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

[Dave Kearton]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
| Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
|
| Millions of visitors from some of the United States' closest allies soon
| will have to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the
country,



<< snip - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" >>


So - your point is ?



I must have spent an accumulated total of 2 hours over the last 5 years,
when travelling through Asia, with the local immigration apes trying to
work out if it was me or some other white man travelling on my passport.

I asked one in KL what the problem was and he told me as tactfullty and as
politely as he could, that we all look the same.


Fingerprinting and photographing should only take another couple of minutes
and could even speed up the process (maybe !!)


Think of an alternative, how long would it take to stand in line and work
up a DNA sample ?


The US is on the list of countries that I'll be visiting in the next couple
of years; why don't you look out for me Oelewapper - I'll be showing my
finger - just for you.







Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Phil Richards]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:27:28 +0200 Oelewapper > said...

> The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only diplomats and
> travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and photographed
> when they enter the United States through 115 airports and 14 seaports, said
> Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at the
> Department of Homeland Security. ...

So presumably the easiest way to get in to the US without these stupid
fingerprint and photograph checks is to say fly in to Canada and cross
over the border by road....

--
Phil Richards
London

[Thomas Peel]

Oelewapper schrieb:
>
>snip
>
> The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only diplomats and
> travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and photographed
> when they enter the United States

Don't these countries make up the majority of people entering the US?

[nobody760]

So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
some place else.

[jboy]

And the American's wonder why US airlines are going broke? This looks like
the final nail in the coffin for UA and AA. When will George ever wake up
and realise he's not John Wayne..
"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
> Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
>
> Millions of visitors from some of the United States' closest allies soon
> will have to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the
country,
> U.S. officials said yesterday. Officials said the requirements of the
U.S.
> VISIT program will be expanded this fall to cover about 13 million
travelers
> each year from 27 countries, including Australia, Britain and Japan, whose
> citizens are allowed to travel within the United States for as many as 90
> days without a visa. The program -- an effort to track down criminals,
> suspected terrorists and travelers who overstay visas -- began Jan. 5 and
> now applies mainly to about 19 million visitors each year from Central and
> South America, Africa and Asia.
>
> The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only diplomats
and
> travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and
photographed
> when they enter the United States through 115 airports and 14 seaports,
said
> Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at
the
> Department of Homeland Security. ...
>
> Here is a list of the 27 countries in the Visa Waiver Program whose
citizens
> will have to be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival in the United
> States under a new program announced today.
>
> Andorra
> Austria
> AUSTRALIA
> Belgium
> Brunei
> Denmark
> Finland
> France
> Germany
> Iceland
> Ireland
> Italy
> Japan
> Liechtenstein
> Luxembourg
> Monaco
> Netherlands
> New Zealand
> Norway
> PORTUGAL
> San Marino
> Singapore
> Slovenia
> SPAIN
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> U.S. Will Fingerprint 13 Million More in Fall - Visitors From Close Allies
> To Be Photographed, Too - By Christopher Lee and Sara Kehaulani Goo -
> Washington Post Staff Writers - Saturday, April 3, 2004; Page A01
>
> -----
> >> Air America: The greatest CIA-operation ever !!! <<
>
>

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
> Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :

This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks dealing
with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is "fascism".
When you lace your writing with such stupid hyperbole, you've lost your
credibility.

You're also mistaken if you think this will be limited to the US. Wealthy
democracies will all be implementing these very same procedures. If you
doubt me, wait and see what happens after the next round of terrorist
attacks.

> Millions of visitors from some of the United States' closest allies soon
> will have to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the
country,
> U.S. officials said yesterday.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"nobody760" > wrote:

> So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
> some place else.

Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
six-hour plane flight...

....and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Sjoerd]

"Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
. com...
> In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
> > So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so
I'll go
> > some place else.
>
> Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> six-hour plane flight...
>
> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

That's not true. US immigration queues are amongst the longest in the world.

Sjoerd

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
> > So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so
I'll go
> > some place else.
>
> Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> six-hour plane flight...
>
> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>
You know this as a fact, do you?

Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit a
country which treats us as criminals?

[Marie Lewis]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
> "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
>
> This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks
dealing
> with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is
"fascism".
> When you lace your writing with such stupid hyperbole, you've lost your
> credibility.

Please note that fingerprinting is not nearly as common in, for example, the
UK, as in the USA.
Here, you have to be suspected of a crime to be foingerprinted, and if you
are innocent, those prints are destroyed.
>
> You're also mistaken if you think this will be limited to the US. Wealthy
> democracies will all be implementing these very same procedures. If you
> doubt me, wait and see what happens after the next round of terrorist
> attacks.

We have had many, many terrorist attacks in the UK (many financed by the
USA) and have never founnd this necessary or useful. I am 67 and have never
had my finger prints taken.
If the present government were to introduce it, then, in spite of being a
life long member opf the Labour party, at elections I would vote against
them. It matters that much.

So, I doubt you. Other countries are not so
>
> > Millions of visitors from some of the United States' closest allies soon
> > will have to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the
> country,
> > U.S. officials said yesterday.

There won't be as many millions in future.
>
>

[AJC]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:55:44 -0600, "Quantum Foam Guy"
> wrote:

>"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>> Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
>
>This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks dealing
>with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is "fascism".

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.



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

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
>> So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
>> some place else.
>
>Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
>six-hour plane flight...
>
>...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

You don't get out very much do you?
--==++AJC++==--

[Lennart Petersen]

"Chad Irby" > skrev i meddelandet
. com...
> In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
> > So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so
I'll go
> > some place else.
>
> Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> six-hour plane flight...
>
> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from International
to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in U.S
?

[Sjoerd]

"Lennart Petersen" > schreef in bericht
...
> 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
International
> to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
> How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in
U.S

In the last two weeks I entered:

Hong Kong wait at immigration about 2 minutes
Vietnam wait at immigration about 1 minute
Thailand wait at immigration about 3 minutes
Malaysia wait at immigration about 10 minutes
Vietnam wait at immigration about 10 minutes
Hong Kong wait at immigration about 1 minute
Mongolia got a visa on arrival which had to be processed wait at immigration
about 25 minutes
China wait at immigration about 5 minutes

My trips to the US wait at immigration has never been less than 10 minutes
and several times an hour or more.

Sjoerd

[James Robinson]

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
>
> Oelewapper wrote:
> >
> > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
>
> This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks dealing
> with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is "fascism".

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

> When you lace your writing with such stupid hyperbole, you've lost your
> credibility.

If you can't see creeping totalitarianism, then you must be part of the
problem.

> You're also mistaken if you think this will be limited to the US. Wealthy
> democracies will all be implementing these very same procedures. If you
> doubt me, wait and see what happens after the next round of terrorist
> attacks.

Not so. Just look at Europe with is about to go to court to prevent
airlines from passing passenger information to the US TSA as a violation
of European privacy laws. They seem to take privacy much more seriously
than the US, even though there have been many more terrorist attacks in
their home countries. They don't see the need to give up their rights
like the supposedly "free" USA to tackle terrorism.

[Brian]

"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.

[Pete]

> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

When I arrive at JFK, I often wait 10-30 minutes in line, and I am a
USA citizen. The other lines are worse, and this is without the finger-
printing and photographing. I contrast that to countries like Finland,
Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland, where I breeze by passport control
hardly slowing down. I am sure this is the same for Denmark, Norway,
Iceland, and many other European countries. Your 99% must exclude
Europe, right?


Pete

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Brian" > writes:
>
> "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.

Fingerprints aren't reliable, either. It seems that a number of agents
of the former Iraqi regime, and Al-Queda agents as well, have been
found travelling under Kuwaiti papers, with the appropriate
fingerprints on file. It seems that when Iraq took Kuwait in 1990,
Saddam's intel folks took the opportunity to plant some sleeper IDs,
and they've been renting them out.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:46:54 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
>>
>> Oelewapper wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
>>
>> This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks dealing
>> with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is "fascism".
>
>I do consider it fascism. I also have never had my fingerprints taken
>for a driver's license in the US.
>
>> When you lace your writing with such stupid hyperbole, you've lost your
>> credibility.
>
>If you can't see creeping totalitarianism, then you must be part of the
>problem.
>
>> You're also mistaken if you think this will be limited to the US. Wealthy
>> democracies will all be implementing these very same procedures. If you
>> doubt me, wait and see what happens after the next round of terrorist
>> attacks.
>
>Not so. Just look at Europe with is about to go to court to prevent
>airlines from passing passenger information to the US TSA as a violation
>of European privacy laws. They seem to take privacy much more seriously
>than the US, even though there have been many more terrorist attacks in
>their home countries. They don't see the need to give up their rights
>like the supposedly "free" USA to tackle terrorism.

Exactly. The UK, Spain and other democracies have lived with terrorism
for many years. It is not always easy but it is important to keep a
balance between security and liberty. If you end up turning a country
in to a police state out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists
have won.
--==++AJC++==--

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:08:54 GMT, "Pete"
> wrote:

>> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>
>When I arrive at JFK, I often wait 10-30 minutes in line, and I am a
>USA citizen. The other lines are worse, and this is without the finger-
>printing and photographing. I contrast that to countries like Finland,
>Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland, where I breeze by passport control
>hardly slowing down. I am sure this is the same for Denmark, Norway,
>Iceland, and many other European countries. Your 99% must exclude
>Europe, right?
>
>
His 99% would exclude much of Asia as well. I would imagine it was the
first number that came in to his head rather than based on any actual
experience.
--==++AJC++==--

[Dick Locke]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>.and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

Say what? The US is one of a few countries that doesn't allow arriving
passengers to pick a green lane if they have nothing to declare.

Mexico is another exception, but I seen others lately that I can
recall.

Are you perhaps immigration with customs?

[Go Fig]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke
> wrote:

> "Brian" > wrote in
> :
>
> > So how can we identify a person other than fingerprints?
>
> How exactly does fingerprinting help? Only if you have two fingerprints to
> _compare_.

What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.

jay
Sat Apr 03, 2004





> One specimen (the person entering the country), one certified by
> an authority that it belongs to that individual. If they match -> OK, if
> they don't match -> fake! But if they only have the one, the authorities
> can't tell anything from it. "Hello, here's my fake passports, hello,
> here's my thumb". What's the point?
>
> > Passports,
> > DLs, and every other form of ID have been no problem to duplicate for
> > terrorists.
>
> How about procedures which can identify counterfeit passports? Methods
> exist, it would make sense, and there wouldn't be protests against putting
> them in place, as it wouldn't involve storing information about innocent
> individuals in government databases.
>
> Regards

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:04:43 -0500, "Brian"
> wrote:

>
>"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.

You could always wait for the biometric passports to arrive. The
reason the fingerprinting is being extended is that thebiometric
passports mandated by the US congress are running a little late (for
example the UK expects to have them available frommid-2005).

Oh, and just curious, but what's stopping the terrorists using
Canadian or US passports?

I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US
again as I object to being fingerprinted without even being accused of
a crime...or indeed of a crime even haivng been committed I could be
accused of.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Trust No One®]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Please note that fingerprinting is not nearly as common in, for example,
the
> UK, as in the USA.
> Here, you have to be suspected of a crime to be foingerprinted, and if you
> are innocent, those prints are destroyed.

I'm afraid the writing is on the wall for the UK :(

Already the police can take and retain DNA samples if they arrest you; these
samples are retained even if you're not subsequently charged with a crime.

Fingerprinting will probably come in with ID cards. I'd be very surprised if
the cards are not made compulsory as the police are bleating for this.

Brgds,

--
Peter <X-Files Fan>
Please Note: Emailed replies cc'd / bcc'd , containing HTML or attachments
auto-binned as spam

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:43:30 GMT, Cyrus Afzali >
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:08:54 GMT, "Pete"
> wrote:
>
>>> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>>> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>>
>>When I arrive at JFK, I often wait 10-30 minutes in line, and I am a
>>USA citizen. The other lines are worse, and this is without the finger-
>>printing and photographing. I contrast that to countries like Finland,
>>Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland, where I breeze by passport control
>>hardly slowing down. I am sure this is the same for Denmark, Norway,
>>Iceland, and many other European countries. Your 99% must exclude
>>Europe, right?
>
>If the country in question is part of the US-VISIT program, or
>whatever it's called, the queues are often much shorter and the
>screening is done before departure from the country you visited. I
>just returned from Ireland a few weeks ago and all screening was done
>in Shannon. The only thing done here was the agricultural
>questionnaire.


Ireland is one of the very few exceptions in having pre-clearance, has
been for years. That doesn't help other Europeans, Australians, New
Zealanders, etc.
--==++AJC++==--

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:43:34 +0200, Magda >
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:29:44 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, AJC > arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
>
>
> ... 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.
>
>I have had my 10 fingerprints taken when I got my first identity card at 18. That card had
>a big print (including sides) of my right thumb right under my picture. I didn't feel I
>was being treated as a criminal at all. I wasn't intending to get in trouble anyway, so I
>was glad that if an identity mistake happened, the police already had my fingerprints and
>could prove my innocence.

One shouldn't have to prove one's innocence, that should be the
accepted position until proved otherwise.
--==++AJC++==--

[Alan Pollock]

In rec.travel.usa-canada 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.

So you must be familiar with the process.

Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.

Try to think. Figure it out. Oh wait. Nex

[Thomas Peel]

Chad Irby schrieb:
>
> In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
> > So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
> > some place else.
>
> Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> six-hour plane flight...
>
> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

Obviously you have never stood in line at SFO behind 4 other jumbojets
of passengers and 2 officers on duty.

T.

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Sjoerd" > wrote:

> That's not true. US immigration queues are amongst the longest in the world.

From the number of people, or from the speed of the process?

And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries that
already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit a
> country which treats us as criminals?

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[clint]

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> > Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit
a
> > country which treats us as criminals?
>
> On the other hand, you could always visit Spain, and relax on their
> nice, safe, high-speed trains. Or the ones in France.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in
> . com:
>
> > In article >,
> > "nobody760" > wrote:
> >
> >> So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so
> >> I'll go some place else.
> >
> > Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> > six-hour plane flight...
>
> It's not the _time_ it takes which offends people.

If people were worried about bureaucratic nosiness, they wouldn't go to
most of Europe in the first place.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
AJC > wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> >checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>
> You don't get out very much do you?

I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
Or Russia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Lennart Petersen" > wrote:

> 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from International
> to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
> How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in U.S
> ?

You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
pretending that it's common worldwide.

Now, *that's* interesting.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[AJC]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:30:05 +0000 (UTC), Alan Pollock
> wrote:

>In rec.travel.usa-canada 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.
>
>So you must be familiar with the process.
>
>Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.
>

And your point is what? Driving licences are used as a form of
identification in many countries whose governments don't keep a
database of innocent citizens' fingerprints.

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

[mtravelkay]

Dick Locke wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>
>>.and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>>checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>
>
> Say what? The US is one of a few countries that doesn't allow arriving
> passengers to pick a green lane if they have nothing to declare.

We don't need one. I can't recall ever waiting for Customs. You usually
just hand them the form on the way out.

[mtravelkay]

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> AJC > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>>>checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>>
>>You don't get out very much do you?
>
>
> I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
> compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
> Or Russia.

I have never had my finger print or photo taken at Immigration in
Russia, have you??? I am not saying there is no reason for the US to do
it, only that I haven't seen it done in Russia.

[Bert Hyman]

In . com mtravelkay
> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>> In article >,
>> AJC > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>
>>>>...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>>>>checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>>>
>>>You don't get out very much do you?
>>
>> I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
>> compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
>> Or Russia.
>
> I have never had my finger print or photo taken at Immigration in
> Russia, have you??? I am not saying there is no reason for the US to do
> it, only that I haven't seen it done in Russia.

Old habits die hard; they leave the photograph up to the desk clerk at
your hotel, and get your fingerprints off the glass in your bathroom.

:-)

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Sjoerd" > wrote:
>
> > That's not true. US immigration queues are amongst the longest in the
world.
>
> From the number of people, or from the speed of the process?
>
> And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
> wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries that
> already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
>
No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK, where
fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> > Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit
a
> > country which treats us as criminals?
>
> On the other hand, you could always visit Spain, and relax on their
> nice, safe, high-speed trains. Or the ones in France.

Indeed, I would prefer to do that, although we, in fact, always travel by
car.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote in
> > . com:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "nobody760" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so
> > >> I'll go some place else.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> > > six-hour plane flight...
> >
> > It's not the _time_ it takes which offends people.
>
> If people were worried about bureaucratic nosiness, they wouldn't go to
> most of Europe in the first place.


You show your ignorance.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
>
> > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
International
> > to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
> > How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in
U.S
> > ?
>
> You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> pretending that it's common worldwide.
>
> Now, *that's* interesting.
>
Take a look at the previous post.

[nobody]

Brian wrote:
> 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.

And just how will the usa verify your fingerprints ? If you're a foreigner who
has never been to the USA, your fingerprints will be "virgin". So terrorists
will now know that they can only travel once to the USA since on a second
attempt, they might be spotted.

Where this would make a difference is if someone with same fingerprints enters
with different identity. They might be able to spot them.

What remains to be seen is whether computers really have the ability to match
fingerprints in real-time over such a high volume database since it won't be
just criminals anymore, it will be all visitors.

Where will it stop ? Will the USA then ask for a blood sample so that they can
register your complete DNA ?

[Marie Lewis]

> >
> > How exactly does fingerprinting help? Only if you have two fingerprints
to
> > _compare_.
>
> What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
> valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
> discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.
>

They were not going to the USA, or even entering Spain. They lived there.
Like the 911 culprits. And they had full visas.
> jay
> Sat Apr 03, 2004
>
>
>
>
>
> > One specimen (the person entering the country), one certified by
> > an authority that it belongs to that individual. If they match -> OK, if
> > they don't match -> fake! But if they only have the one, the authorities
> > can't tell anything from it. "Hello, here's my fake passports, hello,
> > here's my thumb". What's the point?
> >
> > > Passports,
> > > DLs, and every other form of ID have been no problem to duplicate for
> > > terrorists.
> >
> > How about procedures which can identify counterfeit passports? Methods
> > exist, it would make sense, and there wouldn't be protests against
putting
> > them in place, as it wouldn't involve storing information about innocent
> > individuals in government databases.
> >
> > Regards

[Marie Lewis]

"Magda" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:29:44 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, AJC >
arranged some
> electrons, so they looked like this :
>
>
> ... 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.
>
> I have had my 10 fingerprints taken when I got my first identity card at
18. That card had
> a big print (including sides) of my right thumb right under my picture. I
didn't feel I
> was being treated as a criminal at all. I wasn't intending to get in
trouble anyway, so I
> was glad that if an identity mistake happened, the police already had my
fingerprints and
> could prove my innocence.
>
In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
crime.
That is why we object.

[nobody]

Peter Kemp wrote:
> I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
> shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US

I thought it was currently the opposite: all those entering on a visa are fingerprinted.
In october, it will be all travellers whether on a real visa, or a 90 day visa waiver.

[James Robinson]

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.

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

[Go Fig]

In article >, Oelewapper
> wrote:

> "Go Fig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
> > valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
> > discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.
>
> Ex post : yes, maybe - but only when justified, and within a decent judicial
> framework
> Ex ante: NEVER !!! Not where I wanna live anyway...

How do you feel about the gov mandating you to tell them where you live
?

jay
Sat Apr 03, 2004



>
> -----
> >> Air America: The greatest CIA-operation ever !!! <<
>
>
>

[patLB]

> 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...

PatLB

[nobody]

Alan Pollock wrote:
> Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.

You know, I am amazed at the transformation of the USA. In the past, the mere
mention of a national identity card would make the republicans rabid,
professing that such a card would infringe on the rights of freedom and
liberty (etc etc).

It is interesting that those very same people today are calling anyone who is
against the current regime's measures "unpatriotic" even those measures
actually do infronge on many of the basic principles of the USA (right to fair
trial, innocent until proven guilty etc).

While a citizen has some power over his government in case of abuses, a
visitor does not. So if the US regime misuses its own citizens information,
you can eventually boot them out (or even impeach them). But for travellers,
they have no such right.

This is especially true when a regime does not have modern data privacy laws
and can essentially do as it wishes with the personal data it collects.

Lets turn the tables around: lets say that the Taliban had required all
visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed when they visited Afghanistan.
Then, they would choose an american indentity at random and proceed to murder
some prominent person in the USA, making sure that they leave some innocent
person's fingerprints as well as wearing a mask making the real guilty person
look like the innocent.


That is why, if you are going to leave personal information with a government,
you must have trust that the government will not misuse that information. The
current USA regime has broken that trust because it has misused the information.

Look at the Jetblue personal information which had been meant to stay within
one department for study, but not only spread to other departments, but was
also handed over to some consulting firm that not only analysed the data but
also displayed privated information in their examples during a presentation at
a conference.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
> > wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries that
> > already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
> >
> No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK, where
> fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.

....or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[nobody]

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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>
> > If people were worried about bureaucratic nosiness, they wouldn't go to
> > most of Europe in the first place.
>
> You show your ignorance.

No, I show that *you* apparently don't know anything about your own home
country, or how it really compares to the US...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
> >
> > > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
> > > International to domestic including security check. Was in
> > > Sandefjord Norway. How many transfers international-domestic are
> > > done in less 6 minutes in U.S?
> >
> > You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> > pretending that it's common worldwide.
> >
> > Now, *that's* interesting.
> >
> Take a look at the previous post.

I did. It's even funnier. He's comparing a country that has less
international airline passengers per year than *Orlando*, which isn't
even in the top 5 international airports in the US...

Why are the lines longer to get into the US? Because more people *fly*
there. And, by the way, we're having a record year for tourism of all
types...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
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.

> 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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"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, and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.
Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.

That's a shame, too, I like trains.

And the vast majority of Americans have decent cars, so "long" trips by
European standards are common weekend trips by US standards.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Sjoerd]

"Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
om...
> In article >,
> AJC > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > >...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> > >checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
> >
> > You don't get out very much do you?
>
> I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
> compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
> Or Russia.
>

You claimed that US customs ( I believe you mean immigration) is faster than
"99% of the countries in the world". I have been to 75 countries and the US
is amongst the 10 countries with the longest/slowest lines for immigration
and customs. Yes, Russia is bad too and so are some of the African nations
(although Egypt and Ethiopia were incredibly quick when I visited last
year), but the US is almost always slow.

Sjoerd

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:05:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> > And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
>> > wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries that
>> > already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
>> >
>> No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK, where
>> fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.
>
>...or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...

Which does not materially affect the UK immigration and customs being
far far simpler than entering the US even now.

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).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:15:43 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "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, and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.
>Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.
>
>That's a shame, too, I like trains.
>
>And the vast majority of Americans have decent cars, so "long" trips by
>European standards are common weekend trips by US standards.

Very true - I'm always horrified by my colleagues who think nothing of
driving for 15 hours to get away for the weekend. That's 15 hours
without any breaks except for refuelling! Madre de Dios!
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"AJC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:55:44 -0600, "Quantum Foam Guy"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> >
> >This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks
dealing
> >with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is
"fascism".
>
> 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.

Most US states started fingerprinting people applying for drivers licenses
(one electronic thumb print scan) in the early 1990s. This happened during
the Clinton administration. Fancy that.

This is the same system the VISIT program will use. It's not inconvenient,
unless you think spending two seconds pressing your finger to a glass
surface is inconvenient. If you object to it due to your ethics and
principles, I respect your opinion. Enjoy your vacation in Australia or
elsewhere this summer. Just remember that this same process will soon be
used in other countries that are on the Islamicist hit lists. That's why
you're not hearing a big stink from European leaders about the program. They
will be monitoring US-VISIT to see how to best implement similar programs in
the near future. Doubt me? Watch and see what happens.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about my privacy in Europe with so much
closed-circuit television monitoring and the facial recognition technology
they use. Like this:
http://www.spy.org.uk/n-mandrake.htm

For those who fear Big Brother, that's a true sphincter-tingler. I certainly
don't care if EU customs people want to take my fingerprint at the airport
when it confirms my identity and proves to the local government that I'm not
a criminal. In fact, with the threat of terrorism we all face I would prefer
it if they did so. The ability to track my movements around the country once
I've arrived for no legitimate legal reason frightens me.

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:08:48 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
>> > > International to domestic including security check. Was in
>> > > Sandefjord Norway. How many transfers international-domestic are
>> > > done in less 6 minutes in U.S?
>> >
>> > You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
>> > pretending that it's common worldwide.
>> >
>> > Now, *that's* interesting.
>> >
>> Take a look at the previous post.
>
>I did. It's even funnier. He's comparing a country that has less
>international airline passengers per year than *Orlando*, which isn't
>even in the top 5 international airports in the US...
>
>Why are the lines longer to get into the US? Because more people *fly*
>there. And, by the way, we're having a record year for tourism of all
>types...

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)?
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Bert Hyman]

In nobody > wrote:

> That is why, if you are going to leave personal information with a
> government, you must have trust that the government will not misuse that
> information. The current USA regime has broken that trust because it has
> misused the information.

As did the one before it, and the one before that, and the one before that
and ...

As will the one that follows it.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
> >
> > Oelewapper wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> >
> > This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks
dealing
> > with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is
"fascism".
>
> 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? Mr. Clinton signed the Immigration Reform Act of
1996 which encourages states to collect fingerprints when issuing drivers
licenses. Besides California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas, and West
Virginia all collect fingerprints. There may be others considering the list
I just read is a few years old. Almost all states require your Social
Security number (which is what I find most objectionable since it it's not
meant to be a national ID number) and digital photo for their databases
before you can get a DL. Almost all drivers licenses now are machine
readable with information stored on a magnetic strip. Considering everything
else they have been collecting about you for decades, a fingerprint is
hardly evidence of "fascism".

I just remembered that when my kids were born the hospital took hand prints
and foot prints for the birth certificate that was filed with the county. Is
that fascism in your mind?

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:48:59 -0400, nobody > wrote:

>Alan Pollock wrote:
>> Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.
>
>You know, I am amazed at the transformation of the USA. In the past, the mere
>mention of a national identity card would make the republicans rabid,
>professing that such a card would infringe on the rights of freedom and
>liberty (etc etc).
>
>It is interesting that those very same people today are calling anyone who is
>against the current regime's measures "unpatriotic" even those measures
>actually do infronge on many of the basic principles of the USA (right to fair
>trial, innocent until proven guilty etc).
>

Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
--==++AJC++==--

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Sjoerd" > wrote:

> You claimed that US customs ( I believe you mean immigration) is faster than
> "99% of the countries in the world". I have been to 75 countries and the US
> is amongst the 10 countries with the longest/slowest lines for immigration
> and customs.

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

When you're flying in on a hundred-seat airliner and there's four guys
working the desk, you're going to get through faster than if you're on
one of four 747-400s landing in the same hour...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[BB]

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)

[Chad Irby]

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And just how will the usa verify your fingerprints ?

By comparing them to known terrorists. Pretty simple, really. They can
fake IDs (or get them issued "officially" from many countries), but it's
a bit harder to fake fingerprints.

> If you're a foreigner who has never been to the USA, your
> fingerprints will be "virgin".

Not so. We have a lot of records of known bad guys from other sources.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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...

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >, 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 you have some sort of bizarre fantasy where they could do *more*
things to you than any major government already *can*, right?

"Mr. Ashcroft, we have this Mr. Nobody's DNA on file!"

"Great, we can activate the orbital mind control lasers to affect just
*him*! BWAhahahahahaaaaa! No, if we just had his fingerprints, we
could build a perfect Life Model Decoy!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Pete]

"AJC" > wrote
>
> Exactly. The UK, Spain and other democracies have lived with terrorism
> for many years. It is not always easy but it is important to keep a
> balance between security and liberty. If you end up turning a country
> in to a police state out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists
> have won.

If "the UK, Spain and other democracies have lived with terrorism for many
years.", evidently something isn't working right.

Unless of course you think living with terrorism is a desireable and natural
state of affairs.

Maybe it's time to try something different. Not saying that fingerprinting
everyone is the *right* solution, but something other than the status quo
would seem to be in order.

Pete

[tadaa]

> Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :

> The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only diplomats
and
> travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and
photographed
> when they enter the United States through 115 airports and 14 seaports,
said
> Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at
the
> Department of Homeland Security. ...

I see couple of problems here

a) Optical fingerprint scanning is not that reliable, it can be (quite
easily) faked.
b) You still have to trust the document. What about corrupt official selling
identities, theft of empty id cards or if the country making these documents
are in the plan too.
c) Is the information gathered safe? Or will be there a new market for
stolen identities (fingerprints, pictures) in addition of stolen credit card
numbers.
d) What is the US policy with this information? Will it be destroyed when I
leave the country (doubt it), to what purposes it will be used.
e) Only airports and seaports are mentioned, what if I come from Mexico or
Canada?

Mayby they hope that they can automatise profiling as the information is in
digital form and US seems to specialize in that kind of information
gathering. It just doesn't have that great track record against terrorist or
weapons of mass destruction.
Of course it is the wet dream of every big brother out there to have a file
of every person and in digital form to enable that computer aided data
analysis. And the actual use of this just seems to be to collect a database
of every person who ever visited USA that would include their picture,
fingerprint, credit card numer etc.

Wouldn't it just be easier if we were given a barcode when we were born?

[Lennart Petersen]

"Chad Irby" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> In article >,
> "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
>
> > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
International
> > to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
> > How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in
U.S
> > ?
>
> You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> pretending that it's common worldwide.
To start with Norway isn't an EU member, and furthermore EU or Schengen
transfers aren't very unusual. They are made in a number of at least several
hundred thousands daily.
And flights between european countries are counting for much more than 1% of
the worlds flights.
No lines or short lines are typical for the average inter European flight.
Can't remember the last time I had to line up for a long time or having more
than 3-4 persons ahead for the security check or other things. Passport
controls are abolished inside Schengen and customs are typically easy. In
fact the customs have never stopped me at an European airport so far.
May I guess you've never been to Europe or perhaps not much outside your own
rural village ?

[mtravelkay]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> "Sjoerd" > wrote:
>
>
>>You claimed that US customs ( I believe you mean immigration) is faster than
>>"99% of the countries in the world". I have been to 75 countries and the US
>>is amongst the 10 countries with the longest/slowest lines for immigration
>>and customs.
>
>
> 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? What actually occurs
with the photo and fingerprints? I doubt Immigration waits for a
fingerprint or image search for know "evil-doers".

[[email protected]]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

>
>Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit a
>country which treats us as criminals?
>
Not to be argumentative Marie but think what you're
saying...security has been tightened all over (including your
country) hasn't it?...
--

-Gord.

[Lennart Petersen]

"Chad Irby" > skrev i meddelandet
om...
> In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
> > > > International to domestic including security check. Was in
> > > > Sandefjord Norway. How many transfers international-domestic are
> > > > done in less 6 minutes in U.S?
> > >
> > > You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> > > pretending that it's common worldwide.
> > >
> > > Now, *that's* interesting.
> > >
> > Take a look at the previous post.
>
> I did. It's even funnier. He's comparing a country that has less
> international airline passengers per year than *Orlando*, which isn't
> even in the top 5 international airports in the US...
Well according to Orlandos website
> http://fcn.state.fl.us/goaa/
they had 1 682 457 international passengers in year 2002
while Norway had, according to AVINOR http://www.avinor.no/
had in year 2003: 6 779 971 international p scheduled and another 1 763 258
from charter flights. Seem to be about 5 times your Orlando statistic.
Oslo alone had 5 700 000 international passengers.
So you're wrong on that point.

> Why are the lines longer to get into the US? Because more people *fly*
> there. And, by the way, we're having a record year for tourism of all
> types...
So lines should be exceptional longer in Germany(82 000 000 )
than Luxembourg (454 000)?
No an efficient airport doesn't works so.
Big airport, more staff, equal to the expected arrivals.
Small airport, fewer staff and in fact more likely to create lines in case
of an occasional flight with many passengers.

[Peter Kemp]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:32:04 -0400, nobody > wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>> I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
>> shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US
>
>I thought it was currently the opposite: all those entering on a visa are fingerprinted.
>In october, it will be all travellers whether on a real visa, or a 90 day visa waiver.

For standard tourist visas you are correct, anyone holding one goes
through the process. I've got a different type of visa as I'm in the
US on UK government business. Which is exempt from the procedures (and
also means that I tend to spend less time at immigration even than US
citizens).
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.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

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.

>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

[nobody]

" wrote:
> Not to be argumentative Marie but think what you're
> saying...security has been tightened all over (including your
> country) hasn't it?...

The USA was a farce in terms of security prior to 9-11. Other countries have
far more sensible security.

Other countries didn't have to revolutionlise their security, the USA did. And
the USA went overboard, and not entirely in a very logical fashion. It was
very politically driven.

In many cases, other countries only had to adjust security to bend to USA
requests, not to improve security.

[James Robinson]

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.

[James Robinson]

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.

[James Robinson]

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.

[[email protected]]

"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.

[Jim Yanik]

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

[Jim Yanik]

Magda > wrote in
:

> 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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Jim Yanik]

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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Jim Yanik]

"tadaa" > wrote in :



> Wouldn't it just be easier if we were given a barcode when we were
> born?

We were,it's called DNA.
>
>
>

Or they could tattoo a ID number on your forearm.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> "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?

But I don't see you complaining about the *real* Big Brother problem of
all of the security cameras in England...

> 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.

Another fool who thinks that outlawing and/or registering firearms will
keep criminals and terrorists from getting them...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> 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.

But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
across.

> > 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.

But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

> 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.

Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Ken Pisichko]

YUP! But remember that the Canadian border control system works too. Our laws are
different that USA border control laws, but we do keep terrorists out - convicted
ones that is. We also adhere to the premise that folks are innocent until proven
quilty - except for thoe where there is suspicion. This past week there was a SWAT
team raid on a home in our national capital region (Ottawa) and a Canadian citizen
was arrested and is held in detention with charges against him. Something to do
with those arrested in the UK on terrorism and bomb making charges.

No border is immune, but to think that Canada is a pipeline for terrorist entry
into the USA is baloney.! Besides, the US border control types are pretty
vigilant too, and I have thanked them for the questioning of me and my family when
we enter the USA.

The problem, as I see it, is if someone comes in with several counterfeit
passports..... and then enters the USA from Canada with a Canadian passport. No
fingerprinting would flag the person entering the USA as a terrorist - unless the
fingerprints were in some USA accessable data base.

The USA requirement for my fingerprints will not be of any value to the licensing
agency requiring them because I have absolutely NO history in the USA. I do in
Canada, but my history is clean - it is there in the database, but clean. The US
agency does NOT access the Canadian CPIC system or any other Canadian data base -
so what is the point of their exercise?

Hence, I wonder what is the point of the USA fingerprinting aliens entering the
USA? Perhaps it is to salve some troubled intellect(s).

Ken
Winnipeg, Canada

Phil Richards wrote:

> So presumably the easiest way to get in to the US without these stupid
> fingerprint and photograph checks is to say fly in to Canada and cross
> over the border by road....

[Pan]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:55:36 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> AJC > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>> >checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>>
>> You don't get out very much do you?
>
>I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
>compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
>Or Russia.

Try Malaysia. They just took my customs declaration form, looked at my
passport, and waved me on through.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:55:36 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
> compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
> Or Russia.

I've breezed in and out of over a dozen African nations and never had
my photo or my fingerprints taken. Ken didn't have either done when
he visited the fUSSR, either. I've also been to the PRC and military
dictatorships, as well as monarchies. We've never seen any of this
going on.

Have you ever been outside the US? If so, how many African nations
have you visited? Russia? PRC? Military dictatorships?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Chad Irby > wrote in
om:
> In article >,
> James Robinson > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*,
> which gives them much more flexibility.

Not necessarily. Cars have to be parked somewhere, which
can be very expensive and just finding a place to park
can be a nightmare in a larger city. Let alone a safe place
for your car.

Put that on top of a slow and uncomfortable ride, relative
to a train, and that you are dependent on having a driver
for it as well. And it's easy to get some work done on a
train -- you can't work on your laptop driving a car.

Besides you also need to find your way in and out of a city,
which is often not desirable, and pray you don't get clogged
up in traffic. That will make the trip even slower.

For short to medium haul, city to city, there is nothing
that can beat the modern highspeed train. At least provided
it's well integrated into the overall public transportation
system. Then interrailing becomes a joy.


>> > 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.
>
> But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

I think trains are still the safest means of transportation.
Besides it's more environmentally safe than anything.



Regards...

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"patLB" > wrote in message
...
>
> > 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...

Even a high-speed train would take 2 days to travel from New York to LA, and
cost the traveler more. Not likely to happen. On some corridors in the US it
makes sense, and they've been analyzing it.

[Pan]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:51:27 +0200, "Oelewapper" >
wrote:

>Why would the county in question need hand and foot prints for a birth
>certificate ???

The U.S. has done this for ages, presumably for identification.

> The hospital's doctors' signature of the birth file should
>suffice, shouldn't it ?

I don't know.

[snip]
>I have always loved New York City, I really did and I guess I still do in
>lots of ways (used to jetset overthere to get my hair cut when I was living
>in Canada and even from Europe, no kiddin'). I've only been 'back' once,
>soon after 9/11 - saw the rumble, and the smoke, and the hysteric onlookers;
>spoke to the people; even had a quick look at what could have been some of
>the documents of WTC7... Didn't like the hysteric atmosphere at all -
>wondering who was to blame most, the attackers or the government and the way
>it responded to the situation.

Things are much more relaxed now.

> Guess I simply didn't and still don't like
>the present US-regime, and what it stands for,

Me neither.

> as it has demonstrated some
>disgusting militarist, undemocratic, cleptocratic, zionist,
[snip]

You lost me here, and I stopped reading. If you consider "Zionist" a
slur, why did you ever visit the city with the largest Jewish
population in the world? Go to countries like Saudi Arabia that are
officially Judenrein [Nazi term for "rid of Jews"] and **** off!

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

JF Mezei > wrote in message
...

> Alan Pollock wrote:
> > Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.
>
> You know, I am amazed at the transformation of the USA. In the past, the
mere
> mention of a national identity card would make

There is no national identity card in the US, JF. Nor is this discussion
about national identity cards. I realize that you spend most of your time
trolling newsgroups, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oelewapper wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> > > > This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks
> > > I do consider it fascism. I also have never had my fingerprints taken
> >
> > Almost all drivers licenses now are machine
> > readable with information stored on a magnetic strip. Considering
> everything
> > else they have been collecting about you for decades, a fingerprint is
> > hardly evidence of "fascism".
> > I just remembered that when my kids were born the hospital took hand
> prints
> > and foot prints for the birth certificate that was filed with the
county.
> Is
> > that fascism in your mind?
>
> YES, ABSOLUTELY ... !

I have a buddy down the street whose wife is expecting. I'll have to tell
him to shout "Fascist pig!" at the pediatric nurse.

[clint]

YAWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
> "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oelewapper wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> > > > > This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who
thinks
> > > > I do consider it fascism. I also have never had my fingerprints
taken
> > >
> > > Almost all drivers licenses now are machine
> > > readable with information stored on a magnetic strip. Considering
> > everything
> > > else they have been collecting about you for decades, a fingerprint is
> > > hardly evidence of "fascism".
> > > I just remembered that when my kids were born the hospital took hand
> > prints
> > > and foot prints for the birth certificate that was filed with the
> county.
> > Is
> > > that fascism in your mind?
> >
> > YES, ABSOLUTELY ... !
>
> I have a buddy down the street whose wife is expecting. I'll have to tell
> him to shout "Fascist pig!" at the pediatric nurse.
>
>

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

In your opinion.

> 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?

That's not evidence of fascism, it's evidence of a typical bureaucracy. Can
you name a point in our history when federal regulations didn't increase?

> 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.

A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil. During wartime,
certain rules are established in order ensure our security as much as
possible. Once the war is over, those rules are lifted. If we didn't have
moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as possible and we
were still putting these security measures in place, I would agree that we
shouldn't be doing so. But that's not the world we live in.

[DAE]

"Ken Pisichko" > wrote in message
...
> YUP! But remember that the Canadian border control system works too. Our
laws are
> different that USA border control laws, but we do keep terrorists out -
convicted
> ones that is. We also adhere to the premise that folks are innocent until
proven
> quilty - except for thoe where there is suspicion. This past week there
was a SWAT
> team raid on a home in our national capital region (Ottawa) and a Canadian
citizen
> was arrested and is held in detention with charges against him. Something
to do
> with those arrested in the UK on terrorism and bomb making charges.
>
> No border is immune, but to think that Canada is a pipeline for terrorist
entry
> into the USA is baloney.! Besides, the US border control types are
pretty
> vigilant too, and I have thanked them for the questioning of me and my
family when
> we enter the USA.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is if someone comes in with several counterfeit
> passports..... and then enters the USA from Canada with a Canadian
passport. No
> fingerprinting would flag the person entering the USA as a terrorist -
unless the
> fingerprints were in some USA accessable data base.
>
> The USA requirement for my fingerprints will not be of any value to the
licensing
> agency requiring them because I have absolutely NO history in the USA. I
do in
> Canada, but my history is clean - it is there in the database, but clean.
The US
> agency does NOT access the Canadian CPIC system or any other Canadian data
base -
> so what is the point of their exercise?
>
> Hence, I wonder what is the point of the USA fingerprinting aliens
entering the
> USA? Perhaps it is to salve some troubled intellect(s).
>
> Ken
> Winnipeg, Canada
>
> Phil Richards wrote:
>
> > So presumably the easiest way to get in to the US without these stupid
> > fingerprint and photograph checks is to say fly in to Canada and cross
> > over the border by road....

Phil,

The Border has been tightened quite a bit in the past few months. You would
probably have to cross an a remote, unguarded gully to be safe if you were
going to do harm. If not wishing to do harm then the normal crossing would
be the easiest.


Don

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in
:
> "patLB" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > 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...
>
> Even a high-speed train would take 2 days to travel from New
> York to LA, and cost the traveler more.

Both the latest french TGV's and the german and japanese maglev
trains can travel up to 500Kmh (300Mph). Provided it goes express
something like that should be able to cover the US coast to coast
in 8-10 hours if we assume the milage would lie somewhere between
3000 and 4000km (Interstate 40).



Regards...

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"clint" > wrote in message
...
> YAWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to sleep if you're tired.

> "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oelewapper wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> > > > > > This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who
> thinks
> > > > > I do consider it fascism. I also have never had my fingerprints
> taken
> > > >
> > > > Almost all drivers licenses now are machine
> > > > readable with information stored on a magnetic strip. Considering
> > > everything
> > > > else they have been collecting about you for decades, a fingerprint
is
> > > > hardly evidence of "fascism".
> > > > I just remembered that when my kids were born the hospital took hand
> > > prints
> > > > and foot prints for the birth certificate that was filed with the
> > county.
> > > Is
> > > > that fascism in your mind?
> > >
> > > YES, ABSOLUTELY ... !
> >
> > I have a buddy down the street whose wife is expecting. I'll have to
tell
> > him to shout "Fascist pig!" at the pediatric nurse.
> >
> >
>
>

[nobody]

Greg Morrow wrote:
> I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't fund
> IRA terrorists, Marie, unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
> don't know about.

The USA is as guilty with regards to the IRA as the Taliban was with Al Queda:
they not only tolerated their presence, not only made no effort to stop them,
but also morally supported them. "freedom fighters".

When the IRA bombed the HSBC headquarters in London, did the USA act to freeze
the funds of known IRA supporters ? NOP.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...

> Anyway, on a more cynical note: too bad the so-called 'anti-terrorism'
> measures weren't in place on October 20 1980, when 'October Surprise' GHWB
> touched down in a top-secret SR71 at McGuire Air Force base at approx. 2
> hours after midnight, or when the Saudis got out of the country soon after
> 9/11 ... But then again, those are other stories - or are they ??

It's just been discovered that a certified kook is responsible for starting
this thread.

[nobody]

Chad Irby wrote:
> The Canadian Auditor General disagrees with you... as of about six days
> ago.
>
> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632219/>

Sound bytes taken from articles which quoted sound bytes.

If they had quoted the complete auditor general statement, you would have seen
that she began by stating that overall, Canada was doing a very good job to
combat terrorism/increase security. But her role is to find the faults and in
her report she did point to a list of things that need to be fixed. (included
was the need for greater screening of airport employees BTW).

If only the USA had a similar process to point out the faults in the USA's
attempt to combat terrorism. But then again, the Bush regime would be
overwhelmed by such a report pointing to the few things done right instead of
the so many things done wrong.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism... :
> >
> > This is not "fascism", unless you're one of those morons who thinks
> dealing
> > with the DMV and getting fingerprinted for a driver's license is
> "fascism".
> > When you lace your writing with such stupid hyperbole, you've lost your
> > credibility.
>
> Please note that fingerprinting is not nearly as common in, for example,
the
> UK, as in the USA.
> Here, you have to be suspected of a crime to be foingerprinted, and if you
> are innocent, those prints are destroyed.
> >
> > You're also mistaken if you think this will be limited to the US.
Wealthy
> > democracies will all be implementing these very same procedures. If you
> > doubt me, wait and see what happens after the next round of terrorist
> > attacks.
>
> We have had many, many terrorist attacks in the UK (many financed by the
> USA)

Name one terrorist attack in the UK financed by the USA. Stuff that happened
200 years ago doesn't count.

I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't fund
IRA terrorists, Marie, unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
don't know about. To say the USA "financed" the IRA is therefore very
disengenuous of you. What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was a group of
private stoopid Irish-American citizens (not the American government) gave
money to the IRA. Victims of IRA violence should sue in US courts the morons
who did this. I can only wonder why this hasn't happened. Outside of
"Southie" (a certain part of Boston), such a trial would be a slam-dunk for
the UK plaintiffs. I certainly think families of victims of the IRA deserve
all the money they can get.

> and have never founnd this necessary or useful. I am 67 and have never
> had my finger prints taken.
> If the present government were to introduce it, then, in spite of being a
> life long member opf the Labour party, at elections I would vote against
> them. It matters that much.
>
> So, I doubt you. Other countries are not so

I respect your opinion about fingerprinting, Marie. I truly do. As a
life-long member of the Labour Party, I'm sure you won't be voting for the
Tories. So when UK customs and integration begins fingerprinting inbound
visitors to the UK, who will you vote for?

[Chad Irby]

In article >, Ken Pisichko >
wrote:

> YUP! But remember that the Canadian border control system works too.
> Our laws are different that USA border control laws, but we do keep
> terrorists out - convicted ones that is. We also adhere to the
> premise that folks are innocent until proven quilty - except for thoe
> where there is suspicion. This past week there was a SWAT team raid
> on a home in our national capital region (Ottawa) and a Canadian
> citizen was arrested and is held in detention with charges against
> him. Something to do with those arrested in the UK on terrorism and
> bomb making charges.
>
> No border is immune, but to think that Canada is a pipeline for
> terrorist entry into the USA is baloney.! Besides, the US border
> control types are pretty vigilant too, and I have thanked them for
> the questioning of me and my family when we enter the USA.

The Canadian Auditor General disagrees with you... as of about six days
ago.

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632219/>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Quantum Foam Guy]

JF Mezei > wrote in message
...
> Greg Morrow wrote:

Greg didn't write this, JF. I did. Learn how to operate a newsreader
properly. It's not difficult.

> > I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't
fund
> > IRA terrorists, Marie, unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that
we
> > don't know about.
>
> The USA is as guilty with regards to the IRA as the Taliban was with Al
Queda:

I've never funded the IRA, JF. My tax dollars didn't pay for the brutal
murder of British civilians. A small group of Irish-American assholes in
Boston gave money to the IRA. And they weren't the only source of IRA funds.
Besides local sources in Northern Ireland, the IRA also liked to pal around
with certain Middle Eastern groups. You did know that, right?

> they not only tolerated their presence, not only made no effort to stop
them,
> but also morally supported them. "freedom fighters".

I'm not old enough to remember the complete history of the IRA, JF. Perhaps
you are. I don't remember any "moral support" from the US government for the
IRA. Did the British government contact the FBI to track these Boston
assholes down, and if so, when do you think the families of the victims of
IRA terrorism will sue them? If I was to serve on such a jury I would
certainly find for the plaintiffs. As would just about any American outside
of certain Boston neighborhoods.

[nobody]

Chad Irby wrote:
> And statements like "Watch lists used to screen visa applicants, refugee
> claimants and travelers seeking to enter Canada are in disarray because
> of inaccuracies and shoddy updating, Fraser found" do not exactly
> reinforce your views that Canada is doing a bang-up job.

Her role is to find flaws. No system is perfect. But you can bet that this
items are being worked on. And while it is true that there is a problem
between the passport office and customs people (to have live access to
cancelled/stolen passport lists), the auditor general did mention that getting
the synchronisation going was a technical challenge and that it can't be done overnight.

The auditor general's report is more a list of things remaining to be done as
opposed to a list of flaws. You need to look at it on a yearly basis to see
the type of progress being made.


I bet that if she were to audit the US systems, it would look far worse and
with far worse problems (for instance, private jetblue data making it to some
conference presentation by a consulting firm).

[AJC]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:18:12 -0500, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:32:04 -0400, nobody > wrote:
>
>>Peter Kemp wrote:
>>> I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
>>> shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US
>>
>>I thought it was currently the opposite: all those entering on a visa are fingerprinted.
>>In october, it will be all travellers whether on a real visa, or a 90 day visa waiver.
>
>For standard tourist visas you are correct, anyone holding one goes
>through the process. I've got a different type of visa as I'm in the
>US on UK government business. Which is exempt from the procedures (and
>also means that I tend to spend less time at immigration even than US
>citizens).
>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.
>
>---

That surprises me. You must have a very special visa. Even the visas
that airline crews hold have required them to be fingerprinted and
photographed each time they enter the US since January this year. Air
New Zealand crew members were telling me it routinely takes them an
hour to get through the formalities at LAX.
--==++AJC++==--

[AJC]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:13:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>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...


Oh dear, you really really should save up and try to get out of your
village up in the hills there, and see a bit of the real world at
least once.
--==++AJC++==--

[Chad Irby]

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > The Canadian Auditor General disagrees with you... as of about six days
> > ago.
> >
> > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632219/>
>
> Sound bytes taken from articles which quoted sound bytes.
>
> If they had quoted the complete auditor general statement, you would have seen
> that she began by stating that overall, Canada was doing a very good job to
> combat terrorism/increase security.

Of course she'd say that. But the qualifications she mentioned make it
quite plain that Canada is *not* doing that much to control their own
borders.

And statements like "Watch lists used to screen visa applicants, refugee
claimants and travelers seeking to enter Canada are in disarray because
of inaccuracies and shoddy updating, Fraser found" do not exactly
reinforce your views that Canada is doing a bang-up job.

> But her role is to find the faults and in her report she did point to
> a list of things that need to be fixed. (included was the need for
> greater screening of airport employees BTW).

....and reporting of stolen passports, and better coordination between
agencies, and other things.

> If only the USA had a similar process to point out the faults in the USA's
> attempt to combat terrorism. But then again, the Bush regime

You know, use of phrases like "Bush regime" sorta gives away that bias,
there.

> would be overwhelmed by such a report pointing to the few things done
> right instead of the so many things done wrong.

You need to read more US newspapers. Your pint of view is *not* borne
out in anything like what's happening here.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
AJC > wrote:

> Oh dear, you really really should save up and try to get out of your
> village up in the hills there, and see a bit of the real world at
> least once.

Hey, nice insult. I'm not only right, but *you* knew I was right..

By the way, my "little village in the hills" is a city of over a
million...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
> > > wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries
that
> > > already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
> > >
> > No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK,
where
> > fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.
>
> ...or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...
>
You have now truly revealed your weakness.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...
>
> The distances are too long.
Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
> range,

And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.

and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.
> Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.
>
> That's a shame, too, I like trains.
>
> And the vast majority of Americans have decent cars, so "long" trips by
> European standards are common weekend trips by US standards.

Yet more pollution.
>
> --

[Marie Lewis]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit a
> >country which treats us as criminals?
> >
> Not to be argumentative Marie but think what you're
> saying...security has been tightened all over (including your
> country) hasn't it?...


When I go to mainland Europe, I go by car and ferry.
My passport is checked, but that is all, and that is only because the UK is
not a Schengen country.
Once I get to the European mainland, I can drive all through the EU with no
more checks at all. The borders are not manned. You have to slow down a
bit to drive through, but I have never been stopped and I have never seen
anyone actually in the border buildings or anywhere to be seen.

So the hassle just does not exist.

Marie

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> >
> > > If people were worried about bureaucratic nosiness, they wouldn't go
to
> > > most of Europe in the first place.
> >
> > You show your ignorance.
>
> No, I show that *you* apparently don't know anything about your own home
> country, or how it really compares to the US...


Indeed I do: when we first went to the USA, many years ago, we loved it and
even thought about emigrating.
The second time, we began to see the drawbacks.
Now nothing would encourage us to spend more than a short holiday there, and
that only when you stop being so up yourselves.
So the offer by our LA relatives to have us live with them in the winters is
happily rejected.

Please describe your detailed knowledge of all other countries in the world.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lennart Petersen" > wrote:
>
> > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
International
> > to domestic including security check. Was in Sandefjord Norway.
> > How many transfers international-domestic are done in less 6 minutes in
U.S
> > ?
>
> You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> pretending that it's common worldwide.
>
> Now, *that's* interesting.
>
Please give us, with descriptions, the names of the other countries you have
visited , with the de
times of delays at immigration.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> > > > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
> > > > International to domestic including security check. Was in
> > > > Sandefjord Norway. How many transfers international-domestic are
> > > > done in less 6 minutes in U.S?
> > >
> > > You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
> > > pretending that it's common worldwide.
> > >
> > > Now, *that's* interesting.
> > >
> > Take a look at the previous post.
>
> I did. It's even funnier. He's comparing a country that has less
> international airline passengers per year than *Orlando*, which isn't
> even in the top 5 international airports in the US...
>
> Why are the lines longer to get into the US? Because more people *fly*
> there. And, by the way, we're having a record year for tourism of all
> types...


The you should have more immigration officers on duty. Simple.
If you do not, then complaints will multiply and tourist numbers will
diminish.

[Marie Lewis]

"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.

You really are funny. I bet you have never left the USA.
Not that I want you to: much better for us that you stay there.

[Sjoerd]

"Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
om...
>
> But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
> gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
> across.

I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.

Sjoerd

[Marie Lewis]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
> Name one terrorist attack in the UK financed by the USA. Stuff that
happened
> 200 years ago doesn't count.
>
> I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't fund
> IRA terrorists, Marie,

I did not say the US givernment had financed the IRA. I may suspect that
iut did, but I have no proof, so I would not write that.

>unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
> don't know about.

Possible.

>To say the USA "financed" the IRA is therefore very
> disengenuous of you.

Not at all.

What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was a group of
> private stoopid Irish-American citizens (not the American government) gave
> money to the IRA. Victims of IRA violence should sue in US courts the
morons
> who did this. I can only wonder why this hasn't happened.

We are not so litigious as you.

>
> I respect your opinion about fingerprinting, Marie. I truly do. As a
> life-long member of the Labour Party, I'm sure you won't be voting for the
> Tories. So when UK customs and integration begins fingerprinting inbound
> visitors to the UK, who will you vote for?

Probably the Liberal Democrats, possibly the Greens. I would study their
manifestos and decide, as any sensible person should.
The Labour party of today is not the one I joined.
>
>
Marie

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> 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...
>
You really think the UK governemnt is interested in such things? Reductio
ad absurdum is a weak form of argument.

In any case, what you obviously do not know is that hospital records are not
held on computer here: they are paper records. This causes some problems
(mine have been lost in the past for a while, and when I use different
hospitals, they have to be sent by courier) but it does ensure that not
everyone can look at them.

Each GP (the primary care doctor) has its own computer system, not linked to
others.
Privacy is important here.

Try to find anyone British, who has ever needed to use the NHS, who would
like to get rid of it.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> AJC > wrote:
>
> > Oh dear, you really really should save up and try to get out of your
> > village up in the hills there, and see a bit of the real world at
> > least once.
>
> Hey, nice insult. I'm not only right, but *you* knew I was right..
>
> By the way, my "little village in the hills" is a city of over a
> million...


That's hardly a "city" by our standards.
And do you ever leave it?

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, nobody >
> wrote:
>
> > Brian wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > And just how will the usa verify your fingerprints ?
>
> By comparing them to known terrorists. Pretty simple, really. They can
> fake IDs (or get them issued "officially" from many countries), but it's
> a bit harder to fake fingerprints.
>
> > If you're a foreigner who has never been to the USA, your
> > fingerprints will be "virgin".
>
> Not so. We have a lot of records of known bad guys from other sources.
>
"Bad guys"? I now realise you are a teenager.

[Marie Lewis]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "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...

Possibly. I have never been in the army. Maybe someone who has will
enlighten us.
So, possibly, my claim relates to civilians. That does not weaken it,
however.,

[Marie Lewis]

"Bert Hyman" > wrote in message
...
> In nobody > wrote:
>
> > That is why, if you are going to leave personal information with a
> > government, you must have trust that the government will not misuse that
> > information. The current USA regime has broken that trust because it has
> > misused the information.
>
> As did the one before it, and the one before that, and the one before that
> and ...
>
> As will the one that follows it.
>

I hope you are wrong or we will never be willing to return to the USA.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> 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.
>
What a country does to its own citizens is a matter for that country and
those very citizens. Do you understand that?

What it does to other nationalities can be insulting and insensitive. That
is what the USA is.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, 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 you have some sort of bizarre fantasy where they could do *more*
> things to you than any major government already *can*, right?
>
> "Mr. Ashcroft, we have this Mr. Nobody's DNA on file!"
>
> "Great, we can activate the orbital mind control lasers to affect just
> *him*! BWAhahahahahaaaaa! No, if we just had his fingerprints, we
> could build a perfect Life Model Decoy!"
>
> --
Reductio ad asurdum, again. Grow up.

[Marie Lewis]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> 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).
>
You would hate to live in the UK, then. You would not be able to own a
firearm.

[Marie Lewis]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
>
> A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
> at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.

During wartime,
> certain rules are established in order ensure our security as much as
> possible. Once the war is over, those rules are lifted.

Don't bet on it.

In any case, you have no chance of winning this "war," Terrorism has always
existed and always will. If you don't realise that, you are very naive.

> If we didn't have
> moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as possible and
we
> were still putting these security measures in place, I would agree that we
> shouldn't be doing so. But that's not the world we live in.

Ah, you are anti Muslim! All is revealed.

I, personally, don't trust "born again" Christians who used to be drunks.
>
>

[Marie Lewis]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Please note that we all have the rest of the world to visit. Why visit a
> >country which treats us as criminals?
> >
> Not to be argumentative Marie but think what you're
> saying...security has been tightened all over (including your
> country) hasn't it?...

I have answered you on another NG.

[David Horne]

Sjoerd > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
> om...
> >
> > But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
> > gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
> > across.
>
> I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
> get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
> relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
> groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.

I lived in the US for 11 years, and had a car for about 1 of them. I
don't recall feeling stranded in those ten years! To tell the truth,
when I did have the car, I tended to use it for unnecessary trips. I
believe in public transport, refuse to own a car, and make choices about
where I live as a result- that is, I live close to good public transport
links. If people thought a little bit more about that, we might have
cleaner air to breathe- instead, the focus on building new housing
complexes in the UK tends to depend on the occupants having cars- the
government really seems to have abondoned public transport- rural
railways and bus routes have been decimated in the last 40 years.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

[Sjoerd]

"Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
om...
> 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...

Universal health care has nothing to do with government officials have
access to medical records. You need to study these things a bit more before
making absurd claims.

Sjoerd

[Stephen Harding]

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

[Sjoerd]

"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

[Shawn Hearn]

In article >,
Phil Richards > wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:27:28 +0200 Oelewapper > said...
>
> > The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only diplomats and
> > travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and photographed
> > when they enter the United States through 115 airports and 14 seaports, said
> > Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at the
> > Department of Homeland Security. ...
>
> So presumably the easiest way to get in to the US without these stupid
> fingerprint and photograph checks is to say fly in to Canada and cross
> over the border by road....

True, but going through Canada is a hell of a lot of trouble, just to
avoid an extra wait to enter the United States directly.

[Shawn Hearn]

In article >,
"jboy" > wrote:

> And the American's wonder why US airlines are going broke? This looks like
> the final nail in the coffin for UA and AA. When will George ever wake up
> and realise he's not John Wayne..

I have no idea. Bush could not be a worse president if he tried. Have
you heard about what the National Park Service is doing to "secure" the
Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia? The National Park
Service's plan is an absolute joke, but than this is the same
administration that thinks we can survive a biological or chemical
attack with duct tape.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Name one terrorist attack in the UK financed by the USA. Stuff that
> happened
> > 200 years ago doesn't count.
> >
> > I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't
fund
> > IRA terrorists, Marie,
>
> I did not say the US givernment had financed the IRA. I may suspect that
> iut did, but I have no proof, so I would not write that.

You sure did imply that, Marie. I think it's telling that you snipped out
what you now deny saying: "We have had many, many terrorist attacks in the
UK (many financed by the USA)".

> >unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
> > don't know about.
>
> Possible.

Only if you're paranoid or hate the US so much that you'll believe any
stupid conspiracy tale as long as it's hateful.

> >To say the USA "financed" the IRA is therefore very
> > disengenuous of you.
>
> Not at all.

Yes, Marie. Your statement is very disengenuous. It's also quite hateful of
you.

> What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was a group of
> > private stoopid Irish-American citizens (not the American government)
gave
> > money to the IRA. Victims of IRA violence should sue in US courts the
> morons
> > who did this. I can only wonder why this hasn't happened.
>
> We are not so litigious as you.

This is hardly litigious. This is about right and wrong. Suing these people
would greatly help the families of the victims and teach the perps a lesson.

> > I respect your opinion about fingerprinting, Marie. I truly do. As a
> > life-long member of the Labour Party, I'm sure you won't be voting for
the
> > Tories. So when UK customs and integration begins fingerprinting inbound
> > visitors to the UK, who will you vote for?
>
> Probably the Liberal Democrats, possibly the Greens. I would study their
> manifestos and decide, as any sensible person should.
> The Labour party of today is not the one I joined.

[Quantum Foam Guy]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America
is
> > at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.
>
> During wartime,
> > certain rules are established in order ensure our security as much as
> > possible. Once the war is over, those rules are lifted.
>
> Don't bet on it.
>
> In any case, you have no chance of winning this "war," Terrorism has
always
> existed and always will. If you don't realise that, you are very naive.

Then let's just send a communique to Osama and surrender. Will you be
wearing the burka?

> > If we didn't have
> > moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as possible
and
> we
> > were still putting these security measures in place, I would agree that
we
> > shouldn't be doing so. But that's not the world we live in.
>
> Ah, you are anti Muslim! All is revealed.

Really? I'm not aware of an statements I've made to the effect that I hate
moslems.

> I, personally, don't trust "born again" Christians who used to be drunks.

I'm neither a "born again" Christian nor a drunk. But what's very clear is
you are a bitter, hateful person who makes bizarre claims and then runs away
from them when questioned.

[Marie Lewis]

"Shawn Hearn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Phil Richards > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:27:28 +0200 Oelewapper > said...
> >
> > > The expansion, which will take effect by Sept. 30, means only
diplomats and
> > > travelers from Mexico and Canada will not be fingerprinted and
photographed
> > > when they enter the United States through 115 airports and 14
seaports, said
> > > Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security
at the
> > > Department of Homeland Security. ...
> >
> > So presumably the easiest way to get in to the US without these stupid
> > fingerprint and photograph checks is to say fly in to Canada and cross
> > over the border by road....
>
> True, but going through Canada is a hell of a lot of trouble, just to
> avoid an extra wait to enter the United States directly.

It really is not a question of the extra wait, for us at least.
Anyway, Canada suddenly seems much more attractive than the USA.

[Marie Lewis]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Name one terrorist attack in the UK financed by the USA. Stuff that
> > happened
> > > 200 years ago doesn't count.
> > >
> > > I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't
> fund
> > > IRA terrorists, Marie,
> >
> > I did not say the US givernment had financed the IRA. I may suspect
that
> > iut did, but I have no proof, so I would not write that.
>
> You sure did imply that, Marie. I think it's telling that you snipped out
> what you now deny saying: "We have had many, many terrorist attacks in the
> UK (many financed by the USA)".
>

Read thyat again. Where is the word "government" mentioned?

> > >unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
> > > don't know about.
> >
> > Possible.
>
> Only if you're paranoid or hate the US so much that you'll believe any
> stupid conspiracy tale as long as it's hateful.

No: all governements have a secret slush fund. You are naive if you believe
otherwise.
>
> > >To say the USA "financed" the IRA is therefore very
> > > disengenuous of you.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Yes, Marie. Your statement is very disengenuous. It's also quite hateful
of
> you.
>

Not at all: we used to love visiting the USA.


> > What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was a group of
> > > private stoopid Irish-American citizens (not the American government)
> gave
> > > money to the IRA. Victims of IRA violence should sue in US courts the
> > morons
> > > who did this. I can only wonder why this hasn't happened.
> >
> > We are not so litigious as you.
>
> This is hardly litigious. This is about right and wrong. Suing these
people
> would greatly help the families of the victims and teach the perps a
lesson.
>
> > > I respect your opinion about fingerprinting, Marie. I truly do. As a
> > > life-long member of the Labour Party, I'm sure you won't be voting for
> the
> > > Tories. So when UK customs and integration begins fingerprinting
inbound
> > > visitors to the UK, who will you vote for?
> >
> > Probably the Liberal Democrats, possibly the Greens. I would study
their
> > manifestos and decide, as any sensible person should.
> > The Labour party of today is not the one I joined.
>
>
No reply to this I see.

[Marie Lewis]

"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]

"Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
...
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Quantum Foam Guy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion:
America
> is
> > > at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.
> >
> > During wartime,
> > > certain rules are established in order ensure our security as much as
> > > possible. Once the war is over, those rules are lifted.
> >
> > Don't bet on it.
> >
> > In any case, you have no chance of winning this "war," Terrorism has
> always
> > existed and always will. If you don't realise that, you are very naive.
>
> Then let's just send a communique to Osama and surrender. Will you be
> wearing the burka?

Reductio ad absurdum, yet again. The easy "argument" used by so many of the
less gifted in logic.
>
> > > If we didn't have
> > > moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as possible
> and
> > we
> > > were still putting these security measures in place, I would agree
that
> we
> > > shouldn't be doing so. But that's not the world we live in.
> >
> > Ah, you are anti Muslim! All is revealed.
>
> Really? I'm not aware of an statements I've made to the effect that I hate
> moslems.
>
> > I, personally, don't trust "born again" Christians who used to be
drunks.
>
> I'm neither a "born again" Christian nor a drunk. But what's very clear is
> you are a bitter, hateful person who makes bizarre claims and then runs
away
> from them when questioned.

And what I think of you would be inappropriate in a public forum.
>
>

[Stephen Harding]

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

[Sjoerd]

"Stephen Harding" > schreef in bericht
...
> 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.

I am not an anti-American. I am an anti-American-current-government. And I
won't stay home, there are 100's of beautiful countries in the world to
discover where they won't fingerprint me. And should I miss typical American
stuff, I can always visit Canada. :-)

Sjoerd

[Stephen Harding]

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]

Sjoerd wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > schreef in bericht
>>
>>One less anti-American Euro in line at the airport
>>is fine with me.
>
> I am not an anti-American. I am an anti-American-current-government. And I
> won't stay home, there are 100's of beautiful countries in the world to
> discover where they won't fingerprint me. And should I miss typical American
> stuff, I can always visit Canada. :-)

You may have just insulted some Canadians with that
comment ya know!


SMH

[jboy]

God you guys are so stuck up your arse it hurts.

Don't you realise that we are your allies and we are sick an tired of being
treated like the enemy? Being made to stand for hours on end, because you
cant get people to man immigration desks or do security properly is now
starting to make most of us determined to avoid your paranoid country.

Last month it took me 3 hours to get from the plane to cab in Atlanta
airport and that was before all this photo and fingerprint stuff started.

How will you like it when you arrive at Heathrow and we insist that you
stand in line for hours on end. Yep I'll be listening to moaning Wilmers
complaining that they are being treated as terrorists. Funny how that's OK,
but when we complain we are raving Pink Commies..

If ever a country needs to get out of diapers its the USA...

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

[Alan Pollock]

In rec.travel.usa-canada Stephen Harding > wrote:

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


My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too seriously.
Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
across.

As for the general tone of Anti-Americanism (which most will swear up and down
isn't the case), don't forget that it's a tender time for Euros at the moment.
If the US can be of help in their effort to combine, why not? Let them bitch
and moan. They're good at it. Been doing it for centuries against each other,
*and* other social classes within their own countries.

Where is all the tradition, all this pent-up cultural imperative to go now
that it's deemed uncool? Nex

[Keith Anderson]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:14:00 +0200, "Sjoerd" >
wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > schreef in bericht
om...
>>
>> But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
>> gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
>> across.
>
>I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
>get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
>relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
>groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.
>
>Sjoerd

The pity of it is that the US rail network, even in the Boston -
Washington corridor, is uderused in my experience. The Amtrak "Acela"
expresses (French built btw) seem to run two-thirds empty. Pity -
they're comfortable and fast.

Older Amtrak coaches are comfortable, lots of legroom - fine way of
seeing the country.
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Sjoerd wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Harding" > schreef in bericht
> >>
> >>One less anti-American Euro in line at the airport
> >>is fine with me.
> >
> > I am not an anti-American. I am an anti-American-current-government. And I
> > won't stay home, there are 100's of beautiful countries in the world to
> > discover where they won't fingerprint me. And should I miss typical American
> > stuff, I can always visit Canada. :-)
>
> You may have just insulted some Canadians with that
> comment ya know!

OTOH, they might just be flattered. Why don't we let the Canadians speak for
themselves....I'm sure they can handle it without our help.

George Z.

[Marie Lewis]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> 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!
>
As long as you stay there.

[Marie Lewis]

"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?

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

We shall. Or visit Canada.
>
> >>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.

[Marie Lewis]

"Alan Pollock" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.travel.usa-canada Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
> > at least a fairly large subset of them!
>
>
> My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too
seriously.
> Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
> across.
>

Oh yes, ignore anyone who does not agree with you. Very sensible.

> As for the general tone of Anti-Americanism (which most will swear up and
down
> isn't the case), don't forget that it's a tender time for Euros at the
moment.

Why? We in the UK are doing very well, thank you.


> If the US can be of help in their effort to combine, why not? Let them
bitch
> and moan. They're good at it. Been doing it for centuries against each
other,
> *and* other social classes within their own countries.


You make no sense at all.

[nobody]

Sjoerd wrote:
> Universal health care has nothing to do with government officials have
> access to medical records. You need to study these things a bit more before
> making absurd claims.

Well technically, since health care workers are employed by the government,
then it is true that government employees have access to your records :-)

The thing is that governments have very strick privacy laws. And in most
civilised nations, there are also strong nationwide privacy laws in effect.

The problem is when you have a country that lacks such strick privacy laws and
where government agencies share data at will and are allowed to provide data
to private enterprise which have no legal obligation to protect data, then
there is leakage.

In the USA, you have no idea to whom your HMO is sharing your data with. But
in Canada, you know that your provincial government is the sole body with
access to the data and that it enforces strict privacy laws. Furthermore,
because health care is universal, a government doesn't care if you are
terminally ill or in excellent shape, whereas in the USA, the HMOs really do
care because they would rather not insure the terminall ill as a new customer.

And again, it is your own government that knows about you.

Now, when you look at fingerprints or other very personal identification, it
will be a foreign government (USA) with no defined privacy laws that will hold
your personal information and not only have you no idea what will happen to
it, but also no legal right over their holding your information. Will you be
able to verify that they have destroyed your prints after X years ? Will you
be able to verify that they have not passed your prints to someone else ?
(think access to information). Because one is not a citizen of the USA, one
will have very little rights to access personal information about yourself
held by the USA.

[alohacyberian]

"Marie Lewis" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Pollock" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too
> seriously.
> > Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
> > across.
>
> You make no sense at all.
>

Typical Leftwing Liberal. So far you've ignored every message and attacked
every messenger. Unca Stalin would be proud. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

[nobody]

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.

[Dave Smith]

Alan Pollock wrote:

> As for the general tone of Anti-Americanism (which most will swear up and down
> isn't the case), don't forget that it's a tender time for Euros at the moment.
> If the US can be of help in their effort to combine, why not? Let them bitch
> and moan. They're good at it. Been doing it for centuries against each other,
> *and* other social classes within their own countries.

And the US has not had its battles in North America. You went to war with a
number of native Indian tribes, against Mexico, tried to invade Canada a few
times, lost more men in a civil war than in all other military actions combines.
I am sure you are aware of the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black.

[nobody]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Why are you not concerned with government use of your passport
> information as it is already defined?

Because the USA wants information of non-citizens. Those non-citizens have no
way to control how the information is used or misused by the foreign
government after they have left the country.

> 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,

That is the problem. The USA lacks a national data privacy law with sufficient
teeth to make it worthwile. This is why Europe, Canada and other countries are
having serious problems with the USA's requests. And the USA doesn't want to
have such strick laws because it needs to pass that information around freely
in order to do what it wants to do with it. (for instance, match your credit
card transactions with your fingerprint/identification). Remember that the
Bush Regime wants a "total information awareness" system. They are not there
yet, but that is what they want.

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:42:57 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Sjoerd" > wrote:
>
>> You claimed that US customs ( I believe you mean immigration) is faster than
>> "99% of the countries in the world". I have been to 75 countries and the US
>> is amongst the 10 countries with the longest/slowest lines for immigration
>> and customs.
>
>Is this because the process for each person is long, or because of the
>relative number of people coming in at a time?
>
>When you're flying in on a hundred-seat airliner and there's four guys
>working the desk, you're going to get through faster than if you're on
>one of four 747-400s landing in the same hour...

Yet There are many airports in the world who handle considerably more
international arrivals than US airports, even the busiest US airport
doesn't approach Heathrow for example.

Jim.

[Bert Hyman]

In nobody > wrote:

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

Really? Do tell.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Chad Irby]

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > And statements like "Watch lists used to screen visa applicants, refugee
> > claimants and travelers seeking to enter Canada are in disarray because
> > of inaccuracies and shoddy updating, Fraser found" do not exactly
> > reinforce your views that Canada is doing a bang-up job.
>
> Her role is to find flaws.

....and she found some pretty huge ones, no matter how you try to
minimize it.

> No system is perfect. But you can bet that this
> items are being worked on.

Funny, a couple of posts back, you assured us that the Canadian system
wasn't in need of such work...

> I bet that if she were to audit the US systems, it would look far
> worse and with far worse problems (for instance, private jetblue data
> making it to some conference presentation by a consulting firm).

So one error (someone using information they collected in an incorrect
manner) is worse than systemic problems (the various ones shown by a
Canadian audit, that showed terrorists have a lot of gaps they could
exploit, like terrible and incomplete records on stolen Canadian
passports)?

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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > > And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
> > > > wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries
> that
> > > > already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
> > > >
> > > No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK,
> where
> > > fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.
> >
> > ...or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...
> >
> You have now truly revealed your weakness.

Yeah, a weakness for the right to not have my home broken into by
criminals. Funny, that. Property rights have that effect.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Marie Lewis]

"alohacyberian" > wrote in message
...
>
> Typical Leftwing Liberal.

And happy to be so.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > >
> > > Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...
> >
> > The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
> > range,
>
> And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.

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.

All most trains do is *move* the pollution to places outside of the
cities.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Marie Lewis]

"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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

> Indeed I do: when we first went to the USA, many years ago, we loved
> it and even thought about emigrating. The second time, we began to
> see the drawbacks. Now nothing would encourage us to spend more than
> a short holiday there, and that only when you stop being so up
> yourselves. So the offer by our LA relatives to have us live with
> them in the winters is happily rejected.

So you're basing your views on the US on... LA?

Now, *that* is funny.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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*.

> You really are funny. I bet you have never left the USA.

Except that you're wrong.

> Not that I want you to: much better for us that you stay there.

....and *please*, don't ever come back here.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Bert Hyman]

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.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>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?

Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
necessary".

Al Minyard

[nobody]

jboy wrote:
> Last month it took me 3 hours to get from the plane to cab in Atlanta
> airport and that was before all this photo and fingerprint stuff started.

Just wait until they make you undress down do your underpants so they can take
a "better" picture of your birthmarks, scars etc.

[tadaa]

> 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.

[Jim Yanik]

"jboy" > wrote in
:

> God you guys are so stuck up your arse it hurts.
>
> Don't you realise that we are your allies and we are sick an tired of
> being treated like the enemy? Being made to stand for hours on end,
> because you cant get people to man immigration desks or do security
> properly is now starting to make most of us determined to avoid your
> paranoid country.
>
> Last month it took me 3 hours to get from the plane to cab in Atlanta
> airport and that was before all this photo and fingerprint stuff
> started.
>

Maybe that's because the enemies of America are travelling through YOUR
countries in order to sneak into the US to commit terrorism here.
They are not flying direct from whereever they originate.Sometimes,their
cells reside in your countries,in order to take advantage of Western
resources not available in their original countries.

> How will you like it when you arrive at Heathrow and we insist that
> you stand in line for hours on end. Yep I'll be listening to moaning
> Wilmers complaining that they are being treated as terrorists. Funny
> how that's OK, but when we complain we are raving Pink Commies..

Well,no terrorists are travelling through the US to get to your country.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

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?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
nobody > writes:
> jboy wrote:
>> Last month it took me 3 hours to get from the plane to cab in Atlanta
>> airport and that was before all this photo and fingerprint stuff started.
>
> Just wait until they make you undress down do your underpants so they can take
> a "better" picture of your birthmarks, scars etc.

Noo need for that - Birthmarks, scars, etc. can be faked/altered well
enough with makeup or tatooing & such that it's really rather
pointless.
It's much better to go with stuff like your skull shape. That, it
turns out, can be measured directly from optical photographs of the
head & face, and fairly easily can be reduced to a form that allows
automatic comparisons. With, it ought to be pointed out, a lower
failure rate than fingerprint comparisons.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Jim Yanik]

"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

[Peter Kemp]

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

[john]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[AJC]

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++==--

[Gary L. Dare]

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/06/21/justice.fingerprint/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

[nobody]

"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.

[Gary L. Dare]

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

[Gary L. Dare]

Chad Irby wrote:

>Try any of the African nations, for example.
>Or Russia.
>
>

Ah, the advanced world! (-;

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

mtravelkay wrote:

>
> I have never had my finger print or photo taken at Immigration in
> Russia, have you??? I am not saying there is no reason for the US to
> do it, only that I haven't seen it done in Russia.
>

No fingerprints for Russia, but a passport photo with visa application.
EVERYBODY requires a visa application.

The border process was two guys looking at you, then your passport
photo, then you again, and then a subtle nod to each other that each
sees the guy in the photo standing in front of them.

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

Chad Irby wrote:

>When you're flying in on a hundred-seat airliner and there's four guys
>working the desk, you're going to get through faster than if you're on
>one of four 747-400s landing in the same hour...
>
>

You actually touch on a good point ... the BICE (Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement) is way, way understaffed, so is Customs. Plus,
they have to crosstrain to help relieve each other!

I read the USA Today's travel section (love Ben Mutzbaugh's Today
in the Sky news compendium) regularly, the TSA has been hit with
manpower cutbacks. Thus long domestic lines just to get on a plane.

gld

[Phil Richards]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:11:40 +0100 Marie Lewis >
said...

> > True, but going through Canada is a hell of a lot of trouble, just to
> > avoid an extra wait to enter the United States directly.
>
> It really is not a question of the extra wait, for us at least.
> Anyway, Canada suddenly seems much more attractive than the USA.

Personally I've always found Canada more attractive than the USA....

--
Phil Richards
London

[Gary L. Dare]

Oelewapper wrote:

>Anyway, I hope the EU will impose the same regime on US-folks going through
>our airports and seaports - especially aiming at America's "illegal
>combatants" as they are shipping their hardware back to the base ... But
>that's a completely different story,... or is it ???
>
>

The gear is probably staying, the Shiites with Sadr in the lead seem to have
created their own Viet Cong ... )-;

At least Fox News hasn't tried to call Sadr a Saddam-lover since his dad,
two brothers and an uncle, all Shiite clerics, were murdered by Hussein.

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:

>I know what you are referring to, of course. The US government didn't fund
>IRA terrorists, Marie, unless Ted Kennedy had a secret slush fund that we
>don't know about. To say the USA "financed" the IRA is therefore very
>disengenuous of you. What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was a group of
>private stoopid Irish-American citizens (not the American government) gave
>money to the IRA.
>

Agree ... US-financed =/= American-financed.

A good point. I hope that you made that point a year ago, too,
distinguishing
German and French citizens and private enterprises from their governments.

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

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

[Gary L. Dare]

Chad Irby wrote:

>The folks from countries with government-sponsored health care,with
>the government knowing the results of their last rectal exams,
>

Is that the case for US seniors on Medicare?

[In full retirement swing by the baby boomers, a third of the US
will be under Medicare ... 2:1 worker to retiree ratio, etc.]

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

nobody wrote:

>Well technically, since health care workers are employed by the government,
>then it is true that government employees have access to your records :-)
>
>

Most countries fund health insurance, like the US does with Medicare, not
public HMO's like the UK National Health Service where employees are,
practically speaking, like civil servants. Even there, doctors can be found
in independent offices taking some of their income contracting to NHS.

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

nobody wrote:

>And just how will the usa verify your fingerprints ? If you're a foreigner who
>has never been to the USA, your fingerprints will be "virgin". So terrorists
>will now know that they can only travel once to the USA since on a second
>attempt, they might be spotted.
>
>

A good point, unless one of the dozen or so uncoordinated US watch lists
happen to be updated with information from MI5, all of the eight British
citizens arrested on terror charges last week, with clean records, would
have gotten into the US with return tickets and reservations for Disney-
world.

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

Alan Pollock wrote:

>Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.
>
>Try to think. Figure it out. Oh wait. Nex
>
>

Which states take fingerprints for driver's licenses? I know first-hand
that Illinois and Oregon do not ...

gld

[Gary L. Dare]

AJC wrote:

>Exactly. The UK, Spain and other democracies have lived with terrorism
>for many years. It is not always easy but it is important to keep a
>balance between security and liberty. If you end up turning a country
>in to a police state out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists
>have won.
>--==++AJC++==--
>
>

I disagree with the former, since Al Qaeda and its sympathizers/imitators
are out to perpetuate a version of "total war" with mass casualties, versus
the "a few die, many watch" style of terrorism of the past 150 years or so.

But I do agree with the latter, sadly ... )-;

The effect is more pronounced when the self-declared leader of freedom
loses freedom, versus former aristocracies/monarchies/dictatorships who
evolve through democracy and increasing freedoms.

gld

[Marie Lewis]

"Gary L. Dare" > wrote in message
...
> nobody wrote:
>
> >Well technically, since health care workers are employed by the
government,
> >then it is true that government employees have access to your records :-)
> >
> >
>
> Most countries fund health insurance, like the US does with Medicare, not
> public HMO's like the UK National Health Service where employees are,
> practically speaking, like civil servants. Even there, doctors can be
found
> in independent offices taking some of their income contracting to NHS.
>
> gld
>
>
You don't know much about the NHS, do you?

[mtravelkay]

john wrote:

> 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.

Target practice.... I see a silhouette of a man...... (Wasn't that Queen?)

[Eryk]

Gary

> No fingerprints for Russia, but a passport photo with visa application.
> EVERYBODY requires a visa application.

Not precisely true. Several ex-USSR states are visa free and the
Belarus-Russia border is as non-existent (in terms of immigration control)
as those within Schengen.

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

[Stephen Harding]

Alan Pollock wrote:

> In rec.travel.usa-canada Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
>>at least a fairly large subset of them!
>
> My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too seriously.
> Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
> across.

The voice of reason!

You are correct of course. And I don't really even come close
to despising Europeans although their constant harping on how
evil the US is and especially Bush gets tiring.

Liberal in the US say pretty much the same thing about Bush as
the Euros do, so I guess it's actually more than a Euro/US thing,
and basically Left/Right politics.

> As for the general tone of Anti-Americanism (which most will swear up and down
> isn't the case), don't forget that it's a tender time for Euros at the moment.
> If the US can be of help in their effort to combine, why not? Let them bitch
> and moan. They're good at it. Been doing it for centuries against each other,
> *and* other social classes within their own countries.
>
> Where is all the tradition, all this pent-up cultural imperative to go now
> that it's deemed uncool? Nex

Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways. I'm hoping
the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
both I've come to believe.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

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

[Stephen Harding]

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

[AJC]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:58:57 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Alan Pollock wrote:
>
>> In rec.travel.usa-canada Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
>>>at least a fairly large subset of them!
>>
>> My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too seriously.
>> Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
>> across.
>
>The voice of reason!
>
>You are correct of course. And I don't really even come close
>to despising Europeans although their constant harping on how
>evil the US is and especially Bush gets tiring.
>
>Liberal in the US say pretty much the same thing about Bush as
>the Euros do, so I guess it's actually more than a Euro/US thing,
>and basically Left/Right politics.
>

That paragraph actually sums up the vast differences in the ways of
understanding things, not just between the US and Europe, but more the
US and much of the rest of the world. Liberalism is in no way
identifiable with left-wing politics, far from it. It is completely at
odds with any socialist/communist ideals. Ruling liberal political
parties in places as far apart as Europe and Australia are placed
firmly at the centre or centre-right of the political spectrum, with
labour, socialist and other left-wing groupings very much in
opposition to them.


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

[Stephen Harding]

john wrote:

> 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.

The purpose of my guns were hunting, which I no
longer do, and "plinking", shooting cans or targets
and such.

I have no intention of shooting anyone. Massachusetts
law doesn't let you off the hook if you shoot someone
that has broken into your home. You are required to
leave the premises if escape is possible.

Only if escape is not possible, and you have good reasons
to believe your life, or the lives of persons in the
premises are in danger, is shooting a legally viable
option.

There is no doubt a "feeling" of being protected in
having a gun on premises, but for most persons, I'd be
very surprised if there is actual intent to shoot someone
breaking into their home or threatening their person.

In fact, the fast majority of gun incidents involve the
bad guy leaving the scene once a gun makes its appearance.
No shots fired at all!


SMH

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Alan Pollock wrote:
>
>> In rec.travel.usa-canada Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>> I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
>>> at least a fairly large subset of them!
>>
>> My take is simply to not take the stupid, blanket-hatred posts too seriously.
>> Read the reasonable ones and completely ignore the Marie Lewis's you come
>> across.
>
> The voice of reason!
>
> You are correct of course. And I don't really even come close
> to despising Europeans although their constant harping on how
> evil the US is and especially Bush gets tiring.
>
> Liberal in the US say pretty much the same thing about Bush as
> the Euros do, so I guess it's actually more than a Euro/US thing,
> and basically Left/Right politics.
>
>> As for the general tone of Anti-Americanism (which most will swear up and
>> down isn't the case), don't forget that it's a tender time for Euros at the
>> moment. If the US can be of help in their effort to combine, why not? Let
>> them bitch and moan. They're good at it. Been doing it for centuries against
>> each other, *and* other social classes within their own countries.
>>
>> Where is all the tradition, all this pent-up cultural imperative to go now
>> that it's deemed uncool? Nex
>
> Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways. I'm hoping
> the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
> both I've come to believe.

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.

George Z.
>
>
> SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
>>Sjoerd wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen Harding" > schreef in bericht
>>>
>>>>One less anti-American Euro in line at the airport
>>>>is fine with me.
>>>
>>>I am not an anti-American. I am an anti-American-current-government. And I
>>>won't stay home, there are 100's of beautiful countries in the world to
>>>discover where they won't fingerprint me. And should I miss typical American
>>>stuff, I can always visit Canada. :-)
>>
>>You may have just insulted some Canadians with that
>>comment ya know!
>
> OTOH, they might just be flattered. Why don't we let the Canadians speak for
> themselves....I'm sure they can handle it without our help.

Hey George, you're back!

Hope all is well and look forward to arguing
with you in the future!


SMH

[AJC]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:24:31 -0700, "Gary L. Dare"
> wrote:

>AJC wrote:
>
>>Exactly. The UK, Spain and other democracies have lived with terrorism
>>for many years. It is not always easy but it is important to keep a
>>balance between security and liberty. If you end up turning a country
>>in to a police state out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists
>>have won.
>>--==++AJC++==--
>>
>>
>
>I disagree with the former, since Al Qaeda and its sympathizers/imitators
>are out to perpetuate a version of "total war" with mass casualties, versus
>the "a few die, many watch" style of terrorism of the past 150 years or so.
>

I agree that the nature of terrorism changed with the arrival of
suicide bombers targetting the mass general public, and I suppose that
started with Palestinian terrorists in Israel, or are there earlier
examples? That calls for new ways of dealing with the problem, but not
at the expense of dramatically altering our way of life, as the
terrorists want.



>But I do agree with the latter, sadly ... )-;
>
>The effect is more pronounced when the self-declared leader of freedom
>loses freedom, versus former aristocracies/monarchies/dictatorships who
>evolve through democracy and increasing freedoms.
>
>gld
>

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

[Jim Yanik]

Peter Kemp > wrote in
:

> 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).

Hey,they were not BORN there,they came *from some other country*,and may
have used YOUR country as a waypoint,maybe to get a better fake ID.
>
> Any western nation can unknowingly harbour such cells. If you believe
> the US is immune you really need to get out more.

Show me where I have said that.
>
> 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
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"tadaa" > wrote in :

>> 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.
>
>
>

And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere at
all times.

So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of what
level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.

Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, AJC
> writes
>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:18:12 -0500, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>>For standard tourist visas you are correct, anyone holding one goes
>>through the process. I've got a different type of visa as I'm in the
>>US on UK government business. Which is exempt from the procedures (and
>>also means that I tend to spend less time at immigration even than US
>>citizens).

>That surprises me. You must have a very special visa.

Not that special - mine's the same.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

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

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Stephen Harding
> writes
>I have no intention of shooting anyone.

Agree fully with Stephen on this: back when I was a pistol shooter I
cheerfully massacred hordes of cardboard silhouettes with no intention
of finding live targets, and that applied to everyone I knew who shot:
we enjoyed socialising while turning live rounds into empty cases, and
trying to improve our grouping or our course times or both.

> Massachusetts
>law doesn't let you off the hook if you shoot someone
>that has broken into your home. You are required to
>leave the premises if escape is possible.

As a side note, in the UK "duty of retreat" doesn't apply in your home:
you're allowed to use whatever means are reasonable and necessary to
defend yourself if attacked there.


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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>> No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK, where
>> fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.
>
>...or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...

No, it doesn't... as long as the bad guys have the wounds in the front
rather than the back.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Dick Locke]

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.

[Marie Lewis]

"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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Marie Lewis]

"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

[Marie 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
>

[The Reids]

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

[Bert Hyman]

(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 |

[john]

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.

[Stephen Harding]

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

[Stephen Harding]

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

[George Z. Bush]

"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.

[Stephen Harding]

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/dictionary?book=Dictionary&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]

The Reids wrote:

> 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

A very fair point, although the wording needs some work.

Apologies to the group.


SMH

[john]

On 5 Apr 2004 18:16:06 GMT, Bert Hyman > wrote:

(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.


Oh, sorry for the typo, Bertie.

But please don't let that stop you from explaining to us the purpose
of your handgun.

[tadaa]

> >> 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.
>
> And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
> individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere at
> all times.
>
> So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of what
> level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.
>
> Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

I'm not proposing a bodyguard to every citizen. More in line of making the
society safer and tackling the source of the problem. Poverty, unemployment,
drugs etc.
If I lived in Baghdad I would definately get a firearm, but that should not
be the case in modern western country. If you really need firearms to defend
yourself there is something to be fixed.
The interesting thing is that crimerate has been going down for years (in
Finland) but people are feeling more and more unsecure, it seems that media
and its hunger for news with more and more gore is unsettling people.

[tadaa]

> > > 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...

Well yes and no. Governments shouldn't try to micromanage countries because
they are too diverse and full of conflicting interests to be handled
efficiently, but they should take action in larger terms. Kinda same that in
running a consolidated corporation.
Think how many crimes could be solved if movements of every USA citizens
would be registered, their DNA and fingerprints saved in to a government
file ready for police to use.

[nobody]

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.

[Eryk]

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

[The Reids]

Following up to The Reids

>>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
>>at least a fairly large subset of them!
>
>f*** off out of travel europe then
>--

sorry, that's excessively impolite, please go away.
--
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

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:07:25 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>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...

I assume "they" in this case is the UK? In which case we do more or
less what the US does with it's fly ash - use it in concrete, road
building, cement and so on. It's not rocket science to use inert
minerals.

Although what living in cities has to do with fly ash I'm not
sure......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[The Reids]

Following up to Stephen Harding

>A very fair point, although the wording needs some work.

fair point

>Apologies to the group.

talk to you again in more favourable winds.
--
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

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:31:21 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>"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...

Yup, all UK military are fingerprinted and DNA'd, to aid in
identification should you snuff it in the line....

Speaking for myself though, I work for the UK government, carry a
clearence, and have neither been printed, nor polygraphed, unlike my
US colleagues, and if I have to give my prints to any government
without having been even accused of a crime, it'll be mine first. And
Mr. Blunkett will have to give a damn good reason for it.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Dick Locke]

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.

[ant]

"Gary L. Dare" > wrote in message
...
> nobody wrote:
>
> Like tourist taxes on hotels and rental cars, it's politically
> easier to beat up on non-voters.

yep. then you have the Ohio bombing, and the post S-11 anthrax thing. Done
by...americans!

I can understand the anger and fear of US citizens over S11. I still
remember the night it happened (I watched the whole thing LIVE in australia
with mounting horror) in total clarity like few other things.

My annoyance is at the ineffectual nature of much of what is being done; it
seems almost like "revenge" (against whom?) to make citizens feel better,
rather than facing the things which led to it and can lead to similar
horrors in the future.

ant

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>Peter Kemp > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>>>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?
>
>Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a crime,and
>not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty
without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

>What does "violent convictions" have to do with it?

Chad was referring to "violent criminals"

>Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter Kemp > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Peter Kemp > wrote:
>> >
>> >...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.

No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.

For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
chance to run, then you should.

>> >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.

Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
has nothing to do with it.

In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.

>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.

I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
difference.

>> 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?

No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.
I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
possesions. Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life. That's
what is insurance is for.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:00:29 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
>(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
>wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
>necessary".

Remind me not to visit you at home Al :-)

Personally, I own 3 pistols, and yet my home defence plan is a
baseball bat, with which I shall smash the bedroom window and leg it.
I don;t know if a burglar is armed, so why the hell should I take the
risk that he's a better shot than me? Call me a coward, but I don't
like guns pointed in my direction.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>Peter Kemp > wrote in
:
>
>> 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).
>
>Hey,they were not BORN there,they came *from some other country*,and may
>have used YOUR country as a waypoint,maybe to get a better fake ID.

Posibyl, but you were discussing cells *residing* in countries.

>> Any western nation can unknowingly harbour such cells. If you believe
>> the US is immune you really need to get out more.
>
>Show me where I have said that.

I never claimed you said that - if you don't believe that then I
withdraw the statement and apologise.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:13:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>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...

The US identifies terrorists by the results of their latest rectal
exams? Damn, you folks really have got a lot of data these days!

And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a difference in MY doctor
knowing my medical records and not being able to hand them to the
authorities without a court order (just like the US in fact), and a
government not my own wanting my prints in case I someday do something
naughty.

Too subtle for you?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Tim Kroesen]

Perhaps those critical to Americans should just 'go away' too...

Tim K

"The Reids" > wrote in message
...
> Following up to The Reids
>
> >>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
> >>at least a fairly large subset of them!
> >
> >f*** off out of travel europe then
> >--
>
> sorry, that's excessively impolite, please go away.
> --
> 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

[devil]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:

> Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
> extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.

Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just a
convenient word to make it sound otherwise.

No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.

[devil]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:55:36 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> AJC > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
>> >checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
>>
>> You don't get out very much do you?
>
> I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
> compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
> Or Russia.

If that's the sort of company you feel the US should be compared with,
well OK then.