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

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.

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" 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

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

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++==--

"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?

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.

"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.

"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" 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.