America tightens the noose.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:40 am

....but on who's neck is the rope.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3367893.stm

Those in favour of this will be saying that if it stops terrorist attacks then the measures put down in the artical will be justified. Whilst i understand the reasoning i think it will have a negative affect. On a personal level, if i have to be fingerprinted and photographed, and the information is entered into a database then i'll just not travel to the States. Which pisses me off 'cause i love the place and the people i've met there.

I don't mind interogative methods before bording a plane (remember where i live) i'm used to it, i go through the most stringent security checks in the world. To go through what the States is proposing is a bit of a bloody liberty in my book (or taking the piss if you come from Manchester) and i'll be holidaying in Africa, Australia ect ect from now on.

FC

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:00 am

I remember seeing something about this, but it was hard to understand because it was black/white and grainy, and the narration was in German.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:16 am

Well, on the up side, we haven't had to build a fence yet like you guys have. And while putting up walls isn't the most palatable approach to preventing terrorism either, there has definitely been fewer news reports of people exploding in your country. I don't think that I'd vacation there yet, but I'd probably feel safer with the physical barrier in place to keep the islamikazes at bay, despite the infringement in principle on complete freedom.

I don't like the idea of having to photograph and fingerprint people who visit the U.S., but I also don't know how to provide security against terrorism in a free society without getting firsthand, verifiable information about the people flowing in our doors. In a world of 6-7 billion people (where fake identities, passports and visas can be obtained fairly easily) how else do you find out who is really who? Sort of a catch-22 I guess. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it stops some psycho from flying an airliner into a nuclear reactor, I guess I gotta be in favor of the process. Sorry if we'll miss your company.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:48 am

I always wonder who monitors these terabytes of information, and how they do it. Should do wonders for the unemployment situation.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:21 pm

I've really hated pretty much everything the bush adminstration and its tenticles have done as far as reducing my personal freedom and rights, but on this one, I don't understand what the problem is.

I think it's a good idea. I don't have a problem being photographed or fingerprinted. I don't commit crimes (well, the occasional victimless crime in my room...) so I'm not really sure what the big deal is.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:36 pm

I don't think it's a big deal. I got fingerprinted when I applied for a job at the IRS (didn't get it). When I lived in LA, it was common practice to get printed when you cashed a check at a bank. I had my photo taken when I got my drivers license and passport. This new policy doesn't seem excessive to me.

BTW, I wholeheartedly endorse whatever bush has done to reduce Birdseye's personal freedom and rights.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:44 pm

As I understand it, this security precaution will become the norm. All countries will adopt this method to control who comes and goes in their respective countrie. so pretty soon FC, you won't be able to travel to any country

Oh and Birdy...just what freedom in particular have you lost since Bush came to power?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:39 pm

I was kind of surprised when I found out we weren't already doing that with each visa issued, even before 9/11. I would have guessed photo's and prints were standard operating procedure if anyone had asked.

PS: thx index_html, islamikazi's...I just got another alias

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:28 pm

I'm glad that Homepage pointed out to FC that his country isn't exactly an open door itself. So, FC, are you telling me that visitors to Israel do not go through a security procedure? The sad part is that we're being criticized here for reacting. Trust us, we'd much rather go back to our porous borders and our *send us your losers, no questions asked* policy but, frankly, *foreigners* (of which you are one, FC) sorta put a grinding halt to that from here on in. Our open arms earned us an unguarded kick in the groin and if you didn't think it would lead to tighter security restrictions, well, then you're just looking for things now to find fault with without actually considering the roots of why these things are happening. Fool me once...

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:40 pm

Of course visitors to Israel go through security checks. Like i said before, they are the best in the world.(And the country is an open door to tourists Bash.)

Don't exaggerate, i never said stop security checks. There are different ways of doing them. If your happy with big brother security...your welcome to it.

FC

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:54 am

Let me point out that not all countries citizens are subject to this security measure. I think there are 28 nations whose visitors to this country are excluded from fingerprinting and photo's. Of course the 28 nations are lilly white and by fiat their citizens are "safe".

Bonz · Post by **Bonz** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:19 pm

As long as you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with this, now if you were a criminal I could understand your anger

Personally I think its a good idea and I'm surprised that we haven't been do it along also.

Garfield3d · Post by **Garfield3d** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:53 pm

I think the exemption of the 27 (or 28?) countries adds a fair amount of insult to injury. I can understand the need to profile everyone for the sake of security, but exempting certain countries from it seems to 1.) Be counterproductive to the principal of profiling and tracking threats, 2.) Fermenting ill feelings, and 3.) Giving in to a sort of sensationalism following 9/11. I don't mean to say that terrorism is not a credible threat (although our methods... well, that's always been a debate). It feels like a subliminal shot at allaying xenophobic fears of those "other cultures." And while a catastrophic terrorist situation seems to be on everyone's minds for this, I'm sure it could also be used to identify and track all sorts of other criminals, of which there is certainly no shortage in the exempted countries.

It just seems... counterintuitive to exempt countries.

As for the whole "nothing to fear" if you're not a criminal... well, probably know you can only say that rhetorically too. I can understand what you mean, that chances are you won't be pulled aside arbitrarily through the new system. Yet, with hate crimes, prejudice, and racism a large part of our society, at the least, the new system still feels like a conviction of sorts.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:14 pm

I agree, there should be no exceptions as far as point of origin. But, unfortunately, politics gets everywhere in everything and I'm guessing that's just another card on the table up for negotiation (ie, play ball with us and your citizens don't get the full body cavity search sort of thing).

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:44 pm

Hmm, actually that is a strange policy. I think it should be all or none.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:44 pm