Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

"Stephen Harding" schreef in bericht
...

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home. I don't have much
sympathy for them.

Fine, we agree then and I for sure will stay home. I don't trust the US
government and believe they might abuse my fingerprints.

Sjoerd

Sjoerd wrote:

"Stephen Harding" schreef in bericht

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home. I don't have much
sympathy for them.

Fine, we agree then and I for sure will stay home. I don't trust the US
government and believe they might abuse my fingerprints.

One less anti-American Euro in line at the airport
is fine with me.

A toast to staying home!


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home.

No, we can visit all the other better places.

I don't have much
sympathy for them.


Oh, how terrible!! We are *really* upset not to have your sympathy. Not.

Marie Lewis wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home.

No, we can visit all the other better places.

Why is our concern for *our* security too much for you to bear?

Once some standard for biometric passports are determined,
*every nation* will have a fingerprint, or some equivalent
biometric, encoded in their passport and it will all be
transparent.

Why are you not concerned with government use of your passport
information as it is already defined? "They" have your name
and photograph and address. You're not concerned "they" might
send the black helicopters out for you? Or do the black helos
only fly around American skies?

The bottom line is this is an internal national policy decision
undertaken by a democratic form of government with a lot of
checks and balances built into the system to prevent abuse,
at least over the long run, and in a context of protecting our
citizens from horrific international terrorism.

The fact that your anti-Americanism leads you to believe the
US is some sort of banana republic where the evil President[tm]
enjoys removing personal freedoms from all is a problem of
your own prejudice and bigotry.

By all means, take your damn euros and spend them in a "better
place"!

I don't have much sympathy for them.

Oh, how terrible!! We are *really* upset not to have your sympathy. Not.

That's precisely the problem, and why such individuals
aren't regarded by me as any loss.

I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
at least a fairly large subset of them!


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
I've had a pistol permit for years, and to get one, I've
undergone background checks from local, state police and
FBI.

I am automatically considered such a potential danger to
society because of my interest in "plinking" with a hand
gun,

Yet to filter potential terrorists from entry to the country
via a 15 second on average, scan of finger prints is thought
to represent a serious breach of civil liberty.

Your handgun serves only one purpose: to kill or seriously injur a human. Same
with machine guns. If you own such a deadly weapon for self defense, the fact
remains that if you must use the gun, it will be to either kill or severely
injur the person you believe is going to attack you. It is normal that a
government woudl want to verify your motives for the gun and also test your
ability to judge whether pulling the trigger is necessary or not.

When a tourist enters the country, it isn't the fingerprints that are
important, it is what is in his luggage. Unless, of course, the deadly weapons
he will use to cause harm to your country are freely available in your country.

Please note that there have been plenty of terrorists in the USA, especially
the ones who go in a shooting rampage in schools etc. All done with "made in
the USA" all over (the person, the victims and the weapon).


The thing is that no matter how strick you become at airports, terrorists will
always find a way around. You cannot stop a determined terrorist. And there
are many terrorists you don't know about (like the guy who blew up the
Oklahoma city building).

The real "war on terrorism" is stopping whatever a countrie does that
irritates people so much that they take to terror to fight back.
Unformtunatly, for short term politicians, the results of such a policy don't
come soon enough. But it is the only way to really stop it.

In nobody wrote:

Your handgun serves only one purpose: to kill or seriously injur a human.

Really? Do tell.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

nobody wrote:

Your handgun serves only one purpose: to kill or seriously injur a human. Same
with machine guns. If you own such a deadly weapon for self defense, the fact
remains that if you must use the gun, it will be to either kill or severely
injur the person you believe is going to attack you. It is normal that a
government woudl want to verify your motives for the gun and also test your
ability to judge whether pulling the trigger is necessary or not.

I'll pass on the gun debate.

Suffice to say that because guns are of no interest to you
does not mean someone else can have a valid interest, and use
of them.

I find it interesting that you feel a deep background check
is OK for someone wishing to own a firearm, because "it's only
used for killing", yet fingerprinting someone coming into the
US, for anti-terrorist reasons (also an activity largely
defined as killing and injuring someone) seems to be a problem.

Or do you not have problems with the fingerprinting?

When a tourist enters the country, it isn't the fingerprints that are
important, it is what is in his luggage. Unless, of course, the deadly weapons
he will use to cause harm to your country are freely available in your country.

No, it's the terrorist himself that is important, thus the
need for effective identity recognition.

Please note that there have been plenty of terrorists in the USA, especially
the ones who go in a shooting rampage in schools etc. All done with "made in
the USA" all over (the person, the victims and the weapon).

Yes. So what?

The thing is that no matter how strick you become at airports, terrorists will
always find a way around. You cannot stop a determined terrorist. And there
are many terrorists you don't know about (like the guy who blew up the
Oklahoma city building).

Thus the reasons for increased security measures.

The real "war on terrorism" is stopping whatever a countrie does that
irritates people so much that they take to terror to fight back.
Unformtunatly, for short term politicians, the results of such a policy don't
come soon enough. But it is the only way to really stop it.

You mean appeasement? History doesn't show that technique
to be especially effective.


SMH

It's not a matter of what you have to do to own a firearm (personal choice,
most would say) being compared with entering a country (a substantial amount
is done by business travellers with no choice...).

It's a matter of how much this will slow down the process, how the govt
intends to guarantee the security of the personal information, etc. etc.

Osama is getting exactly what he wanted, the US is seemingly clutching at
straws. How would fingerprints have stopped atta and his friends I wonder.



"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

I don't approve of it.

Note that over the last couple of years, firearms laws have been
*relaxing* across most of the US, with one of the sillier ones going
away this September (the Assault Weapons Ban).

I live in Massachusetts, a state with some of the most
strict gun laws in the country.

I've had a pistol permit for years, and to get one, I've
undergone background checks from local, state police and
FBI. My picture and fingerprints are on file at all those
locations. I have to repeat the procedure every 5 years
to renew it (now at a cost of $100).

I am automatically considered such a potential danger to
society because of my interest in "plinking" with a hand
gun, that even civil libertarians seem to have no problem
with the procedure.

Yet to filter potential terrorists from entry to the country
via a 15 second on average, scan of finger prints is thought
to represent a serious breach of civil liberty.

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home. I don't have much
sympathy for them.


SMH

James Robinson wrote:
How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

That is in fact quite different. Registration of firearm is no different from
registration of a car or aircraft. Since since all three are dangerous and
kill (with the firearm designed for the sole purpose fo killing and giving no
transportation or other benefit), it is only normal that a government would
want to ensure that you are qualified to operate such a device by requiring registration.

But if a government captures your own body's information (fingerprints, DNA,
eye retina scan etc), then they "own" part of your body/identity.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:05:18 -0400, nobody wrote:

But if a government captures your own body's information (fingerprints, DNA,
eye retina scan etc), then they "own" part of your body/identity.

So since they have my address, they "own" my house?

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)