Slashdot Mirror
All US Border Crossings Now Require A 'Terrorist Risk Profile'
conlaw writes with a somewhat intimidating Washington Post article. "The federal government disclosed details yesterday of a border-security program to screen all people who enter and leave the United States, create a terrorism risk profile of each individual and retain that information for up to 40 years ... The risk assessment is created by analysts at the National Targeting Center, a high-tech facility opened in November 2001 and now run by Customs and Border Protection. In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo."
It's only a matter of time until the number of people leaving the US exceeds those who enter, legally or otherwise. Oops, guess I just upped my terrorist profile index threat level color orange whatever.
Uh, what? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? No? I thought not.
Still, it's an anti-American post so I'm going to guess it'll end up +5 Insightful in spite of its incoherence.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Taken individually all the measures that are being enacted in the USA over the last few years are almost laughable. But together, I just can't believe that more organizations like the ACLU or even the EFF aren't screaming from the rooftops about the encroachment on liberties! I mean really, it's the USA not the USSA: what happened to the land of the free? It seems to be going down the proverbial tubes, when will the madness stop? Will the US go fully down the road to facism?? Just buy guns, lots of them. Just in case.
Shh.
Unfortunately, so do many who should not be put in a position of power even if hell froze over.
Hell apparently froze over back in 2001.
Check that again and you'll find that three had overstayed their visas and were therefore in the country illegally. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersc582
Thirteen of the terrorists had Florida driver's licenses or ID cards, seven had Virginia driver's licenses, at least two had California licenses and two had New Jersey driver's licenses. WHY? Why do we give licenses to foreigners to begin with? Are we suicidal?
You are aware that all the terrorists on the 9/11 attacks had valid visas right?
Really? Why would bush and cheney et al need visas?
You're using her as bait, Master!
There was a book written a while back (of which I wish I could remember the name) where the author basically argued that anti-terrorism measures were basically useless because any measure to mitigate threat we put in, they would think some way around it.
There may be effective "anti-terrorism" measures but they may well be completly different from those governments frequently appear to jump to. In places such as the US all terrorism is actually very uncommon. e.g. smuggling is far more of an issue at border crossings than terrorism.
Want to fix terrorism - maybe we should fix or foreign policy. These people honestly believe they are fighting for a cause and their freedom.
That might actually initially create more terrorist acts in the US. The only meaningful change that the US could make in respect of South West Asia would be to stop financially and militarily supporting Israel. With terrorism being an obvious way for US Zionists to react.
It's also undoubtedly the case that many terrorists and potential terrorists in the US are native citizens.
It's called deterrence. See, people who make the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument are missing some critical thinking skills. The black/white market distinction exists even without restrictions, for reasons that have already been given. Black market firearms are often cheaper, cannot be traced properly, could be by felons, etc. The 5 day waiting period and background check did not cause the black market to come into existence.
Furthermore, those black market guns have to come from somewhere. Most often, they are "legitimate" firearms that have been stolen, or sold from a private "legitimate" owner into the black market. Background checks will reduce the number of firearms that make it into the wild. If you raise the barrier to entry of firearms, it will deter the less determined buyers, meaning people who won't take better measures to secure and keep their weapons will be less inclined to procure them in the first place. Eventually, as weapons are permanently lost, damaged or confiscated, fewer weapons will find it to the black market. note i did not say "none" but fewer, since the premise is *reduction* of violence, not elimination.
Waiting periods are specifically designed to prevent crimes of passion, where someone goes and buys a gun specifically to wound or kill someone they are angry at. The waiting period wouldn't have stopped the VA Tech incident, however it is clear that the shooter had a well-documented history of mental problems and a properly-executed background check may very well have stopped it.
At any rate, some people who might wish to commit a firearm crime don't have access to the black market and so some deterrence will take place. Purchasing from an illegal market has it's drawbacks. If you don't have a gun, and you go to buy one from the black market, what's to stop the fellow with the gun from pointing it at you, taking your money, and leaving?
So really, the bigger problem is the "gray market" such as gun shows, where legal weapons are sold without restriction and without a proper paper trail. These remaining loopholes in the system need to be closed.
honestly, though, handguns, which are usually the subject of these federal laws, ought to be outright banned since their only legitimate use is hurting people. You don't hunt with a handgun, and you only practice shooting them to get better at hurting people.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.