NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Hijackers aren't gone at all. They're just trying to get a pilot's license in countries other than America. Let's hear it for the Kiwis! :D


New Zealand ousts 9/11 hijacker's pal (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060626-123324-9851r.htm)


By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 26, 2006

The roommate and flying-school classmate of a September 11 hijacker has been kicked out of New Zealand, where he was using a suspended U.S. private pilot certificate to obtain a commercial license.

Rayed Mohammed Abdullah is one of a dozen pilots whose licenses were suspended after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The [ US ] Federal Aviation Administration revoked Mr. Abdullah's license last week after a lengthy appeal process.

Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February to obtain an English-speaking commercial license. Federal officials declined to comment on their role in his deportation, but press reports say the FBI alerted New Zealand officials to his presence.

"I can tell you there are no U.S. federal charges that I am aware of on Rayed Abdullah," said Richard Kolko, FBI special agent. "It is our standard procedure. We do not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, nor do we confirm status on the terrorist watch list."

"However, the prevention of terrorism is the FBI's No. 1 priority. It is clear that in the post-9/11 world, we cannot succeed in this task without efficiently sharing information with our domestic and international law-enforcement and intelligence community partners. The FBI has excellent relations with New Zealand through our Legal Attache office in Australia, and it is routine for us to work together in matters of current interest," Mr. Kolko said.

Dave Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, says it's "almost impossible" to get a commercial pilot job because of a "severe" vetting process.

"Any time you have a roommate of a terrorist training to be a commercial airline pilot, it's great concern," Mr. Mackett said. "But I don't think we worry so much that they will become a pilot with hostile intent. A person with minimal skills, on a good day, can fly an airplane into a building."

Another pilot said he can imagine numerous scenarios "that would scare the public and disrupt the infrastructure" if a terrorist were to obtain such a license.

"He is probably trying to get enough [flying] time to get a corporate job and then fly a larger 'C' jet into something of substance for another terrorist event," the pilot said. That "can be done without drawing attention or raising security concerns."

Ravindra Singh, a Manawatu Aero Club flight instructor who flew with Abdullah on five training flights, told the Manawatu Standard newspaper the Saudi man left the U.S. five months after the terrorist attack because "no one was allowed to fly after 9/11."

The paper also reported that Mr. Abdullah's family has not heard from him since his deportation from New Zealand last month. [ Hehehe! Bye-bye, Achmed! ]

Mr. Abdullah shared an apartment with Hani Hanjour and took flight lessons with him at an Arizona flight school. Hanjour, who also had a commercial license, is thought to have been the pilot who crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Laura Brown, spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said Mr. Abdullah's license was suspended and eventually revoked at the request of Homeland Security officials out of "security concerns." Miss Brown says the number of foreign-born pilots seeking private pilot licenses dropped after the terrorist attacks, when the application process stiffened. There are 600,000 licensed pilots in the United States.

Jennifer Marty, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, says more than 41,000 applications have been processed since October 2004, and about 100 applications have been denied.

Kathleen Vasconcelos, spokeswoman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, says instructors and employees of the nation's 2,000 flight schools are trained in security awareness.

"There is more scrutiny of foreign students since September 11," Miss Vasconcelos said. "We are hearing from flight schools that the number of foreign flight students has decreased since 9/11, most likely because of the cost and time involved in complying with new rules."

Yeah apparently we handed him over to Saudi police and he hasn't been seen from since...

Ravindra Singh, a Manawatu Aero Club flight instructor who flew with Abdullah on five training flights, told the Manawatu Standard newspaper the Saudi man left the U.S. five months after the terrorist attack because "no one was allowed to fly after 9/11."

The paper also reported that Mr. Abdullah's family has not heard from him since his deportation from New Zealand last month. [ Hehehe! Bye-bye, Achmed! ]

Hahaha. No wonder I never heard about this.. The ol' Manawatu Standard lol.?
Go us, I guess.

Guilty by association, and also guilty until proven innocent, and now been disappeared.

Yeah, way to go protecting those Western Values. :rolleyes:

I can see there being a reason for denying a commercial license, what with trying to get it with a suspended license. I could even see some form of penalty being applied, generally a fine.

But deportation? For what? Having lived with someone who became a criminal? Unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing or conspiracy to commit wrongdoing, there really isn't any grounds for deportation.

Of course, one has also to wonder just where he was deported to.

Yeah apparently we handed him over to Saudi police and he hasn't been seen from since...
Awww. Now ain't that jus' a SHAME! Sigh. Tsk. :D

Awww. Now ain't that jus' a SHAME! Sigh. Tsk. :D

Yeah, that pesky rule of law, and those human rights. When will we ever learn to stop caring about those? The terrorists hate our freedoms and our values, so we must destroy them to protect them. :rolleyes:

Guilty by association, and also guilty until proven innocent, and now been disappeared.

Yeah, way to go protecting those Western Values. :rolleyes:
When it could easily be my children or grandchildren next on their damned "hit list?" Hmm. Let me see now ... [ weighs the "rights" of a non-citizen against his grandchildren's lives ] What to do; what to do.

Yeah, that pesky rule of law, and those human rights. When will we ever learn to stop caring about those? The terrorists hate our freedoms and our values, so we must destroy them to protect them. :rolleyes:
What part of "non-American-citizen" do you not understand?

... one has also to wonder just where he was deported to.
To see Allah?

To see Allah?

So nice to see that you believe in anarchy and not that pesky thing called rule of law.

Unless of course you were joking.

What part of "non-American-citizen" do you not understand?

I'm sure NZ has similar laws Eut.

When it could easily be my children or grandchildren next on their damned "hit list?"

What 'hit list'? The guy was caught because of false documents. Nothing in his case had anything to do with him being a potential hijacker.

Guilty by association?

I can see there being a reason for denying a commercial license, what with trying to get it with a suspended license. I could even see some form of penalty being applied, generally a fine.

But deportation? For what? Having lived with someone who became a criminal? Unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing or conspiracy to commit wrongdoing, there really isn't any grounds for deportation.

Of course, one has also to wonder just where he was deported to.
Read the article again:
Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February
He lied to get into the country. That's more than enough reason to kick him out.

Read the article again:

He lied to get into the country. That's more than enough reason to kick him out.

Ah, fair enough. As to where he was deported to?

When it could easily be my children or grandchildren next on their damned "hit list?" Hmm. Let me see now ... [ weighs the "rights" of a non-citizen against his grandchildren's lives ] What to do; what to do.

Heh, nothing quite like paranoia about the filthy foreigners, is there? :)

The Manawatu Standard? That's barely even a newspaper. It's even lower than the ODT, and the ODT generally has stories about cats stuck up trees on their front page. There are only about two newspapers in this country that ever threaton to possibly print actual news..

Ah, fair enough. As to where he was deported to?
Yeah. That sucks. Looks like NZ got some blood on it's hands now.
I thought there was an international law stating that you couldn't send someone back to a country where they'd be under threat of danger/death.

Guess NZ government decided sucking up to the US was more important than this guy's life. Which, viewing it dispassionately, is true.

The Manawatu Standard? That's barely even a newspaper. It's even lower than the ODT, and the ODT generally has stories about cats stuck up trees on their front page. There are only about two newspapers in this country that ever threaton to possibly print actual news..
Well, The Manawatu Standard does have a pretty sweet weekend sport section. ODT=Otaga Daily Times?

The Manawatu Standard? That's barely even a newspaper. It's even lower than the ODT, and the ODT generally has stories about cats stuck up trees on their front page. There are only about two newspapers in this country that ever threaton to possibly print actual news..
Which ones?
I hope you're not going to say the NZ Herald! That paper can't go a day without a Rodney Hide suck-up piece.

Which ones?
I hope you're not going to say the NZ Herald! That paper can't go a day without a Rodney Hide suck-up piece.
I hate that paper with a vengence. Bastards tried to publish all this damaging shit about my Mum.. :headbang:

I included the Herald, because while it is completely shit, if something or other blows up killing 50000 people overseas somewhere, it might just make the front page of the Herald. The Otago Daily Times would maybe print it on their one page of world news somewhere near the back, if there aren't too many stories about how *gasp* students in dunedin drink a bit.

I hate that paper with a vengence. Bastards tried to publish all this damaging shit about my Mum.. :headbang:
Mind telling us what that was about?

Guilty by association, and also guilty until proven innocent, and now been disappeared.

Yeah, way to go protecting those Western Values. :rolleyes:

So what?

If it is circumcised and it ain't from Brooklyn, it is a Bad Security Risk.

Not guilty - just a bad security risk.

Mind telling us what that was about?
Check TG. :)

Check TG. :)
Cheers for that. The Herald can be a pack of assholes at times. They decide beforehand the angle and then will keep parroting that point and selectively using facts to support it, regardless of any new info that proves them wrong.
They've been caught out several times with this.

You have my condolences. Glad to hear your Mum has gone on to better things. Hope she can put it all behind her now.

Cheers for that. The Herald can be a pack of assholes at times. They decide beforehand the angle and then will keep parroting that point and selectively using facts to support it, regardless of any new info that proves them wrong.
They've been caught out several times with this.

You have my condolences. Glad to hear your Mum has gone on to better things. Hope she can put it all behind her now.
Thanks.
She had a shitload of support. Bill English rang us up and asked what he could do to help.. Few other important people in the medical/hospice business. In the end it wasn't that bad but in the days leading up to the article it was looking like it might be pretty terrible.

Anyway, the only paper I read is the Dominion Post. I personally miss the Evening Post. Good paper that.

Thanks.
She had a shitload of support. Bill English rang us up and asked what he could do to help.. Few other important people in the medical/hospice business. In the end it wasn't that bad but in the days leading up to the article it was looking like it might be pretty terrible.
Billy English is one of the few politicians on either side I have time for. From ppl's personal experiences with him, he comes across as a pretty decent down-to-earth bloke.
Shame it doesn't project well onto a larger audience.

Billy English is one of the few politicians on either side I have time for. From ppl's personal experiences with him, he comes across as a pretty decent down-to-earth bloke.
Shame it doesn't project well onto a larger audience.
His son is my best mate. Bill is awesome.. I mean, I'm more of a labour person myself.. But Bill's just coolness haha.

Anyway, better end /hijack :p

Yayyy New Zealand! Kicks out 9/11 hijacker's pal! ... Let's hear it for the Kiwis! :D
Yay!! Kiwis don't give commercial licenses to people with suspended licenses!

Yay!!

And they make them disappear!

Yay!!

*dances around*

His son is my best mate. Bill is awesome.. I mean, I'm more of a labour person myself.. But Bill's just coolness haha.

Anyway, better end /hijack :p
Yeah, I'm more a Labourite myself too (though through gritted teeth as-of-late). But Billy does seem genuine and (if at all possible for a politician) honest.

Anyway, what's wrong with hijacking this thread? Considering the OP, it's more than appropriate! :D

What part of "non-American-citizen" do you not understand?

What part of "human rights" and "New Zealand" don't you understand?

What part of "human rights" and "New Zealand" don't you understand?
What part of "the guy is trouble" do you not understand?

"Rayed Mohammed Abdullah is one of a dozen pilots whose licenses were suspended after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The [ US ] Federal Aviation Administration revoked Mr. Abdullah's license last week after a lengthy appeal process.

Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February to obtain an English-speaking commercial license. Federal officials declined to comment on their role in his deportation, but press reports say the FBI alerted New Zealand officials to his presence. "

So if he was innocent and had no terrorist intentions, why did he enter New Zealand under an alias? Seems to me he REALLy wants that flying licence!
Queston is, "WHY?"

"Rayed Mohammed Abdullah is one of a dozen pilots whose licenses were suspended after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The [ US ] Federal Aviation Administration revoked Mr. Abdullah's license last week after a lengthy appeal process.

Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February to obtain an English-speaking commercial license. Federal officials declined to comment on their role in his deportation, but press reports say the FBI alerted New Zealand officials to his presence. "

So if he was innocent and had no terrorist intentions, why did he enter New Zealand under an alias? Seems to me he REALLy wants that flying licence!
Queston is, "WHY?"


Because he wants to crash planes into buildings?

What part of "the guy is trouble" do you not understand?

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" do you not understand?

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" do you not understand?
What part of the review process that revoked his flight status in the US did you not understand?

And deporting someone isn't a judicial punishment.

What part of the review process that revoked his flight status in the US did you not understand?

"Mr. Abdullah's license was suspended and eventually revoked at the request of Homeland Security officials out of "security concerns."" That's a not a "review process," nor is it in any conceivable way "due process before the law."

"I can tell you there are no U.S. federal charges that I am aware of on Rayed Abdullah." So, he wasn't even charged with a crime. He just happened to know someone.

Guilty by association. Guilty until proven innocent. Disappeared. This is a travesty.

And deporting someone isn't a judicial punishment.

Deporting someone to disappear him - exporting the human rights violation - is itself a human rights violation. New Zealand has blood on its hands by this.

And flying another plane full of people into a building would be an even greater human right violation!

"Mr. Abdullah's license was suspended and eventually revoked at the request of Homeland Security officials out of "security concerns."" That's a not a "review process," nor is it in any conceivable way "due process before the law."

"I can tell you there are no U.S. federal charges that I am aware of on Rayed Abdullah." So, he wasn't even charged with a crime. He just happened to know someone.

Guilty by association. Guilty until proven innocent. Disappeared. This is a travesty.



Deporting someone someone to disappear him - exporting the human rights violation - is itself a human rights violation.


If you are denied a license to fly in the US, it's an administrative procedure. Never in court.

It's a privilege, not a right. See the US Constitution and note no "right" to fly.

Deporting someone to their home country (as New Zealand did) is not illegal. Show me where they had cause to believe that he would certainly disappear if he was sent home.

Just because people can't contact him now doesn't mean the Saudi government "disappeared" him. Prove it, before making that assertion.

And flying another plane full of people into a building would be an even greater human right violation!

And you have what evidence that he was going to do this? Or, do you think we should live in societies where evidence is not necessary - where we are guilty by knowing people, and guilty unless proven innocent?

If you are denied a license to fly in the US, it's an administrative procedure. Never in court.

It's a privilege, not a right. See the US Constitution and note no "right" to fly.

You claimed a review. No such took place. A government official from a surreptitious and shady agency decided he was a "security risk" and that was that.

He was charged with no crime. No evidence was presented he was a terrorist.

Deporting someone to their home country (as New Zealand did) is not illegal. Show me where they had cause to believe that he would certainly disappear if he was sent home.

Sending someone back to a country where they will suffer human rights abuses is a violation of human rights no matter if that place is their home country or not (the reason one cannot send people who risk the death penalty back to the US, for instance), and they had all cause to believe this would happen as this has happened numerous times before with people sent to Saudi Arabia, a notorious human rights violator.

Just because people can't contact him now doesn't mean the Saudi government "disappeared" him. Prove it, before making that assertion.

His family has tried to get in touch, and he was remanded to the Saudi government, which should know where he is, or should be able to prove that they released him and that he himself went into hiding after that. They have of course done no such thing. He was sent into their clutches never to be heard from again, like so many before him.

You claimed a review. No such took place. A government official from a surreptitious and shady agency decided he was a "security risk" and that was that.

That's a review. Are you unfamiliar with the bureacracy in the US?

No evidence was presented he was a terrorist.
Don't need to, for an adminstrative hearing.



Sending someone back to a country where they will suffer human rights abuses is a violation of human rights no matter if that place is their home country or not (the reason one cannot send people who risk the death penalty back to the US, for instance), and they had all cause to believe this would happen as this has happened numerous times before with people sent to Saudi Arabia, a notorious human rights violator.

His family has tried to get in touch, and he was remanded to the Saudi government, which should know where he is, or should be able to prove that they released him and that he himself went into hiding after that. They have of course done no such thing. He was sent into their clutches never to be heard from again, like so many before him.

Sending people to Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that they will be arrested on arrival. Plenty of people fly there every day.

Show me where they knew he was wanted by the Saudis for a crime.

That's a review. Are you unfamiliar with the bureacracy in the US?

I am familiar with how broken it is, and that "review" does not mean "agency says something."

Don't need to, for an adminstrative hearing.

One does need to if one is to be able to motivate the "security risk" and being able to deny a person a freedom - and, yes, flying a plane is a freedom, like driving a car. To take your driver's licence away they need to prove you are unfit before a court of law. Here, apparently, all that sufficed was that a government agency said something, and no recourse was given. No charges were filed, no evidence presented.

Sending people to Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that they will be arrested on arrival. Plenty of people fly there every day.

He did not fly there voluntarily. He was sent and remanded.

Show me where they knew he was wanted by the Saudis for a crime.

That is something they need to know before sending someone back to such a country - by the way a country where they don't need to charge you to lock you up indefinitely, that being the entire point. If they did not know, then they are negligent and incompetent at best, but they cannot with credulity claim to not know of the status of Saudi Arabia. That's like saying "we sent those people to Egypt - how were we to know they'd be tortured? Or, we sent those people to the US - how were we to know the US has no due process and locks up people indefinitely?".

I am familiar with how broken it is, and that "review" does not mean "agency says something."

One does need to if one is to be able to motivate the "security risk" and being able to deny a person a freedom - and, yes, flying a plane is a freedom, like driving a car. To take your driver's licence away they need to prove you are unfit before a court of law. Here, apparently, all that sufficed was that a government agency said something, and no recourse was given. No charges were filed, no evidence presented.

The FAA, in order to remove your license, needs only to have a meeting at which you are not required to be present. They discuss any evidence, and then make a decision. It is a bureaucratic process. The public safety is considered to trump your non-existent "right" to fly.

"Rayed Mohammed Abdullah is one of a dozen pilots whose licenses were suspended after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The [ US ] Federal Aviation Administration revoked Mr. Abdullah's license last week after a lengthy appeal process.

Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February to obtain an English-speaking commercial license. Federal officials declined to comment on their role in his deportation, but press reports say the FBI alerted New Zealand officials to his presence. "

So if he was innocent and had no terrorist intentions, why did he enter New Zealand under an alias? Seems to me he REALLy wants that flying licence!
Queston is, "WHY?"because he invested time and money in school and now he wants to work?

the Pilots I know are very passionate about their "career"..

The FAA, in order to remove your license, needs only to have a meeting at which you are not required to be present. They discuss any evidence, and then make a decision. It is a bureaucratic process. The public safety is considered to trump your non-existent "right" to fly.

As I said - no due process. No accountability. No transparency. No evidence presented. Just a Kafkaesque agency saying something.

As I said - no due process. No accountability. No transparency. No evidence presented. Just a Kafkaesque agency saying something.

They don't need it.

That's the way people have always lost their flying licenses - for far less than he did.

because he invested time and money in school and now he wants to work?

the Pilots I know are very passionate about their "career"..

Precisely. "We'll blacklist him without presenting any evidence or by giving him any recourse to challenge the label, and then we'll be shocked when that forces him to try to escape the blacklist by the only means left to him."

And deporting someone isn't a judicial punishment.Deporting this man to (lets-kidnap'n'Torture-them-just-in-case) Saudi-Arabia is worst than Death Penalty.

As I said - no due process. No accountability. No transparency. No evidence presented. Just a Kafkaesque agency saying something.
You haven't proven that no evidence was presented to the FAA.

They don't need it.

Exactly. They don't need to prove anything. That's the whole point of being Kafkaesque.

That's the way people have always lost their flying licenses - for far less than he did.

Being able to challenge administrative decisions and to seek recourse is a fundamental building block of a democratic and free society. Apparently, that seems to no longer be the case in the US.

Exactly. They don't need to prove anything. That's the whole point of being Kafkaesque.

Being able to challenge administrative decisions and to seek recourse is a fundamental building block of a democratic and free society. Apparently, that seems to no longer be the case in the US.

What do you mean, "no longer the case"?

You've never been able to challenge an FAA decision on license revocation. Ever.

You haven't proven that no evidence was presented to the FAA.

To present evidence means to make it public. Presenting "secret" evidence is not presenting evidence at all. That's just one part of government colluding with another.

You've never been able to challenge an FAA decision on license revocation. Ever.You mean, you cannot take the FFA to court?

Thats intersting.

To present evidence means to make it public. Presenting "secret" evidence is not presenting evidence at all. That's just one part of government colluding with another.

You need to read up on how the FAA has always done license revocation. It's not like the current administration suddenly made sweeping changes in that policy.

What do you mean, "no longer the case"?

You've never been able to challenge an FAA decision on license revocation. Ever.

Then the situation is even more Draconian and ridiculous than I thought, that all it takes is for the Executive to say something, and you may no longer work with what you choose to work with.

Then the situation is even more Draconian and ridiculous than I thought.
A long time ago, the courts deferred to the FAA's judgment in matters of air safety. The courts felt that the safety of the public trumped any individual desire to fly.

You need to read up on how the FAA has always done license revocation. It's not like the current administration suddenly made sweeping changes in that policy.

Again: then you have a very broken and Kafkaesque system indeed. No wonder people are forced to go abroad and lie about who they are - they can have no recourse in the US, and the US will pressure other countries into denying it.

A long time ago, the courts deferred to the FAA's judgment in matters of air safety. The courts felt that the safety of the public trumped any individual desire to fly.

As I said - ridiculous.

Again: then you have a very broken and Kafkaesque system indeed. No wonder people are forced to go abroad and lie about who they are - they can have no recourse in the US, and the US will pressure other countries into denying it.

Why would he have to lie about why he wants to fly?

I'm quite sure they had evidence - bureaucrats always cover their ass much more efficiently than politicians.

Their primary motivation is not to be blamed - in this case, if the guy ever flew an airliner into a building, they don't want their names on his license approval. So they revoked it. I'm quite sure, also, that they gave him a transcript of the revocation hearing (they always do), so he knows what they had on him.

Ask him why he didn't make that document public. I bet it's because he's a terrorist.

The FAA, in order to remove your license, needs only to have a meeting at which you are not required to be present. They discuss any evidence, and then make a decision. It is a bureaucratic process. The public safety is considered to trump your non-existent "right" to fly.

Presumably, you wouldn't mind having any number of your non-constitutionally specified 'rights' being revoked on an arbitary basis? For example, your drivers license. And perhaps your housing permit, although eminent domain already does that.

Presumably, you wouldn't mind having any number of your non-constitutionally specified 'rights' being revoked on an arbitary basis? For example, your drivers license. And perhaps your housing permit, although eminent domain already does that.
Presumably, you're familiar with the idea that the FAA has always done it this way, and nothing the Bush administration has done or said has changed it to suddenly "be" this way.

COMMENTARY: The FBI has excellent relations with New Zealand through our Legal Attache office in Australia, and it is routine for us to work together in matters of current interest," Mr. Kolko said.

What, we aren't good enough to have our own FBI Legal Attache?

What, we aren't good enough to have our own FBI Legal Attache?

I'm sure if you asked for one nicely, they would send one.

"Rayed Mohammed Abdullah is one of a dozen pilots whose licenses were suspended after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The [ US ] Federal Aviation Administration revoked Mr. Abdullah's license last week after a lengthy appeal process.

Mr. Abdullah used an alias to enter New Zealand in February to obtain an English-speaking commercial license. Federal officials declined to comment on their role in his deportation, but press reports say the FBI alerted New Zealand officials to his presence. "

So if he was innocent and had no terrorist intentions, why did he enter New Zealand under an alias? Seems to me he REALLy wants that flying licence!
Queston is, "WHY?"
If what you're implying is that he was doing this in order to hijack a plane and fly into yet another building, I think you need to ask yourself, "Why?"
As in, "Why would someone who has already had a pilot's licence and so is more capable than any of the 9/11 hijackers in flying bother to go all the way to NZ and spend $000's and hundreds of hours on getting a commercial licence if all he was planning to do was fly into a building at speed?"
It doesn't take that much to learn how to crash. Hell, Microsoft Flight Simulator can teach you that.

Maybe he came in under an alias, cause he knew the CIA was keeping tabs on him and the FAA had blackballed him from ever getting a commercial pilot's licence. No doubt any Western country he went to and applied to get his commercial pilots licence would reject him, cause of the security alerts on his name from the CIA, FBI, FAA, Homeland security etc etc.

Maybe all he really wanted to do was to become a pilot. But the US being the paranoid juggernaut that it is these days would definitely take an extremely dim view on a little country like NZ if it found NZ was allowing an innocent man, guilty on nothing more than knowing the wrong ppl (who happen to be some the most hated in the states), stay in the country and learn the same skills his friends used to attack the States. NZ could kiss goodbye to any trade deal after that (NZ already has enough problems with the States and trade deals over it's nuclear-free stance).

We'll never know of course, cause they'll never tell us the full story.