Slashdot Mirror
Pakastani Politician Detained By US Customs Over Opposition To Drone Strikes
First time accepted submitter Serious Callers Only writes "According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan. Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, U.S. immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"
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?
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.
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.
The US seems to have a nasty habit of using customs officials to put pressure on people it doesn't like. Customs is unique because you pretty much have to cooperate or you won't get into the country, and it is difficult to arrange to get a lawyer.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
I said the US Government, not the US or it's people.
Islam is a religion or a belief not a people. If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists then yes you're right but only if you group them with the KKK, white supremacists and many other similar organizations. You should also understand that they represent a very very small minority of the people with Islamic beliefs.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
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.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.
How exactly is that flamebait? Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, that's what a lot of people outside the U.S. think.
When Customs starts interrogating foreign lawmakers over their political positions, it's only going to make that perception worse.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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"?
"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...
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...
Do you use "US Government" rather than "Obama and associates" for fear of down-mods?* Because there are a number of US government officials who are against drone strikes, and it is just as unfair to them when you use such phrasing as when someone blames Islam. A majority of government workers are in no way connected to the planning or execution of drone strikes.
*notice how drone articles have a fraction of Obama criticism as waterboarding articles had of Bush criticism.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
USA; land of the [censored], home of the [redacted].
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
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.
Baboons are cute.
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.
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
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.
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:
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*.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.