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

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

AJC wrote:

Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.

Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about fingerprinting
people from Brazil coming into the US, but neglected to note that they
already fingerprint and photograph *all* of their own citizens.

Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother" regime.

Brazil is a democracy, you should look up your terms.

"Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again, being a
democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and fingerprints
from everybody?

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

I don't approve of it.

Figures.

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).

Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists can get
hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't find
them.

Chad Irby wrote:

"patLB" wrote:

On the other hand, you could always visit Spain, and relax on their
nice, safe, high-speed trains. Or the ones in France.

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
range,

What gave you that idea. High speed trains are effective in the range
of 200 to 500 miles. There are lots of large cities within that
distance. Just draw a circle around Chicago or Washington, and see how
many cities are enclosed. For that distance, trains have a lower
operating cost and aircraft. Don't just think of transcontinental
service, where aircraft have the advantage.

Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.

... and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.

The terrorists just picked trains for their latest attack. Trains are
no more at risk than any other place where people congregate. The next
attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World, at a
shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and so on.

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:

"James Robinson" wrote:

I do consider it fascism. I also have never had my fingerprints taken
for a driver's license in the US.

Do you consider Jerry Brown to be a fascist? California started DL
fingerprinting in 1977 and it became mandatory in 1982. How about Bill
Clinton? Is he a fascist?

Fascism is the belief in an authoritarian central government. All of
the above are part of a movement toward more and more control of
everyday life by government, and as such can be considered a step in the
general direction.

One only has to look at the size of the Code of Federal Regulations to
see what is happening. I have a number of sections on my shelf for
reference, and those sections of the code have essentially doubled in
size over the last decade. Is it really necessary?

Remember that some of the worst leaders around the world were initially
elected to office by the population, and then instituted tighter and
tighter controls in the name of security. It doesn't mean that what the
US government is doing will end up with the same result, but I certainly
don't want to make it easy for them.

"Marie Lewis" wrote:


In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
crime.
That is why we object.

Doesn't your military fingerprint it's members?...they do in
Canada...
--

-Gord.

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and defending your home is not illegal, the emphasis in the UK is
defending your *life*, and to use reasonable force (where reasonable
force does *not*include waiting for burglars with an illegally held
shorgun, then shooting one of them in the back).

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.


Truly free countries realize that police cannot be everywhere,and protect
everyone.They allow citizens the means to defend themselves and their
homes.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and I
can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster


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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Magda wrote in
news
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:04:43 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, "Brian"
arranged some electrons, so they
looked like this :

...
... "AJC" wrote in message
... ...
... Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in
Cuba, the ... former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but
certainly not in ... any free country. Finger-printing is for
criminals. ...
...
... So how can we identify a person other than fingerprints?
Passports, DLs, and ... every other form of ID have been no problem
to duplicate for terrorists.

Vein detection in fingers and shape of ears.



retinal scans.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
mtravelkay wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

Is this because the process for each person is long, or because of the
relative number of people coming in at a time?

The number of people coming and the number of people working for
Immigration. But, if we double the time it takes to process each person
by requiring the photo and fingerprints, can you imagine the results,
unless we hire twice as many Immigration people?

And what makes you think taking someone's photo and having them put
their hands on an optical scanner will double the time? If it takes
more than a few seconds, someone's screwing up.

What actually occurs
with the photo and fingerprints? I doubt Immigration waits for a
fingerprint or image search for know "evil-doers".

It sure will help if we're looking for one or another person who came in
on a particular flight, without letting them know we're looking
specifically for them...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Still takes too bloody long though - of the 30+ countries I've been
to, entering over half I've never had to spend more than 20 seconds at
immigration (and quite often just walk past showing the *outside* of
my UK passport), and I'll be buggered if they're getting my
fingerprints without a fight.

Really funny.

The folks from countries with government-sponsored health care, with the
government knowing the results of their last rectal exams, are worried
about fingerprints...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

James Robinson wrote in
:

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

AJC wrote:

Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in
Cuba, the former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but
certainly not in any free country. Finger-printing is for
criminals.

Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about
fingerprinting people from Brazil coming into the US, but
neglected to note that they already fingerprint and photograph
*all* of their own citizens.

Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother"
regime.

Brazil is a democracy, you should look up your terms.

"Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again, being
a democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and
fingerprints from everybody?

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

I don't approve of it.

Figures.

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).

Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists can
get hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't
find them.


Uh,if a firearm is NOT left behind at a crime scene,there's nothing to
trace back to anyone. I hope you're not going to bring up "ballistic
fingerprinting",as it's ineffective,and the "FP" changes over time,with use
of the firearm,and CAN be intentionally altered easily,unlike true
fingerprints.

Registering firearms is only useful for confiscation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

Oh, and defending your home is not illegal, the emphasis in the UK is
defending your *life*, and to use reasonable force (where reasonable
force does *not*include waiting for burglars with an illegally held
shorgun, then shooting one of them in the back).

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area, when
the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence. If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the old
guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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