Us To Fingerprint & Photograph All Visa Travellers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 21:24
Are you dense?

I GOT IT I GOT IT DAMN!!!

Your asking why on a very broad question.

There are tons of security holes STILL OPEN!!

Are you suggesting an all-or-nothing approach?

Are you suggesting we would be 'less' secure by just closing 1 security hole?

To be honest the US in some respects is 'too free' which is our strength and weakness.

It seems foreigners like our freeness and criticize us more than we criticize ourselves.

In the US we consider some of the new measures introduced after 9-11 "inconvenient" but we gladly submit because it ultimately helps save lives. I guess I see why foreigners are whining.

There&#39;s no immediate benefit to them. <_<

(unless you&#39;re caught in a terrorist&#39;s blast)

---

i am not talking on a broad question, i am talking about one specific one, fingerprinting. i think extra security should be in place and i don&#39;t think that it should be all or nothing as some is better than nothing.
the fact is that the USA (and i am American so i am not just a whinging forienger) is only doing people from some countries..not all..thereby leaving the whole process to seem more like (and i hate this term) a conspiracy to keep fear and paranoyer up at a time when the whole iraqi war steam train is running out of coal.
the usa has put itself in the position where it needs to be on alert and i can see no excuse for doing something half heartedly..are you suggesting that if fingerprinting is going to keep us safe we should only do it occasionally if we can be bothered?
perhaps we should also only x-ray every 7th bag...better than nothing i guess.
security is too important to do things by half measures. it&#39;s bad enough that as you point out there are tons of holes already,that does not excuse the same lax attitude to new measures. so why not plug up a hole in a new measure before it has a chance to leak?
as to the comment about foriegn people and terrorists blast, An American plane was blown up over lockabie (i know off topic) and in reaction the rest of the world introduced a system where baggage cannot travel without the passenger..i believe it was a US directive...yet in the USA a non US citizen can fly to say Dallas and have a connecting flight to say alburqurque and miss his connection because immigration is busy, or he just doesn&#39;t want to get on the flight..howevever his bag can arrive at alburquerque without him..apparently it was too costly to introduce the same system to be worth it here in the states.
ok so i am just agreeing with you that there are holes.

if you want to bathe in a bath that has a 1 inch plughole you don&#39;t use a 3/4 inch plug

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 January 2004 - 01:53
That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is.

---

Look at all the things that have been, or are in the process of being, implemented.
Forcing foreign airlines to have armed marshalls on certain flights to, from, or over the United States. Requiring fingerprints, photographs, and highly detailed background information from travellers - and people on visas in the US, including work visas. Trying to force biometric passports onto foreign governments. The ever-so-useful "missile defense" program. The Patriot Act. Trying to "secure" the internet.

Some of this is ineffective. Some of it is downright dangerous. Governmental policy should not be totally emotionally-driven. Because it is, measures have been put into place unquestioned by the American public at large. Anyone who does raise alarm is slammed as "unAmerican," "unpatriotic," "divisive," and so on. It wouldn&#39;t surprise me if the House Un-American Activities Committee made a resurgence, although perhaps under a different name.

:ninja:

Why do you say it is emotionally based? It is not like this was decided by an MTV poll.

Certain things (such as the Patriot Act), were passed six weeks after September 11th, 2001. At that time, emotions were still very raw, and so it wasn&#39;t scruntinized as closely as policies usually are. That three states and 152 communities have denounced it as "[violating] an individual&#39;s civil rights under the Constitution," that members of Congress have introduced legislation to take the teeth out of it, and that the follow-up "Patriot II" act was brought down due to public uproar (although I&#39;m not currently aware of its modified state as the Victory Act), should be enough to prove that the government wasn&#39;t acting rationally but emotionally.

:ninja:

3 states out of 50? That means 94% of states don&#39;t object. That doesn&#39;t make much of a case that it was "totally emotionally driven".

As for public uproar, I&#39;ve lived here the whole time, and I haven&#39;t heard a peep from anyone. Most people are completely unaffected by this act except for the inconvenience at airports.

The security people searched through my check-in luggage, sifting through my dirty laundry after a business trip and made me take off my shoes. I just shrugged my shoulders and appreciated that the world just wasn&#39;t the same since 9/11 and I was going to have to adapt to a new level of security.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 January 2004 - 00:53
That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is.

---

You are a hypocrital asswipe.

The US has killed untold hundreds of thousands of people in terrorist actions and has supported terrorists all over the world. You didn&#39;t shed a single damn tear for those people and in fact happily waved your blood soaked flag.

The US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and these security measures owe as much to trade concessions as anything else. You&#39;ll notice not a single US airline flight has been delayed/cancelled while UK, French and many other nations have had their flights delayed or cancelled.

It is extremely intrusive that the US demands bank account details and other information from travellers, as shown by the US protests at the Brasilian tit for tat measures.

I&#39;d say you should be ashamed, but anyone who supports US foreign policy is obviously beyond shame.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234+8 January 2004 - 18:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (1234 &#064; 8 January 2004 - 18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 January 2004 - 00:53
That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is.

---

You are a hypocrital asswipe.

The US has killed untold hundreds of thousands of people in terrorist actions and has supported terrorists all over the world. You didn&#39;t shed a single damn tear for those people and in fact happily waved your blood soaked flag.

The US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and these security measures owe as much to trade concessions as anything else. You&#39;ll notice not a single US airline flight has been delayed/cancelled while UK, French and many other nations have had their flights delayed or cancelled.

It is extremely intrusive that the US demands bank account details and other information from travellers, as shown by the US protests at the Brasilian tit for tat measures.

I&#39;d say you should be ashamed, but anyone who supports US foreign policy is obviously beyond shame. [/b][/quote]
Once again what does what YOU are talking about have to do with us beefing up OUR security.

What is hypocrital of J&#39;Pol in response to the US "overreacting".

I&#39;ve noticed only foreigners and the most recently made citizens are the only ones talking shit.


We Americans gladly accept the "uncomfortable" measures introduced in response to 9-11.

Foreigners are talking shit because the measures don&#39;t directly "benefit" them.

1234 please count backwards and GTFO. You sound stupid calling people asswipes.

edit: I meant benefit not effect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234+8 January 2004 - 18:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (1234 &#064; 8 January 2004 - 18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 January 2004 - 00:53
That is a ridiculous and frankly offensive thing to say.

What happened that day was atrocities. To suggest that requiring (Visa) visitors to the USA to supply a photograph and fingerprints is an over-reaction to what the world witnessed that day&nbsp; is a stunning position to take.

A terrorist organisation murdered thousands of people. It attacked the fiscal, political and military centres of the USA. It did this in a particularly cowardly and indiscriminate way, murdering civilians from across the world. Of all creeds and colours. It cared not one jot who the victims were, so long as they were on US soil at the time.

This is not an over-reaction, it is a simple and not particularly intrusive security measure. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that it is.

---

You are a hypocrital asswipe.

The US has killed untold hundreds of thousands of people in terrorist actions and has supported terrorists all over the world. You didn&#39;t shed a single damn tear for those people and in fact happily waved your blood soaked flag.

[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not an American, so which particular flag do you speak of.

Though I have to say the word asswipe, seems quite an Americanism to me. This would suggest to me that you either are an American or you want to be.

In which case, the flag is more yours than mine.

I was simply reacting to what I believed to be a horrendously insensitive and ill-informed post. I believe that what the American people do to defend themselves from it happening again is a matter for them. If anyone doesn&#39;t like it, then they don&#39;t have to visit. It really is that simple.

It is ironic that all of these American haters seem to be so keen to get free movement in and out of that country.

what happens if you dont like your picture being taken ??

people can be so unkind &#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@8 January 2004 - 19:59
Once again what does what YOU are talking about have to do with us beefing up OUR security.

What is hypocrital of J&#39;Pol in response to the US "overreacting".

I&#39;ve noticed only foreigners and the most recently made citizens are the only ones talking shit.


We Americans gladly accept the "uncomfortable" measures introduced in response to 9-11.

Foreigners are talking shit because the measures don&#39;t directly effect them.

1234 please count backwards and GTFO. You sound stupid calling people asswipes.

---

The issue was whether the world changed on that 9/11. It didn&#39;t. The attacks on NY etc were just another terrorist attack like many others in the world, some sponsored by the US. Are you even aware of the first 9/11? The one in 1973. That was what I (and the poster he was replying to) were referring to.

The issue of "beefing up security" is fine, but don&#39;t whine (like the US is doing right now) when people do the same to you (Brasil). At least the Brasilians are not asking for bank account details. Would you be happy to pass your bank details to a foreign country you don&#39;t trust?

Btw US citizens are not affected at all by the measures the US is introducing so no clue what you are on about there. Only foreign visitors have personal/biometric data taken.

J&#39;Pol, you may not be American but you are guilty of the same empty phrases as all US policy supporters. The only change in the world after 9/11 was that the US cowboy started rampaging round the world in person rather than by proxy as it usually does.

The word "asswipe" is general net slang and a mild insult that is acceptable on PG friendly boards. I can call you some rather more old fashioned Anglo Saxon words if you want, but I was trying to fit into board policies on the use of profanities. Your attempted jibe falls flat I&#39;m afraid :)

What was uninformed and insensitve was your assertion that somehow the NY/Washington attacks were unique and world shattering. The only unique thing, as was pointed out, was that fully fueled aircraft were used. In your statement you diminished the suffering of millions worldwide who suffer terrorism daily (a lot of it backed by US govt dollars) and have done for a loooong time.

Therefore I stick to my statement - you are a hypocritical (insert your insult of choice here)