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

"Marie Lewis" wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In nobody wrote:

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

Really? Do tell.


He has done so.



All any firearm does is to propell a projectile.
The target and intent are determined by a HUMAN.

BTW,bats (clubs) were originally "designed to kill",knives were "designed
to cut meat"(what humans are made of).None of them do anything without some
*human* deciding(that "intent" thingy! to use them in some particular
manner,good or bad.(there ARE "good" uses for guns.)

So,your "designed to kill" argument doesn't hold any water.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:49:08 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

.Sometimes,their
cells reside in your countries,in order to take advantage of Western
resources not available in their original countries.

Too true. Like the cell that was found in Buffalo, NY, or the one that
wasn't found that did so much damage in 2001 (several of whom lived
near me in Maryland).

Any western nation can unknowingly harbour such cells. If you believe
the US is immune you really need to get out more.

The proposed fingerprint tacking scheme won't do anyhitng except help
*after* the next attack, unless you seriously believe that all the
prints are being checked at the desk (trust me, they won't be - the
data set is far too large), and that the prints required are even on
file.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

On 04 Apr 2004 20:00:19 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In "Marie Lewis"
wrote:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In nobody wrote:

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

Really? Do tell.


He has done so.

If you think he has, you're wrong.


Well, hymen, why don't you explain to us the purpose of your handgun.

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and protect
everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves and their
homes.
Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this to make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in case.

In other words, you want the government to be *more* obtrusive, not less.

So you must *support* the fingerprinting thing, then, right? It's a
great way for the government to catch criminals and terrorists...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in
om:

Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

I wonder how -they- handle the fly ash problem from burning coal?

"They" don't count. they're poor, and don't live in really huge cities.

Basically, that's the attitude of many folks in the world...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

The proposed fingerprint tacking scheme won't do anyhitng except help
*after* the next attack, unless you seriously believe that all the
prints are being checked at the desk (trust me, they won't be - the
data set is far too large), and that the prints required are even on
file.

But it's a great way to find out if some particular guys came into the
country on a given day, without tipping them off that you're looking
specifically for them.

Considering how many of the 9/11 assholes traveled back and forth
between Europe and the US in the years before the attacks happened,
that's an easy one.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:00:17 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Marie Lewis" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

So how do you explain Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the
wolrd (in the top 5 IIRC), and which has significantly shorter lines
than any US airport I've eneterd the US at (7 so far and counting)?

Many more bureaucrats working the incoming lines. Pretty simple, really.

And a simple way to make travel easier and more pleasant.

Except that there's no particular reason to double or triple the
expenses like that, since the wait really isn't that long for most
people. Sheesh, you probably wait that long in most *banks*.


Wait in banks? Oh I remember that. Way back before we had pin & chip
cards, debit & credit cards, telephone banking, internet banking. I
don't think I go inside a bank more than once a year. Yep, you really
should take the plunge and venture out of your little village and see
how things work in the real world. Wait in Banks? LOL!


--==++AJC++==--

Chad Irby wrote:

And, once again, the question here isn't the theoretical flaws in the US
system - it's that you were claiming that the Canadian security system
was so good no terrorists could get through (which the Canadian audit
showed to be *very* false).



Okay, let's move away from the theoretical to the factual:

"Delays in the government's project to merge
the separate fingerprint systems used by the
FBI and immigration officials has left U.S.
borders vulnerable to criminals and terrorists,
the Justice Department believes."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...int/index.html

Looking through the Frasier report on UK and Canadian news sites
as well as the MSNBC reference, it was a) good news: Canada's is
as good as anybody else's but b) bad news: it's awful. (-;

The thing is, of the Portland Seven and Buffalo Eight terror cases,
all but one (Mike Hawash, ex-Intel graphics software engineer
and suburban Portland soccer dad his first decade as US citizen)
were born in the US. Unless everybody is screened, combined
with some sort of MI5-style domestic intelligence, the US will
remain vulnerable to Bin Laden's American legions even if not
one non-US citizen/permanent resident were allowed in.

gld

"Gary L. Dare" wrote:
the "Portland Seven" and the "Buffalo Eight" - 14 out of 15 were born
Americans, native-born like the eight apprehended last week in the UK
and the one in Canada ... Even with electronic monitoring by all of
the wealthy countries, all would have been allowed entry to home.

It was announced that the guy arrested in Canada was allegedly arrested based
solely on some USA NSA intercepts in the middle east that did not involve him.
(i.e. absolutely no evidence).

The real question now is whether the RCMP/CSIS did a proper investigation to
find real evidence or whether he was arrested solely on the demands from the
bush regime.

To me, this is in the same league as the famous "intelligence" that forced
calcellation of AF and BA flights because of 5 year olds having the wrong name.

nobody wrote:

the USA went overboard, and not entirely in a very logical fashion. It was
very politically driven.



Yes, I would agree that it's been a whipsaw from the shock of 9/11
and will take years to moderate, if ever. The week prior to 9/11,
when CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer used to have a third
hour with a roundtable panel (only seen in North America),
Jonah Goldberg of the conservative National Review was
complaining about his visit to France, how he had to register
through his hotel and carry his ID with him, be subject to
stop in the streets, etc. After 9/11. he was screaming for
it in America ...

Like tourist taxes on hotels and rental cars, it's politically
easier to beat up on non-voters. Everybody including
American citizens should be screened if the true intent
of this policy were to be achieved. But that probably
won't happen until an attack is carried out by a Portland
Seven or Buffalo Eight outfit, all US citizens and nearly
all born in the USA ...

gld