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

[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

[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

[chill]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[JustOK]

It's a national capital

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.

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?

[gman003]

You missed the joke.

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

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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*.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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]

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.

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

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

[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

[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.

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: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

[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: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: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.

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...

USA...

[mwvdlee]

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

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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