CHANGE MY LOCATION
Report about suspicious flight remains classified
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The nation’s system for relaying information about suspicious airplane incidents needs improvement, according to a federal review of a flight on which 13 Syrian men aroused the suspicions of passengers, pilots and air marshals.
The three-page unclassified summary released Monday by the Department of Homeland Security answers few of the questions raised by a freelance journalist Annie Jacobsen, who was on Northwest Airlines Flight 327. Her stories ignited a debate between those who thought she was being paranoid and those who believed the men were staking out the flight for a future attack.
DHS inspector general investigators did not interview the Syrian passengers for the report.
“They disappeared into thin air,” said Jacobsen, who turned her account into a book, “Terror in the Skies.”
The 13 men, identified as members of the backup band for a Syrian singer, were in the U.S. on expired visas. However, at the time of the flight, they had applied for extensions and were here legally, according to David Adams of the Federal Air Marshal Service.
The full report of the June 29, 2004, flight from Detroit to Los Angeles remains classified. It contains sensitive information, including the circumstances surrounding the men and the flight and critiques about the way the department handled the situation, wrote DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner.
Jacobsen said the report remained classified because the DHS doesn’t want the public to know how “pathetically it performed.”
The men kept getting up to go to the restroom and made hand signals to each other, Jacobsen said, including one who ran his finger across his neck and mouthed the word “no.”
Their behavior also aroused the suspicions of the pilots, attendants and the air marshals on board, and the men were questioned upon landing, according to the report.
Details on Flight 327
» The Department of Homeland Security issued an “unusually specific internal warning” on the day of the flight.
smccabe@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:53 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 6, 2008 re: "Laptop loss snarls TSA program"
Report as inappropriate
1:01 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 24, 2008
re: "Homeland Security facilities getting new access system"
Report as inappropriate
11:36 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 24, 2008
re: "Homeland Security facilities getting new access system"
Report as inappropriate
10:15 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 24, 2008
re: "Marine vessel to help protect Anne Arundel County against terrorist attacks"
Report as inappropriate
5:30 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "Area grouping shrinks funds for The City"
Report as inappropriate
10:55 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "Congress Sends Security Bill to Bush"
Report as inappropriate
6:08 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "Congress Sends Security Bill to Bush"
Report as inappropriate
6:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "Congress Sends Security Bill to Bush"
Report as inappropriate
3:44 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "Congress Sends 9/11 Bill to Bush"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
You reporters need to stop making this story bigger then what the story really is and put real information not false information to get the members of travelers program scared.This is the best program I have ever spent my money and I thank CLEAR for making my travel less of a headache.
6 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Not all services within DoD are utilizing. Costs implemented to private companies/contractors will in turn cost the government come time for contract renewals. System not HSPD-12 compliant and company not liable for misinformation given from background checks.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
When and where did the competition for this acquisition occur? Why is DHS implementing a solution that is not compliant with HDPD-12 requirements?
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am relieved to know that Anne Arundel County is safe from terrorist attacks. Maybe, just maybe, the focus should be on local crime and drug interdiction.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The 20% retained by the State must be used for the direct benefit of the urban area. Only 3% can be used for management and adminsitration.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Congress does everything under the sun to try to sabatoge our security, then sends him a bill asking for security? Send in the clowns! Forget it. They're already here!!!!
210 agree | 197 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's the same bill.
169 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There's $3 billion worth in the Homeland Security Spending bill currently on its way to the House. It includes fence funding, border agent money and a bunch of other good stuff. The amendment containing the border money passed 89-1. Bush has said he will veto the bill - claiming "irresponsible spending" - I guess he would know - but most on the hill think that both houses have enough votes to override. Let's freakin' hope so!
179 agree | 195 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Me said:
When are they going to do something about the Mexican border? I mean protecting the ports, etc. is a joke!
178 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree