likeliehood of wanting to crash one into the Houses of Parliament because God told them to. A pilot who voices support for the 9/11 mass murders is, by definition, unfit to be anywhere near the controls of a commercial airliner. That is doubly so if he associates with others who have overtly stated their support for terrorist acts. I have no problems with people being Muslims, but have a major issue with the culture of violence that surrounds much, but not all, Islamic thinking. The right to worship any God you wish is an inalienable right - one that is incidentally denied to nearly all citizens of 'Muslim' countries. When your belief structure leads you to see murder as acceptable, which it does for a number of Muslims, then I see no need for British Airways to provide the means for it to happen. They simply had no choice here and I commend them for their willingness to face financial penalties for doing the right thing.

[CONF iture]

we can debate but we should not dictate
Where is that debate on the victim impact statement produced by Kurt Haskell then ?
I do wonder how some people can still appear to be so sure about things advanced by officials and complicit media ... any known history for lies ?

[Sciolistes]

This POV tends to blame everything on Western interference in the ME. It hopes to validate the position by suggesting that even the terrorist threat is a game instigated by the West.
The same people believe that millions of ordinary people are like sheep (sheeple is a term commonly used), blindly believing what the authorities and media tell them.
A POV for which there is ample circumstantial evidence and one I agree with completely. However, people are not sheep. I don't think I have met many people who actually believe in the terrorist threat (some, but no many). People are just apathetic (me included). We have comfy lives, it is rational behaviour to just shrug our shoulders say "yeah, whatever" and change channel.

[Jurassic Jet]

Islamic tradition allows for negotiated settlements only to further the ultimate goal of Islamic conquest.

Islamic legal authorities allow the killing of non-combatants in the furtherance of Islamic conquest.

Anyone who insults or even opposes Muhammad or his people deserves a humiliating death, by beheading if possible. (So what did you think all those beheadings were for?)

Muhammad said that there are only three choices for non-Muslims: conversion, subjugation or death.

Current Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims in Islamic society.

They have received the word from God, so Jews and Christians are “guilty” because they have not only rejected Muhammad, but also have distorted the legitimate revelations they have received from Allah, unlike the out and out pagans and idolaters such as Hindus and Buddhists.

Both the Qu’ran and Islamic tradition treat women as nothing more than the possessions of men.

Paradise is guaranteed only for those who slay or are slain for Allah.

Unbelievers are called “the vilest of creatures”. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ale Husayni Sistani, who is hailed as a moderate and a reformer has issued a religions ruling that the following ten things are essentially najis: (don’t waste time looking it up, just figure it out)

Urine
Feces
Semen
Dead body
Blood
Dog
Pig
Kafir (look in a mirror)
Alcoholic liquors
The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat

Islam has not reformed or changed its traditional doctrines of jihad.

Theo van Gogh

Interesting quote: (see if you can guess who and when before you look it up)

“I have studied the Qu’ran a great deal. I came away from the study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world so deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and though less absurd than polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

[infrequentflyer789]

Islamic tradition allows for negotiated settlements only to further the ultimate goal of Islamic conquest.
[...]
Both the Qu’ran and Islamic tradition treat women as nothing more than the possessions of men.


Yeah, wonder where they got those ideas from...

Name that book:

When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.

[captplaystation]

Ryanair "rough guide" ? just a guess . . . . . . :rolleyes:

[CONF iture]

As for debating Kurt Haskell, those who are interested can always start another thread
Hard to dissociate as both belong to that so called 'war on terror'

i really can't see any reason to accept that viewpoint as any more reliable as any other
Official narrative has never stopped changing when actually kurt's one is the very same since day first ...

[scarrymike]

Math fox wrote:
How many lives and careers should """security""" agencies be allowed to ruin to prevent one killing by terrorists?

How many democratic checks are there on what the security agencies do?

Should any company act on information that government officials refuse to put in writing?

Here are my answers:
How many lives and careers should """security""" agencies be allowed to ruin to prevent one killing by terrorists?
This is one the most absurd statements I have ever read and very telling of Matt's beliefs. I believe its OK to be over the top when it comes to safeguarding a weapon of mass destruction - which is exactly what a flying airliner could be. Do you really believe you need to wait before someone is flying an airliner into a crowded building to decide that he should not fly? Are you KIDDING???
Democratic check on security agencies. I live in the US. Yes lots and lots of checks. What do you call all the court actions?
Should any company act on information that government officials refuse to put in writing?
If I'm on the flight - OMG YES!!! If its only you on the flight - be my guest!

[alldaysushi]

Dear All,

I felt moved to share the fact that Kurt Haskell and his wife gave the same story under oath at the Mutallab trial. One only has to search
Miichael Chertoff former Director Homeland security, now chairman of the body scanner company supplying all US airports with the equipment. The quick ramp up of the Body scanner use is too much more than pure coincidence.Even the Under secretary of Homeland security stated Underwear bomber was escorted on NWA to Detroit.

The story hits home for me as I was transiting through AMS 1 week before the event after ferrying a 743 to Cairo, I was screened 3 times for being a pilot.

Strange times...Maybe we need body scanners at everyones home, just to be on the safe side.

Safe Journies...Sushi

[scarrymike]

Several of the posts have me worried. Hopefully they are not from pilots.

For the conspiracy theorists who keep bring up Haskell. What the ???

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so called underwear bomber had a valid USA visa in his valid Nigerian passport. This is a fact. Also a fact is that Haskell version of events do not correspond to any of the security video images of the ticket counter. Period.

If you believe otherwise contact me - I have friends in Nigeria that need help spending their inheritance.

[MathFox]

Hello scarrymike
How many lives and careers should """security""" agencies be allowed to ruin to prevent one killing by terrorists?
This is one the most absurd statements I have ever read and very telling of Matt's beliefs.

Scarrymike, that is not a statement, but a rhetorical question in an attempt to make people think about security. The fact that you liked to add a personal attack makes me wonder where you work. :suspect:
I believe that 100% security is impossible and that we should accept some losses from traffic accidents, football hooligans and "terrorists". And yes, police and intelligence agencies should investigate crime (I file terrorism under crime... murder is murder, irrespective of motive) and bring criminals into court. Optimal security means that we have little to fear from crime, terrorism and our governments. In this case I see government ruining the career of a pilot. I can not form myself an opinion about whether that was warranted because UK government refuses (very democratically) to provide any information on where their """advice""" was based upon.
So, I conclude that UK pilots should fear arbitrary decisions of their government. Long live your new coalition democracy. (And my guess is that there's 90% chance that the UK became less safe, because there's one bitter ex-747-pilot around.)

[CONF iture]

Also a fact is that Haskell version of events do not correspond to any of the security video images of the ticket counter. Period.
Which security video images … the ones that Kurt Haskell was not allowed to watch ?
As a direct eyewitness who would be in a better position to help to identify anyone if needed … ?

haskellfamily.b l o g s p o t.com is not dedicated to the underwear bomber but all the post from Kurt and Lori on the topic are there.

[alldaysushi]

ScarryMike,

Under Secretary for management, Patrick Kennedy states Abdullahmutallab, was being watched, and would be allowed to get on a plane with passengers to avoid revealing this on going investigation.

Youtube has the congressional hearing, search: Flight 253 Patrick F. Kennedy testimony, to see the facts you are so unable to face. Shocking though it may be, we as pilots need to know, some behind the POLITICAL/industrial landscape scenes of the battle against terror.

Thousands of Body Scanners sat in warehouses, as the airports would not purchase them, until, the Underwear bomber incident.

Michael Chertoff, former Director of Homeland security, now Owner of the Chertoff Group Selling, you guessed it... BODY SCANNERS becomming richer.

Two searches and your IQ will increase,

Safe journies all...Sushi

[scarrymike]

Google. I feel so much smarter.
I do not believe that any law enforcement or intelligence agency employee would let someone with explosives on a commercial flight. Period.
It sucks to think that a pilot or anyone else is treated unfairly because a belief they expouse or for keeping a friendship with someone who is not mainstream. UNLESS you are a pilot of a commercial airline!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MathFox I completely disagree that it is acceptable for a terrorist act or murder to happen. It is OK by me if a few people are treated unfairly for the safety of the rest of us.

[Fitter2]

I don't think I have met many people who actually believe in the terrorist threat (some, but no many). People are just apathetic (me included). We have comfy lives, it is rational behaviour to just shrug our shoulders say "yeah, whatever" and change channel.

Been a while since I scanned this thread, so just seen this week old statement.

I think it's more appropriate to say most people accept there is a small terrorist threat, but the chance of personally being a victim is small.

In engineering we commonly do FMEA (Faiure Mode and Effects Analysis). You multiply the chance of a failure happening by the likely damage caused, and modify the design if the number is high enough. The exception is when a failure however small would have disastrous consequences (major loss of life). In that case you change the design - in this case taking what might be seen as excessive action.

Get over it.

[MathFox]

MathFox I completely disagree that it is acceptable for a terrorist act or murder to happen. It is OK by me if a few people are treated unfairly for the safety of the rest of us.
Scarrymike, if you want 100% prevention of murder, that would mean preventive solitary confinement for 100% of the population. I don't think that is achievable. So society accepts a few violent deaths per million people per year and has some rules for prevention (a ban on firearms) and punishment (justice).

In engineering we commonly do FMEA (Faiure Mode and Effects Analysis). You multiply the chance of a failure happening by the likely damage caused, and modify the design if the number is high enough. The exception is when a failure however small would have disastrous consequences (major loss of life). In that case you change the design - in this case taking what might be seen as excessive action.
I am familiar with FMEA; I agree with some of the measures taken (reinforced cockpit doors, metal detectors) and think it's time to focus again on "pilot error" as leading accident cause. On the other hand, investments in road and car safety will prevent more damage per "buck" than investments in air safety. Yes, the road is one of the biggest killers (behind the bathroom).

[Hedge36]

It is OK by me if a few people are treated unfairly for the safety of the rest of us.

Swell. Too bad everyone is treated like crap.

[scarrymike]

Yes - everyone is treated like crap. BTW - thats my line ! I treat everyone the same - like crap - so get over it.

Engineers will never make final decisions in my world.

For people who believe treating someone unfairly turns them into a murderer - I simply disagree. People are not turned into murderers. No way.

BKVS - hats off to anyone who chases down a dungeness in the morning and is speeding down The Canyon or Canucks Delux in the afternoon!

[Bert Stiles]

Was there any more comment about the Jamalahuddin case on Pprune? I haven't found any - but perhaps I should try harder. What has happened to Mr Jamalahuddin? Was further comment discouraged? I believe the Tribunal reached a conclusion last year - but after this thread stopped.

[doubleu-anker]

I haven't read all the posts so apologies if this is a repeat.

I believe this is the result of profiling. Practised with great success by a small country in the middle east. E.G., any security policey that is thought out properly, wont work over say a WASP grandmother, as they would others I could mention.

The sooner the west embraces profiling, the sooner progress will be made on nailing the bad guys and ceasing to inconvenience the good guys.

War was declared on the west, so until the west fights the war to win, they are wasting their time.

Forget about human rights, thats just appeasement/capitulation. National security must take presidence over anything else.