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

Marie Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

Marie Lewis wrote:

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.

I helped to elect my government. And they do NOT have my finger prints so
why should yours have them?

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

Since you missed it, the reason for the fingerprinting is to
enhance national security. You know, that 9/11 thing. And you
might as well get used to the idea too. Biometric passports
are on the way, as soon as some kind of biometric standard can
be agreed upon. Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA, whatever.

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
You must be in a tizzy!

You're not concerned "they" might send the black helicopters
out for you? Or do the black helos only fly around American skies?

Never heard of the "black helicopters." Must be an American thing.

Or perhaps more successfully hidden by your own government?

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,

Ha!

I lay helpless at your feet, overcome by the power of your
reason, logic and intellect.

at least over the long run, and in a context of protecting our
citizens from horrific international terrorism.

Then why do other countries not need finger prints?

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
that would be the US.

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.

I hope and pray that most of your fellow countrymen have more sense than
you: and more discrimination.

Not even a response to my comment above. Did you even understand
it? No matter.

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

We shall. Or visit Canada.

Canada, an excellent choice from my experience.

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!

I'll take that as a compliment. Anyone or anything you hate must have
something good.

Another blast of your powerful sense of reason, logic and
intellect!

I tremble.


SMH

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:24:14 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

That's kind of a good 19th century attitude...I think it's not really
valid anymore in our interconnected world where one country's policies
affect many other countries.

Dick Locke wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:24:14 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:


Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.


That's kind of a good 19th century attitude...I think it's not really
valid anymore in our interconnected world where one country's policies
affect many other countries.

Until the vote is given out to non-citizens of a country,
it most certainly is an internal matter.

Not to say there can't be external ramifications over
those decisions, but its all part of the decision process
within the country at issue. And it is most especially
true when that issue is one of national security.

Whether 19th century or 21st, it is a fact that different
nations have different national interests. There is no
one policy size that fits all. Representative government
means just that; *my* Senator or Congressman should reflect
*my* concerns, not the citizens of France. If he does,
then he pays the political price for not doing what *I*
want him to do.


SMH

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:46 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Representative government
means just that; *my* Senator or Congressman should reflect
*my* concerns, not the citizens of France. If he does,
then he pays the political price for not doing what *I*
want him to do.

Well, I hope most of his constituents want him not act as if the US is
in a world of its own.

To be more specific, maybe every poster on rta isn't entitled to have
his beliefs stated and considered by the US government but I believe
governments should have a voice in how their citizens are treated at
immigration in other countries. Freedom travel is essential to getting
business done and I personally think it's right up there with other
major human freedoms. In that sense your congressman should indeed
consider the concerns of the gov't of France and a bunch of other
countries.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Marie Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

Marie Lewis wrote:

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.

I helped to elect my government. And they do NOT have my finger prints
so
why should yours have them?

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.


Not at all: one simply does not visit the USA. Easy.

Since you missed it, the reason for the fingerprinting is to
enhance national security. You know, that 9/11 thing. And you
might as well get used to the idea too. Biometric passports
are on the way, as soon as some kind of biometric standard can
be agreed upon. Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA, whatever.

When MY government introduces biometric passport, I shall accept that,
although I do draw the line at fingerprinting as that is only for suspected
criminals.

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Far more have been killed in Europe and over a longer period. Somehow, we
seem to be able n ot to get our knickers in such a twist as you, who thought
you were invulnerable.
I am sorry for those who lost loved ones: but I fear the over reaction is
both intrusive and useless in catching terrorists.

Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
You must be in a tizzy!

I di

You're not concerned "they" might send the black helicopters
out for you? Or do the black helos only fly around American skies?

Never heard of the "black helicopters." Must be an American thing.

Or perhaps more successfully hidden by your own government?

But what are they? Please explain.

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,

Ha!

I lay helpless at your feet, overcome by the power of your
reason, logic and intellect.

You lay or lie?

at least over the long run, and in a context of protecting our
citizens from horrific international terrorism.

Then why do other countries not need finger prints?

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
that would be the US.

Oh, the usual thing.

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.

I hope and pray that most of your fellow countrymen have more sense than
you: and more discrimination.

Not even a response to my comment above. Did you even understand
it? No matter.

I understand far more than you: there are some remarks that deserve no
response because they are inane.

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

We shall. Or visit Canada.

Canada, an excellent choice from my experience.

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!

I'll take that as a compliment. Anyone or anything you hate must have
something good.

Another blast of your powerful sense of reason, logic and
intellect!

I tremble.


Good: carry one and leave my world.

ML

SMH

Marie Lewis wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Far more have been killed in Europe and over a longer period. Somehow, we
seem to be able n ot to get our knickers in such a twist as you, who thought
you were invulnerable.
I am sorry for those who lost loved ones: but I fear the over reaction is
both intrusive and useless in catching terrorists.

Crapola! No one had experienced a 9/11 scale event!

The Spanish were quite rightly traumatized by the 3/11
experience that killed "only" 200, and they have had
quite a bit of terrorist experience over the past 30
years.

Your "long suffering Europe/what's the big deal USA"
line doesn't carry much weight with me.

You're not concerned "they" might send the black helicopters
out for you? Or do the black helos only fly around American skies?

Never heard of the "black helicopters." Must be an American thing.

Or perhaps more successfully hidden by your own government?

But what are they? Please explain.

These are the "special" helicopters, reportedly painted black,
that are run by unknown secret agencies of the "US gubment" to
eliminate persons that "know too much" or are too vocal in
their opposition of Evil US[tm] operations. Typically sundry
conspiracy whacko types are the true believers of the black helos.

Ha!

I lay helpless at your feet, overcome by the power of your
reason, logic and intellect.

You lay or lie?

From evil American[tm] Merriam-Webster dictionary,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...va=lay&x=0&y=0

quote
Usage LAY has been used intransitively in the sense
of "lie" since the 14th century. The practice was
unremarked until around 1770; attempts to correct it
have been a fixture of schoolbooks ever since.
Generations of teachers and critics have succeeded in
taming most literary and learned writing, but
intransitive lay persists in familiar speech and is a
bit more common in general prose than one might suspect.

Much of the problem lies in the confusing similarity of
the principal parts of the two words. Another influence
may be a folk belief that lie is for people and lay is
for things. Some commentators are ready to abandon the
distinction, suggesting that lay is on the rise
socially. But if it does rise to respectability, it is
sure to do so slowly: many people have invested effort
in learning to keep lie and lay distinct. Remember that
even though many people do use lay for lie, others will
judge you unfavorably if you do.
/quote

So it means a non-learned, folksy, desperate for
respectability, thing, lies at the feet of somone with
too much wit and intellect for a counter-response to
be summoned, and who has clearly invested the effort in
keeping the two usages distinct.

I'll take that as a compliment. Anyone or anything you hate must have
something good.

Another blast of your powerful sense of reason, logic and
intellect!

I tremble.

Good: carry one and leave my world.

Ca va.

Was that "one" or "on"? (I know it matters to you.)


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Marie Lewis wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Far more have been killed in Europe and over a longer period. Somehow, we
seem to be able n ot to get our knickers in such a twist as you, who thought
you were invulnerable.
I am sorry for those who lost loved ones: but I fear the over reaction is
both intrusive and useless in catching terrorists.

Crapola! No one had experienced a 9/11 scale event!

The Spanish were quite rightly traumatized by the 3/11
experience that killed "only" 200, and they have had
quite a bit of terrorist experience over the past 30
years.

Let's see. When you consider the 3/11 deaths as a proportion of the
Spanish population, you come pretty close to the ratio of 9/11 to the US
population. It might not be at the same total, but would have a similar
effect on the views of the population. 3/11 becomes their day of infamy.

Beyond that, how do you think the Iraqis feel about the multiple attacks
on their country by the US leaving thousands dead and raining missiles
around their homes? That would be pretty traumatic, wouldn't it?
There's nothing like a battle on home soil.

Your "long suffering Europe/what's the big deal USA"
line doesn't carry much weight with me.

Your insensitivity to the effects of two world wars on the European
landscape is pretty obvious. The US has led a charmed existence for the
last hundred years, with no major wars fought on its home soil. It's no
reason to denigrate the people who have survived such things.

Stephen,

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

We 'can' do something and that is the end of the matter? Well, no actually.
There is also the rather more nuanced question of whether you 'should'. If
Blunkett suggests imposing similar measures on US visitors then I for one
will cast my vote to evict him at the next election. Imposing blanket
criminal measures on guests in order to protect British citizens is simply
not acceptable. For context, I was in London when Canary Wharf was blown up,
in Manchester when they bombed the Arndale and 3 miles from Warrington when
they bombed there. I've been a great deal closer to terrorist bombs in my
time than the vast majority of Americans. (BTW: Add Moscow to that list
....the Chechens bombed that while I was there).

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

The IRA killed more people than the WTC incident, they just took longer to
do it .....perhaps because they were bankrolled out of Boston rather than
Riyadh.

Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
You must be in a tizzy!

We'll see if Reichsfuhrer Blunkett gets away with that. My previous comments
regarding my vote applies.

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
that would be the US.

The UK was a target or Irish terrorism for 30 years. Did we ever slap
draconian travel monitoring on Irish citizens? No. Why? Because it is not
justified when the vast majority of Irish people are totally innocent. Did
British civilians die as a consequence? Probably. That is the price you pay
for living in a free society. The safest city in Europe is Minsk. Why?
Because they still have the KGB there.

Eryk


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:08:16 +0100, "Eryk" wrote:

I was in London when Canary Wharf was blown up,
in Manchester when they bombed the Arndale and 3 miles from Warrington when
they bombed there. I've been a great deal closer to terrorist bombs in my
time than the vast majority of Americans. (BTW: Add Moscow to that list
...the Chechens bombed that while I was there).

Do let us know if you plan to go to San Francisco.

Stephen Harding wrote:
Since you missed it, the reason for the fingerprinting is to
enhance national security. You know, that 9/11 thing.

It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more importantly
GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago. Yeah, 3000 were killed that day and it
was a calamity. You should remember the human suffering and awfull images of
the day instead of focusing on revenge.

Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack another
country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council resolution
granting you the right to invade that country.) Neither of those happened so
the USA invaded it illegally.

In doing so, the USA has not only added about 700 americans to the number of
dead as a result of 9-11, but also killed about 10,000 Irakis during the war.

How many more will need to die before your need for revenge is fulfilled ?


And you
might as well get used to the idea too. Biometric passports
are on the way, as soon as some kind of biometric standard can
be agreed upon. Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA, whatever.

The keyword here is "can be agreed upon". As soon as the fear mongering Bush
regime is ousted within the next 4 years, it is far more likely that some
system garanteeing data security could be agreed upon. (for instance, your
prints are not in passport but rather in your home country, and the receiving
country would send your information to your home country for verification and
would only get "YES" or "NO" with a garantee that the receiving country will
NOT hold your biometric information.

The same way that merchants who accept EFTPOS transactions are garanteed not
to hold/capture your PIN number.

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Why then do you consider not dramatic that your own government has illegally
invaded another country unnecessarily ("we told you so") and has killed about
700 of your won citizens unnecessarily, as well as ten thousands innocent
Irakis ?

Al Queda made no pretentions about being a civilised organisation. The USA
pretends to be civilised. It must be held to higher standards than Al Queda.

Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
You must be in a tizzy!

There is nothing wrong with a national ID card. A government already has all
that information on you. But you are protected as a citizen of the country
that holds your information. You are not protected if that information is sent
to some foreign antion that has no data privacy laws.

Example: if to launch a nuclear missile, a general must put his thumb on a
reader, do you think that he will agree to have his prints taken when he
travels to a foreign country for vacation ?

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is?

Ever wondered WHY you are such a target ? Hint, it isn't because you aren't
muslim, as your media like to make you think.