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."'"

Comments

What they were doing in Canada?

[DogKia]

On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York
before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight.

What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[amiga3D]

Highways, with the exception of the interstates is mostly up to the individual states and drinking water is mostly local government. As for air travel, well it's pretty screwed since 9/11 but at least the hijackings have stopped although I think that is maybe as much due to lack of passenger tolerance of it as anything else. The military, blowing people and things up, is what the Feds are actually very good at.

Re:It's just not cricket.

[Serious Callers Only]

Not attempting to twist things, but I felt that particular article was somewhat sensationalist and simplistic. I don't agree with everything he says, and feel he should be stronger in condemning the Taliban, but do agree with his opposition to drone strikes, and his insistence that a *military* solution is simply not going to work, and is in fact counterproductive. His hesitancy in condemning the Taliban outright is explained by him saying that it would be somewhat cowardly for him to do this (though profitable politically), and then leave the badlands for Islamabad and let his agency workers be killed by the Taliban for his words. That doesn't convince me personally, but it is not supportive of the Taliban in the Swat area, it's hinting that they're murderous thugs.

I suspect personally that the Taliban timed the hit on Malala (a cruel attack on an admirable girl, which khan condemned) in order to try to undermine moderates like him and polarise the debate - the Taliban (if we can talk about them as one group) would much rather deal with a military which is funded by the Americans and condones drone strikes (which work for them when they kill civilians) than deal with civilian politicians who attempt to negotiate with tribal leaders, end violence, and ultimately isolate the remaining Taliban as a criminal element (which is what his proposals seem to amount to). His position on it is quite nuanced and he is no radical Taliban supporter:

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/eye-for-an-eye-will-not-solve-anything-1.1094629

Here is an example:

Unless we address these very different groups [of terrorists] and understand their motivation, senseless military operations will push all of them together, create yet more collateral damage and increase terrorism in Pakistan. We will be looking at a never-ending war. So what is the solution?

Regardless of what his opinions are on the military situation in Pakistan, I don't think it's appropriate for border guards to harass prominent foreign politicians at the US border, particularly not those who are relatively moderate, *even if they disagree with US foreign policy*.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[davydagger]

"That's not completely true. If the citizen's views veer sharply in one direction or another, the parties will move to compensate."

sometimes.

" It's happened before; we used to have a Whig party, and it disappeared"
a very long time ago, in the midst of the war of 1812, the more radical half called for cession from the union. the not so radical half denounced them.

After the war ended, with more favorable terms for the US that anticipated, they were more or less discredited as a whole, with mass defections to the democratic-republicans who more or less accepted the defectors, mostly the moderates, while quietly blocking remaining whigs from all aspects of political life.

The democratic republican party from that day foward dominated politics ever since. The party then split into the now familiar Democratic and Republican parties we see today over slavery.

The socialists you mentioned were active more in the 1900s-1940s. Their end came not with the democratic party caving to socialist demands, but the persecution and de-legimization of socialists/communists as soviet spies.

And yes, both parties maintain they are both private organizations and they both choose who they let run in the primaries in the first place. They both have "leadership comittees", and in the presidential races, they appoint the so called "super delegates", to skew the polls in favor of party leadership.

Party leadership more or less sets the tone of what issues they want to bring up, and what canidates get to run.

Your right on one thing. Most Americans don't care. They don't think their vote, or voice matters anyway, and they are under the impression if they speak up too loudly, in a way not politically convienant, bad things will happen to them. Most people will mutter this under their breath.

A good example wouild be that Barrack Obama was able to get elected pressing foreign policy issues of ending the wars, GITMO, and the abuses he was able to squarely land on president Bush. he won on a landslide. The same people 4 years later, have all but given up and are trying to get out of the gang-warfare mentality of politics in 2012.

Re:Leave him alone.

[oob]

Thank you for expressing your 'doubt,' demonstrating exactly the point I wished to make, concerning insularity. You really do have no idea.

Pakistan is a Commonwealth country. It enjoys significant historical, social, political, economic, cultural, academic and sporting ties with other Commonwealth countries. Further, there are numerous expat Pakistani communities throughout the Commonwealth. As such, there is a great deal of familiarity with Pakistan in our societies.

Because they're people we know, not just "A-rabs that should be 'nuked into a great big Middle East glass parking lot." And, more to the point, Khan is not just some random Muslim that your society is quite happy to intern in a concentration camp in occupied Cuba, to us.

Here's an example: I've never met Imran, but a member of my immediate family has. I've never met Pervez Musharraf either but we did exchange a "hello" to one another when our gazes happened to meet in an Auckland hotel lobby. He was there to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I was heading to the bar, wearing a tshirt, shorts and jandals.

You might like to put this to the test. Here's how: find the nearest Japie/Convict/Kiwi/Pom in your vicinty and say this:

"Imran ..?"
"Waqar ..?"
"Wasim ..?"
"Benazir ..?"

You'll get back "Khan, Younis, Akram, Bhuto." Betcha.

Now try that on one of your compatriots. You're likely to get a visit from Fatherland Security.