Slashdot Mirror


Pakastani Politician Detained By US Customs Over Opposition To Drone Strikes

First time accepted submitter Serious Callers Only writes "According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan. Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, U.S. immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"

11 of 560 comments (clear)

  1. Thugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Translation: "You have freedom of speech but we don't like your opinion, so we'll make you miss your plane and then let you go. Like that, we can claim to the world that you have the freedom to express your opinions, when in reality what we're pulling off is wrongful arrest."

    FYI I'm not flying to the U.S. anytime soon even if they paid me to.

    1. Re:Thugs. by boorack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is also my policy since 9/11. From european POV post-9/11 United States seems to be half-way between civilzed country and banana-republic-style police state. This also applies to freedom of speech and amount of bullshit propaganda - compare Fox News with any mainstream european media and you'll see huge difference. Do something with this folks ! You're losing your freedoms and your country way faster than you think !

  2. Customs abuse by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US seems to have a nasty habit of using customs officials to put pressure on people it doesn't like. Customs is unique because you pretty much have to cooperate or you won't get into the country, and it is difficult to arrange to get a lawyer.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Re:Disgousting behaviour by click2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I said the US Government, not the US or it's people.

    Islam is a religion or a belief not a people. If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists then yes you're right but only if you group them with the KKK, white supremacists and many other similar organizations. You should also understand that they represent a very very small minority of the people with Islamic beliefs.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  4. Re:Disgousting behaviour by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

    How exactly is that flamebait? Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, that's what a lot of people outside the U.S. think.

    When Customs starts interrogating foreign lawmakers over their political positions, it's only going to make that perception worse.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Khan was coming to the US to raise funds for his political party, which opposes the interests of the US government.

    Don't you think that's it's kinda sad when a centrist liberal political party, promoting human rights (especially for women and non-Muslims) and a fight against corruption is determined to be "opposing the interests of the US government"?

  6. Re:Disgousting behaviour by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you use "US Government" rather than "Obama and associates" for fear of down-mods?* Because there are a number of US government officials who are against drone strikes, and it is just as unfair to them when you use such phrasing as when someone blames Islam. A majority of government workers are in no way connected to the planning or execution of drone strikes.

    *notice how drone articles have a fraction of Obama criticism as waterboarding articles had of Bush criticism.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  7. USA... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    USA; land of the [censored], home of the [redacted].

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  8. Re:Disgousting behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The parties decide who the People can vote on. They control the laws that make third parties nearly impossible, and the Secretary of State offices that ignore the law. They control the plurality electoral system that maintains their mandate. In many state parties, it is impossible to become a member of party leadership without someone else yielding control. Look it up. I have tried to become involved. It is not possible. The few parts of the country where we can have good local candidates, the party primaries kill them with national committee support of the opposing candidate. Seriously, do some research on the actual power structure, and you will see that the people have zero voice until they just stop voting for the duopoly all at once, which is highly unlikely. What we have is a system that doesn't represent the Will of the people, but its Willingness. I reached this conclusion only on my own research of the laws, not from any conspiracy group or anything like that.

  9. Re:Disgousting behaviour by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one is shrinking the blame. The point is GGGP was right to refer to the "US Govt", and you were wrong to limit the clause to Obama & Supporters (Well, if you hand included Bush & Supporters and McCain & Supporters and Romney & Supporters (watch the final debate), you would have been right). In fact it you that seems to be shrinking the blame.

  10. Re:Disgousting behaviour by mrops · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very tricky, as a muslim I do think twice. What happens often and I know people who have no intention of funding terroists end up doing so. There is a Earth Quake in pakistan, loads of people give charity, some, few months later are declared supporting al-qaeda and this dude who cut a $20 check gets on the hook.

    My own cousin, who would be the first to gun down taliban ended up doing so. My family is "main stream muslim" with some of my cousin with US airforce flying missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (ok one, but yah at least one). We do not support extremist at all. But it gets rather tough when someone is asking for donations for Earth Quake relief and that ends up going in the wrong hands. Often, these charities are declared supporting al-qaeda months after someone has donated.

    I am surprised folks voted you Informative.