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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , "Gord
writes
"Marie Lewis" wrote:
Doesn't your military fingerprint it's members?...they do in
Canada...


I did not write this: I would not have put an apostrophe in "its."

Marie Lewis


I can be categoric that we didn't between 1989 and 1996 - and I've not
heard of it being introduced since then.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways.

Oh, I do hope you include the UK in this.

I'm hoping
the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
both I've come to believe.

True.

M.Lewis

"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

Following up to Stephen Harding

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

f*** off out of travel europe then
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

(john) wrote in
:

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.

Sorry, I don't entertain idiots who use third-grade insults.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:56:26 -0700, "Gary L. Dare"
wrote:

Marie Lewis wrote:

They were not going to the USA, or even entering Spain. They lived there.
Like the 911 culprits. And they had full visas.



Actually, better than the 9/11 culprits since some of the Spain conspirators
are/were permanent residents or naturalized citizens, plus a couple of
native Spaniards of the criminal persuasion who supplied them but did
not know what the ultimate goal was.

The 9/11 culprits had visitor visa overstayers as well as some on valid
visas.

I don't know if the news ever made it across the pond but the US has
seen nearly 40 US citizens convicted in terror-related cases including
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.

gld


Here's a couple of ways the CIA and FBI failed the public.

I don't believe that the CIA and FBI had hardly enough Arab
translators.

All the FBI is concerned with is a quick criminal prosecution. The FBI
should have made an attempt to turn one or more of the Buffalo Eight
in order to gather intelligence on Al Quada.

George Z. Bush wrote:

You might be right if the world was driven only by political idealogies.
Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, like it or not, and it'll be a very
cold day in hell when US corporations divorce themselves from their
international trading partners. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to
happen, 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon.

Absolutely true. I was speaking only in a political alliance
sense.

The business world is global and there's no getting around it,
nor should we want to. I'm all for businesses fighting it out
around the world, but no American blood or treasure to keep
some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.

It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever. UN is OK
for debating practice.

Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
foreign alliances".


SMH

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

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

You might be right if the world was driven only by political idealogies.
Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, like it or not, and it'll be a
very
cold day in hell when US corporations divorce themselves from their
international trading partners. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to
happen, 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon.

Absolutely true. I was speaking only in a political alliance
sense.

The business world is global and there's no getting around it,
nor should we want to. I'm all for businesses fighting it out
around the world, but no American blood or treasure to keep
some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.

It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever. UN is OK
for debating practice.

Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
foreign alliances".

That'd be peachy keen in his day, when it took a couple of months to cross the
Atlantic, but now it's only a couple of hours via SST. The world has changed,
and no one has yet discovered how to make the clock run backwards in order for
us to not have to make adjustments.

George Z.

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