 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Book'em, Bush'o
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM As the editorial says, Smile, you're in America!. Foreign visitors to the US will now be fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival and, eventually, upon departure from the US. Congress has approved a budget of $330 Do any other countries do this? How do Mudcatters from elsewhere feel about this? Will it deter you from coming over to visit? Thanks, katoutraged! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:24 PM I find the very idea of this practice absolutely appalling. It will do NOTHING to stop terrorism...it MIGHT allow prosecution of some drug dealers, but then, that is not the purpose being alluded to, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM It should add nothing at all to the time of transit, if the photo and the fingerprint are all taken digitally. It could easily fit into the time wasted by people in the Customs and Immigrations queues. And I don't know that you can say it will do nothing tostop terrorism. The thing that puts the most wind up in those who move in darkness is the fear of being known, Just knowing your incontrovertible ID is on file might be a deterrent for some kinds of terrorists, if not for suicide bombers. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:27 PM I should explain what I meant, Amos; since the fingerprints and facial profiles will be comapred to those of known criminals already on file, the likelihood of this practice preventing terrorist activities BEFORE they happen is very unlikely... and as we have seen, some terrorists only need one opportunity to make their mark... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:39 PM The cost, according to CNN.com, is $380 million, not billion. Is there information anywhere to indicate that Congress specifically appropriated any money for this dumb program, or is Tom Ridge planning to slush-fund it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM All you Mudcatters who like to use your real names shouldn't object to this. I think we have an absolute right to know who comes into this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:12 PM Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM Horse pucky! Ever heard of a database? I think we will find other countries doing this to Americans soon also. I would have no objection to it. I believe Brazil is starting a similar program now. I don't believe a lot of you recognize the kind of war we are in now. If it will provide the authorities with information that will prevent a terrorist (him/her) from killing our citizens I am for it 100%. Will it? I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone else on this forum. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:33 PM Like they say, Cluin, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. As for this being useless.... There are a lot of pretty nasty people out there whose ID particulars are already known, but they're somewhere in the world beyond the reach of U.S. security. If it stops them from coming in or catches a few of them trying to, it seems like a pretty good idea to me. The cost? About $1.50 per person per year. Seems like a bargain.... cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:59 PM Stop the presses! Get Ripley on the phone! I agree with Doug on this one... Yeah, I think this can be an important police tool in the war against international criminals... Now this makes more sense than going around just wackin' and occupying other folks countries... Should have been implimented a long time ago. I have absolutely no problems. They want my pic 'er fingerprint. Heck, they've allready got 'em but they can have 'em again... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:20 PM I think the "20-50 sceonds to everyone's flight schedule" is a litlle optimistic--maybe by three orders of magnitude. Of course, the last time I got printed was in the late '60s. That took a day. Of course, it also involved an overnight stay courtesy of the state, a very dry sandwich and some water. They were very nice about it all. I'm sure the customs/immigration people will be, too. If you're worried, just wear thick gloves and hope no one notices. The US has a right to establish its own rules regarding people entering the country. Them's the facts, Jack. Will it be printing its own citizens when they return from abroad? That could get a little contentious for some people. And will search and seizure laws apply if they are checking a terrorist suspect and by accident discover a bank robber? Miranda law? Looks like a big can of worms, but hey, it ain't my country. All the best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM It wasn't a foreigner who was found to have WMDs in Texas just recently, nor was it a foreigner who blew up the federal bldg. in Oklahoma City. Thanks for the correction on the amount, Art(brooks). I haven't seen anything about Congress specifically okaying these funds, but it's early days, yet.:-) I'd really like to hear from our friends in the UK, OZ, and elsewhere, too. And, good point, if we go out of the country, are WE, US citizens the next to be subjected to this? Doug, the war we are in is right here at home. I hope you wake up to that fact, soon, and realise the rest of it was manufactured for oil. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:38 PM Apparently people from nations who don't need visas to visit the US (which includes the UK, Australia and New Zealand) aren't covered. Of course, that would include the shoe bomber.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Sorcha Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:43 PM IS think it is scary and sick, but I know I'm just a Commie, Pinko, Liberal Bitch.....and I am wondering what I will have to go through to get There and Back Again to UK..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:02 PM Hey Kat, love your logic. You've got two problems, so you don't apply a partial solution to one because it doesn't address the second..... Did I miss something? cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM Exactly, kat, the threat is here at home! So why not learn all you can about those who come from somewhere else? Brucie: uh, we have computers now. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:19 PM Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just read Bobert's post! We AGREE on SOMETHING! Bobert, reconsider! Please! Now I'm wondering if I was right! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:41 PM Oh, DougR, you mean times have changed? (Yeah, I didn't think of that. You have lots more brains than the average Republican. I was thinking of the old ink pad and paper stuff. Thanks, Doug. Also, it's good to see you're mellowin'.) LOL Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:47 PM Computers still ain't gonna deal with the legal ramifications you brought up, brucie. (and Doug) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:17 PM ddw, my point was these kinds of "security" measures would have done nothing to stop the domestic terrorists. I also have asked if other countries do this. I'd like to see some evidence that this kind of thing would really be any part of a solution. It seems more of a grand gesture born of paranoid fear. Yes, we should try to prevent another Sept. 11th, but this administration hasn't even gone after the real perps. of that and now they're going to screen every qualifying traveler in and out of the States? I find it offensive and extreme. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: LadyJean Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:18 AM We're having a nice gang war in my neighborhood. City buses keep breaking down, and our government is spending money photographing foreign visitors to Congress. My tax dollars at work! PHOOEY!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:37 AM As ddw said - " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Same thing in the UK with regard to issuing ID Cards, can't for the life of me see how that infringes anybody's civil liberties, unless of course they shouldn't be here in the first place. Would this practice deter me from visiting the US - with the US$ at 1.80 to the £ - Hell No! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Not necessarily, ddw and Teribus. There are something like 35 million visitors to the US every year. Every system has a failure rate. Suppose this is 99.999% accurate. That's still 350 innocent people who get detained, jailed or whatever a year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:02 AM no one sees this as yet another notch on the belt of those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office? no one remembers that 'new' laws which sprang to the fore just after 9-11 having to do with detaining suspects were already on the books and that their originators were waiting in the wings for just such a catastrophe to occur? Guantanamo: it ain't just in Cuba no more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:19 AM Cluin said: Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. It's not treating anyone like criminals. It's recognizing that there ARE going to be criminals out there, and trying to sort them out. One point is to make sure that the individual, presenting a visa, is the same person who was issued the visa overseas. This, contrary to what Peg said, is preventative in nature. It is true that this will not solve all problems, but then no measure that could be taken will solve all problems. You attack a problem by doing what can presently be done, and later try to stop up the other holes. And no set of security measures will ever give absolute protection, but that doesn't mean that the country should throw up its hands, roll its eyes, and give up. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM A question for you Peg: Subsequent to September 11th 2001, how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the United States of America, and how many American citizens have died, or been injured, as a result of those attacks? That is how effective "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" have been. Two-and-a-quarter years of threats and bluster by Osama from somewhere deep under-ground. What is the answer to the question Peg? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about." Did Joe McCarthy say that? HUAC? Just curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:27 AM Sorry, DMcG 06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." On the point you made regarding your hypothetical statistical failure rate. Accepting your figures and the circumstances that might cause them to be detained - I do not believe for one moment that their detention would be for longer than it took for them to prove who they said they were. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM As to the observation (which is true) that a number of countries of origin are not dealt with, you may or may not know that this that's going on at this time is the initiation of the program. The countries that are presently exempted (like most of Europe (but not Poland) and Japan) will be included in the program a little down the way. As to processing delays, it would seem to me that this should not slow up airport waiting time any at all. The less than a minute it takes can be (if it's set up rationally) part of the time one is standing in line to go through security anyway. To amplify or maybe clarify my comments in a previous post: When everyone is required to go through the procedure, there is no implication at all of criminality, as was implied in Cluin's comment. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: harpgirl Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:38 AM ...this is just a step towards fingerprinting everyone who travels and exerting more control over individual citizens. We no longer live in a free country. We no longer have a participative democracy. Big Brother is here! If I allow myself to notice, I am aware that most of my interactions, transactions, and activity in public places is completely recorded already. We're one step away from video in home observation, folks. Where we go on the internet, what programs we watch, how much electricity we use, et., etc. is easily accessed already. Even our grocery tapes are a full diary of our activity at this point. But hey, Doug...lets keep increasing control over our citizens. That's what a free country is about! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:46 AM WASHINGTON (Special report) - Scott McClellan announced today that President Bush has been diagnosed with Mad Cowboy Disease. The President will be quarantined, until further notice, at a psychiatric ward in Walter Reed Medical Center. Mr. McClellan said epidemiologists have traced this case of to Jenna Welch's special holiday Texas Head Cheese Bean Dip that was infected with Mad Cow disease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:51 AM Well, there was a case only a month or two ago where someone was detained for weeks before being released without charge. If the authorities suspect you of being a wily terrorist, they also expect you to be trained to give a convincing account of your innocence. Its not easy to persuade them otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 11:22 AM This is the one I was originally thinking of. It was rather more than "a few months" ago! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM Teribus; here's a question for you: How many terrorist attacks occurred in the United States in the two and a quarter years BEFORE 9-11? How many American citizens wee killed or injured as a result of those attacks? As for the answer to YOUR questions, a number of people died from anthrax after 9-11 as a result of infection from spores mailed or placed by "terrorists." A good many nnocent citizens have been arrested, detained, strip-searched and subjected to all sorts of humiliating treatement, all in the name of 'fighting terrorism." i call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort. A tyrannical government always finds convenient excuses to trample upn its citzens' civil rights. j Just because we have five thousand brands of cereal on our grocery store shelves and an iMac in every office doesn't make us any more noble than the worst police state overseas. I would love to know how many American citizens have been injured in their period of detainment at the Guantanamo facility...but since they have no access to lawyers or their families, there is no way of knowing...despite none of them having been formally charged with anything... If this sort of thing were perpetrated by OTHER nations, these people would be known as "hostages," but because it's the good ole U S of A, they are "suspects." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,pdc Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM One danger that no one seems to have mentioned: what will a government do with a database of fingerprints? When does the next step come, in which everyone is required to submit their fingerprints. If anyone thinks that a fingerprint database is not open to various abuses, I have a couple of bridges I'd like to sell you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:42 PM They fingerprint and photograph criminals as part of the regular procedure. Now they will do the same to visitors. Pardon me if I see a similarity there. Maybe they should institute routine body cavity searches too. Hey, if you've got nothing up your bum, you've got nothing to worry about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Jan 04 - 03:34 PM DMcG, your argument with the failure rate doesn't convince me at all. Even now, when I come to any country outside of the EC they routinely check my identity, look at my passport, compare my present lookings with my passport picture, sometimes they check with their databases on criminals. So neither the error rate (far larger in the present system) nor the checking of the identity are anything new. If you want to convince me that the replacement of an error prone identity check technique by a less error prone technique is something to fight against you need some more arguments. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 05:19 PM I wasn't trying to make a very precise case, Wolfgang. I was simply saying the statement "the innocent have nothing to fear" is taking things too far. Any system, including the present one, have risks. And of course the two cases I mentioned happened under the existing system, not the proposed one. I have no idea which is more reliable, but my guess is that diluting a database of known suspects with a lot of people who simply passed through a checkpoint is likely to make things more difficult. I've looked at web pages from face recognision software companies and reports on the products by third parties since this thread started and they seem to regard a database of over 1000 pictures as large and one report said that if the pictures were over a year old the matching rate dropped to 50%. (I'm convinced people matching faces are going to be much better than with automated systems for many years, by the way. I don't object at all to the guy on the desk checking my picture against a set of likely suspects.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM I wish I knew what to think about this-- I don't LIKE the idea of databases, lack of privacy and government intrusion into more of our (and the world's) lives....but neither do I like the idea of what may happen if we do nothing. The world has changed...there are people out there that have moved from wanting to emulate us, to disliking us, to being willing to destroy any pieces of us that they can get access to. I have no doubt that, without security, there would be power plants damaged, water supplies poisoned and innocent people killed in bombings...and I mean HERE. I don't want them to do this, but I don't want G. Bush and crew to have the power that they want to defend against it, because I'll bet they will abuse it. Sure, we may have an occasional home-grown nut blow up a federal building in Oklahoma, but so far, most of the guys who want to destroy us have funny accents and bow to Mecca 5 times a day. What about the millions of perfectly lovely Muslims who are horrified by this and would never dream of terrorism? I dunno....I hope they are not driven into the ranks of America-haters by new security measures that may catch NO one. I truly wonder what would be happening if Gore had gotten 5000 more votes in Florida, and some Democrat were making these decisions! I suspect that many of the same *decisions* would be made, but with an entirely different slant and explanation. It is scary to see how sanctimonius and smug some administartion officials can seem, even when they are doing 'technically' the needed thing. There are ways to sooth the waters when doing something distasteful, but this administration has a pretty heavy-handed approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Greg F. Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:45 PM Yup, that was ol' Tailgunner Joe, Bruce. Also Roy Cohn. Also A. Mitchell Palmer, the commander of the Ohio National Guard, Mayor Daley's chief of police, and a host of others. Think Kissinger also told that to the Cambodians... Relax! Its under control... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:03 PM Here's a rather interesting article on the issue, with some more information. Below is the first page. To continue, please click here and scroll down to page two. U.S. Taking Photos and Fingerprints Of Visitors Some Foreigners Face New Policy Upon Arrival By Sara Kehaulani Goo and Amy Joyce Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A01 The United States began fingerprinting and photographing foreigners arriving at U.S. airports and ports yesterday in an effort to track down wanted criminals and suspected terrorists and identify visitors who overstay visas. The U.S. Visit program, which debuted at 115 airports and 14 seaports yesterday, aims to keep records on more than 24 million foreigners who enter the United States each year largely from Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. It does not apply to 28 nations, including Japan, Australia, Singapore and many countries in Europe. Under some circumstances, though, citizens from exempt countries are still subject to the new rules. The program has attracted a wide range of critics. Airports worry that it will exacerbate immigration lines. Civil libertarians raise privacy concerns that the government will use the data for purposes beyond tracking visas and criminals. A Brazilian judge said the system discriminates against certain foreigners and has ordered officials in his country to begin photographing and fingerprinting American visitors. Some travelers who were fingerprinted and photographed at airports across the country yesterday said the security procedures were swift, and most said they were resigned to the new rules. "I don't really mind," said D.C. resident Salome Nnanga, a native of Ethiopia. "I think it's a very, very good idea to protect the country." Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge said yesterday that the U.S. Visit program is the beginning of a larger government effort to better track people crossing U.S. borders. "I think you're seeing . . . just the first step in a series of steps so we get a fully integrated record of who comes into the country and who leaves," Ridge said on NBC's "Today Show." Many nations have agreed to a U.S. request to later this year begin phasing in passports encoded with identification details such as a fingerprint and photograph. This summer, the U.S. government plans to launch a vast computer screening program that checks the identity of all airline passengers before departure and color-codes them based on the threat they pose to the aircraft. The government's big security projects have been targeted by some groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which has launched a major campaign to advertise their concerns about the privacy issues related to the programs. The U.S. government "is applying a broad, dragnet approach to security that views everyone as a potential terrorist," said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. Instead, Edgar said, officials would be better off improving their intelligence and communication networks to focus on the "small number of terrorists who are likely to do us harm." Customs and Border Protection officials say photographing and fingerprinting foreign passengers will add an estimated 10 to 15 seconds to processing time. Passengers arriving at customs and immigration checkpoints at Dulles International Airport yesterday placed their left and right index fingers on a glass scanner that captured their fingerprints. Then, a digital camera snapped a photo of their faces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:30 PM Cluin and Kat, What seems to be missing here is the admission that the U.S. is on a war footing now. They didn't choose it; it was forced on them by a series of pretty nasty terrorist attacks and I for one think they have a right to defend themselves. Do I like what has to be done? No. I'm a firm believer in personal rights — a damn sight more strongly, I dare say, than the cradle-to-grave neo-monarchist fuzzheads who call themselves "Liberals" today. But I'm also a realist. If you have to inconvenience 100,000 people to find one bent on killing 10, I think it's a pretty good tradeoff. There are a lot of fine, upstanding people in the U.S. and Canada who happen to believe in Islam. There are also some crazies who believe the West in general and the U.S. in particular are the spawn of the devil. If you can tell me a really good way to sort those out without doing some watching and identifying and tracking, I'd love to hear it. I'll bet Homeland Security would, too. As for Kat's protest: No Kat, it won't do much to stop the home-bred crazies, but I still don't see the logic in identifying two nuts out to kill you, finding a way to stop one of them and refusing to use it because it won't stop both. Sorry, lady, but if I've got people shooting at me from two directions, I won't hesitate to shoot back at the one I can see just because I can't see the other. cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:41 PM Well, I don't see how it will accomplish much but take a ding out of the tourism industry. But I guess it might make it look like they are doing something security-wise. Do they already have a file of photos and prints of every known terrorist to compare with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:52 AM Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM Regarding your question, why only two-and-a-quarter years before 911. The same time span applied after 911 takes us to the present. There have been terrorist attacks in the USA prior to 911, largely unnsuccessful, but people have been killed and injured. The anthrax incidents post-911 that you refer to, as far as has been reported over this side of the pond, was carried out by person, or persons unknown, therefore cannot be verified as "terrorist" attacks. Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life. A responsible Government, puts in place what measures it has to to ensure the safety and security of the general population. But it would appear that you could not tell the difference between responsible and tyrannical if it jumped up and bit you. I'd like to ask some of your good many citizens who had been arrested, detained and strip-searched if they would have foregone that in exchange for the opportunity to be blown-up. The arrests, detentions and strip-searches had to be based on some premise. On real police states - maybe you should go and experience life in some of them - If this forum was based in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - quite a number would have gone silent long ago for some very sinister reasons. All currently being held at the Guantanamo facility...are "suspects." And will remain so until such time as their interrogations are completed and they can fully explain their presence in Afghanistan within the captured ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. GUEST,pdc 06 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM Fingerprints!! I'd go for compulsary ID cards along with fingerprints, DNA sample and retinal scan all on record. That would combat identity theft and greatly ease the work of law enforcement, criminal detection, illegal immigration and counter terrorist organisations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:05 AM It would also make it that much easier for a tyrannical government to round up all of the "blue eyes" or whathaveyou. This country is supposed to be about Freedom, not nazi-like identity measures such as you suggest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:55 AM katlaughing, I would far rather comment on the benefits of such measures than immediately zero in on the negative aspects of possible misuse. By "This country" I assume that you are American and referring to the United States of America. Well kat, since 11th September, 2001 your world has changed. The world you live in now is more similar to that bitterly experienced by a whole raft of countries who have been subject to direct terrorist attacks for the past sixty or so years. As your concern for your rights is so strong that it objects to, and over-rides, perfectly reasonable steps being taken by your government to ensure your safety, all well and good. Get what legislation has been put in place repealled as soon as possible - but you will not turn back the clock, you will only have suceeded in making yourself and your fellow Americans more vulnerable and open to attack. By the bye, if you still intend handing out those almanacs, any chance of throwing one my way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:54 AM THUMB FOR THUMB Do any other countries do this? (katlaughing) A late response to this question. Since January 1, this year, all US American flight passengers to Brasil are treated exactly like Brasil travellers to the USA a judge there has decreed. Waiting times up to 8 hours and many missed connecting flights have made some passengers very angry, was reported in our press today. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:56 AM You may want to look at a picture of a US citizen subjected to this procedure in Brasil. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 07 Jan 04 - 09:50 AM Teribus wrote: "Regarding your question, why only two-and-a-quarter years before 911. The same time span applied after 911 takes us to the present. There have been terrorist attacks in the USA prior to 911, largely unnsuccessful, but people have been killed and injured." --you have not answered my question. Why not? You have referred to a specific time period during which this country has been under the thumb of the Homeland Security Office in which you calim we have been "safe" from terrorist attacks. I asked for a correlating level of attacks or threats which, accoridng to your logic, should have occurred in the time before we had this auspicious agency looking out for our protection. You have not provided such correlating evidence. why not? Could it be that the Homeland Security Office is making NO difference in our level of safety and security? That is what the evidence seems to suggest. Further, if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous. "The anthrax incidents post-911 that you refer to, as far as has been reported over this side of the pond, was carried out by person, or persons unknown, therefore cannot be verified as "terrorist" attacks.' --huh? They were received with threatening letters and delivered anonymously. their intent was to intimidate, injure and kill; in short, to terrorize; they succeeded. They were not random or accidental attacks. This is terrorism. You are quibbling over definitions to suit your own arbitrary, fair-weather opinions. "Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life." --Hah! That's a larf. I never said it was the worst example I knew of. Nor was that what you asked for. Why castigate my response with irrelevant criteria when it merely fulfilled specifically what you asked? "A responsible Government, puts in place what measures it has to to ensure the safety and security of the general population." --how nice that you feel "safer." I do not; in fact, quite the opposite. "But it would appear that you could not tell the difference between responsible and tyrannical if it jumped up and bit you." --no, I simply define these uses of power differently than you do. To me, "responsible' does not include fear-mongering a la some color-coded ratungs system handing to dish out to the media every few weeks to get everyone's mind off the tanking economy. to me, "responsible" does not mean sacrificing privacy and civil rights for the sake of enforcing a militant police-state methodology of making every individual a suspect. "I'd like to ask some of your good many citizens who had been arrested, detained and strip-searched if they would have foregone that in exchange for the opportunity to be blown-up. The arrests, detentions and strip-searches had to be based on some premise." --why did they "have to be?" That is called reductionism, and it is not an advisable approach to discussing the most basic human rights of people held in captivity for OVER A YEAR with NO access to legal counsel and NO contact with family, in addition to being held with NO OFFICIAL CHARGES being made. I don't know what fucking world you live in, but this is tyranny, cruel and unusual punishment, and a clear violation of due process. That is why these prisoners are being held in Cuba; because this manner of detention is flat out ILLEGAL in the United States (not to mention most nations) and because the government-controlled media there is nowhere near as likely to allow access to, or dissemination of any information on, these people who have been all but forgotten. "On real police states - maybe you should go and experience life in some of them - If this forum was based in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - quite a number would have gone silent long ago for some very sinister reasons." --maybe you should go there; you seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds. Maybe you should go there and experience this first-hand; perhaps then you'd find some compassion. I was born with it, but some aren't so lucky. Apparently. "All currently being held at the Guantanamo facility...are "suspects." And will remain so until such time as their interrogations are completed and they can fully explain their presence in Afghanistan within the captured ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces.' --interrogation? with no legal counsel present or even available? with no access to foreign embassies or consulates despite being deported to this detainment facility? This is illegal. All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If these people are U.S. prisoners, why are they not afforded the most fundamental rights of the U.S. legal system? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Date: 07 Jan 04 - 09:59 AM Fir my many pinko, commie catrades (comrades): Yes, I agree with Doug and the T-Bird on this one issue but that's about it as I still disagree with them on: 1. Not fully investigating how 9/11 occured. 2. Snitch-Gate. 3. The War on Terrorism, as I believe the world would be a lot safer now if Bush hadn't squandered world sympathies and allowed the intellegent community to quietly get the job done. 4. The invasion of Afganistan. 5, The post invasion plans for Afganistan. 6. The invasion of Iraq. 7. The post war plans for Iraq. 8. The overt corruption between the Bush adminstration and corportaions that bought his Selection, including Dick Cheney's Halliburton, from which he still receives over a $1M a tear. 9. And just about any other positions that these two knotheads belive in. Yeah, 9/11 was a wake up call and a smarter administration with a sense of service to making the world safer would have done almost everything differently and gotten much better results, including bin Laden. And while doing this, a smarter approach would have brought more stability to the world and served as an example how criminals will be brought to justice. A smarter administration, rather than move the planet back in time, would have imbraced the idea of a World Court. It would have worked tirelessly thru the United Nations. It would have taken mankind further down the road toward peacfull coexistence rather than return it back in the bloodiest centuries ever, the 20th century... Today, I am truely ashamed of my country. Sure, I love it, but truely ashamed of it's bad behavior and it's administration Hell bent to screwing over just whomever it wants to keep it's wealthiest wealthier. Bobert |
