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

Disgousting behaviour

[click2005]

"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Exactly, which is why I can't wait for them to be placed in charge of my health care.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

But highways, drinking water, air control, military are fine?

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:Disgousting behaviour

[click2005]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Vinegar Joe]

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

Who do you think the US government is made up of.......Martians?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This disgusting behavior of Slashdot editors to turn this site into mush, why is it getting wrose? Why is this news for nerds??? Oh, because drones can somehow be included. Views on drone usage. Opinions about drones.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[fustakrakich]

...at least the hijackings have stopped...

Yes, because, before then, they were so routine

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[click2005]

The US Government is made up of corporations and a small subset of the people. Grouping an entire population in there is the kind of ignorance we should strive to end.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because white supremacists are plowing planes into buildings, bombing market squares filled with their own people, stoning and beheading others with government backing and attacking embassies at the drop of a hat. Right right right.
 
I just love how Slashdot keeps their perspective on these matters. Islamic fundies will kill as many people this weekend as the KKK and other assorted racists groups in the US have killed in the last 50 years.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sunderland56]

"individual states" and "local government" are still government. Both are, in the end, subject to the US Supreme Court, and in many cases to other branches of the Feds.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Tastecicles]

Mexicans, the Dutch and a Kenyan.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

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.

Unfortunately, it also seems like a strikingly incompetent thing to do, even if you adopt the 'the US can do whatever it feels like' school of international relations... The guy is a fairly high profile politician, if ICE wants to know what his views are, all they have to do is crack a newspaper, ask the state department, or both. Not Hard. If there is some suspicion that there is more there than meets the eye, a couple of hours in some dingy airport getting harassed by customs goons certainly isn't going to find it, and is certainly far less subtle and more offensive than more effective ways of gathering intelligence.

So, provoke an incident with Pakistan, a country with which we can barely pretend to be even frenemies with these days, in exchange for absolutely no gain? Um, good work there, guys...

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists

Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

"Islamic fundies will kill as many people this weekend as the KKK and other assorted racists groups in the US have killed in the last 50 years."

If you add the killings by the US government to the total of the KKK and other assorted racist groups, I rather suspect that you will get a different total.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Dekker3D]

Hey, I resent the thought that we dutchmen need mexicans and kenyans to make a mess! We're perfectly capable of making our own bleached-blonde islam-hating messes..

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

The US government is elected by the US citizens. Corporations have no control over that whatsoever; all they can do is spend money to influence politicians and citizens' views in elections (through PACs and the ads they create), but ultimately it's the People who make the decisions on their voting ballots. So if you're looking for someone to blame about the state of the US government, look at the citizens who elect it.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Timothy McVeigh bombed a building, killing 168 and injuring 800 people, though he probably doesn't count from your point of view because he was just a a Christian anti-government gun nut and not a white supremacist. Regarding the KKK: Most of their murders have remained unresolved / have never been properly investigated, so in fact nobody knows how many they have committed.The number of undetected cases could be high.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Do you use "US Government" rather than "Obama and associates" for fear of down-mods?

That would imply that the alternative government wouldn't allow for the same thing to happen, which seems to me kind of doubtful in the current US political environment, with Reps and Dems basically sharing a bed on many issues.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Tastecicles]

I thought I'd pick a group that didn't seem to be in need of PC protection... looks like I was wrong lol

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Dekker3D]

Heh, no worries. I just love to bash on Wilders.. I think most people do :)

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[number11]

Right, because white supremacists are plowing planes into buildings, bombing market squares filled with their own people, stoning and beheading others with government backing and attacking embassies at the drop of a hat.

Austin airplane attack on IRS. Kansas City bombing. Abortion doctor assassinations. Anthrax. Olympics bomb. Ted Kaczynski. Chinese embassy in Iraq. Though no stonings or beheadings with government backing that I'm aware of. So if those are logical ANDs (requires that all be simultaneously true) I guess it might be accurate.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[dcollins]

The tragedy of America is that its system was designed prior to mathematical understanding of voting principles, and it is inherently unable to deal with party-politics (or "factions" as Washington begged us to avoid in his farewell address). Duverger's Law observes that such a system will certainly become controlled by just two parties. If those two parties are essentially bought out by corporations, and present candidates with effectively identical beliefs on the most important issues, then there is no way for the citizens to alter the direction of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

How absolutely insane a view! That is like giving a condemned man the choice between hanging or being shot, and then claiming he wanted to die as because he made the choice.

The US is given the choice of the lesser of two evils. Two evils selected,groomed, and chosen for the most part by outrageous expenditures of a small subset of the population and corporations. The average American gets virtually no say in a presidential election. On top of that, with the electoral college system, unless you are in a swing state, it doesn't matter how you vote as the majority vote in that state will eradicate your vote from the national pool, especially if you are not voting for the Demopublican or Republicratic candidate.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[number11]

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

Oh, crap. Obama is protecting Bush's torturers, Bush was conducting drone strikes. in this venue there's not much difference between them.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[chill]

The correct term is "Reptilians". And they're from Alpha Draconis, not Mars.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[budgenator]

That's because the cost of funding terrorists is less than the cost of not paying your tribute. Even here in the US, an educated middle-class Muslim business man has to ocassional participate in thr "right" protests and make a donation to the "right" cultural center so his business doesn't get robbed or vandalized.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ThatsMyNick]

Watch the final debate. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of drone strikes. When both parties are in favor, he is correct by stating US Government rather than "Obama and associates"

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, got tried of reading half way through that crap. We need a -1 tedious mod.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

That's not completely true. If the citizen's views veer sharply in one direction or another, the parties will move to compensate. It's happened before; we used to have a Whig party, and it disappeared. More recently, we used to have a Socialist party (back in the 40s-60s) which was gaining power, so the Democrats adopted key parts of their platform and the Socialists mostly disappeared. It's not like the voters will only vote for whoever the party throws up; the two party system does eventually move towards what the people want, but it's a long feedback cycle. Moreover, the party candidates are not chosen by some elite cabal in each party; they're chosen in "primary" elections by the people themselves. Just look at our current election; Romney wasn't chosen by some secret illuminati in the GOP, he was chosen by everyday voters in the primaries over his competition. Similarly, Obama was chosen by the Democrat voters in that primary, who apparently are happy with him despite the drone strikes and other not-so-left things he's done, evidenced by the fact that there were other alternatives on the ballot but the Democrat voters had no interest in them and voted exclusively for Obama.

So the way I see it, the American people have gotten the government they want and deserve. Sure, a bunch of disaffected people complain on places like here about the lack of good choices, but I don't think most Americans care; they're happy with the choices they have. Might you argue that the voters are stupid sheep who've accepted their opinions from the politicians and media? Sure, but they're still responsible for their decisions, even if they've been brainwashed into those opinions by watching Fox News or MSNBC or CNN.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[psmears]

If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists

Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).

Some people might argue that. But would that be based on evidence and fact, or ill-informed speculation and prejudice? My own experience (and I have lived in a Muslim country) is that most Muslims are horrified at the views and actions of the fundamentalists - like folks anywhere, most people just want to get on with their own lives without interfering in, or being interfered with by, other people - especially other people in another country far away.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

Because private businesses just have your best interests at heart, right? No history of abuse there. Nope.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ThatsMyNick]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[houghi]

How often? 90% of them? 50%? 1%? Once in a blue moon?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[fustakrakich]

How many Islamic countries have the capacity to manufacture and sell all those weapons to make this happen? Seems to me that the biggest threats to peace are the arms peddlers, the US (Hillary should get a medal)/Europe/Russia/China/Brazil/Israel, who like nothing more than to motivate everybody into buying their wares. But hey, nice to see such blatant propaganda modded up so highly. I mean we gotta a war to sell. Let's all do our part. Buy bonds!

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

"but at least the hijackings have stopped"

I've found that chopping off people's feet has resulted in a 100% decrease in foot injuries.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[davydagger]

keep telling yourself that. Voter turn out is at best abysmal, and the canidates that are allowed to get any airtime on largely(read 85%+) clear channel, are carefully vetted by the parent company AOL-Time-Warner, which as you know is one of the five parent companies of the RIAA, which as you know has the biggest names in politics behind it.

They simply have the only voice, by law, through mandate of the FCC.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I don't buy it. There are other options: you can vote for various third parties, or you can not vote at all. It's not like your analogy at all. But if you look at the polling numbers, a majority of Americans DO turn out to vote, AND they vote for one of the two main parties. No, it's not an overwhelming majority (obviously there's a fair number of people who are disaffected by the process), but it is a clear majority nonetheless.

The expenditures by PACs and corporations are irrelevant. They can't buy votes directly; they can only influence voters. If the voters are so stupid they believe what they're told on Fox News or with some ads, that's their own fault. It's the voters who cast the actual votes. You can make an argument in some cases about fraud (e.g., voting machines not recording votes accurately etc.), but that only affects a tiny portion of the election (usually key swing state locations); in the vast majority of precincts, the vote is accurate, and the results we see are a reflection of the will of the people. Plus, it's not like election irregularities are preventing some 3rd party from gaining power; these things only sway the result between the Dems and Reps.

You're right about your vote not counting if you're in a swing state, but again that's because the majority of voters in that state are committed to one of the main parties.

In short, the average American DOES have a say in the Presidential election: they invariably want one of the main two (nearly identical) candidates, and that's who gets elected.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Jedi Alec]

You need to get up to speed my fellow countryman, it's now Europe and particularly drunk Polish we're supposed to hate. At least, I think so, our beloved friend has been rather quiet lately, must be getting ready to join a US "think-tank" :)

Then again we're back to seeing Wilders and his buddies scream from the fringes, so who cares. Guess there's some advantages to actually having more than 2 parties to choose from.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[houghi]

The elections do not give you a real choice.
Your choice about water boarding is basically: We do water boarding.

What is left are minor issues like if you can merry the person you love, regardless of their sex, or not.

With all the rest you have no choice. Not really.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

...at least the hijackings have stopped...

Yes, because, before then, they were so routine

don't know why Schneier focuses entirely on the time of the last hijacking before 9/11 - hijackings were extremely frequent during the 70s and the wikipedia page quoted by him shows just that.

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:Disgousting behaviour

[Guru80]

Oh if it was only so simple...it just simply doesn't play out that way in reality. You are given Greedy, Corrupt, Big Business Option A or Greedy, Corrupt, Big Government Option B. Now go change the country with your vote people! Oh, right that doesn't work and hasn't in a very long time.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[amiga3D]

I know, that reading thing is hard isn't it?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[amiga3D]

The Supreme Court seldom gets involved in roads and water pipes.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[flyingsquid]

You should also understand that they represent a very very small minority of the people with Islamic beliefs.

It is much, much higher than you think. An organization like Al Qaeda can't exist on its own. It needs support from a significant percentage of the population in order to provide them with new recruits, financial support, logistical support and so on. And bin Laden didn't manage to elude capture for a decade without support in Pakistan, including from high levels within the military or intelligence agencies. That doesn't mean that everybody or even a majority of the people have to approve of and support Al Qaeda and bin Laden, but if it was just a "very, very small minority" then they simply could not exist.

So let's look at the numbers. I decided to Google this, and the results I came across were pretty shocking. According to a 2011 poll by Pew Research, a think tank that monitors this kind of thing, when asked about whether terror attacks on civilians were justified, 81% of Palestinian Muslims responded with "Often", "Sometimes," "Rarely," or "Don't know". Just 19% said that violence against civilians was never justified. 38% of Egyptians said terror attacks are never justified. The "never justified" number is 39% for Lebanese, 55% for Jordanians, 60% for Turks, 77% for Indonesians, and 85% for Pakistanis. And for U.S. muslims? 81%. 6% of U.S. Muslims said "don't know", 5% said "rarely", 7% said "sometimes", and 1% said "Often". So even in the U.S., we have a full 13% of the population that is OK with murdering civilians under certain circumstances. That's roughly one in every seven American Muslims. And another 6% who feel there is some moral ambiguity here.

It's obviously not accurate, fair, or helpful to assume that all Muslims support violence. And since the countries with the most Muslims (Pakistan and Indonesia) are against violence by a wide margin, it's fair to say that supporting violence against civilians is a minority view in the Muslim world as a whole. But it's definitely not accurate to say that this is a small, fringe minority with little influence. In some countries a large majority of the population actually supports violence.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Fishchip]

Especially when it has no relevance to the conversation and has popped up all over Slashdot. But, hey, if you like rereading it, cool.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

There's more choices than that. There's always several third-party candidates in every election with very different principles, and there's always the choice of refusing to vote. A clear majority always votes for one of the two main party candidates. And from what I read in forums and hear people talking about, most people actually agree with one or the other party: they really do think we should have invaded Iraq to stop Al-Qaeda, they really do think we need a bigger military, etc. When they're mad about something, they blame it on the other party (whichever of the big two they haven't sided with). When their chosen party changes direction (like Obama doing far more drone strikes than Bush ever did), they change their opinion to suit.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Even if a significant majority "opposes" these measures, if they just fill in an box in a survey and don't do anything more, it's as good as condoning it ("All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.").

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[mrops]

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.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[new packrat]

The IRA were terrorists too, and a large proportion of their funding came from the US. Turns out that somehow doesn't count.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anne Thwacks]

If this continues, Pussy Riot will have to book a few gigs in America.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[stephanruby]

What was the right answer I wonder?

"Yes, but I was slightly misquoted, plus that was last week. A lot of things can change in a week, and today, I actually do support the drone bombing of my own country. Please keep the drones coming. Drones are very good for our economy. In a recent poll of Pakistani people. 98% approve of getting bombed by drones. And only 2% disapprove (and out of those 2%, we believe that half are terrorists, and that the other half of those 2% have just completely misunderstood the question). "

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Anne Thwacks]

the US government is made up of.......Martians

So that explains their wierd behaviour!

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[mr100percent]

The government is not in charge of your healthcare and never has been. Your doctor is in charge of your healthcare. The government put itself in charge of paying for it for a big chunk of the population, but you can always say no and pay for it yourself if you please.

Politifiact called the claim that the ACA was a "government takeover of healthcare" as "Lie of the Year"

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[tragedy]

That's just not really the case. The simple plurality voting system used in virtually all elections in the US is the perfect voting system... for two or fewer options. If you need a yeah or nay vote, it's ideal. In all cases with 3+ choices, it's the worst voting system (unless you make up something silly that isn't really a voting system like throwing darts). The reason is the spoiler effect, which can be summed up by the simple example: "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". Or, if you prefer: " a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton". The popularity of "third party candidates" who "split the vote" in both of those elections led to the election of the candidate the voters voting for those "third party" candidates least wanted (support for Perot was more mixed, but still leaned heavily in favor of those who would have otherwise voted for Bush). Remember all the hatred for Nader for daring to run and thereby disrupting the election? It was completely misdirected. The fury should have been at the completely broken system that forces people to compromise their votes and settle on the lesser of two evils.

You wrote: "they invariably want one of the main two (nearly identical) candidates, and that's who gets elected". That's not really what people actually want, it's just what they get stuck with.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[TapeCutter]

Why is this news for nerds???

Because nerds are people that have a broad range of interests, they don't all hide in the basement hoping the real world will go away and leave them alone.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[epyT-R]

1. Pakistani is not a race.
2. dealing with threats/cultural analysis is not 'intolerance' no matter what the pc police want us to believe. groups that make these kinds of statements are often guilty of the same behavior and are just looking for victimhood cover for their own power grabs. In this context it applies to both this pakistani politician and the US government. Enough bullshit already.
3. it looks like the US government is rapidly declining to china levels of police state paranoia.
4. that quoted statement does sound like a piece straight out of soviet style press..

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Good point; I should have mentioned it's the Presidential elections that get >50% turnout consistently; the off-year elections are pretty dismal.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. Who are the people who hate the "spoilers"? They're fans of the two-party system, or one of those two parties. I'm pretty sure that if we had some better voting system (like Condorcet or Borda) when Perot and Nader were running, the result would have been the same: the winner would have been either a Democrat or a Republican. The only thing that would have been different would have been the percentage that Nader/Perot got; it would have been much higher, but still a loss.

It's just like all the Ron Paul voters complaining about the Republican primaries. Say what you will about Ron, "he's batshit crazy" etc, but he's no more batshit crazy than Romney and his policies. Yet, the Republican voters had the chance to elect someone who was anti-war, and what did they do? They elected someone who's all but promising a new war with Iran.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

What makes you think I'm conservative? Because I don't fear criticizing what you hold sacred, I must be of "the other guys"?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

It was right to criticize Bush, just as it is right to criticize Obama. That Bush should be held accountable is not a rational counterargument to the claim that Obama should be held accountable. If we were to follow such "logic" then we could, in every story of domestic misdeed by the US, bring out misdeeds by China for example as a way to deflect the criticism. We all know that would not be accepted as rational counterargument, yet here we are using that same "logic".

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[BlueStrat]

biggest threat to peace and tolerance nowadays is Islam...

OK, I'll bite. So do you want to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Or would you prefer drone strikes on Pakistan or Iran?

Oops. Christianity has already done that!

Wow, you mean the Vatican has drone-strike capability now!?!? What do they call their strike-drone? The "Pope-inator"? "Altar-Boy Ass-Avenger"? Does it launch Holyfire missiles?

"Go ahead, punk! Make my holy-day!"

Get real. Drone strikes have about as much to do with Christianity as they do with who won the fourth race at the horse track Tuesday last.

Strat

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

Romney is guilty of rhetorical support -- that is, for thinking the thought, but Obama/Bush (and perhaps McCain as a congressman) is guilty of involvement -- that is, for committing the act. Slashdot is fervently against anything even remotely reminiscent of thought-crimes, yet here we are doing it to someone we don't like. Until Romney has actually done the same things, we cannot place him into the same group as the others.

And before this is misconstrued as support for Romney, no, I'm not a supporter. I do like to deconstruct the rationale that go into Slashdotters' conclusions and find the inconsistencies.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

You're exactly right. Yet, we seem to be less willing to speak up now because Obama is "our guy"

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

It think anyone who would point out that there are peaceful Muslims, and Muslims who are against terrorism when others use a broad brush to smear the entire group, would, by that same thinking, acknowledge that there are peaceful people in the US Governement, and officials who are against drone strikes. Yet, it seems two opposing rationales are being employed here in this thread.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[poity]

* I think..

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Guru80]

I agree with everything you wrote. The problem with the 3rd party option however is that they will never be a real threat to either of the Republican or Democrat nominated candidates. There are plenty of individuals with the qualifications but not the money to get noticed and the rare candidate that does possess the wealth to do so have lost before they even started out of generations old bias of one party or the other for most people. Just look at the election results year in and year out. The political process is so ingrained in it's own traditions and voters in theirs that I honestly don't see what could be done in our lifetime, or even the next several, that will change that.

The offices held are so big anymore that even the person sitting in them has little control over the direction things go and even when they do exert so force in the opposite direction it's something that takes several years before the effects are fully felt. That in itself is enough to keep the majority from being overly involved. American's are very a much a population of people that need immediate gratification and results. When we don't get them today, we say we tried and our interest is elsewhere until it hits us directly again in either taxes, freedoms stripped ect and then the whole process repeats itself...blame the other party, get involved, lose interest all in less than an election cycle.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[cold fjord]

Yes, because, before then, they were so routine

It sure is a good thing they stopped. I guess everyone lost interest, because its obvious security measures couldn't change behavior.

29 June 2012: an attempt was made to hijack Tianjin Airlines Flight GS7554 from Hotan to Ürümqi.
April 2011: an attempt was made to hijack Alitalia Flight 329, en-route from Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris, France to Fiumicino Airport, Rome
January 2011: Turkish Airlines Flight 1754, flying from Oslo to Istanbul
2009: AeroMéxico Flight 576, a Boeing 737-800 flying from Cancún to Mexico City
2009: CanJet Flight 918, a Boeing 737-800 preparing to depart from the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica to Canada
2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum
2008: An Eagle Airways British Aerospace Jetstream 32EP ZK-ECN flying from Woodbourne, Blenhiem, in New Zealand to Christchurch
2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul
2007: an Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas
2007: an Air West Boeing 737 was hijacked over Sudan
2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul
2001, September 11: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, were hijacked
2001, 15 March: Another Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Istanbul to Moscow
2000, 11 November: A Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Makhachkala to Moscow
2000, October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115,[61] flying from Jeddah to London
2000, August 18: a VASP Boeing 737-2A1 registration PP-SMG en route from Foz do Iguaçu to Curitiba-Afonso Pena
1999-2000: Pakistan-based terrorists hijacked Indian Airlines Flight 814 en route from Kathmandu and diverted it to Amritsar
1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 was hijacked by a lone man. He killed the pilot before being subdued.
1998: Three men hijacked PIA Flight 544 en route from Gwadar to Turbat
1997: Two men who hijacked Air Malta Flight 830 en route from Malta to Turkey
1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean . . . after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land
1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna
1995: Iranian defector and flight attendant Rida Garari hijacked Kish Air flight 707, which landed in Israel

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

The political process is so ingrained in it's own traditions and voters in theirs that I honestly don't see what could be done in our lifetime, or even the next several, that will change that.

I think I have the answer to this one. For this, we just need to look at history, specifically the Roman Empire. What did the Romans do to fix the corrupt system of government they had, with crazy emperors and an overgrown military?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[macbeth66]

Sorry, I can't agree with that statement at all.

The Government and Corporations are objects. Not thinking individuals. As a people, we allow them to behave the way that they do.

We keep electing the same bastards into office. If we always voted the incumbents out, they would not be able to cause as much damage. If Congress could not act, then they would get nothing done, which I suspect would be a lot less harmful than what they have been doing.

We keep buying the products of these companies. The decision making persons keep their positions at the pleasure of the stock holders. Stop buying the stock in these companies. Stop buying the products of these companies.

Simple really. But people are too stupid and/or lazy to do what needs to be done. So, you get what you deserve. Stop whining and get back to work.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

I don't see how. PACs can advertise all they want, but in the end it's the voting citizens who make the real decisions about who takes power.

If you let yourself get talked into committing a crime by some smooth-talker, who goes to jail for the crime? You do. The person who talked you into it may get punished too (they generally get punished a lot more if they manage to talk a bunch of people into it, like Charles Manson, rather than just one person), but your punishment is no less severe.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[fustakrakich]

Aside from 9/11, none happened in the US, or even on any US based airline anywhere, and I will grant that the 11 years since then and counting says something.

That five year gap after 9/11 is interesting. Were they happening, but simply not being reported then?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Gadget_Guy]

don't know why Schneier focuses entirely on the time of the last hijacking before 9/11 - hijackings were extremely frequent during the 70s and the wikipedia page quoted by him shows just that.

If you have to look all the way back to the 70s to find frequent hijackings, then this shows that the problem was already pretty well solved. Whatever changes were made due to 911 had nothing to do with the huge drop in hijackings by the 90s.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[rtb61]

The problem with handing government departments more power, is that power gets distributed down the line. Some corporate flunky in the private for profit end of intelligence services decided to create an incident by getting their paid off stooge to issue an instruction down the line to Homeland in-Security which was promptly acted upon. That the interrogation only lasted two hours is indicative that counter instructions were issued from higher up to cut short the normal twelve to twenty four hour sleep deprivation, no food, denial of access to toilet facilities and threats of extended imprisonment enhanced interrogation techniques. This is simply an indication of how far out of control US intelligence services have become under the corrupting influence of private for profit contractors.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[tragedy]

I disagree. Who are the people who hate the "spoilers"? They're fans of the two-party system, or one of those two parties.

Generally true, but I also saw plenty of it from people who really dislike both the Republicans and Democrats, but hate the Republicans (or at least Bush) more.

I'm pretty sure that if we had some better voting system (like Condorcet or Borda) when Perot and Nader were running, the result would have been the same: the winner would have been either a Democrat or a Republican.

If it were suddenly introduced that year, then you're probably right. After a number of election seasons in a row, however, it would dramatically alter the landscape.

It's just like all the Ron Paul voters complaining about the Republican primaries

The key thing I need to address in that sentence is the existence of Democrat/Republican primaries. They demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Democrats and the Republicans recognize that the system doesn't really work. In a working system, there would either be primaries for all candidates for all parties, followed by additional rounds of voting, or just one round of voting in which every candidate from every party participates. The purpose of the primaries is clearly to avoid "splitting the vote". Under the currently used system, if the Democrats ran one candidate and the Republicans ran two (let's imagine that they're literal clones of each other, complete with a complete mind copy), and the Republicans captured 60% of the vote, then the Democrat single candidate would obviously win. The Democrat and Republican parties recognize the flaws in the system and they support those flaws 100% because they result in the Democrat/Republican hegemony.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[cold fjord]

. . . he was just a a Christian anti-government gun nut . . .

Actually no, he wasn't a Christian as he stated.

Timothy McVeigh Was Not a “Christian Terrorist”

He became a little bit more specific before his execution in 2001. We might call him spiritual but not religious. He claimed to be agnostic but not an atheist. McVeigh believed in “science” and not “religion,” he said. (In fact, he said his religion was science.) His murky metaphysical notions included some sort of Deistic creator who set things in motion, not the personal God of Christianity. . . . The Oklahoma City Bomber didn’t believe in an afterlife and he certainly didn’t believe in hell.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[psiclops]

1. noone's punishing him for a thought crime (or at all).
2. if two people wish to commit the same evil act, yet only one has the opportunity - they are both as evil, the person who has not had the opportunity should not be punished, but it doesn't make them any better.
3. both parties are guilty of and have been involved in what O.P. was stating - original quote:

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.

there is no mention of drone strikes at all that is something you have added.

if the U.S. Governement does something that both parties support it would be more correct to use the term 'U.S. Govt.' than one specific party. unless you're trying to sway political opinion.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[psiclops]

i'm sure there are peacefull people who associate with Obama who are against drone strikes too.yet you seem happy to lump them all together.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[moonbender]

So, this is the poll you're referring to: http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

The actual wording in the poll is (in English, who knows what the poll said in Arabic, etc): "Suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies..." (and then select one of Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Don't know)

It's fairly bizarre to conflate suicide bombing specifically with an abstract range of things, violence against civilians. Violence against civilians could mean all kinds of things to different people, it's quite vague. The wording implies that only suicide attacks against civilians are relevant, not (military) suicide attacks against non-civilian targets, another thing to misunderstand.

Civilians itself is the key word, I guess, our assumption would be that violence against civilians is not permitted almost per definition, civilians being exactly those people who are not to be targeted. But clearly, Western armed forces have had a pretty tough time figuring out who is a civilian and who isn't in recent conflicts -- usually erring on the side of calling somebody an armed insurgent. We just define our problem away.

Next, the question whether an attack is justified. Under Protocol I of the Geneva Convention (caveat IANAL!), killing civilians can be legal in certain circumstances, you just have to try to avoid it, or not know about it (despite due diligence), etc etc. Calling that a justification of an attack on civilians is a bit twisted, but it's a legal framework. And of course it happens all the time, legally, and without any serious repercussions. The US hasn't ratified Protocol I, BTW. To be fair, the wording of "against" civilians sort of implies an attack where the civilian casualties are the objective, and not just involved. But that's a fairly fine point to make, people are being asked to answer a poll, not write a paper.

Defend is another fun word to toss in there, as I assume many subjects wouldn't consider your average terror attack an example of "defense". Or maybe they do, whatever, we don't know, it's pointless to argue about it.

Defending Islam strikes us as odd, because that ain't a country, but first of all the question/sentence was written by Pew, subjects were not given a choice of slightly rephrasing it (I guess their best option to deal with a false premise is DK or possibly no answer); second of all defending Islam isn't any stranger than defending freedom or the free trade and if anything it's less strange than fighting a war on terror or on drugs.

The final "its enemies" ties the whole thing up neatly, going back both to the point about who's a civilian and who's not and to the point about defense.

There'd be more to say, but I am all out of words.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[BlueStrat]

don't know why Schneier focuses entirely on the time of the last hijacking before 9/11 - hijackings were extremely frequent during the 70s and the wikipedia page quoted by him shows just that.

If you have to look all the way back to the 70s to find frequent hijackings, then this shows that the problem was already pretty well solved. Whatever changes were made due to 911 had nothing to do with the huge drop in hijackings by the 90s.

What occurred in the '70s up to the 9/11 attacks could better be described as hostage-taking that happened to involve aircraft for their ability to move a significant number of hostages quickly while making rescue attempts much more risky. However, aircraft hijacking/hostage situations became less attractive because the public's shock and horror at them (the "terror" part) had all but disappeared, and authorities had grown increasingly sophisticated and successful in dealing with such aircraft hostage situations. They all but stopped due to diminishing returns.

The attack of 9/11 was a completely different type of attack, more akin to a suicide bomber or a kamikaze attack. The aircraft passengers were just convenient additional "bonus" victims that added more horror. The passengers and the aircraft itself were not the primary targets.

The only two changes made since 9/11 that have actually been effective at preventing repeats are that now the passengers as a whole will stomp any "terrorist" into the cabin deck...hard...at their first move, and the upgrade to locked cockpit doors that prevent seizing the controls of the aircraft.

Strat

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

The problem might not have been solved, the motivation may have instead been mitigated.

You see, just because a crook doesn't rob your house does not mean it's burglar proof. The crooks could have just as easily all gotten gainful employment or the laws could have increased the penalties and they will either skip it for more lucrative opportunities (risk verses reward) or could be incarcerated and not able to visit. It could also be a simple probability and random chance that they skipped over rather then your house being burglar proof.

What we do know is that there is thought to be an incentive to hijack or blow planes up now when there might not have been as much of one before. Whether that is right or wrong, unless someone admits to being thwarted by the measures after 9/11, we won't know either way.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[jrumney]

According to a 2011 poll by Pew Research, a think tank that monitors this kind of thing, when asked about whether terror attacks on civilians were justified...

I'd be interested to see the results for the control group of non-Muslims. Or do Pew Research not do that kind of thing?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

In the US, there is a difference between those government and the feds. They are not one in the same or even controlled by each other. The jurisdictions of them differ and are sometimes even subservient to them. The biggest is that they are closer to the needs of the people they serve and are in a better position to serve them. But the most important is that they are a lot more accountable for their actions then the feds seem to be. If the feds piss an area off, the rest of the country might give them a pass. If that same area was pissed off by the state and or local governments, they will be replaced with new people more readily. These are big reasons why local governments have the potential to be more suited to handle these things.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[penix1]

What utter crap... If you haven't noticed, the Congress is made up of people elected at the State level. A person from Vermont doesn't vote for a representative from Virginia. The only branch of the federal government where all the people have somewhat of a say is the executive branch. The people have every opportunity to replace their representatives just as much as they have to replace their local representatives.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[X0563511]

Very naive. Sure, we elect our senators and House of Reps members, but we do not elect the president, do not elect Judges, do not elect police officers etc.

In fact, the only people we DO elect are only a part of the legislative branch. The executive and judicial branches - eg the people that can shoot you or make your life miserable, are all appointees.

Keep that in mind.

(of course if I'm wrong and you can do more to prove it than just say "nuh uh!" please correct me. I'm not willfully ignorant and I don't dislike constructive criticism. i feel it's best to point this out in these kinds of discussions, otherwise it just devolves into a bunch of ninnies insulting each other. Hell, that happens anyway!)

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[X0563511]

Voter turnout doesn't matter, because we are not the electoral college and our presidential votes mean approximately nothing. It's just a big fucking waste of time money and energy. Just about the only thing we vote on that DOES matter are our senators and representatives, and since they all lie anyway to get elected it doesn't really matter either.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Using your example, Virginia has 11 representatives and 2 senators. If the feds do something damning to Virgina, at best the can remove and replace 13 people of the 536 elected members of the federal government (1 pres, 100 senators, 435 representatives). However, if the state screws itself, the people of Virginia can remove and replace all 150 or more elected state government officials and all their local officials.

State and local government are more accountable to the people they serve. It really is that simple.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but you're wrong. We DO elect the President. It's not a direct, popular election, but it's close enough: we elect the electors who elect the President in the Electoral College. Rarely have the results differed from what a direct popular election would have determined, but even then it was only between the two main party candidates, and it was extremely close. It's not like the people are all voting for Green and Libertarian candidates and the EC is choosing a Dem or Rep for President. The main problem with the EC is that it's a state-by-state winner-takes-all system where the winner of the popular vote in each state (except for 2, I think) gets all the electoral votes in that state, so the power of your vote varies relative to other citizens' based on which state you live in. But this doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, it's the people who make the choice, even if there's a level of indirection there.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Also, you're wrong about judges. Here in Arizona, judges are elected.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[hendrikboom]

Schneier has said many times that the most effective way to secure airplanes is to eliminate the reasons why people want to blow them up.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[yawaramin]

`Public threat' ... ? Are you serious? He said if elected, as a representative of his country, he would take military action against US aircraft invading his country's airspace and killing his civilians. Is it still a crime to destroy US property if said property is killing civilians in a foreign country?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[mjwx]

As for air travel, well it's pretty screwed since 9/11

He didn't say air travel, he said air control and they do a damn good job of safely moving thousands of people per day. I tip my hat to Air Traffic Controllers everywhere.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

It's actually worse then that when you consider if there is a 50% turnout, a portion will vote for the losing side and with the elections being as close as they have been, that could be as much as 40 to 49 percent of those. So you could actually say the government we have is chosen by the majority representing less then 50% of the country and in reality, likely less then 30%.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Funding or being? Either way, I'm getting the impression that anything ultraliberal isn't as comforting as it sounds.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[smellotron]

Similarly, Obama was chosen by the Democrat voters in that primary, who apparently are happy with him despite the drone strikes and other not-so-left things he's done, evidenced by the fact that there were other alternatives on the ballot but the Democrat voters had no interest in them and voted exclusively for Obama.

That is not true everywhere. I ended up voting in the Republican primary specifically because my Democratic ballot only had one option.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

I'm not exactly sure, but I think Richardson and others were only in some of the earlier primaries, and after a while dropped out for some reason.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[superwiz]

No, not really. Air control is abysmal. Highways are in a state of constant disrepair despite spending more money on it than is earned by the entire electronics industry. And military costs more than all of the world militaries combined despite the fact that our standing army is less than half a million people.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[cold fjord]

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

The actual quote was:

The State Department acknowledged Khan's detention and said: "The issue was resolved. Mr Khan is welcome in the United States." Customs and immigration officials refused to comment except to note that "our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband," and added that the burden is on the visitor "to demonstrate that they are admissible" and "the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility."

So no, they didn't call him a terrorist without calling him a terrorist.

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.

Rubbish, pure rubbish. But it is a sort of familiar rubbish. Please, expand upon this claim of, "creating racial intolerance and hatred". I think I know what to expect, but I would like to see what you have to say. One hint: Islam is not a race. Opposing violent Islamist extremists is not racism.

And frankly, the biggest threat to peace is radical Islam, as the violent Islamists are trying to overthrow practically every government in the region, conquer new lands, and preach and prepare for genocide against the Jews. In Africa, Arab Muslims are making war on blacks. No, it is radical Islam that is the threat to peace, that creates terrorism, other violence, instability, and hatred. The actions of the US government that are so "intolerable" are to defend the United States and its citizens, and its allies.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[oobayly]

You do of course realise that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and as such is allowed (many would say obliged) to shoot down foreign military UAVs which are operating inside their borders, especially when they have a habit of killing civilians.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Sabriel]

Excuse me, I think you left "violating Pakistani airspace" out of your post.

No matter what you or I or anyone else may think, the fact is that if Pakistan declares its airspace off limits to U.S. drones and follows whatever the proper international processes are for this sort of thing, then U.S. drones being shot down by Pakistani forces in Pakistani airspace under Pakistani government orders would be entirely legal. Just as it would be were the positions reversed.

And pause a moment to think about what just happened. Imran Kahn isn't some two-bit small-town politician. He's famous in quite a few parts of the world and he might also be Pakistan's next head of state. It would be like Mitt Romney getting unexpectedly pulled off a plane by Pakistani immigration officials and questioned for two hours about his political policies regarding, um, Guantanamo Bay... can you imagine the response by the US populace/media/government?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[cold fjord]

Austin airplane attack on IRS. Kansas City bombing. Abortion doctor assassinations. Anthrax. Olympics bomb. Ted Kaczynski. Chinese embassy in Iraq. Though no stonings or beheadings with government backing that I'm aware of. So if those are logical ANDs (requires that all be simultaneously true) I guess it might be accurate.

You seem to be reaching pretty hard there. Those cases are all over the map, from personal grievance (Austin IRS), to unknown (Anthrax) to lone crank (Ted Kaczynski) to mistake (Chinese embassy). There really isn't any connection, and in most cases those incidents killed very few people. That is a huge difference from the Islamist extremist violence going on in Iraq (or other places) where they manage to kill something like 50x more per month than the total of what you have shown above. And make no mistake, there are extremists in the United States supporting terrorists, or trying to make their mark and conduct an attack of similar violence to what is occuring overseas in places like Iraq.

Just a small sample, not including things like the attempted Times Square bombing by the Taliban agent, or various other well known plots.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.

Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011

Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Hognoxious]

under 50% turnout, often in the 30th to 40th percentile range.

How can something be often in the 30th to 40th percentile range? By definition it will be there 10% of the time.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

I wouldn't say less willing, I see a lot of people who truly believed it was wrong still bring it up. I suspect the less you are hearing about it has more to do with a lot of it originally being about Bush. They seem to care more about bush doing it then the fact it was done.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How about you just restrict your donations to secular organizations?

Secular organizations? In Afghanistan? Those people are just like the Vaticanese, nothing is secular to them.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

The drones he wants to shoot down are flying over his country and killing people from there too. Isn't he entitled to protect his countries boundaries?

Why yes he is entitled to protect his countries boundaries. But he is not entitled to go to the US. Upon determining he isn't a threat, he may or may not be allowed to pass into the US.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

I'm willing to bet that shooting then down would be considered an act of war and actually start one. Of course Pakistan is a nuclear power so it won't be pretty.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[CarbonShell]

Please do not forget the abortion clinic bombers! Would this not also equate to Taliban-esque tactics?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[CarbonShell]

One thing I feel people forget is the ONLY reason the beheadings do not happen in the West is because the crazies are not in power.
Whereas in Afghanistan and other countries these crazy people have the power (and we helped them attain that strange hold btw).

And the only way they will stop is if WE stop supporting these people.

Remember the last time the crazies in the West were in power? We called it the 'Dark Ages'. Yeah, compared to some of the stuff our 'advanced civilizations' did back then, beheadings are quite tame.

Oh and for all that do not get the equations: [us] supporting [bad people] hurting [people] = [us] hurting [people] = [people] hate [us] for supporting [bad people]

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[squiggleslash]

I agree that "Government take-over of healthcare" is a lie, but there are better organizations to cite in support of that fact than Polit-"Replacing a Single Payer Healthcare system called Medicare with a system of partial subsidies for private insurance companies and calling that Medicare is not abolishing Medicare because the new program has the same name as the old one even if it doesn't work the same way or do the same thing"-fact.

The "Fact check" websites are basically the same Beltway "She said he said we're impartial if we say "Views differ on shape of the world" both-sides-do-it" idiots that run our media, just with a slightly different way of presenting the same crap.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[LoRdTAW]

Your reply has me a bit confused. Not a single one of your examples have any white supremacist ties and most of the perpetrators did not share any white supremacist beliefs. Did you reply to the wrong post? And to top it off your modded Informative when you only threw a bunch of domestic terrorist incidents into a string with no explanation of how they related to the grandparents statement.

Austin airplane attack on IRS - An engineer who was angry at the government, no white supremacist beliefs.
Kansas City bombing - Although Timothy McVeigh was partly inspired by "The Turner Diaries", there is no mention of white supremacist views given as his reason for the bombings.
Abortion doctor assassinations - of the killers mentioned, one had previous ties to the KKK but renounced their beliefs and one is suspected of ties to Christian Identity but only speculation.
Anthrax - The only suspect, Bruce Edwards Ivins, was never linked to any white supremacist beliefs.
Olympics bomb - Same nut job who killed one of the abortion doctors who was believed to be linked to Christan Identity, but again, no real proof.
Ted Kaczynski - Leftist luddite with no white supremacist beliefs.
Chinese embassy in Iraq - What incident are you talking about here? I cant really find an article that explains how white supremacists bombed a Chinese embassy in Iraq.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[LoRdTAW]

Oops, the anthrax link didnt work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Investigation

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[mythix]

land of the free... unless you actually want to say what you think is right...

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Slashdot is fervently against anything even remotely reminiscent of thought-crimes, yet here we are doing it to someone we don't like.

That's not thought crime, that's the democratic process. It won't get you into jail, it just won't land you the job.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[KingMotley]

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.

Are you serious? We have more loud mouths saying bad things about every politician on a daily basis. Not sure where you got that rubbish from, and while I am sure there are some crackpots somewhere that may say/think that (in the same vein, some crackpots think aliens came down to inspect pre-expunged fecal matter), that definitely isn't true.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Elldallan]

In theory you are right but in reality the problem is more complex. You have a system which is incredibly biased towards a two party system, minor parties have almost no chance of getting a significant number of seats in either the senate or congress.
So even if you would ideally want to vote for something completely different voting on a minor party is pretty much the same thing as voting for the guy you least want to have the office. You can of course choose not to vote but that's simply saying that you accept the result regardless of who the winner is. if you decide not to vote you accepting the result whatever it is even if the winner is someone hell bent on changing the country into a dictatorship and conquer the rest of the world.

The system is flawed and the voters don't have much actual choice except the 2 persons the system decides to let them choose between and then you pick whoever you least want to have in office and vote for his opponent.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Calavar]

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.

You got the Whigs mixed up with the Federalists. That's about 70 years off. And you expect us to believe your historical argument?

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.

Also false. The Democrats are offshoots of the Democratic-Republicans. The Republicans are offshoots of the Whigs, which were the opposition party to the Democratic-Republicans.

Check your facts before typing up your argument.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Calavar]

Typo in my last post: Whigs were the opposition to the Democrats. They were themselves an offshoot of the Democratic-Republicans.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Hognoxious]

What do they call their strike-drone? The "Pope-inator"? "Altar-Boy Ass-Avenger"? Does it launch Holyfire missiles?

Nah, it only carries canons and cloister bombs.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[lsatenstein]

"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

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.

===========
Does everyone who dissents from having foreign Drone strikes on his nation/country a terrorist? Perhaps it is the Drone pilot's country that is the terrorist.
What a wonderful way to kill oppositions -- leave no traces, no fingerprints, no cars to burn, or spies to worry about. etc. Just a 007 James Bond guy in a foreign city somewhere in the world, doing the dirty work.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Well, the answer I was looking for was a little more general: they didn't fix the problem at all, and the whole thing collapsed.

The Visigoths sacking Rome really was just a small part of a much bigger problem, of that society completely imploding as the Romans gave up on their advanced society and turned to Feudalism. Roman citizens gave up on living in cities and the whole idea of specialization of labor, and moved out to Feudal areas to work as serfs, because it was better than life in the cities by that point. The Empire even tried passing laws making it illegal to quit your job at an employer, for any reason at all, but it didn't help; I imagine the US government might try passing such a law eventually.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Gripp]

No. I (nor any other dem I know) are "happy" with these types of issues. I hate it and would vote for whoever said they would stop it, first and foremost. The problem is Romney not only hasn't said he would stop this kind of stuff, he actually backs most of it.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[toriver]

From a Nicaraguan perspective, the Contras were terrorists, from a right-wing American perspective they were "freedom fighters" financed via illegal drug and arm sales. Po-tah-to, po-tay-to.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[toriver]

Heck, the United States even harbored a few IRA suspects back in the day and refused extradition to the UK. Also, the ETA could be called Catholic in a sense... though both pretend to be mostly nationalist. And for all practical purposes, the Mexican drug gangs are terrorists as good as any group.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[toriver]

Whew! Since Islam does not have a formal church organization to match the Catholic Church, then "Islam" cannot perform acts of terrorism either. Also, Vatican not representative of all Christians.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[lsatenstein]

The US government is elected by the US citizens. Corporations have no control over that whatsoever; all they can do is spend money to influence politicians and citizens' views in elections (through PACs and the ads they create), but ultimately it's the People who make the decisions on their voting ballots. So if you're looking for someone to blame about the state of the US government, look at the citizens who elect it.

=================
Do you believe your words? You have millions being contributed to the campaign to insure that the wealthy remain wealthy, and that the poor stay decently poor

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Forty Two Tenfold]

"Pakastani"?

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Voting machines do not take cash. Millions in campaign funds are irrelevent: it's the people who cast the votes and pull the levers. If they're dumb enough to be swayed by campaign ads, that's their own fault. They're still the ones in charge. If you're an adult voter, you're responsible for your own actions, including your votes.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

Thank you, Sir, for making sense - these "not news for nerds" whiners annoy me, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone...

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

Shooting hostile military aircraft of another country in your country own airspace is not crime, unless criminalized by the law of country which is doing the shooting.
Yeah, I know, you yanks love to think that you are allowed to fly your craft inside any and every nations airspace (provided it's not too big for even you) and shout in anger if it's shot down, all while willing to shoot any outside military aircraft (or civilian if unauthorized and not responding, etc.) and claim you have right to do so.

And you would have the right to shoot them down, but you are demanding to be treated differently when you are doing the flying - you can do this, but it's not because "boohoo, it's a crime" but rather because you (=your country, USA) are the school playground bully that those you bully won't likely reteliate in any way that would really bother you. You (=you, the writer) are an ass trying to pull this crap about you having some kind of higher moral ground when the simple truth here is: you are the agressor.

Reality check on the "Threat for US airspace" is on place also - seriously there is no reason to expect any trouble from this, if there was then you can bet he would most likely been there for way longer than hour and, seriously, he wouldn't have been questioned about his opinions on X that were most obviously well known to those doing the questioning - really, if he would be considered a real serious threat and this is how it was handled then you're airport/customs security is a humongous joke (way more so than it already is) at best.
I mean, really, do you consider it a job well done to detain a person and ask him about his opinions on something you already know answer to and then letting him/her continue after 2 hours? Nope, this is really not a matter of national security.

And "violent anti-American sentiment"? Seriously, yankee boy, defending your country within your country against attacks executed from outside your country is not "violent anti-American" anything. If this is your measure on what makes a country "violent anti-YourCountry" then what should your country be called? And don't start with your cry for "nobel reasons", in this light your reasons don't matter a shit - you are the attacker judging your target for defending themselves. That may feel OK for you, but you have to be really dumb to think it would seem logical to anyone with half brain (and not already taken same view as you, though that should be said with half brain ;) ).

have you stopped to consider whether its appropriate for a candidate for Prime Minister to attend fundraisers in the "evil" country he is railing against?

Yes. I see no problem there as this has nothing to do with attacking against USA, just defending their own airspace from outside military intrusion - and nothing else. Everything I know about this person indicates that he want's peace and good relations with your country - even despite the obvious problem of your country attacking his country.
I would give quite a bit of credit and respect for him. Apparently the rest of the world doesn't side with your views either - just some part of US population really...

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

Did you drop in to explain how things currently are to discussion of how things should/shouldn't be, or did you have a subtle point that I missed?

Reminds me of the good-ol' "it is illegal and you might get arrested for it" "argument" on decriminalization of cannabis discussion.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Both.

Any sovereign country has and right and should continue to have that right to secure its borders and regulate who does or does not enter the country.

Your or anyone's right of free speech does not trump that. They are both rights and either have to clash or get along.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[LordLucless]

Um, deploying armed forces into a sovereign nation without permission is generally considered an act of war too. If it pans out the way you say, it won't the Pakistanis who started the war.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Yeah..I don't care who started the war. I'm saying the US would probably not discriminate in its targeting if that happened and couldn't go about it trying to preserve the hearts of the people and half assing it because Pakistan has nukes..

It's one thing for Pakistan to have UAVs targeting terrorists and Taliban soldiers (And it is regretful that innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire) taking refuge in their country that they cannot or are not willing to control. It's another to have the US targeting Pakistan's military capabilities. They are after all, still nervous about a border and disputed lands India laid claims to. There are also a lot of other issues that can arise from a full fledged war with Pakistan. Pakistan has been trying to get free trade deals with the US and Europe which would likely fall south of the probability line. Obama already cut off military aid, but Pakistan still gets economic aid to some degree from the US too.

It simply wouldn't be in Pakistan's interests on a number of fronts unless another country stepped in. Russia or China might, but that might start another cold war so it's not in the best interest of the US or the rest of the world either.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

I agree that they most certainly have a right to that. Whether any individual case of country blocking someones entry is wise, justified, proper behaviour, etc. etc. is however something that can be argued about.
Right to block anyone should not be taken as uncriticized permit for government/customs/whatever to block any and everyone they want on any grounds they want. Decicions to do it should always be open to critic and right to block people should be used sensibly.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Sure..but this wasn't where someone was blocked though, he was detained for questioning, missed his flight and a meeting/fundraiser. He was allowed to enter the US and did board the next flight into the US.

It is not like he was banned from entering or anything. Of course countries have banned people for speech though. The UK did it to Michael Savage because he's an ass and said things to prove it.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[lsatenstein]

I guess you do not know what "level the playing field means". In Canada we are moving to ban all political advertisements by third parties, and to limit donations to $100 max per person. For every dollar given to a registered person running for election, the government will provide $200.
This means that elections will be on issues, and the small guy also gets a fair chance. It also blocks corruption. I would say that cash under the table, golf trips, quiet home renovations, etc. Airline flights paid, are the norm in the USA.
Here, a corp is officially allowed to give a dozen golf balls, if the items have the donator's logo. Giving a rental car or free credit card is not allowed.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Yes, those are all good moves, because the voters are so stupid and gullible that they're easily swayed by campaign ads. My whole point here is that the voters' gullibility does not absolve them of the responsibility for the outcome caused by their votes, as so many responders here seem to think it does. It doesn't matter if a bunch of PACs convince people to vote against their own best interests: the voters are still responsible for that, and for whatever their chosen leaders do. Moves like the ones you list are designed to limit this effect, but if the people weren't so dumb, these measures wouldn't be necessary.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[lsatenstein]

Yes, those are all good moves, because the voters are so stupid and gullible that they're easily swayed by campaign ads. My whole point here is that the voters' gullibility does not absolve them of the responsibility for the outcome caused by their votes, as so many responders here seem to think it does. It doesn't matter if a bunch of PACs convince people to vote against their own best interests: the voters are still responsible for that, and for whatever their chosen leaders do. Moves like the ones you list are designed to limit this effect, but if the people weren't so dumb, these measures wouldn't be necessary.

I agree with you, but many voters are only with high school or less education.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

Yes, I know he wasn't banned from entering the country - my view however is that he was treated badly and for an outsider like me it didn't exactly do anything good for USA's image.
To put it shortly I think it was shameful charade done for reasons not related to safety of USA. USA has full right to act this way but it doesn't change my opinion to any direction :x

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Interesting.. I'm actually glad the situation did happen. There are a lot of people in the US who think the guy is associated with terrorists and the taliban and it shows that the US government is actually doing something and not just harrasing citizens boarding planes. Had he not tweeted anything, we never would have known about it and never would have known that the government was on top of things.

I personally don't care how people in the world view the US either. They are going to have their interests in mind and we will have ours in mind. As I pointed out, I can find far worse examples from supposedly far better countries of this so called misconduct. The big deal is only being made because it makes the US look bad. Virtually no one said a word when even the UK politicians were claiming it was madness that people who did nothing wrong were put on a list to be denied entry into the UK simply because their free speech made people mad at them.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

Interesting.. I'm actually glad the situation did happen. There are a lot of people in the US who think the guy is associated with terrorists and the taliban and it shows that the US government is actually doing something and not just harrasing citizens boarding planes. Had he not tweeted anything, we never would have known about it and never would have known that the government was on top of things.

Honestly, how many people in the US would even know who he is if asked "do you know who Imran Khan is"? If they were asked "What do you think of Imran Khan, a know US drone critic?" then, yes, I believe many would associate a "muslim name" guy criticizing US army with terrorism - it's not a good thing, which is why I'm glad that this got it news too. Not glad it happened, though without it happening there would not have been news where people can learn how not on top of things the government is. Some thick headed will not learn anything, but that doesn't make it any worse and some smarter will understand, bringing the press time to positive.

From the news link in TFA (though it's UK site - maybe your news have more of "terrorist stopped" kind of reports of this? ;) ) there are great parts:

The State Department acknowledged Khan's detention and said: "The issue was resolved. Mr Khan is welcome in the United States."

Strictly on pragmatic grounds, it seems quite ill-advised to subject the most popular leader in Pakistan - the potential next Prime Minister - to trivial, vindictive humiliations of this sort. It is also a breach of the most basic diplomatic protocol: just imagine the outrage if a US politician were removed from a plane by Pakistani officials in order to be questioned about their publicly expressed political views. And harassing prominent critics of US policy is hardly likely to dilute anti-US animosity; the exact opposite is far more likely to occur.

But the most important point here is that Khan's detention is part of a clear trend by the Obama administration to harass and intimidate critics of its drone attacks. As Marcy Wheeler notes, "this is at least the third time this year that the US has delayed or denied entry to the US for Pakistani drone critics."

Last May, I wrote about the amazing case of Muhammad Danish Qasim, a Pakistani student who produced a short film entitled "The Other Side", which "revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan." As he put it, "the film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks" by humanizing the tragedy of civilian deaths and also documenting how those deaths are exploited by actual terrorists for recruitment purposes.

Qasim and his co-producers were chosen as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. He intended to travel to the US to accept his award and discuss his film, but was twice denied a visa to enter the US, and thus was barred from making any appearances in the US.

The month prior, Shahzad Akbar - a Pakistani lawyer who represents drone victims in lawsuits against the US and the co-founder of the Pakistani human rights organization, Foundation for Fundamental Rights - was scheduled to speak at a conference on drones in Washington. He, too, was denied a visa, and the Obama administration relented only once an international outcry erupted.

As Wheeler asks, "Why is the government so afraid of Pakistanis explaining to Americans what the drone attacks look like from a Pakistani perspective?"

This form of intimidation is not confined to drone critics. Last April, I reported o

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[ranmagirl]

PS - with a spare account I modded you +1 Interesting. Not because I respect your opinion, just because it was interesting - and it's how modding should be done, I'm not one of those "I don't agree so I mod -1 Troll" guys.

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

Honestly, how many people in the US would even know who he is if asked "do you know who Imran Khan is"? If they were asked "What do you think of Imran Khan, a know US drone critic?" then, yes, I believe many would associate a "muslim name" guy criticizing US army with terrorism

Truthfully, I had no clue who he was until this story. But I didn't stop at this article in the story either. I found lots of groups, largely Muslim, had petitioned the state department including Hillary Clinton herself calling for the US to bar entry even before he was detained at the border. There were also cries over the US eventually letting him in.

it's not a good thing, which is why I'm glad that this got it news too. Not glad it happened, though without it happening there would not have been news where people can learn how not on top of things the government is. Some thick headed will not learn anything, but that doesn't make it any worse and some smarter will understand, bringing the press time to positive

I disagree. I think the US was on top of it. I think the reporting in the story was biased and self serving considering the rest of what I have read that included articles written and posted before the incident ever happened.

etc. etc.
In this light it's probably good for your mental health to not care how people of real world view the US - but even US does care about it, they just often forget it behind their "we can do anything we want, others can't do anything we don't like - like defending their country from US, or hell even criticize US military actions in their own country".

The US does often take hypocritical position but I do not think this is exactly one of them. The influences that Obama grew up with and the people he called friends have used such tactics themselves to attempt to sway public opinion to their ways (especially the group known as the weather underground). We still need to determine if people are coming here to raise money for terrorist acts or to equip the Taliban and so on. When it is determined they are not doing so or intending to harm the US, they are let in to do whatever they came to do. However, I cannot stress enough that they do not need to be allowed into the US in the first place. So what happened is that Obama used this as an attempt to appear like he was on top of things given the massive failure in Benghazi that resulted in the death of 4 Americans. But this isn't the first instance of something like this. Canada denies entry to people all the time, the UK does to. But even the US has done this in the past. 2 UK citizens were denied entry for a tweet stating they were going to destroy America or something like that referring to their ability to party. Just recently, we denied entry to 20 some Iranian officials supposedly coming for a UN meeting. Iran has denied entry to US officials, even Afghanistan has denied entry to US lawmakers. There have even been instances where US citizens had been denied entry to the US after visiting foreign countries. This is not unusual as it seems.

I'm sure that with any two countries there are things in first that when criticized can be defended by those with logic like yours by pointing something else that is wrong and worse in that country.
"You actually criticize us for not taking care of child mortality? When in North Korea your only freedom is freedom to love your dear leader! OMG, you are a hypocrite!!". Yes, that was extreme, but in the end it's an example of justifying something bad with worse examples from other countries. That you said "supposedly far better countries" doesn't change anything much - take one of your lesser problems and compare to one of bigger problems in "supposedly better country" and you also get to indicate that it's not better country at all. Does that logic work? No.

Well, the inverse is just as true. Does this happening even though it happens

Re:Disgousting behaviour

[sumdumass]

I have to apologize. I agree with you entirely on this but do not carry multiple accounts so I can't return the favor.

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:What they were doing in Canada?

[farlukar]

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

Spreading freedom.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[Arancaytar]

And democracy.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[frobbie]

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

When flying from Canada to the US, US immigration occurs in Canada. This is known as "pre-clearance" and allows the plane to land in the US as if it were a domestic flight - including allowing flights to US airports that do not have immigration facilities.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[mbone]

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

The US and Canada have the system set up so that you pass through US Customs in Canada if you are leaving by air. That means that your flight goes to the domestic gates in the US (and can go to small airports without any customs at all). It is actually a very useful system if you are transferring to another flight in the US; as long as you make your flight in Canada, you should have no trouble changing planes in the US.

By the way, it has an interesting legal corollary - they can't arrest you, not being in the US. They can tell Canadian police to arrest you, but they can't do it themselves. That may not help you if they find pot on you, and it certainly won't help you if they find a bomb on you, but it does mean that someone like Khan is not going to just get carted off to Guantanamo without Canadian involvement. (I suspect that he wasn't technically "detained" either, but that is probably a fine line, and he may well have felt like it was a detention.)

Note: IANA and this is not legal advice.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[mbone]

Most (if not all) major Canadian airports host US Customs & Immigration for flights destined for US ports.

Not all. Last year when I left Quebec City going to Detroit, I had to pass through customs in Detroit.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being ordered off an airplane sounds like detention to me.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[davester666]

And peace and joy to the world.

(tearing up)
It's Santa's work. He would have wanted us to carry on after we accidentally killed him with a drone strike for attempting to move towards the US while carrying a gun, funny thing is, it turned out to be a toy gun, afterwards the analyst was quite sheepish about the whole thing, admitting that yeah, the orange color of the gun should have really given it away, but he figured terrorists would know this and just paint their guns orange, so better safe than sorry.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[lurker1997]

Quebec City is not a major Canadian airport. All major airports have pre-clearance, little regional airports do not. I used to fly to Boston from Fredericton and had to clear customs in Boston, but Fredericton Airport is basically a shed with one international flight a day (usually with about five people on it).

Toronto, Montreal, even Ottawa which is a tiny airport, Vancouver, Calgary etc, all have pre-clearance

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[eugene ts wong]

This is also true of Canadian train stations. At least it is true of Vancouver's train station. You clear in Vancouver, and then just ride past the border.

Some people were hoping to set up a station closer to the border, but officials didn't want to clear there too.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[ntropia]

The US custom *is* in Canada. They probably have a treaty, so if you're going in US through Canada, you go through custom (or not) before actually entering US.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[mbone]

QC may not be major, but it is not tiny.

I do understand that cost-benefit analyses must be made, but I was surprised to see a Provincial Capital not included in the system.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[JustOK]

It's a national capital

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[JustOK]

Fredericton is a Provincial capital too.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[Dzimas]

US Immigration has facilities and staff in major Canadian airports. Passengers flying to the USA pass through border inspection in Canada, which allows the flight to be treated as domestic flight when it arrives in the US -- you just walk off the plane as if you arrived from Newark or San Jose without the need for immigration staff. It makes sense because there are only a dozen or so key airports in Canada with flights to hundreds of US destinations. It's also a lot cheaper to deny entry into the country before a passenger sets foot on US soil.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[Alioth]

They also have pre-clearance in Dublin, Ireland. So I have a US immigration stamp in my passport for Dublin!

But it's good to get the anxiety of getting through customs and immigration done BEFORE you cross the Atlantic, since you can be deported for making a flippant twitter comment using a British English idiom that the US can't understand, at least if you get denied boarding in Ireland rather than detained then deported in the United States, it's a lot cheaper and you don't have to fly another 10 hours to get home.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[cbiltcliffe]

It's only a national capital according to the treasonous separatist Parti Quebecois provincial government they've got. Legally, Quebec is a province in Canada.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[theshowmecanuck]

Yes, they'll clear you in Canada too.

No you can't pre-clear a trip to Canada while still in the U.S. Fortunately, pretty much any airport you can fly to in Canada with anything from a 737 or bigger has customs officers. There are a few that don't but since Canada has a relatively small population and it is mostly concentrated around urban centres, so the majority of arrivals are close to where you need to go.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[beanyk]

It happens in other cities as well. Dublin airport, for instance, has a U.S. Immigration pre-clearance section that I've used many times. Not necessarily for all U.S.-bound flights, though.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[xs650]

It pains me to say anything good about US customs, but ...

US customs operates at the Toronto Airport (maybe a couple of others too?). That way flights from Toronto can go to directly to US cities without US customs facilities.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[formfeed]

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

ehh, all the other states have immigration officials on major airports, why should Canada be any different?

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[superwiz]

He was boarding a flight to NY. Canadians gets to go through security in Canada so they don't have to go through security in the US. This arrangement, in general, works out better for both sides.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[doconnor]

It's not detention. It was preventing him from going to the US, which is within US immigrations rights.

Technically he could have walked away at any moment as long as he didn't take a flight to the United States. I guess he stayed to have a chance to go, and they eventually let him go to the US.

Re:What they were doing in Canada?

[ranmagirl]

Seeing how things are with USA today it sounds quite convenient and possibly useful for many... Of course it's a sad day when even average people have to even consider the possibility of not being allowed in another (so called) 1st world country - as well as having to worry about your personal property (like laptops, cell phones, etc.) getting stolen by said country "in the name of homeland security", etc...

The world sure has changed for sad direction.

Where's Pakastan?

[Arancaytar]

I can't find it on the map. So embarassed. I hope we're not at war with it; I'd hate to be that stereotypical American.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[liquidweaver]

I'm an actual American, I can find all the 'stans, and I am opposed to our involvement; but then again, I never voted for it nor did anyone else.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[gman003]

You missed the joke.

Pro-tip: It's spelled "Pakistan", not "Pakastan".

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[mbone]

That's OK, it wasn't mentioned in the Foreign Policy Debate, even as Pakistan, so it clearly must be of no real significance.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Pulzar]

That's OK, it wasn't mentioned in the Foreign Policy Debate, even as Pakistan, so it clearly must be of no real significance.

You must've not listened to the debate, but like to pretend that you did.

According to the transcript, it was actually mentioned 25 times.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Serious Callers Only]

The title was rewritten by slashdot editors I'm afraid... It did start with his name, but presumably that was considered too obscure?

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[mbone]

Please, don't spoil my visual humor with trifling facts !

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Nidi62]

It's right next to Uzbekibekistanstan

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Maintenance Goof]

Play this till you get it right! http://www.rethinkingschools.org/just_fun/games/mapgame.html

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Arancaytar]

I know people are saying it's the same as Pakistan because it's only one letter removed. But look at Iran and Iraq and see where that kind of assumption gets us.

:-P

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Pulzar]

You should work for one of the news networks! :)

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[psmears]

I know people are saying it's the same as Pakistan because it's only one letter removed. But look at Iran and Iraq and see where that kind of assumption gets us.

:-P

Or USA and KSA, come to that :-)

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Arancaytar]

I got all the countries the US has gone to war or threatened to go to war with in recent years, but very few of the rest.

I can only conclude that the American foreign policy is a desperate effort to improve Americans' knowledge of geography.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[martinX]

Obscure? Heathens!

This is Imran Khan. One of the finest cricketers the world has ever seen. He's up there with Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards (and the whole West Indies team, let's face it), the Chappells (OK, Ian and Greg, not Trevor), Thommo and Lillee.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[a_hanso]

Perhaps you're using iPhone maps?

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[superwiz]

For a moment I thought you meant that the politician's name was too obscure... Only for a moment though... Khaaaaan!

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[Arancaytar]

Nah, I'd suspect on an iPhone map it would be Pakistan that's hard to find.

Re:Where's Pakastan?

[balajeerc]

Can I add Kapil Dev to that list?

Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Thugs.

[gagol]

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

This is my policy since PATRIOT act. Even more so since NDAA... Land of the free (to do what we tell you), home of the (not) brave (enough to kick the rich out of power).

Re:Thugs.

[boorack]

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 !

Re:Thugs.

[Tastecicles]

You might not be given the choice if you're suddenly on a list somewhere....

Re:Thugs.

[HiThere]

What do you suggest be done about it? I haven't thought of anything effective that wouldn't make things worse.

Re:Thugs.

[Grishnakh]

This is my policy since PATRIOT act. Even more so since NDAA...

Yep, both of which Obama signed. So much for hope and change.

And only an idiot would think Romney would do anything differently.

And people here keep telling me there's some kind of difference between the two.

Re:Thugs.

[number11]

This is my policy since PATRIOT act. Even more so since NDAA...

Yep, both of which Obama signed. So much for hope and change.

And only an idiot would think Romney would do anything differently.

And people here keep telling me there's some kind of difference between the two.

There are differences between the two. Just not so much in that area. The differences are mostly in the areas of things like woman's rights, lowering taxes on the rich at the expenses of the poor and middle classes, cutting services for the poor, and (maybe, depending on what Romney's position is as of noon today) health care.

But I think that no president will willingly give up powers such as the "Patriot" act. Because, after all, they will use it for good, not evil (like the other guy).

Re:Thugs.

[TheRealGrogan]

Americans use the threat of bureaucratic red tape and obstruction all the time, just as much as the implied threat of violence if you don't do what they want.

Add that to the list of reasons why they are disliked in the world.

I mean, even dealing with American companies is like that. Don't ever produce parts for them, for example. They'll fuck up your whole assembly line at their whims if you so much as deviate from their specifications when you shrink wrap a pallet. We found that the only way to deal with them was to take risks, juggle numbers quite inappropriately to keep things off the books until the right time (so accountants at the head office don't have a shit fit), and stock pile thousands of manufactured parts knowing that they were going to be needing them eventually. Otherwise they'd have us doing die changes multiple times a day for short runs, then inventing reasons to reject shipments when they've decided they don't want any more of those parts right now, (but want THESE ones instead) as they've changed their mind on a production run and don't want them on their floor. When they really NEEDED those parts, there was no scrutiny or tomfoolery and they wanted them impossibly fast.

Not only won't I fly there, I will never set foot on their side of the border again. (I live in the country above them and they think they can even dictate our laws with their veiled threats of trade obstruction and ultimatums). I would just never subject myself to their out of control authority. Even petty officials (e.g. a fucking toll booth operator) have authority complexes there, never mind border officials and escalating levels of various police agencies that will be brought to bear on you if you so much as refuse to comply with a restaurant employee's orders.

Re:Thugs.

[oh2]

Nope. The greatest threat to personal liberty in the US comes from the military-industrial complex you have let fester and the paranoia that seems to be the basic state of many americans. Personal liberty is only encroached upon by government if there is a demand for it from its citizens to give them "security". Just like with the bomber gap and the missile gap you quickly closed the terror gap when the citizens screamed. And hey, "security" has a price.

Morally there is very little difference between terrorists killing people they disagree with using IED:s and rifles and the US using drones to do the same.

Re:Thugs.

[cold fjord]

The greatest threat to personal liberty in the US comes from the military-industrial complex you have let fester

That is actually quite silly. The so-called "Military-Industrial Complex" accounts for less than 5% of GDP, many other sectors of the economy and government spending dwarf it. The military has no role in policing civilian life in the US, and industry has none at all. So, no, the "Military-Industrial Complex" isn't even cose to being a threat to personal liberty today.

and the paranoia that seems to be the basic state of many americans.

As reported in many "serious" and "dependable" sources no doubt. I'll let you in on something - it isn't true.

Morally there is very little difference between terrorists killing people they disagree with using IED:s and rifles and the US using drones to do the same.

Other than various assorted law of war issues, war crimes, and so on by the terrorists, quite right. That doesn't apply to drone use, however.

Re:Thugs.

[sumdumass]

you have the right to free speech, just not to enter the US. I'm not sure why you have an issue with that.

Re:Thugs.

[sumdumass]

good thing that didn't happen here.

Re:Thugs.

[sumdumass]

Wow, you must be drinking the family pack of cool aid. simply amazing how far out thre you misrepresented that.

Re:Thugs.

[CarbonShell]

What some people outside of the US are wondering about the Presidential election is: Are you friggn serious?
Looking at US television and news one must wonder if this is some elaborate joke.
The crap some of these people are spitting is either soooo uber-Colbert that we are not getting or (and this is what we cannot believe) their 'official' heartfelt honest opinion.
Mitt Romney? Are you voting for the biggest bunch of douchbags or your president?

And that is what scares us. Everyone has their share of crazies and we share a laugh and a head-shake when they rant off, but we mostly ignore them or move them to the side.
Not so in the US.

We'd expect something like this from a banana republic or Italy, but the US?

Re:Thugs.

[evil_aaronm]

We'll overlook the "free speech zones" thing from a few years past because, yeah, speech is generally free. However, even as an American, I don't like crossing the border into Canada - always a piece of cake - and then coming back - always a hassle. There's a nice Chinese restaurant in Fort Erie that my family liked and went to frequently, pre 9/11. After that? Not really worth the hassle.

Example: My wife and I came back from Niagara Falls - the Canadian side - one cold night, and were routed to a special screening area along with 8 or 9 other cars. Then, we were told to get out of our cars and stand over to the side while the cars were scanned by a van. I'm guessing it was some sort of ray, but we weren't given any lead shielding or any other sort of protection - not even a little hut in which to stand, because it gets cold right next to the Falls. I asked one of the Customs guys why we, as Americans, were subjected to this kind of search. He said, "Because we can."

"Land of the Free," eh? If I weren't American, I wouldn't bother coming to this country.

Re:Thugs.

[sumdumass]

We don't have to over look the free speech zones. Your right to speech doesn't invalidate my rights in any ways. Speech zones was started by the democrats as a compromise to specifically to deal with that type of issues. You have a right to free speech, not a stage.

As for the border crossing. Yes, I've heard horror stories about them. I've been put aside for similar stuff. It didn't bother me one bit. There was one time when someone was being combative and complained they were a citizen and not a terrorist and he caused the entire process to be held up by about 40 minutes while they made sure of his claims. I used to go to Canada and get Cuban Cigars and bring them back in for personal use. You can't do that any more.

Re:Thugs.

[ranmagirl]

I read your news. I know how you treat even your own people. I don't want to be robbed and/or bullied ("questioned") when I arrive to another country as tourist with my money. I would be afraid of accidentally running into situation, whether my own fault or not, where I would be questioned by your police officers. And much more...
And all the above are related (some more, some less) to post-9/11 era.

PATRIOT act and guantamo bay are just tip of the ice berg of ridiculousness, much like the freedom fries cry but unfortunately this has actually harmed innocent people. I'm not afraid of PATRIOT act that much, I know it's not as easy to actually end in guantamo as the law really enables. Although it is a creepy thought and I already know that if customs got hinted of my sometimes very colorful opinions about US government (and what should be done to it/by it) I would likely have to suffer from long and uncomfortable interrogration before possibly let in (without my laptop that I won't likely get back).

According to even your own media there are a lot of issues, and reasons to protest / boycott your country, that have been created since and because of 9/11.

Guantanamo is a really bad joke by country that spreads democrazy and all things good to others even if they have to spread it with guns and missiles - but it's not a likely threat for average person. Still won't be giving you any less criticism about it - it's one of many things that are just plain wrong in your country.

You should fix these things, not try to hide them behind your opinions of some group(s) (ie. Europeans) supposed views.

Re:Thugs.

[ranmagirl]

Oh my, I forgot part from my post...

I hear this claim about American superior freedom of speech - I don't know what that is about and how is it superior to which European country (ie. my country, Finland), nobody has ever told me but they sure talk about it a lot.
If anything, from your news I've gotten the impression that while protected by constitution freedom of speech is often attacked indirectly by causing wrongful hindrance/harm to someone with "wrong kinda free speech" - seems to me TFA is an example of such case, and on political (and social too?) matters.

That fact that Fox news isn't reflexively anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-conservative, and anti-republican...

*snip*

Oh come on, seriously! You got to educate yourself - Thing is, in USA our biggest left wing party in Finland would probably be labeled in your news as some communist extremist nutjobs - yet they are far from anti-capitalist (except for free market nutjobs - won't comment on the rest) but also support many socialist values.
Most of Europe live happily in mixed systems while your country has only two right wing parties and strong pretence that one of them is communist, anti-capitalist, anti... Don't blame us for that.

Was Fox News the one who got the permission to lie in news? Yes, well, if this is how USA has better freedom of speech then I don't envy you. At all.

I might be wrong as I don't know everything that is happening, but I really don't see USA becoming like "European style system" - whatever it means anyway (I could assume you meant EU and just as well that you said European because you meant something else...).

Re:Thugs.

[epyT-R]

It might be, but that doesn't mean we should change the constitution so that those morons stay ignorant and silent. I suggest that you look hard at your own country. I"m sure you'll find the same problems there. The problem is that your pride probably prevents you from seeing it objectively. I outgrew my pride long ago, if I had it at all. Have you done the same?

Re:Thugs.

[epyT-R]

that's one part of it.. my original statement includes this..

Re:Thugs.

[number11]

What some people outside of the US are wondering about the Presidential election is: Are you friggn serious?...
Everyone has their share of crazies and we share a laugh and a head-shake when they rant off, but we mostly ignore them or move them to the side.
Not so in the US.

We'd expect something like this from a banana republic or Italy, but the US?

It saddens me to say this, but yes, the US too. Our citizens aren't any smarter or or our candidates any more scrupulous than other counties (and we can all think of advanced countries that in the last century made very very bad choices about leaders). For us as well, it's hard to tell what's simply bullshit to get elected, what's negotiable, and what's heartfelt opinion. Yes, it's scary.

It's just not cricket.

[oobayly]

Seriuosly , how much lower can the US go, now questioning politicians from allied countries over their views.

Re:It's just not cricket.

[thePig]

Another factor here is that Imran Khan is one of the few politicians who stands up against extremism. He was previously the captain of their cricket team (and a very capable player and leader - I must say), and was even then known for his secular, non-conformist views and opinions. Of all the people from Pakistan to detain, he should be the last.

Re:It's just not cricket.

[the eric conspiracy]

Nonsense. Imran Khan has taken many extreme positions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam

Re:It's just not cricket.

[Serious Callers Only]

I think his words were twisted there - he said - "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad ". That does not mean he endorses the Taliban's world view, far from it, just that he understands the motivation for fighting a foreign invader, and is playing to a complex home crowd. In fact he's been threatened with assassination by the Taliban in the past, has been strongly critical of them and went to visit the girl recently shot by them (he wouldn't go near that if he wanted to support them, they explicitly told him he was not welcome, but he went anyway). Just because he's not willing to condemn everyone fighting the Americans in Afghanistan does not make him a war monger. Here is the full quote, minus the editorialising from the guardian (who want page views after all):

“In the guise of the Taliban, there are several criminal gangs who didn’t even spare PTI workers by demanding extortion money.” The PTI chief said that “drone attacks are carried out with the consent of the government, and in reaction, Taliban attack civilians.” Citing an ex-employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency, he said that unless the Pakistani government withdraws its support as a coalition partner on the ‘war on terror’ it will be unable to overcome the insurgency in the country. “A military operation can be a small part of a larger solution but a conflict cannot be resolved through military operations alone,”.

If you discredit the moderate voices like Khan's you're left with the extremists like the Taliban, or Musharraf - really the west should be trying to work with moderates like him, not intimidate him into silence or funding dictators like Musharraf and the ISI who have channelled funds to these terrorists everyone is so keen to profess hatred for. It's no coincidence that Bin Laden was hiding in plain site in Pakistan, and more terrorism targeting US troops will be funded by Pakistan (and thus indirectly the US) until the US look for a political solution rather than performing drone assassinations, indiscriminately showering the Pakistani military and security services with money and hoping it will all just go away.

Re:It's just not cricket.

[rgbrenner]

You're twisting things. Yes, he visited the girl who the taliban shot in the head for promoting girls education. Then he walked outside of that same hospital (where she is unconscious in intensive care, btw) and gave that "the taliban are fighting for freedom" speech.

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:It's just not cricket.

[ranmagirl]

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

Thanks, this quote was awesome and brought some light to my day by showing that there are still intelligent and good people among leaderships of world :)
Also, I agreed with you already on your previous post (it pretty much said what I had thought about the link to supposedly "extremist views" just myself), but if I had any doubt about it this certainly must have wiped it all away :)

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*.

Indeed, it's bad behavior and won't do anyone any good. I wonder who choose to pick him for questioning, as it seems apparent that it was done because of the drone opinions - not a randomly chosen check IMHO clearly.

Customs abuse

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Customs abuse

[mrmeval]

When you say the US? Who? Who would direct that? Customs drones don't do anything outside the law unless directed to unless they want to go to jail or be fired.

If this administration does not have control of the levers of government who ordered that?

Re:Customs abuse

[tftp]

If this administration does not have control of the levers of government who ordered that?

It was someone who knew who the guy is and what his political views are. This can't be just discovered while clearing him for travel. This means he has a thick dossier on him; his speeches were translated and analyzed, and someone made a decision to tag him as an "enemy of the people." Where would such a dossier be? At the State Department most likely, or at CIA as a remote second possibility.

Re:Customs abuse

[girlinatrainingbra]

It could just as easily be a low-level person going after the last name, foreign look, or didn't like the way he looked or acted superior... Bow down before our ICE, knaves! But they also do this customs abuse and seziing of laptops and laptop hard-drives to USA citizens as well these days. Maybe they'll set up border patrol stations just in front of the polling booths for election day too.

Re:Customs abuse

[GameboyRMH]

Yep don't forget all the hackers who have been given a hard time, most notably Moxie Marlinspike who had all his devices confiscated. I'm starting to think that if I flew into the US they'd have so many questions to ask, they'd send me to Gitmo for an extended interview.

Re:Customs abuse

[meerling]

Considering the number of American businessmen and American toddlers that they have on their lists basically means the criteria for being on those same lists is incredibly easy and is itself suspect. Just do some googles, you find a number of reports of disrupted travel plans because some moron thinks a 2-6 year old is a suspected terrorist. They keep adding names at an insane rate to those lists, and getting off of it is almost impossible.

These days, having a dossier, being pulled off and questioned, or being on a no-fly list these days means absolutely nothing other than someone has been a stupid asshole and wants to F with you. Let's just say the signal to noise ratio on a questionable system has gone way past any expectation of remaining functionality.

Re:Customs abuse

[budgenator]

If this administration does not have control of the levers of government who ordered that?

Probably the same guy that was in charge of diplomatic security in Benghazi.

Re:Customs abuse

[cold fjord]

The US seems to have a nasty habit of using customs officials to put pressure on people it doesn't like.

Do tell.

Dutch MP refused entry to Britain

Let me guess, you are thinking the US is unique in that?

Re:Customs abuse

[sumdumass]

you mean the guy who convince Obama and company it was all over some unfinished movies with trailers on youtube after he knew it was a terrorist attack in the rose garden speech?

Someone should hunt that guy down and fire him,.

Re:Customs abuse

[mrmeval]

The current administration needs to at least follow up on this. To me it is akin to some empire builder in government running amok. They at least need smacked in the nose though that little punishment would not be satisfying to me if it were done publicly you'd know who they are. If not then congress should weigh in.

Beyond pale

[aepervius]

"USA , freedom of speech as long as you agree with us" if it happened as reported then it should be the new motto of the USA.

Re:Beyond pale

[amiga3D]

I'd say he's free to speak but not necessarily free to come to the US to do it. People disagree with the government here all the time but generally they are citizens with at least that much standing. I see people all the time that harangue against the US government and it's policies with no repercussions. I think if many people who sneer at the free speech of the US were to travel to Iran and start talking about how Mohammed liked to butt fuck little boys they'd find out just what intolerance is. Try to keep a little perspective.

Re:Beyond pale

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd say he's free to speak but not necessarily free to come to the US to do it."

Wut? Political speech is protected in the US and doesn't apply to citizens only.

"I see people all the time that harangue against the US government and it's policies with no repercussions."

And why not? He's not making threats. The government is only a group of people who hold power. They're not royalty. No one is above criticism. Not even religious figures or deities.

You fail to understand the first amendment. A shame you hold American citizenship.

Re:Beyond pale

[WindBourne]

The question becomes where is he doing his free speech and for what cause? If it is one to help his party, that is one thing.

OTOH, if it is to fund taliban and AQ, well, no.

Re:Beyond pale

[tftp]

I think if many people who sneer at the free speech of the US were to travel to Iran and start talking about how Mohammed liked to butt fuck little boys they'd find out just what intolerance is.

Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy - and they never professed otherwise. A crime of blasphemy and the punishment for it are written in their laws, for everyone to see.

The USA claims to be a democracy, and it supports free speech in foreign countries. It works like this:

"Mr. Khan, you should be free to speak your mind in Pakistan and be free of intimidation!" - "And, by the way, Mr. Khan, if you dare to come here you may not speak. We support freedom of speech only where and when it suits us, and we decide what speech should be free and what speech should get you arrested."

It's called "double standards," and the USA is well known for using them at every opportunity.

Re:Beyond pale

[mwvdlee]

They come protest US policy using terrorism; US complains.
They come protest US policy using speech; US complains.
Make up your minds.
Either that or bend to the pressure and change policy.

Re:Beyond pale

[RenHoek]

Yup, take the revolution in Egypt for example..

1) The people in Egypt revolt so they can get a democratic election.. USA: Yay!
2) They choose the Muslim Brotherhood.. USA: Boo!

Granted, it's mainly Fox News that is complaining about this and somehow blaming Obama for this, but still...

Re:Beyond pale

[hey!]

I think "freedom of speech" is misnamed. Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a corresponding "freedom to hear". Both freedom to speak and freedom to hear unpopular speech are necessary for a citizenry to be well-informed and to engage in intelligent debate on maters of public policy.

The government deprives US citizens of the right to hear independent viewpoints when it harasses foreign visitors for disagreeing with US policies.

Re:Beyond pale

[amiga3D]

I don't think it applies to Pakistan.

Re:Beyond pale

[GameboyRMH]

See also: free speech cages, police handing of media around Occupy protests, especially during raids.

Re:Beyond pale

[amiga3D]

So theocracies get a free pass? It's okay for them to kill people who don't agree with them but it's wrong for the US to simply say "we don't want you coming here if it's just to criticize us"? He's free to speak his mind but no, he's not free to come here just to criticize us and that's really all he was doing.

Re:Beyond pale

[amiga3D]

How about if no one listens.

Re:Beyond pale

[meerling]

True, but then again it has always been generally accepted for tens of thousands of years that the rules of any nation only apply within it's borders as well as to it's populace.

Re:Beyond pale

[ThatsMyNick]

What you think doesnt matter.

Re:Beyond pale

[CarbonShell]

@ 1) actually not. The US government did not commit itself to the revolution until it was absolutely clear Mubarek would be totally ousted.
Because you cannot forget that Mubarek was a US ally and if the US had rushed supporting the revolution to early and Mubarek would have won, they relations would have soured.
(remember Saddam, same thing, different dictator)

Re:Beyond pale

[evil_aaronm]

@1) Not uncommon. France hedged a little bit before committing to help the colonists in the Revolutionary War. Europe hedged a bit on getting involved with the South in the Civil War; they ultimately decided not to. "Wait and see" is a common approach.

Diplomatic Issues

[mbone]

I suspect that the DHS has no idea how this will play in Pakistan. It would not surprise me much if people from the State Department are going to have a little talk with the DHS about this early next week (assuming Sandy doesn't get in the way).

For an analogy, imagine Ron Paul was detained a few hours in Lahore over his views on cutting Defense spending...

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[pete6677]

For an analogy, imagine Ron Paul was detained a few hours in Lahore over his views on cutting Defense spending...

Then he would still be over there. Pakistan has a far far worse human rights record than the US, despite UN assertions to the contrary

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[mbone]

Touche.

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

The Morons did the same as if Pakestan Detained Mitt Romney. Except Imran Kahn is known and respected world wide. Err. Mayby not in US.

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[cold fjord]

I suspect that the DHS has no idea how this will play in Pakistan.

That it will make him a sympathetic figure in Pakistan? Imagine, what if there was a clean government reformer that wanted Pakistanis to stop supporting terrorism - even against India and Israel, and he had actual popular support. No, I'm sure there was no chance it was done to enhance his standing in Pakistan - nobody could be that sophisticated. I guess we'll never know. What is his platform, by the way?

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[oobayly]

I like your thinking, however it's been some time since I've seen that level of sophistication from a politician or civil servant.

Re:Diplomatic Issues

[Hognoxious]

Imagine, what if there was a clean government reformer that wanted Pakistanis to stop supporting terrorism - even against India and Israel, and she had actual popular support.

Speaking purely hypothetically, they'd assassinate her during a motorcade.

Dishonest

[Hentes]

If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.

Re:Dishonest

[Zemran]

That would be a great way to shoot themselves in the foot (as usual). He is well known globally as peace activist who doesn't happen to like the way that America is indiscriminately murdering innocent people in his country. I do not think that the US would like it if Russia decided to start bombing the US on a regular basis and kept saying "ooh, yes, we have reason to believe that mother and baby were terrorists". I realise that the average American swallows the BS when they say that they got a bad guy and they forget to mention that they have no way of knowing who they got and that the the city block they took out killed 20 people, but the rest of the world have got their brains turned on.

Re:Dishonest

[mbone]

If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.

I do agree with you that the President and the Secretary of State should set diplomatic policy, not some agent at the counter. However, I don't think they would support this. This person should be our friend. This is not the way to go about achieving that.

Imran Khan (an ex-professional cricket player) is no more Al Qaeda than is Ron Paul. (He is frequently described as Pakistan's Ron Paul.) He has a fairly classic liberal agenda. (Note that classic liberalism is the basis of our system of government.) He is explicitly against the Taliban.

Yes, he is also against drone strikes. That is a widespread sentiment in Pakistan. Heck, I believe that some politicians (even, dare I say, Ron Paul) feel the same way here.

Note also that Al Qaeda is against sports and the Taliban shut down all sports in the territory they controlled, at least up until recently. Knowing that, you might even think that they would threaten to kill a Paikistani politician who played sports and espoused liberal values. You would be correct.

We should probably apologize to the guy, and should certainly welcome him into the country. One does not have to agree with everything a friend says to recognize them as a friend.

Re:Dishonest

[pete6677]

Nobody in Pakistani government is a peace activist. They oppose all military activities targeted at the terrorists their country harbors and supports, but they have no problem with the Taliban operating in their country. Supporting peace and supporting the Taliban at the same time is not logically possible.

Re:Dishonest

[Kupfernigk]

I seem to recall meeting Imran Khan once, at Lords. I've also seen the website of the 'Heartland Institute'. I'll take Imran Khan over a neoFascist website any day.

Re:Dishonest

[Mitreya]

They oppose all military activities targeted at the terrorists

Ok, that is just an asshole (and misleading!) thing to say.
I am quite certain that they actually oppose drone strikes that indiscriminately kill civilians in addition to any terrorists. Just imagine if US started bombing suspected terrorists on US territory, killing civilians in the process. Would you oppose that? Would that make you a terrorist supporter?

... their country harbors and supports but they have no problem with the Taliban operating in their country.

[citation needed]
Do they, really? I thought that they permitted US drone strikes on their territory to help root out the terrorists.

Re:Dishonest

[Zemran]

You obviously know very little about the history of WWII. The Americans helped Germany for most of the war until Germany declared war on America and then the Americans joined the allies at a time when the allies had all but won the war. Do not learn history from Hollywood, it is wrong. Russia was the main part against Germany in WWII with Britain coming second (they were in it for 6 years). America has done far more to end world peace by declaring war and invading countries than anyone else. Do you realise that the most heavilly bombed country in the world is Laos? and you were not even at war with them when you did that. Do you even know why your country tried to destroy most of South East Asia? or why you support the genocide of the Palestinians? Please, stop helping us with world peace while there are still some people left alive.

Re:Dishonest

[cold fjord]

We should probably apologize to the guy, and should certainly welcome him into the country. One does not have to agree with everything a friend says to recognize them as a friend.

He is probably better off the way it is. Given the feelings of many Pakistanis, a warm welcome in the US would be suspicious. He is probably better served being treated as he was, at least politically. Pakistan - land of 10,000 conspiracy theories as a means of avoiding the simple truth.

Re:Dishonest

[oobayly]

I may have misunderstood what you said about "Russia was the main part against Germany in WWII with Britain coming second (they were in it for 6 years)", I suppose those are the nuances of English and commas.

From Wikipedia - Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union:

... signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939 ... It remained in effect until 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

Officially, the Soviet Union was at war with Germany for [less than] 6 months more than the USA.

France & Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd September 1939

As for the US, yes they only officially joined in after Pearl Harbour, and IBM made a fortune selling Hollerith machines to the Reich - very useful for cataloguing who was Jewish, handicapped or just undesirable. However the US did unofficially provide a great deal of aid and materiel to Britain pre December 1941.

Agree with the rest of your comment though.

Re:Dishonest

[sumdumass]

Do they, really? I thought that they permitted US drone strikes on their territory to help root out the terrorists.

It sure looks like they harbor terrorists. Bin laden had a pretty cozy compound set up with full protection and everything. Interestingly, not only where they pissed off at us taking Bin Laden out, after some people in the US bragged about all the details of the operation, Pakistan ended up imprisoning the guy who gave him up.

It's easy to say one thing to get money and aid. It's another to watch what happens.

Re:Dishonest

[DNS-and-BIND]

A sad day when someone gets modded to +5 for saying America was on the German side. Yeah, Roosevelt's illegal aid to Britain was just a cover-up for his real motives. Genocide of the Palestinians...funny you should mention that. Here's the view of Palestinians during WWII:

"In the struggle against Jewry, Islam and National Socialism come very close to one another"
-- Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948

Re:Dishonest

[redlemming]

Thank you for providing some intelligent information to contradict that earlier absurd claim. Some slashdot moderators seem to be more interested in making anti-USA attacks than in objectivity.

The Soviet Union was indeed responsible for most of the land warfare that defeated Germany

True, in the sense of putting people on the battlefield. However, the USA provided enormous quantities of supplies to the Soviet Union, with substantial assistance from the British (particularly the navy and merchant marine) and with help from the other Allies as well.

During the Soviet era, it was customary to deny this, because it reflected poorly on the Communist system. However, since the Cold War ended, Russian authors have been much more willing to acknowledge this. For discussions on this in English, and references to the Russian sources, a good starting point is the books by Weeks or Van Tuyll.

The supplies provided included staggering quantities of food, and cold weather gear, allowing the Soviets (who had a serious manpower shortage after the disastrous early defeats) not just to feed and clothe their troops, but also to move former farmers and tailors into the battle lines. The supplies also included chemicals and equipment needed to turn raw gasoline into high quality aviation fuel (affecting perhaps 70% of the aviation fuel produced in Russia during the war), over 100,000 machine tools to help the Russian factories to produce weapons and munitions, plus roughly 90% of the ball bearings needed during the war for things like tanks, planes, artillery, machinery of all kinds, and so forth (basically anything with rotating parts). Also, over 645,000 vehicles were shipped to the Soviets, crucial for moving ammunition and food from the rail heads to the troops. Did I forget to mention huge amounts of rail equipment was also shipped to make up for deficiencies in Russia's rail network?

According to Viktor Suvorov's post-Cold War book on Stalin, the Soviets lost large numbers of factories (and their equipment) during the German advance (contrary to what is often presented in older histories), so the role of the industrial parts may have been far more important then ever previously suspected.

It's hard for an army to fight a modern war without weapons, ammunition, tanks, and planes. Even if you have these things available somewhere in your country, it has been known since the end of the 19th Century (see van Creveld's book on logistics) that substantial amounts of both rail and non-rail transport is needed to keep the troops at the front supplied, given the voracious rate at which supplies are consumed during modern warfare.

Another key consideration: over 1 million Germans were involved in the air defense of the Reich against the combined British and American air attack (with other nations participating as well). This effort shattered the Luftwaffe, one of the most potent weapons the Germans had in the wide open spaces of the Eastern front. It also diverted a substantial part of Germany's resources and production capability to the production of aircraft, ammunition, and anti-aircraft weapons (particularly high-altitude anti-aircraft weapons, which, incidentally, just happened to make great anti-tank weapons that were thus not available for use on the Eastern front), not to mention all the aviation fuel expended.

Without all this aid, in all likelihood the Soviet effort would have catastrophically collapsed, in spite of their often excellent equipment and some very capable military leaders, and this conclusion is valid even taking into account the frequent Nazi blundering and stupidity.

It is worth remembering that more US military personnel died during the air assault on Germany than in any other part of the war (as well as many British personnel). Large numbers of US and British civilian sailors also died during the effort to get these supplies to Russia. The Soviets lost more people, but quite a few non-Russians died during the effort to keep a homeland not their own alive, and those of us that enjoy not living in a Nazi world should appreciate that.

World War 2 was a team effort.

Re:Dishonest

[Zemran]

It is not anti-USA, it is anti revisionist propaganda. Few people have anything against American people but far too many, like you, believe your own propaganda. Most people in Europe find it strange how Americans seek to take credit for something when they played both sides and although coming along at the end to help, try to take credit. That is those Europeans whose forebears were the ones that actually played the main part and doing most of the dying. Revisionists like yourself actually believe that America provided help in the same way that Britain did... How can you be so dumb? Britain provided true help, America only provided a service to those that could pay. And they continued to provide that service to Germany even after Germany had declared war on America.

Re:Dishonest

[redlemming]

Perhaps you would benefit from reading the references.

Ultimately, the "revisions" that are happening in our knowledge of WW2 are primarily coming from Russian authors, who are now free to research these issues with direct access to the archives in Russia. For example, you might wish to look up M.N. Suprin, Boris Sokolov, and Viktor Suvorov.

You might also want to look up the "Ushakov medal" for bravery, awarded by the Russian government in recent years as thanks to those that participated in the extremely dangerous convoys that carried supplies to Russia.

Some Americans are doubtless dumb enough to claim WW2 was all about them, but -- if you'll recall -- nothing like that was said or even implied in the post that you are responding to. There are dumb people in every country. I mentioned that WW2 was a team effort, and gave credit to people from many other nations.

The role of Britain in WW2 was very important and substantial, but here, as with Russia, US industrial aid was important even early in the war due to limitations in the British industrial system. The British had the engineering skills to design superb advanced technology (such as the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters, and especially the excellent Merlin engine), but not the industrial capability to produce the parts needed to build these in sufficient quantities to make up for losses. See, for example, British military historian Corelli Barnett's classic book "The Audit of War" for some of the reasons why this was so and for specific details on this issue.

It is worth noting that Britain provided many forms of aid to the USA, partly in terms of knowledge and experience, but also in the form of advanced technology, so the transfer of aid was not by any means one-sided.

US direct military participation was also important to Britain. This is true not just for the air force commitment, as mentioned in the previous post, but also the presence of large numbers of ground troops, due to the heavy casualties the British took early in the war.

Suvorov's work suggests that many of the heavy casualties Russia took in the early part of the war were due to a mistake made by Stalin and his adviser's. Casualties alone do not determine who plays the "main part" in war. I'll let you read up on the details.

As far as pay goes, Albert Week's book estimates the dollar value of the total Lend-Lease aid to be $42-50 Billion, of which the Soviet share was roughly 1/3. Of this, it seems likely that $300 Million will be repaid and the rest forgiven.

You also have a very Europe-centric view (perhaps even bias) towards the war. If you look at the numbers of troops, ships, and equipment committed to the Pacific theater by Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Canada, the USA, and others, you'll realize it doesn't make sense to say the Europeans were playing the main part in the war. Say instead that winning the war was a team effort by the peoples of many nations.

It is important and valuable to look at the lessons history teaches, but you haven't done the research to be able to do that with authority here.

The US role in WW2 does not in any way justify current day incompetence by some US government officials in some circumstances, but spreading misinformation is not going to help solve that kind of problem.

Allied? LOL.

[HornWumpus]

Pakistan says it's our ally because otherwise we would take/destroy their nukes.

We're going to take them anyhow, just not today. We already 'helped' them secure the warheads.

Don't pretend for a second that anybody believes the fiction. The Saudis, Pakis, Egyptians etc are not our allies. We're just keeping them 'closer then our friends'.

Re:Allied? LOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they say that they're our ally because of the huge amounts of money that we send to them. All of their mid- and high-ranking military officers are living high on the hog because of us (and stashing huge amounts of money outside of their country, in preparation for the coming deluge), and don't want to lose that lifestyle. Without our money they would either bend to the will of the Pakistani people or leave the country. But otherwise, point well taken.

Re:Allied? LOL.

[Grishnakh]

I thought it was Paks. Oh wait, that's a sci-fi book...

Re:Allied? LOL.

[HiThere]

I'm not particularly pro-Israel, but I don't like ANY missionary or crusading religion. And currently that means Islam. (I'll certainly grant that in the quite recent past it meant Christianity even more, but it doesn't seem to currently. OTOH, if a major country become dominated by the Fundies, which the US seems to threaten, then Christianity would be worse than Islam.)

Re:Allied? LOL.

[HornWumpus]

Who promoted multiculturalism?

Some cultures just swallow others, see: history of China, see also: history of America. How far to the nearest 'Kentucky Fried Rat' euro posters? (a Yum Foods franchise IIRC owned by the Japs.)

The 18 inch satellite dish will end the fundy islamic threat. We just need to get their grandkids watching MTV-middle east, they will dress and act in ways that would make the gayest emo kid blush. Of course that's the long game, short game is 'blow their asses up', burn through their oil, leave ours in the ground.

Re:Allied? LOL.

[houghi]

The Saudis, Pakis, Egyptians etc are not our allies.

Either you have no idea what allies are and that it can be temporally or nobody is your ally, because all they do is think of their own interest.

Re:Allied? LOL.

[Xest]

"And currently that means Islam. (I'll certainly grant that in the quite recent past it meant Christianity even more, but it doesn't seem to currently."

Really? What's been the primary religion of nations who have actually launched attacks abroad in the past? Nearly all muslim attacks have been against other muslims so I've no idea what they'd be crusading against - themselves? In contrast, in recent years, most attacks by Christians (whether terrorist actions, or military) have been against muslims and Islam.

"OTOH, if a major country become dominated by the Fundies, which the US seems to threaten, then Christianity would be worse than Islam.)"

What do you think Bush and his neocon friends were all about? Why do you think their allies like Tony Blair openly stated he looked to god before making the decision to invade Iraq etc.?

Re:Allied? LOL.

[HiThere]

I don't think that religion had much to do with that. If I did, I'd agree with you. (Do you really believe what politicians say?)

In my book anyone who asks god what to do and believe an answer that they receive is crazy. I don't think either Blair or Bush was crazy. Deceitful, manipulative, sociopathic, yes, but not crazy...or at least not in the "God told me" kind of way...except as a part of being deceitful and manipulative.

Re:Allied? LOL.

[ranmagirl]

So they are really just like you? :) How nice...

Re:Swing and a miss!

[Threni]

People get paid for clicking `yeah, that'll do - bung it on the front page`? Why?

Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[kawabago]

One can only conclude that the US government sees Freedom of Speech as a uniquely American right. Which is just plain wrong.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[JaredOfEuropa]

From past stories it seems that US customs have no qualms about harassing "unpatriotic" US citizens either. But it's true: customs (and not just the US one) have the power to harass and detain, and you pretty much have zero legal recourse if for example you miss your flight. Even regular police are more accountable for their actions (as they should be).

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[pete6677]

In which country do you have more free speech rights than the US? ALL customs operations all over the world work exactly the same: you have no rights at the border.

While some agents appear more polite than others, they can ALL detain someone for any or no reason without any real recourse.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[zig007]

In which country do you have more free speech rights than the US? ALL customs operations all over the world work exactly the same: you have no rights at the border.

Huh?? WTF?! As a non-US citizen I take offence to that!

1. What free-speech rights would that would be that are lacking in basically all western countries? I am Swedish, and I can write/say whatever the fuck I want as long it is not libel/slander. And yeah, we can say *fuck* on TV too without being bleeped too. You have ridiculous levels of censorship and then you walk around saying stuff like this. I am not saying we are perfect. But we are certainly not worse than the US.
Free speech is also not some US invention(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) as it sometimes sounds as it is:
"England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted 'freedom of speech in Parliament' and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right." Yeah, eat that. The french!
And BTW, democracy is a greek invention from about 500 BC or whatever. And yeah, we've got that too. Only difference is we don't allow corporations a huge influence on inventions. For example, if IKEA would have been able to form superpacs we would all be dead.

2. No. Not ALL customs operations work like that. Would our customs treat a foreign public figure like that there would be a national outcry, and the opinion would be that behaviour like this would be beneath us. One thing is to ask about terrorist activities if they are actually suspected, but to ask about views on the countries' policies is low stuff. And also quite pointless. What is being described is stuff you'll normally only have to tolerate when entering obscure military dictatorships. And I would expect this to be uncommon even there.
To be able to detain and to actually detain is not the same thing.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[drinkypoo]

Legally the right to free speech is extended to all people. Practically, the federal government has never been shy about bending or even breaking inconvenient laws in its quest to serve its corporate masters.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[mbone]

I have been through Her Majesties Customs many times, and I would recommend visitors watch their speech at Customs when passing into the UK, just as for any Customs. They have a lot of power over you, and I have seen them react badly to misinterpreted humor, or just people saying the wrong thing. (The worst for me was at 1:30 AM at Gatwick. Let's just say I did not appreciate having my whole party grilled for an hour+ at that hour of the night because of something one of us said.) That is completely different from free speech in general; the arrival hall at Gatwick or Heathrow is just not the same as Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[Xest]

How does that impact his right to free speech? Nothing the UK did prevents him saying whatever he wants. I don't think there's any country in the world that foregoes their right to deny entry to people they don't want in their country. Blocking entry does not block free speech though.

Besides, you might want to read about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303

Yes, a 17 year old is banned for life from entering the US because he sent a drunken e-mail to Barack Obama.

It cuts both ways.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[Hognoxious]

and in UK they have a law against insult

[citation needed], you fat fucking cunt.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[ranmagirl]

Thank you, saved me some work saying pretty much exactly what I wanted, except my country being Finland.

I probably wouldn't have written that myself though, I'm so tired with the arrogant yank attitude where their freedom is better than anyone else and where they are criticized the others surely must be doing the same if not worse... With no basis on reality of course.

I take offence too, but often they have managed to tire me so I just ignore them silently :/

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans

[zig007]

That'd be "elections", not "inventions", of course. :-)

Re:Swing and a miss!

[Serious Callers Only]

Worse than that, this bit of the title was the only change made to the submission! oh well. Hopefully an editor will fix it at some point.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[shutdown -p now]

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"?

Recording?

[WindBourne]

I hope that this was recorded. If this is true, then things really need to change in INS.

Re:Recording?

[Mitreya]

I hope that this was recorded. If this is true, then things really need to change in INS.

Oh, yeah, I am sure of it.
Just like in this story. ("At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.")

When necessary, seven police dashboard cameras can malfunction in perfect synchrony by accident. So I am sure that the single camera that recorded an inconvenient incident at the border will be perfectly functional.

Re:Recording?

[CarbonShell]

Yep, was recoreded. But the tapes were 'lost' somehow. Well 'lost' until they would be useful to the Government and then they are 'found' again.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[WindBourne]

Actually, I can understand why he wants the drones to stop. I really can.

The problem is that the pakistanis need to clean house and solve the taliban/AQ issue that they created. If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.

don't forget this

[andy1307]

He's also justified the taliban's actions as jihad.

Afghan politicians have reacted with disbelief, with one parliamentarian suggesting Khan should be arrested. The Ulema Council, a grouping of senior clerics, declared his comments "unislamic". A Kabul foreign ministry spokesman said Khan was "either profoundly and dangerously ignorant about the reality in Afghanistan, or he has ill will against the Afghan people. "Our children are killed on daily basis, civilians killed and our schools, hospitals and infrastructure attacked on a daily basis. To call any of that jihad is profoundly wrong and misguided."

So he's not on their radar just for his opposition to the drones...

Re:don't forget this

[mbone]

Maybe not, but it is a struggle against foreign occupation, which is what he said. Read the whole article.

Also, his political party has a web site, where you will find this

Secondly, on the question of Taliban: again, a section of the media has distorted Imran Khan’s message. A letter does not provide the space to elaborate in totality his point of view but simply put, he does not subscribe to the militant ideology of any of the radical organisations. His point of view is that, instead of carrying out a virtual genocide in the tribal areas through a military campaign, a peace process be initiated in which the local tribes take the responsibility of maintaining peace and isolating those, who when isolated would be nothing more than criminals. Once they have been marginalised they can be dealt with.

People like Mr Ijaz are a rare variety of liberals found only in Pakistan who actually want military operations, bombings, strafing and killings on a large-scale. Imran does not believe this solves anything. Indeed, he feels it adds to militancy because of the inevitable collateral damage. He is a national leader who believes in bringing all the people together, whatever their ethnicity or ideology. This is the core reason why people like the writer himself are so anguished by his rise.

Look, I don't agree with everything I see there, or have heard about Mr. Khan, but he sure seems like someone we should be talking to, not shutting out.

Re:don't forget this

[rgbrenner]

He said that (his pro-jihad speech) outside of the hospital of a 14 year old girl who the taliban shot in the head for promoting girls education.

Re:don't forget this

[CarbonShell]

1. Learn what jihad means -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
2. try to understand what he actually said

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[JaredOfEuropa]

I doubt very much that marrying a jew will win a lot of favours with voters in predominantly muslim Pakistan.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[andy1307]

Don't you think that's it's kinda sad when a centrist liberal political party,

Imran Khan's party can't be described as centrist, liberal or secular by ANY stretch of the imagination. He's frequently justified the actions of the taliban as jihad i.e. justified under islamic law.

Re:Why is he allowed to fly outside Pakistan?

[Tastecicles]

I'm sure he would say the same about you - let's lock up all ACs who say anything against our Gloriously Free nation of Pakistan! Why are you even allowed to fly out of the US? You're on a PK no-fly list!

EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE

[Serious Callers Only]

EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE. This should be:Imran Khan detained by US customs over opposition to drone strikes as in the original submission, or if you prefer Pakistani politician..., but not Pakastani...

Re:EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE

[Fnord666]

EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE. This should be:Imran Khan detained by US customs over opposition to drone strikes as in the original submission, or if you prefer Pakistani politician..., but not Pakastani...

Sorry, they're too busy designing the stupid /. logo for tomorrow. Hell, I'm surprised Google hasn't sued them for patent infringement on this yet.

Re:EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE

[Gen_Music]

Reported, Reason: Needs to be done.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[mbone]

If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.

Actually, he does. He is against both the Taliban and the ISI (which is the group, remember, that convinced the Reagan administration to train Osama Bin Ladin).

I am not by any means saying that he is perfect, but as far as I can tell, he is saying more of the right things than any other major Pakistani politician.

unbalanced

[spongman]

i wonder how the US would react if Pakistan started arresting random visiting politicians & diplomats on the grounds that, well, you know...

Re:unbalanced

[sumdumass]

First, this guy wasn't arrested. He was detained for a process that is normal at border crossings. I'm sure it happens in Pakistan just like a lot of other places too.

Second, this politician or government official was not on government business. He was going to a political fundraiser in another country. That country, just like any other has a right to ensure the people entering its borders are not a threat to it.

Re:unbalanced

[spongman]

An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime and presenting (the arrestee) to a procedure as part of the criminal justice system

Re:unbalanced

[sumdumass]

He wasn't arrested. He wasn't detained as part of a procedure of the criminal justice system nor the investigation or prevention of a crime, he was detained as part of a clearance issue to determine eligibility to enter the country.

His detainment is normal and ordinary for lots of foreign nationals attempting to enter the US. In some cases, they are completely denied entry and told to go elsewhere.

USA...

[mwvdlee]

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

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[maxwell demon]

politician, loudmouth, and a jock and uses his wife's race as a selling point for more votes

His wife's race?

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[Dekker3D]

War is good for profit. Promoting peace is terrorism, obviously.

([/sarcasm] tag included for those who need it, and probably for those few people happily monitoring my connection by now :D)

The Economist on Imran Khan

[PolygamousRanchKid]

http://www.economist.com/node/21564596

ON OCTOBER 9th Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, a grouping of Islamist militants also known as the Pakistani Taliban, shot a 14-year-old girl, Malala Yousafzai, in the head. Claiming responsibility for the attack, the Pakistani Taliban said that it had targeted her because she promoted a Westernised and secular vision.

As it happened, the shooting came on the heels of a two-day “peace march” against American drone aircraft targeting suspected Islamist militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas close to the border with Afghanistan. At the head of a cavalcade that moved slowly from the capital, Islamabad, to the edge of the tribal areas was Imran Khan, star cricketer turned politician. Mr Khan demanded the end of missile strikes by American drones and an end to Pakistan’s own military operations against its home-grown Taliban. Instead, Mr Khan advocates unconditional peace talks with the militants.

Mr Khan is firmly against violent extremism, and the attack on Malala sickened him as much as anyone. He called her “a courageous daughter of Pakistan”. But, asked on television to condemn the Pakistani Taliban, he answered: “Who will save my party workers if I sit here and give big statements against the Taliban?”

Mr Khan’s position is that Taliban violence is a reaction to American drones and to the American presence in Afghanistan. That hardly explains why the Pakistani Taliban targeted a schoolgirl, and warned that they would go after her again if she survived. Nor does anything suggest that the Pakistani Taliban are interested in dialogue with Imran Khan or the current government. Indeed, their clearly stated agenda is to take over Pakistan and impose a medievalist Islam on the country, sharing an ideology with al-Qaeda that sees most fellow Muslims as apostates, justifying their killing.

Mr Khan has made drones and peace talks a central plank of his politics. He insists that drones largely kill innocent civilians. Given that the drone strikes take place in tribal badlands that are a no-go area for outsiders, it is impossible to know the true level of civilian casualties. According to a tally by the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, based on press reports from Pakistan, the drones have killed nearly 3,200 people since 2004, with a non-militant casualty rate of some 15%. American military men claim the rate is much lower. Militants killed by drones include the former Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, and the “butcher of Swat”, Ibn Amin. Nearly all of al-Qaeda’s top commanders have also been killed. By comparison with innocent casualties from drones, the Pakistani Taliban and their allies have killed 14,427 civilians and 4,670 soldiers and police in Pakistan since 2003, according to figures kept by the South Asia Terrorism Portal.

Since late last year Mr Khan has enjoyed a surge in his popularity as a politician, propelling him to the lead position in a poll six months ago by the International Republican Institute, an American pollster. Mr Khan’s promise of change and of a new politics, much needed, that is free from corruption went down well. But now the same institute puts his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, in second place, with 24% support, four points behind Mr Sharif’s outfit.

This year the surge in support for Mr Khan led well-known politicians from mainstream parties to join him. Now people are starting to question whether change can come through these establishment recruits. With an election due at some point in the next few months, Mr Khan’s predictions of a landslide victory are starting to look less convincing.

Re:The Economist on Imran Khan

[girlinatrainingbra]

Thanks for the link to the economist article. That is truly enlightening. The economist seems to be a good source for info, particularly tech info.

Intimidation

[girlinatrainingbra]

Yeah, it seems more like an attempt to intimidate and perhaps influence the upcoming elections in other countries. It's not like the guy hides his political ideas.

It is not difficult it is impossible

[aepervius]

As a foreigner if you get into custom for special interrogation, they forbid you to take your mobile phone, forbid you all communication. I have been there. Bottom line is that you have no recourse whatsoever, and contacting a lawyer is out of question.

Drone Strikes Are Necessary

[Revotron]

The plight of the drone community will not improve until we recognize their fundamental rights to organize and strike in the face of increasing adversity. We must come together and demand higher drone wages and safer working conditions!

Re:Drone Strikes Are Necessary

[Hognoxious]

And if they could write. And yes, I know what their name means, so fuck off.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[vigour]

Can you give some examples? Because that's totally not what the Wikipedia article on his party makes it sound like.

This:
Imran Khan says Taliban's 'holy war' in Afghanistan is justified by Islamic law

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[Anonymous Coward]

Not married to her anymore.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[rgbrenner]

Two weeks ago a 14 year old girl was shot in the head while sitting on a school bus waiting to go home. She spoke out for girls education, and opposed the Taliban's burning of girls schools, etc. The Taliban said " the teenager's work had been an "obscenity" that needed to be stopped: This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter."

Khan visited the girl in the hospital, where she is unconscious in intensive care, and said:

Citing a verse from the Qur'an, he said: "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad
"The people who are fighting in Afghanistan against the foreign occupation are fighting a jihad,
 

This is the guy you say is promoting human rights? Promoting rights for women? Do you know WTF you're talking about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/pakistan-girl-shot-activism-swat-taliban?intcmp=239

What is wrong with opposing military conquest?

[bigsexyjoe]

If foreigners invaded your country would you favor bowing down to them and allowing their conquest without a fight?

When foreigners invade your country, you have every right to kill them. You have to be hopelessly propagandized to fail to recognize this.

Re:What is wrong with opposing military conquest?

[Pecisk]

*Your* country? Or a country you thought you can terrorize and isolate from the rest of the world? If it was your country, then people wouldn't wait for foreign army with open arms.

You claim a country when you run it properly, when people of it supports you. If support is relative, then you are just one of the forces who fights for power. And in a case you have harbored terrorist who have brought war to Americans at home - well, though luck. Karma sure is a bitch - for them and for you.

And in what case blowing up market places with no Americans around become part of "opposing military conquest"?

Re:What is wrong with opposing military conquest?

[cold fjord]

The Taliban are not opposing conquest of their country as it was never their country to rule, in total, to begin with. The democratic elections have further rejected them. The Taliban reject the outcome of the elections and continue to fight, trying to conquer Afghanistan so that they can rule it and implement their fascists plans. Ultimately that goes for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You have to be hopelessly propagandized to fail to recognize this.

Re:What is wrong with opposing military conquest?

[CarbonShell]

Wrong! (people read up on history)
The US recognised the Taliban as the ruing power of Afghanistan and actually helped them in gaining it after the Mujaheddin/Soviet war.
They even had 'positive' diplomatic relations and the former First Lady inviting representatives from the Taliban to the US.
When questioned about what the Taliban do in Afghanistan, she simply said 'it is their way of life'.

Oh, how hollow are your words when you now oppose that what you once supported.

Re:What is wrong with opposing military conquest?

[Hognoxious]

If foreigners invaded your country would you favor bowing down to them and allowing their conquest without a fight?

That rather depends on how "my" government compares to the invaders. The sensible thing to do might be to join them.

When foreigners invade your country, you have every right to kill them.

Only if you carry your weapons openly, wear a distinctive uniform and obey the rules of war. On the other hand, franc-tireurs have no rights at all and can be summarily executed, and rightly so.

Shameful

[bigsexyjoe]

There are no words that condemn drone strikes strongly enough. It is ultimate evil, weak, and cowardly thing to do. The US kills non-combatants in drone strikes. It's justification is that any adult male is a combatant unless proven otherwise. Anyone who fails to oppose drone strikes is a terrorist.

And it goes without saying, that America stands for nothing if they try to keep people out on the basis of their political speech.

Re:Shameful

[sumdumass]

You are working from a false premise. The US doesn't try to keep anyone out. Its a sovereign nation and can just stop them or anyone (even US citizens) from lawfully entering its borders. The guy is allowed in the US, he just got questioned first which seems more like political maneuvering to separate connections between him and the US so there is no doubt in his upcoming race. I think some drone put his name on a computer list and a supervisor thought beating their high score on solitaire was more important then clearing the list until he tried to enter the country.

Maybe not about drones at all

[__aaltlg1547]

Maybe they were questioning him about this, where he's quoted as saying that Afghanistan's Taliban and other insurgents are justified by Islamic law: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam

Re:Wow, some nerve this guy has

[MichaelSmith]

Imran Khan is known outside the US as an international cricket legend. This is is second career on the world stage. He would not have been treated like this in most other countries.

Leave him alone.

[oob]

American insularity is an issue here.

As some of the above posters have noted, Imran Khan was a cricketer. A very good one.

Good enough to be a household name around the cricket-playing world. Australia, the U.K., South Africa, New Zealand, the West Indies, most of the sub-continent. Around two billion people I'd guess.

While to the American public he's just another 'sand nigger' or 'towel head' or whatever other pejorative is in vogue, to much of the rest of the English-speaking world he is a well-known and widely-respected personality.

We know this guy. He's more one of us than you lot are.

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.

Pakistani Politics 101

[awilden]

Imran Khan is a superstar politician that has no cultural equivalent in the United States. He's also somebody who has strong ties to the West, including going to Oxford University, having married a Brit and having been Chancellor of a British university. So this is not a dodgy politician who is rising to power in the hopes of enforcing Sharia law on the world. This guy is exactly the kind of person who could be and should be a strong ally for the West in Pakistan. On the other hand, if you wanted to find a way to alienate Pakistani moderates and those with ties to the West, this would be somebody to try and humiliate.

Re:Pakistani Politics 101

[Hognoxious]

He was a piss-artist and a shagger till he got too old for it, and now he's become a puritan. Fucking hypocritical cunt.

But then so was Thomas Aquinas.

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[David Gerard]

Yes. It is important to this story that Imran Khan is still hugely famous in the Commonwealth, i.e. the cricket-playing countries.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[Livius]

Sad but unquestionably reality.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the pakistanis need to clean house and solve the taliban/AQ issue that they created. If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.

Pakistan should clean up - and US should continue to bomb Pakistan on regular basis until terrorists are removed by Pakistani themselves?
The civilian casualties may even inspire them to work faster
Is that your position here?

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[mr100percent]

It's halal, so he can do it. Pakistanis don't have a problem with Jews, they have a bigger problem with Israelis.

Favourite Imran Story

[Dantoo]

Not long after Imran was voted as one of the world's most handsome, or sexiest, men (I can't remember exactly) he was playing in Australia and felled by a low blow. He slowly buckled over and tried to relieve some of the pain in his groin and ended on his knees, face on the pitch.

Richie Benaud : That shouldn't happen to a Prince. There will be tears in the eyes of young girls all over the world tonight.
Rod Marsh: Well I should think there's a few tears in Imran's eyes too Richie!

It's not cricket!

[TapeCutter]

Yes, it will make the US look bad because this wouldn't have happened to Imran in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. The guy is a legendary cricket player, there are few people in these nations who have not heard of him, most of us already know about his charitable work and his peaceful political ambitions. He wants his people to stop dying, shooting a young girl in the face because here farther advocates education for girls, or bombing her from above because her father wants to shoot school girls, sure the motives are different but it's the same outcome from where he stands.

For our US friends, the term "it's not cricket" means it's unfair.

Re:It's not cricket!

[Rogerborg]

Please use terms we can all understand: Limey Rounders.

The guy's just another slipper pole climber, trotting out the exact same "I'm not like all the other guys" line that all the other guys use. He should be treated with contempt, because he's contemptible.

They just handed him the Prime Minister post

[Kyusaku Natsume]

It's hard to believe that they managed to screw up this way. A significant percentage of americans believe that most problems in the world can be fixed by dropping bombs and/or murdering leftists. Sadly, that is not true, but this stupid method has created a easy way in many places in the world to become a popular politician, regardless of the overall quality of these guys. While the current Prime Minister of Pakistan can only appear to his people that he is powerless at best, kissing Obama's ass at worst, they gave to Khan a much needed helping hand after his blunders in regards to Afghanistan and his almost lukewarm condemnation of the attack against Malala Yousafzai. If Khan ever becomes Prime Minister he does have a very easy way to stop drone attacks: stopping all the traffic of supplies trough Pakistan to Afghanistan, even to deny access to pakistani airspace to NATO's supply airplanes. Without fuel or spare parts these drones cannot fly.

Re:They just handed him the Prime Minister post

[Fnord666]

t's hard to believe that they managed to screw up this way.

Is it really? I find it just the opposite. I find it completely believable that US Customs would behave exactly in this manner and would screw up in exactly this way.

No country exists named Pakastan.

[girlinatrainingbra]

There is no Pakastan. There is, however, a country named Pakistan. I think the CIA World Factbook might be a reliable source for the spelling of (and existence of) Pakistan. Perhaps that is what the editors intended. Certainly, the tags should never have to correct spelling mistakes created by the editors. This is even worse than a dupe or slashvertisement. This is a sad indicator of how low /. has fallen with these new editors. Fix it, already!

Re:Disgusting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

Think about entertainment, compare it to the gladiators of Roman times, you know, the old, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it... Of course, this is getting a little over the top, we stop short of killing people on TV but we definitely watch them live doing some insane stupid shit. We keep the masses entertained so they can ignore their problems.

Right, and whose fault is that? It's the peoples' fault for being dumb enough to be placated by bread and circuses and continuing to vote for the same people. You're all adults (speaking to voters here), this state of affairs is your fault and your responsibility. Stop trying to pass blame on to supposed puppet-masters. If you're being played like a puppet, it's your own stupid fault.

As for learning from history, you're exactly right. Remind me how the Roman people ultimately dealt with the problems their government had.

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman

[guttentag]

He was married to a Jew - Jemima Goldsmith.

Emphasis on was. Because most divorced men have nothing but love for their ex-wives. And her three-year relationship with Hugh Grant immediately following the divorce probably didn't help. I don't have any reason to think he hates Jews or Brits because of her, but obviously he made a choice between her and Pakistan. His words:

My political life made it difficult for her to adapt to life in Pakistan. This was a mutual decision and is clearly very sad for both of us. My home and my future is in Pakistan.

Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't put "he divorced his Jewish wife after determining it was Pakistan or her" on his character resume. He is a politician, and politicians make their life choices for political reasons.

Disgusting ignorance

[Arker]

Congratulations on the +5 insightful for a frightfully ignorant comment.

In fact, in Islam just like in Christianity and Judaism, fundamentalism refers to a few specific modern schools of thought. In Islam this refers primarily to Salafism, in Christianity to Dispensationalism, and in Judaism to Charedism.

In each case the fundamentalists are a relatively small proportion of the total number. It's quite true that salafists (when confident of their strength) will denounce normal muslims and attack them - they are particularly narrow-minded and hate all sects but their own. They are still a small minority within the religion, however. There are approximately 1.57 Billion muslims in this world, with extremely generous estimates of the proportion holding salafist jihadi ideals at less than 1% of that total. Even within that group only a minority justifies and approves of terrorist attacks.

They certainly punch above their belt in terms of creating headlines, just as their christian and jewish counterparts do, but in no sense are they anywhere near 'normal' muslims. There are dozens of sects that outnumber them. The largest single sect is usually reckoned as the Sufis who are typical all the way from Morrocco through Turkey and east into China and pretty well diametrically opposed to Salafism in every way.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[shutdown -p now]

Thank you. This certainly changes a perspective on things. Regardless of his other politics, I certainly can see why US doesn't want the guy on his soil.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[cold fjord]

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"?

I think it is kind of sad that you would try to represent that as a reason why he would be determined to be "opposing the interests of the US government."

Opposition To Drone Strikes

[dgharmon]

"Imran Khan is .. a vehement critic of US drone attacks on his country, vowing to order them shot down if he is Prime Minister", link

Will he also be shutting down the al-Qaeda and Taliban secure bases that are allowed to freely operate in northern Pakistan, under the protection of the military and security services (ISI), the same people that provided accomodation to Bin Laden?

re FDA

[harvey the nerd]

Also some cheap treatments that could save your life and health, much less wealth, may not be available in the US. I've run into 25+ years late for first class stuff.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[vigour]

Sadly he seems to be more of an opportunist than idealist. He preaches secularism to the Pakistani middle class and pro-Taliban views to the mullahs, and it is the same with many other policy areas. He used to be famous in the 80s as a playboy, now he presents himself as a sober Muslim, similar to how you will find no reference to Jinnah, the first Governor-General's, drinking of alcohol as it is un-Islamic.

Northern barbarians

[Hognoxious]

What did the Romans do to fix the corrupt system of government they had, with crazy emperors and an overgrown military?

They split into two. One half lost a war to the Germans, and eventually replaced the crazy emperor with several crazy emperors and insane popes. The other lost a war, very slowly, with what over time evolved into the Islamic caliphate.

Perhaps I'm bad at seeing abstract patterns, but I'm having trouble translating that into a viable plan for the US in the 21st century.

Re:Northern barbarians

[Grishnakh]

but I'm having trouble translating that into a viable plan for the US in the 21st century.

I think you're missing my point. The Roman Empire divided into two, and the western half ended up mostly collapsing, and later turning into the Holy Roman Empire, which really wasn't much of an empire at all (the power wasn't very concentrated, and instead Europe lived under Feudalism for a thousand years until the Renaissance, formed more modern nation-states, fought two horrible wars, and finally formed a loose union that's having lots of monetary problems). My prediction is the US will do something similar: break up, and part or all of it will collapse, and life in the US (or at least part of it, especially the "red state" part) is going to suck for a long time to come. It's not a "viable plan" for improvement, it's a prediction of things to come. The basic point is that when governments get really corrupt and crappy, they don't get fixed. Instead, they almost invariably end up collapsing or going through a bloody revolution or war. The only exception I can think of offhand is the British Empire/government: it's gone through a slow "morphing" over many decades, shedding its colonies and slowly removing power from the monarchy, to get to its present state (which still has a lot of corruption problems, but probably nowhere near as bad as the USA); there was no single point where everything went to hell in Britain. Usually, things are much more violent and severe, like the US revolution in the late 1700s, the bloody French revolution shortly after, the Ottoman Empire being crushed in a big war, the Third Reich being crushed in another big war, the Roman Empire decaying and collapsing, etc.

Re:Northern barbarians

[Hognoxious]

You've just repeated what I said, only much more long-windedly. And less funnily, IMO.

Perhaps I wouldn't miss your point so easily if you actually got to it?

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[sumdumass]

I've seen you trot this is that all out several times now. Even if it is all, it seems alarming to me. But I notice how your always posting AC and don't offer any explanation to the detailed that would make the articles seem incorrect or anything.

I perhaps would take your word for it if you offered anything creditable in retaliation other then dismissal because of some secret belief or knowledge.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[sumdumass]

Reagan never trained Osama Bin Ladin. You lose all credibility on this by suggesting it. Bin Laden was considered an outsider and the mujaheddin rejected them except for when it was absolutely necessary. Bin Laden had his own money and resources and was fine with that.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[WindBourne]

Of course, we are not bombing pakistan. We are bombing the taliban/AQ. Even Pakistan military does not control this region. More importantly, I suspect that the number of civilians that we kill is a FRACTION of what is reported by taliban.

Write your Reps and Senators

[whistlingtony]

OK,

I'm an American, and this pisses me off. This is so obviously stupid. We should not detain someone just because they disagree with us. We shouldn't even question them... There was NO reason to stop him getting on that plane. He was no threat to the plane, to the people, or to the country. Everyone can clearly see that this is just stupid.

My fellow Americans... Pony up.

Write your representatives.http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Write your Senators. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Hell, write the President. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Please write and say... "Please stop being Stupid." Mention this incident. Keep it simple. Keep it polite.

Re:Write your Reps and Senators

[cpghost]

There was NO reason to stop him getting on that plane.

People have been stopped and questioned for far less than merely stating their opinions. Like, say, having a Arabic-sounding name or so. You may even own a high security clearance in the US and be working for the US government in sensible areas, yet with the "wrong" name, you'll be harassed by DHS anyway... until they find you on their whitelist, which always happens AFTER they've made you miss your initial flight. That's the way it is nowadays.

Re:I don't give a damn

[whistlingtony]

"Drone strikes are working in eliminating terrorist leaders" Sure they are. We've killed the number two guy like a couple of hundred times.... Meanwhile we keep hitting civilians. Magically there are more "terrorists" opposed to us. Seems like there's more terrorists opposed to us just about every time we hit a bunch of civilians. Weird how that works. It's almost like we're creating the very problem we're trying to fix. Weird.....

Churchill

[NewYork]

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." --Churchill

Re:Disgusting behaviour

[Grishnakh]

True, but it's also the people's fault for allowing the establishment to get away with it. Remember, at one time, we used to have adequate education on responsible citizenship, at least for a much larger portion of society than now.

It's not much different from Germany in the 20s and 30s: they used to have a strong, educated society, but then they allowed a bunch of maniacs to take power because they were mad about some economic problems, and then they did nothing while the maniacs ran amok or worse, helped them with their evil schemes. We don't have concentration camps just yet (except for Gitmo), though our prison-industrial complex is starting to look like that but without the gas chambers (dead prisoners can't be used for cheap labor), but there's a lot of parallels there.

Re:Disgusting behaviour

[Gen_Music]

/the thing is that Slashdotters, let alone myself, represent a very small subset of the population. And believe me, I don't vote, but a lot of other's do, and I suspect if nobody did it would be Bush @ Florida all over again just to propagate the machine.

Am I the only one who's noticed?

[Hognoxious]

Pakastan? Srsly? Is that near Indaa and Afginastin?

Wisconsin

[Hognoxious]

Don't pretend for a second that anybody believes the fiction. The Saudis, Pakis

According to the story title, that should be Pakas.

Re:Whaddaya do with those who support terrorism ?

[Taco Cowboy]

You go respect that Taliban supporter all you want, I don't care

The day Talibans kidnap your female child and gang rape her, please remember to thank that Imran Khan for his support for the Talibans

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[ranmagirl]

Yeah, why don't you read his actual words (instead of 2 tiny quotes twisted into something he did not say)? Here:

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

Personally I was impressed - anyway, whether you disagree or agree with him you can't deny that he does not justify violent and criminal actions of Taliban.
Oh, wait... I take it back, I'm sure someone can deny that - I've seen more astonishing blindness. ...and then it might be a bit complex for some people just wishing for simplified view on world and people to judge them :)

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[vigour]

Yeah, why don't you read his actual words (instead of 2 tiny quotes twisted into something he did not say)? Here:

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

As I said before, he is a do-gooder opportunist. He speaks of secularism to the Pakistani middle class and pro-Taliban views to the mullahs, and it is the same with many other policy areas. He used to be famous in the 80s as a playboy, now he presents himself as a sober Muslim, similar to how you will find no reference to Jinnah, the first Governor-General's, drinking of alcohol as it is un-Islamic. To some he is a man of contradictions, to others he is a hypocrite. I agree with his stance on drones and the damage to the local economy in the borderlands. What I don't agree with is his flip flopping and choosing to speak of out both sides of his mouth.

Personally I was impressed - anyway, whether you disagree or agree with him you can't deny that he does not justify violent and criminal actions of Taliban. Oh, wait... I take it back, I'm sure someone can deny that - I've seen more astonishing blindness. ...and then it might be a bit complex for some people just wishing for simplified view on world and people to judge them :)

And get your head out of your ass, there is no need for such arrogant pomposity, it does you no favours.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[ranmagirl]

And get your head out of your ass, there is no need for such arrogant pomposity, it does you no favours.

I apologize. But if you can believe me, I honestly didn't mean it as bad as it seems in hindsight nor did I mean to target it to you - I used word "someone" to try and make it noticable, but that too, in hindsight, doesn't look that good.
Finally I meant it with a grain of humor - obviously I failed, the end part was out of line and I sincerely apologize for it.

As for rest, drinking, flip flopping, etc. - I hear what you are saying, but I know too little of these things you mention and am left wondering if it's more of flip flopping or is he simply a changed man?

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[vigour]

And get your head out of your ass, there is no need for such arrogant pomposity, it does you no favours.

I apologize. But if you can believe me, I honestly didn't mean it as bad as it seems in hindsight nor did I mean to target it to you - I used word "someone" to try and make it noticable, but that too, in hindsight, doesn't look that good. Finally I meant it with a grain of humor - obviously I failed, the end part was out of line and I sincerely apologize for it.

As for rest, drinking, flip flopping, etc. - I hear what you are saying, but I know too little of these things you mention and am left wondering if it's more of flip flopping or is he simply a changed man?

Sorry for my harsh reply, tone is always difficult to judge in text.

He could be a changed man, I can respect someone who can change their mind in the face of contrary evidence [appropriate given our little conversation and misreading of each other :) ]. I went from liking him years ago, to very seriously doubting him, and now I'm back to being very unsure of what is true about him.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser

[ranmagirl]

No need to apologize, but I take that to mean that you accepted my apology ;) Yes, internet, tone, feelings, etc. are a minefield for discussion indeed.

Anyway I have to admit that I havent even known this man until recently I read about him - what you wrote earlier has provided me new thoughts and something to look into.
If there is nothing more to add to this branch of our discussion that's too bad but I leave you with my thanks for giving me something to think about / look into.