Slashdot Mirror
German NSA Critic Denied Entry To the US
An anonymous reader writes "Major newspapers in Germany (FAZ, Die Welt, SZ, ...) and the Huffington Post report that the author Ilja Trojanow has been prevented from boarding a plane from Salvador da Bahia to the U.S. where he was invited to attend a conference. He had ESTA documents showing that his visit was approved as part of the Visa Waiver Program and was last year given a visa to teach at the university of Saint Louis. Trojanow was one of the initiators of an open letter (Google translation to English) urging Chancellor Merkel to take actions against NSA surveillance in Germany."
Since we are going full-on Totalitarian Police State, can we get cool Hugo Boss suits with colorful arm bands?
Time for DHS/FEMA to start filling up those Concentration Camps they've been building.
This pretty much blows away the "trust the government - it would never abuse its power" argument the apologists like to trot out so readily.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
You can thank the NSA for stopping this wanton criminal before he can enter the US.
there is no right to enter the USA unless you are a citizen
Has America reached the point where criticizing the shit you do is grounds to deny entry when you don't pose a threat?
Enjoy it kids, your country has jumped the shark and is continuing its decline into a paranoid police state.
America is pretty much fucked at this point unless this can be fixed.
Freedom is slavery, bitches.
... the story only shows that German media outlets are not familiar with US entry regulations. He says that he was denied a visa last year, which automatically disqualifies him from the visa waiver program. This is just a garden-variety ESTA issue, and most likely has nothing to do with his stance of the NSA surveillance.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Probably more due to the fact that there simply isn't anyone around to process his visa and let him into the country.
No one is claiming he has a "right" to enter the US.
Quite a few of us are wondering what is happening to our land of the free, however. This guy was coming to attend an academic conference.
That said, TFA is not really journalism, and fails to even mention an attempt to contact American authorities for an explanation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
there is no right to enter the USA unless you are a Native American
There, fixed it for you.
... when you need it???
He has to stay outside the USA if the NSA wants to keep spying on him, as they have no capability to do so within our Free nation's borders.
Ok, but maybe it's time to remove the plaque from the statue of liberty.
No, but I do remember when artists critical of the war were denied entry into the United States under Bush...
Oh please! Just stop...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"Schon vergangenes Jahr hatte das amerikanische Konsulat in München meinen Antrag auf ein Arbeitsvisum zum Zwecke einer Gastprofessur an der Washington University in St. Louis zuerst negativ beschieden und erst nach Protesten der UniversitÃt und einer erheblichen VerzÃgerung, die einen Teil des Semesters nutzlos vergehen lieÃY, das Visum erteilt"
Already last year had firstly denied the american consulat in Munic the request for work visa as guest professor in university st louis, and only after protest of the university et delay , with which made a part of the semester useless , gave the visa.
Therefore this is all US BS.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Since when
Until this guy was stopped. We are the country that hosts the damn UN. What the heck are we afraid of? This guy is totally non-violent.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?"
Freedom means just that, allowing disagreements, if you let only people have freedom who agree with you, that's not freedom.
The NSA works against the interest of the US, since it makes millions of customer move their online business to Non-US entities.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
since you allowed dissident opinions. you used to. are you trying to argue that anyone who visits usa should be an active traitor to their own country in order to gain access? you got any idea how fucked up that sounds between supposedly friendly nations? you really want to lose all international business, all international relevance as being a hub for conferences?
that's why UN is in the USA among other things. of course it can also be easily argued that what the NSA is doing isn't in the best interest of USA government, it's becoming increasingly easily to argue that USA government isn't doing things in the interest of USA government or even USA.
that being an NSA critic has turned into being the same as having a communist party membership in the '50's is quite telling of how your nsa-stasi is running and ruining your country. their gathering for intelligence is increasingly aimed at just keeping their agency going. welfare? "fuck that, as long as we can keep tabs on who is complaining about lack of welfare".
and now you just bomb people with dissident opinion even if they don't enter USA - along with whoever has to associate themselves with people having those opinions. go sit in the corner in shame.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Yeah, it's really horrible that he doesn't want his own country spied on.
A real bad actor, this guy.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Sorry, but barring Trojans from entering your systems is just basic computer security.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
No one is claiming he has a "right" to enter the US.
Quite a few of us are wondering what is happening to our land of the free, however. This guy was coming to attend an academic conference.
That said, TFA is not really journalism, and fails to even mention an attempt to contact American authorities for an explanation.
The last time I checked US embassies principally do not dispense explanations for refusing visa applications denied for political reasons. All you get is a politely worded letter that boils down to a big fat NO.
Yeah... During the last administration, dubya's critics and political opponents (Up to and including Ted Kennedy, for example.) just happened to mysteriously and "accidentally" find themselves accused of being terrorists and placed on the no-fly list.
Yup. No abuse of power or civil liberties there. Nosirrre bob.
Imagine all the people...
there is no right to enter the USA unless you are a citizen
That's factually wrong - "resident aliens" to use the US governments description have a right to enter the US. This was the only reason I got a green card when living in the US because my job required travel to academic conferences and after one incident where I was almost denied entry with my J-1 visa simply because I was married to an American we applied for a green card because then it was impossible for them to refuse me entry and my job depended on being able to return.
However it also misses the point which is that your government thinks it is fine to exclude people from the US who disagree with its policies. If it is willing to do that to foreigners coming for rational academic debate how much longer do you think it will be before they find a way to silence your criticisms too?
True, but the government is demonstrating how much of an asshat it is by denying people entry solely on account of peaceful criticism.
Technoli
You do realize that free speech is only for American citizens, right?
There is no free speech in America for non-Americans. Never has been.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The last time I checked US embassies principally do not dispense explanations for refusing visa applications denied for political reasons. All you get is a politely worded letter that boils down to a big fat NO.
He's German. He doesn't need a visa....
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
What if you were banned from entering the EU for saying that? Maybe you don't care about the EU and don't want to travel there. Or maybe you do.
At any rate, you might like to hear an explanation.
Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
He is also actively working for the freedom of the US population, but I guess you consider that unamerican.
Can we PLEASE deport the NSA?
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
no desire, either.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It's a marketing slogan/trademark. Like google's "Don't be evil" and MacDonald's "100% real beef(tm)".
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Where do you want them deported to? What is their country of origin?
(tip: It would seem "In Soviet Russia..." would make use of it, but no, they had their own. Quite different.)
Adam Habib was denied entrance in 2006.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You still think you actually have free speech over there? Read this.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Because, in the late 1940s, it was basically the only industrial power not deeply into reconstructing their torn economy and infrastructure. Not because any other country recognized the moral supremacy of the USA's national definitions, not because the USA grants anybody guarantees to dissent.
The United Nations is juridically akin to the various embassies. It is international territory, not USA territory. It might be phisically located in Manhattan, New York, but is not because New York is (or ever was) the hippest place to talk freely about the evil bad guys.
That, and he also had an ESTA confirmation. His name should not have been on the secret no-fly list and there shouldn't be a secret no-fly list in the first place.
the esta means that he wasn't on the no-fly list. that's pretty much the point of the esta. and also to extract money from everyone visiting but that's another thing.
that he was denied after that means that he is on some other secret list. isn't it wonderful to have multiple secret lists of "unwanted" people?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So you somehow prefer the first, second and third wave of immigration over subsequent ones?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
If he was encouraging people to make bombing attacks on US soil, or encouraging the southern states to take another crack at secession, I'd concede your point but this guy is being denied entry for exercising freedom of speech. If another country, your ally, is spying on you, surely you are well within your rights to petition your own leader to do something about it? Or perhaps you think that it would be acceptable for the UK government to deny entry to any US citizen who criticized BP over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? This is a clear case of sore-loser syndrome.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I misphrased what I said.
I meant to say that free speech WAS only for American citizens, and never was for anyone else.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
there is no right to enter North Korea too. The other free country, just like US.
Not a visa, but he does need to register with, and be accepted through, the visa waiver program.
Which he supposedly was, so in theory someone within the US security theatre system had approved him already.
(But then again, I've used that ETSA/visa waiver program website, and it's remarkably piss poor, you get very very little in the way of any acknowledgement or notification of what your status is under the program, and on the whole feels more like a tourist tax than anything else.)
(ESTA = Electronic System for Travel Authorization)
Once again, Obama proves he's a worse President for civil liberties than Bush ever was.
I had to Godwin this thread, but that's like saying Hitler wasn't so bad because Stalin killed millions more people. Obama, for the most part, has lost my support, but that certainly doesn't mean I wish Bush Jr. were still president. If I could choose any politician to appoint to the presidency, it would probably be Ron Wyden. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll probably be stuck voting for Rand Paul next election, despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with his economic beliefs, because civil liberties in this country have eroded so much and I don't think Wyden will be in the running (fucking Democrats will probably nominate another jackass who toes the establishment line similar to Obama).
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
"Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?"
Also, this is a very dangerous statement to make. Just because someone accepting this line could assume that every visitor and citizen of the US is willing to spy on another country (which in case you don't know it is illegal and punishable by the highest punishment in every country). It opens the door to preemptive deny of freedoms (which is actually the topic of discussion).
The first amendment limits the powers of the US, and makes no mention of citizens. It says Congress can't limit free speech. period. If it's not within the US jurisdiction, then the US doens't have the power at all.
Also, putting aside the specific letter of the law, free speech is considered to be an inalienable right to all men. So, you would have to claim that non-Americans aren't human in order to deny them a human right.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Remember who created this program in the first place? The no-entry list has become a popularity list and it just gets longer.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I would never travel to Afganistan, Iraq, North Korea, US and Iran.
There is no free speech in America for non-Americans. Never has been.
In that case, surely you will concede that the country whose citizens love to call it "land of the free" would more correctly be called "land of the assholes".
Reciting it however doesn't make you any less unreasonable than your government.
Many politicians are completely blind to the difference between Laws, Morality, and Reason, using the former as a synonym for both the later, they are not able to entertain hypothetical thinking about law, because they are ether unable or unwilling to question them. Don't be as single minded as those people, your government is no more concrete than mine.
...critics of the NSA from entering our country?
Me neither.
Once again, Obama proves he's a worse President for civil liberties than Bush ever was.
I'm not sure that the US believes that foreigners have civil liberties. Certainly not the Canadian that Bush had kidnapped and sent abroad for torture.
Actually, the US has always had a tendency to block people from entering the country, if the government didn't like what they had to say. These abuses didn't start with Obama (or Bush) or the NSA. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was communists and anarchists who were blocked from entering. And prominent opponents of [insert whichever war the US is engaged in at the moment. (This sort of abuse is not unique to the USA, either.)
The only way to completely prevent these abuses is to get rid of the border guards.
FTA:
"The woman told me curtly and without emotion that entry to the United States was being denied to me - without giving any reason," Trojanow told the German newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Tuesday.
It then later says that his co-author CLAIMS he was denied entry for his views. At no point does the article state why he was denied entry. Tying it to the NSA is the European Media trying to make a story out of nothing. It is largely an opinion piece based on very little evidence.
As for the Huffington Post article - well, it IS the Huffington Post. Whether you trust them or not is really more of where your personal views stand.
There just really is not enough information given. He was denied entry. That is all we know. Everything else is circumstancial evidence.
The people's and country's interests are always going to be against the government's interests. Recognizing that, and then having the government submit to us all, is kind of the whole point of America.
Unfortunately, we've become a nation of bad dog owners. Our dog misbehaves and doesn't submit. Cesar Milan tells us to use calm assertive energy (i.e. votes) to dominate the misbehaving dog, but we essentially don't vote. (Even when we bother to show up at the polls, we tend to check the "R" or "D" instead of any serious candidates, and we even advocate against allowing candidates onto the ballots.) And instead of that calm assertiveness, we react with excitement (TP, OWS) which doesn't accomplish anything.
We need the Government Whisperer! Come, Government Whisperer! Come train us, and rehabilitate our government.
1. Working against the interests of the US government may be working IN the interests of a lot of us. 2. Denying this guy entry to the US is revealing how weak and unsure of themselves they are. You only use police methods when you can't win the argument.
It feels wrong, and you put into words exactly why it's wrong. I wish i hadn't posted so soon.
Look... it's a tea party member.... you can tell by the quality of dialogue
Dear AC,
Thank you for immediately hijacking the conversation away from anything useful and steering it towards partisan politics. This is, of course, by design. Still, without people like you, the plan would fail from time to time, and real change might happen. Wouldn't want that! Divide and conquer works best when there is a innate DESIRE to be divided, when the subject WANTS to fight itself rather uniting to do anything productive. We really appreciate your efforts to keep our program safe. Keep up the good work!
Reguards,
The NSA
Maybe we shouldn't have laws that treat people differently depending upon where their great-to-the-tenth-power grandfathers lived.
# Make sure no trojan horses access our borders
if ($session->individual('81938523')->findWords('trojan')) {
$session->borderControl()->denyEntry('individual', '81938523');
$session->close();
}
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
Simply not true, if you are a visitor to the US, in the country "legally" (I dispute that, as a human, I need permission from anybody to be on any part of the Earth regardless of what it says on some map) then you are protected by and afforded rights under the Constitution. I know, I was originally in the US as a student and they made a big deal of it, there was even a leaflet at the Embassy in London that explained this to be true.
One wonders where the Constitution specifically allows political parties to deny entrance to invited guests purely for speech reasons. Probably the same part of the Constitution that grants the government the power to search citizens' papers witbout permission as you enter.
Let these be lessons of wisdom at how quickly freedom would evaporate inside the country were it not for the Amendments. All done "for The People".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Who is in it now?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” - John Basil Barnhill 1914
In 1914 who could have predicted the NSA? Today it would write “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is the NSA. America is what you get when you have both"
There are several americans banned from entering eu countries for speech.
Anyways, bush had no problem (at least publically) with chavez and that iran president who called him satan entering the country and spewing thier crap.
Western Hemisphere? Hell, the entire human race should go back to Ethiopia where they came from.
People randomly ended up on the list regardless of party affiliation. No targeted abuse of power, just a stupid program.
Precisely. The amount of personal authority given to border personnel in the U.S.A. is utterly absurd, such that even the slightest notion in the person's mind towards denying entry is sufficient grounds to bar a person for life, all in a matter of seconds, with no oversight, no due process, nor any recourse to appeals nor review. It has become a situation of "little Hitlers" at the U.S. border.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Apologists, please extract your heads from your own asses before your fellow citizens are compelled to do it for you. The NSA and many, many other revelations have firmly ripped away the curtain you're trying so very very hard to clutch about your loins. If we ever had representative democracy in this country, it is now surely gone. All of us have to take the measure of our own hearts and decide how much we're willing to do to get it back. Me, I'll gladly give my life if it means my kids won't grow up slaves; I can't help it, it's how I'm wired. You may be different. But whether you do a lot or a little, it all helps. The key thing is to refuse to play the game of the usurpers any more, to not play along or acquiesce to their evil. That, and only that, is the beginning of a return to freedom.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
IF GWB was president, the Democrats would pretend to care about civil liberties, there would be some real hearings on the NSA, Nixon's healthcare plan with the liberal parts stripped out wouldn't be the law, there would be blowback for spying on the press and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act at a rate 3x that of all other presidents since it's enactment in the early 1900s, the president might still feel the need to trick or lie his way to getting Congress to approve a war but Libya basically killed the War Powers Act ... on and on and on.
What Obama has done, is take what was considered an abusive extension/usurpation of power by the Executive branch, and made it the bipartisan consensus. So yeah, Obama is worse than GWB because instead of rolling back the abuse, he embraced it, extended it, and with the silence of his supporters and party, cemented it forever as the new normal.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
...critics of the NSA from entering our country?
No, but I remember the time he put Ted Kennedy on the Do Not Fly List. I guess there's no danger of that happening now.
...under Bush...
Too young to remember Nixon, eh? If you took a little glance at history, you would see that this has been going on for 215 years. Are you people ever going to stop obsessing over Bush? Who the fuck cares? He was a mistake, our mistake. A mistake that was repeated with Obama. Don't blame other people for your failure to learn from those mistakes, which will be repeated for all the foreseeable future.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Right now, the Republicans are actively working against the interests of the united states. We don't just let them stay here, but we let them vote in congress as well. In fact, they shut down the country over a law they don't like. This should be considered terrorism and a denial-of-service attack (Liberal version)
Right now, the Democrats are actively working against the interests of the united states. We don't just let them stay here, but we let them vote in congress as well. They are socializing our United States. (Conservative version)
Either way, participation in a a dialog is natural discourse and should not be grounds for non-admittance.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Not overzealous. Entitled. U.S. border personnel are judge, jury, and executioner all in one, with no means for victims to appeal nor seek any form of recourse. Thumbs up, thumbs down, that's all she wrote.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
The last time I checked US embassies principally do not dispense explanations for refusing visa applications denied for political reasons.
Not that I expect journalism at HuffPost, but most news organizations would at least make an attempt to contact the US. That's why every AP story like this includes the words "The _fill_in_the_blank_ could not be reached for comment." All we are getting is one guy's story. He could be correct, or he might not be correct. He may have been denied entry for political speech, or he might have just used the visa waver web site wrong.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If only we could dispose of the IRS "scandal" as easily as recognizing that.
Using that definition, all US citizens are ultimately African-Americans.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Oh, you mean like Castro, Ahmajinedad, and Gaddafi, right? Oops, must have been someone else.
Just another day in Paradise
I hate that attitude.
For one, that attitude is what led us to justify torturing people. They weren't Americans, so who cares right? Other people don't have rights. We can do whatever we want to other people.
No.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say "for Americans only". Nowhere in the bill of rights or the constitution does it say "for americans only".
I hate that attitude. Go !@#$ yourself.
In the case of the Sudanese President, it was either deny his visa or endure pressure to execute the international warrant for his arrest. Neither is particularly attractive. In any event, they haven't officially denied his visa, have they?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
there is no right to enter the USA unless you are a citizen
True, but there are laws which allow some non-citizens in while denying entry to others. The question is, were the laws applied correctly and fairly in this case.
Fuck you, you neofascist loser.
How come this flamebait is at +5 insightful?
The GP is right, you do not have an inherent right to enter any country (USA included) you are not a citizen of.
Now, whether this fact is relevant to the discussion or not is a matter of opinion.
I wasn't the first Godwin-er in this thread. I was only following orders.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I don't think we are getting the full story on this guy and his denial to the US. I think there's probably more to it that isn't being revealed.
For those who don't know, you can be denied access to the US if you don't have a return ticket, or if they feel you don't have enough money to sustain yourself while you stay in the US. This applies to Canada and many other countries considered FREE.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?
Western Hemisphere? Hell, the entire human race should go back to Eden where they came from.
ftfy
Or parents for that matter.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
what's funny here, is I learned that there have only been 20 generations of man since the dawn of civilization. it's not unthinkable with some genetic banking to map out a large portion of this. 10^10 people, certainly less than crawling all the web pages etc. that would actually be really cool and powerful.
Or a green card holder.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Bush did different bad things, but mostly the bad things compound.
There are other informative links here : http://www.metafilter.com/132486/Snowden-documents-shed-light-on-Shiban-Akbar-and-Trojanov-cases
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Clinton Vs Christie vs Rand Paul = Clinton White House = more of the same but with a destroyed republican party. That's my thought.....
I would, but I don't like driving on the other side of the road.
Have gnu, will travel.
I always thought that the point of the ESTA was to link your passport number with your credit card number.
If only it were the same situation. While some liberal groups were singled out for scrutiny, conservative groups received special treatment far beyond that, their applications put on hold simply because of keywords.
However, the illegal release of tax returns of a conservative group to liberal operatives was a simple mistake. The IRS employee was duped into releasing them. The release of the confidential applications was also likely clerical error.
Hmmm... This "Norisrrre bob" you're speaking to sounds like an Islamic name. Are you communicating with terrorists, citizen?
Log in or piss off.
"We are the country that hosts the damn UN."
Except Switzerland, Austria, and Kenya.
Geneva - "The United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) is the second largest United Nations centre after the Headquarters in New York. UNOG is housed in the Palais des Nations, an outstanding testimony to twentieth century architecture, situated in a beautiful park overlooking Lake Geneva, with a splendid view of the Alps and, on a clear day, Mont Blanc.
The League of Nations was established in 1919 following the devastation caused by the First World War. It was decided to erect a building at par with the League’s aspirations for the creation of a more stable world. The Palais was erected between 1929 and 1938 and donations from Member States have largely contributed to its interior design.
The Palais stands in the 45-hectare Ariana Park among majestic trees many of which are over 100 years old. The City of Geneva has made the park available to the United Nations for its offices for as long as the United Nations exists."
Vienna - "Along with New York, Geneva and Nairobi, Vienna is one of the four headquarters of the United Nations. The Vienna International Centre (VIC), commonly known as "UN City", was designed by Austrian architect Johann Staber and construction costs were borne by the host country. Opened on 23 August 1979, it has been rented to the United Nations for 99 years at a symbolic rate of 1 Austrian schilling (7 Euro cents) annually.
The VIC complex, which covers an area of 180,000 m, has extraterritorial status; it accommodates about 4,200 international civil servants from over 100 countries and its 14 conference rooms host an average of 2,000 conferences annually. Located at the Centre are the United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), as well as a number of smaller UN Offices and entities.
On daily guided tours, visitors can learn about the work of the United Nations and experience the Vienna International Centre's striking architecture and vibrant, cosmopolitan atmosphere. Special programmes for children and school groups are available and visitors can also book a lecture or specialized tour on the art on display at the VIC."
Nairobi - "Established in 1996, the United Nations Office in Nairobi (UNON) is the only UN Headquarters in Africa and in the global south. The United Nations compound is located in Gigiri, on the outskirts of Kenya’s capital city, Nairobi, which is said to enjoy an almost perfect climate with warm sunny days and cool evenings.
The UN presence in Kenya dates back to the 1950s when Kenya was still a colony of the United Kingdom. After Kenya gained its independence in 1963, the UN expanded its presence in the country, especially when it became host to the fledgling United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1973. Originally located at Uchumi House in the Nairobi city centre, UNEP was soon moved to the Kenyatta Conference Centre in 1974, before moving to its current location in Gigiri in 1975. In 1978, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, now known as United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) also joined UNEP in Gigiri.
The Visitors’ Service in Nairobi conducts guided tours on Mondays to Fridays, year-round. Visitors are briefed on the role of the United Nations as well as the functions of its funds, programmes and specialized agencies, especially those based in Nairobi. Special briefings by representatives of various UN offices in Kenya are also offered upon request. Following the briefing, visitors enjoy a walking tour of the complex which includes stops at various symbolic gifts donated to the UN, including the 1998 Bomb-blast Memorial Garden, which pays tribute to the in
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?
You are wrong. Freedom is endowed by our creator, not by the US government. Therefore, everyone is inherently free, not just Americans.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The U.S. pays 20% of the U.N. funding, and refuses to fund certain operations against the interests of the U.S..
It's really questionable why the U.S. is paying more than a proportional assessment in any case.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/the-history-of-the-bloated-un-budget-how-the-us-can-rein-it-in
I don't think we are getting the full story on this guy and his denial to the US. I think there's probably more to it that isn't being revealed.
For those who don't know, you can be denied access to the US if you don't have a return ticket, or if they feel you don't have enough money to sustain yourself while you stay in the US. This applies to Canada and many other countries considered FREE.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?
Depends on whether you define exercising your freedom of speech as something that only US citizens are allowed to do when it comes to criticizing the USA (largely because the US constitution prevents the US. govt. from gagging it's own citizens when they say uncomfortable things) while foreigners who criticize the USA are fair game. The US govt. can deny entry to foreigners who criticize it but the US govt. shouldn't be surprised either that it looks like a damn hypocrite whenever it starts talking about freedom of speech. If you dish it out you should be able to take it.
you know, this is a side of the immigration/border stuff i really dont know a lot about.
i'd be interested in learning more, if you can point me to the relevent laws.
thanks.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Wait, so what you're saying is that if Bush were still in office and did this then the Democrats would call him out on it, but since Obama is doing the same thing but not being called out on it by the Republicans it makes Obama worse?
That makes absolutely no fucking sense. The only real difference is that the Republicans are fucking up extra hard because they can't be bothered to oppose totalitarianism even when its their alleged opponents that are doing it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Bah, humbug!
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
like the woman labeled a terrorist for spanking her kids on a plane...
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5183005.story
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Criticizing government policies and regulations, especially for or from a country that has 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of the press' is NOT working against the interests of the country. It can easily be argued that it is working FOR the betterment of that country. Only fools and fascist sycophants would blindly accept that everything any government does is perfect. And a standard rule of improvement, if you can't recognize the problems, you'll never make things better.
:p
I could give you a bunch of quotes and other references to back this up, but first of all, you wouldn't knowingly bother reading anything that conflicts with your views. As to the subsequent reasons, you've probably already stopped reading this.
Apparently you can charge a President with unlawfully entering a country's airspace. If it works on the presidents of Bolivia and Venezuela, I'm sure it works on the US president too. I look forward to seeing Air Force 1 having to go the long way around on some future "state visit". Tit for tat, ya know.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I don't know if or when any of them were denied permission to come to the UN, but what exactly makes you think the US should have the right to deny any of them full access to the United Nations, an international organization of which their nations are members? Maybe we would be better off moving UN headquarters to Switzerland given the obvious attitudes the US has towards their "enemies" gaining equal access to it, or somewhere in no-mans land like a platform in international waters. I'm also somewhat bewildered as to your choice to include Castro with the other two, they are hardly comparable, despite what you have been told by mainstream US media where anyone who dares challenge US hegemony is painted to be disciples of the great Satan himself.
You have an inherent right to go where you please (without trespassing, or possibly even with) and free association. It's just that governments restrict that.
I have huge ethical and moral problems with the suspending free speech. However it seems to me that the US government regards suspending free speech more as a legal problem.
Of course there is. Born in America? You're a native American.
secrete ?!?!?
I sure hope you mean 'secret', but as you used that particular spelling twice, I wonder if you know that 'secrete' means to generate or expel a separate substance. Such as "You secrete sweat when you are overheated" or "Lavender flowers secrete a sweet fragrance".
Later in your sentences, you use the word 'secret', so I'm just guessing here.
As to impeaching the president for revealing top secret information, (I have no idea what information you are referring to), it's not possible as he is authorized to declassify and reveal such information. It would be like firing your secretary for transcribing your dictation you asked for, except a whole lot messier.
This was modded down to "troll" because he told the truth? He's absolutely right.
The only people who have an absolute right to enter the United States are those who hold a valid American passport or are American citizens and for one reason or another have no passport when they reach the border, e.g., Edward Snowden. ICE will hem and haw but they will admit you eventually. Snowden, of course, will be admitted and quickly gagged and shackled before taken into the federal gulag.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Once again, The president doesn't block people.
The president isn't running the bureaus.
I've been reminding people of this for 30 years.
And yeah, this sure is a lot worse then letting the NSA collect data without FISA approval~
anyways:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/on_civil_liberties_comparing_obama_with_bush_is_easy_--_and_mostly_wrong_20
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I remember correctly, the United States as host nation is obligated to permit entry to any person who is coming into the country on United Nations business. I think the U.N. even issues its own diplomatic passports for such purposes. It is rare when the U.S. declares a person here on a U.N. passport a persona non grata and order him or her out of the country or denies entry to the country in the first place.
Personally, I'm with the attitude Ronald Reagan had about the U.N. While I think the U.S. earns far more international goodwill in being the host nation of the U.S. than it loses, it would not be a bad thing for the U.N. to move to Switzerland. The original League of Nations was based in Geneva and its headquarters building is used today by the United Nations to house a significant portion of its bureaucracy.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
That was my point - we let ANYONE in for the UN, so why would an obscure academic concern us?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is obviously worse. The part you are missing:
GWB policies are the New Normal because of Obama and Democrats.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Call one generation 20 years (Historical ages of reproduction being younger than today), 20 generations gives us 20*20=400years.
Your numbers seem a little off. Even if you double the time between generations and err in the other way, it's still not even close to long enough.
... how important is this? This fellow is a foreign national who is actively working against the interests of the United States, at least as the Obama administration believes it to be. Having said that, all this has done is prevent this person from coming to the United States and speaking in person. This does not prevent him from returning to Germany and giving his talk remotely via the Internet. Undoubtedly, the NSA will be listening in but is unlikely to interfere. Part of the right to freedom of speech and expression is to receive it. American citizens have the right to listen to what he says without U.S. government interference.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
Maybe so we don't look like hypocritical petty assholes who don't actually believe in things like freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to voice our grievances.
The American principals that some of us were taught are that these aren't simply rights granted to citizens by the generosity of the state, but fundamental human rights and the state is specifically recognizing as such, and vowing to protect.
This isn't about left or right. Bush's administration had peaceful critics who were American citizens on no-fly lists. There has been abuse of power by the government in general.
I'm super critical of tea-party and libertarian types, but they aren't wrong about everything. They are speaking the truth when they say government is becoming too powerful and oppressive.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
What's the evidence for that claim?
What part of "unalienable rights" do you not understand? Government doesn't give them to you, they are natural rights. At least, that was the idea.
civilization began with the renaissance? also, the jedi order kept peace for a thousand generations, so it's not unreasonable.
In a democratic country that has a core value of free speech, dissent and criticism is the purest form of patriotism.
Did they mean the private St. Louis University? There is no "University of St. Louis."
... was denied a visa by the U.S. government in a letter saying he engaged in a terrorist activity....
In a society where a part of admininstrative power is clandestine, refusing access to information to anyone participating or affected, any facts can be claimed without much fear of recourse.
This can lead to capriciousness in decisions over people's life.
Maybe this overly restrictive behavior fear based?
When both choices are a mistake, what should you do?
Plurality voting ensures that only two parties have a reasonable chance of electing candidates. It needs to be replaced by some form of majority voting. Instant Runoff Voting is the easiest to explain, and for that reason alone is probably the best choice, even though I prefer Condorcet Voting.
Within the current system there doesn't seem to be any viable solution. (Yeah, there are LOTS of proposals. Some even get tried. But none solve the basic problem...when you only have two candidates, it's possible to buy them both before the election.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The U.N. should move to Geneva and we should stop paying for it. We also should make a point of denying entry to people who bitch and whine about how evil we are, then come here to shop, work, publish, and attend conferences. They can stay at home. Moving the U.N. will make this easier. We should also close all bases in Europe and leave NATO. Why is it in our interest to spend billions to be prepared to defend these ingrates? Hardly our problem that euro-fascism is on the rise and they'll end up killing each other in yet another big war. Next time we stay out of it. Repeat after me: not my problem, none of my business.
Praise the GOP!
Brother, you have not been keeping abreast of our recent good fortune! This new Democratic chancellor has been even more helpful to our cause than we could have dreamed under our former great leader, Comrade Cheney.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I would postulate that "the people" is referring to citizens, but admittedly don't have a citation for it. After all, if the people are being taxed, they expect representation or, failing that, as per above, assembly and petitioning rights. And if non-citizens aren't making any money in the U.S., are they still taxed?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Well, nothing is going to change if you don't take the chance and vote for it, and vote them out if they fail. There is only one power that makes your (collectively, okay?) herd mentality work so well and dependably. It's "something you always have with you". Every damn complaint I hear is nothing but a bad reflection on the idea of majority rule. The fiddle and the player are reversed. Our votes reward corruption and punishes honesty. What do you expect from these people?? They are doing exactly what is expected of them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You have an inherent right to go where you please (without trespassing, or possibly even with) and free association. It's just that governments restrict that.
And what is your proof or argument for this? (Q: do rights even exist, in any meaningful non-navel-gazing way, outside of a framework of laws and governments to define and protect said rights?)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
Whether he is working against the (true, long-term) interests of the government (to say nothing of the people) is entirely a matter of opinion. There are a lot of American citizens who are not happy at all with what the NSA has been doing.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Can we PLEASE deport the NSA?
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
You are wrong. Freedom is endowed by our creator
And who is that, exactly?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I don't know if or when any of them were denied permission to come to the UN...
They weren't, which was exactly my point. The parent was speaking out of his anus.
Just another day in Paradise
The U.S. pays 20% of the U.N. funding, and refuses to fund certain operations against the interests of the U.S..
It's really questionable why the U.S. is paying more than a proportional assessment in any case.
That might be true. But conversely it is really questionable why the U.S. is claiming more than proportional influence. Not least of which involves routinely threatening to ignore the UN entirely.
Then there's the difference between due contributions and actually paying them. From wikipedia:
The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.[13]
After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.[citation needed]
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.[citation needed]
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
One wonders where the Constitution specifically allows political parties to deny entrance to invited guests purely for speech reasons.
The Constitution doesn't allow political parties to do anything. The Constitution never mentions political parties at all.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Anyone or anything you want, except the government.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The hell there isn't. I don't know about you, but I am a native of the United States of America.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
You're not serious, I hope?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Can we PLEASE deport the NSA?
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
You say it like that would be a bad thing..
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
But it has been interpreted to apply to all permanent residents.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." George W. Bush
It's a typical BS false-dichotomy that's trotted out to drum up support. Sadly, it's very easy to find instances of it quoted in the media since 9/11
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
I think you kinda missed the sarcasm.
Yes, and we value our right to free speech and assembly so much that now we set aside and assiduously enforce special zones for the practice thereof, safely removed from those to whom such speech is directed. Permits to use such zones can be applied for and granted in a timely manner; for instance, I've read of some universities that offer quick turnaround of less than six months, even.
Well of course he'd deny it, what terrorist wouldn't?!
I think you need to either do a bit of systems analysis, or a bit of history reading. Either should serve to alter your viewpoint.
We vote out the Republicans, so we get Obama. McCain would probably have been worse, but there's no way to prove that. Third parties in a plurality based system don't stand a chance. We got the current parties when one of two prior parties was so thorougly trounced, that it died. Then the surviving party split in two. (I think they used to be called the Democratic-Republicans, but it's been a long time, so I'm not sure about that.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
their alleged opponents
That just about sums up the American political situation right there. The sad part is that the only people who aren't part of 'the establishment' are the Tea Partiers and their independence doesn't matter because they're all so stupid.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
I guess 1st amendment rights extend only to U.S. citizens.
Yes, they certainly do. The rights precede government or there would never be any progress in recognizing those rights. If Rosa Parks had a right to sit at the front of the bus, it was not predecated on the passing of the civil rights bill.
Never mind that many governments do not even pretend to be about representing the people. They have simply been the ascension of those who have been most successful in applying force. The constitution of the US government is quite explicit that it is is designed to prevent the politicians from intruding on pre-existing rights by putting it in a box, not simply a device to carve out an enclave of "recognized rights". Read the 9th. It's very much neglected.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?
Ok, you're wrong. The mentions of citizen in the constitution revolve around jurisdiction of the courts and eligibility for office. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention citizens at all and the mentions of citizens in the remaining amendments are related to voting rights. Even the 14th amendment says
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added]
Which makes it clear that the word person is not limited to citizens. In addition, as others have mentioned, the constitution enumerates (an incomplete list of) rights but does not grant them.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
Not sure the chinese or north koreans would agree with you.
Speaking of which, I hear they have a secret list of people who blabber too much about secret lists...
This is plainly false. US constitution wisely speaks of "persons" and "people", not "citizens" (except where describing the rights that only citizens have, such as voting). And, historically, after slavery was done with, the courts have consistently ruled that the meaning of those words includes everyone on American soil or otherwise under American jurisdiction.
Of course he did engage in terrorist activity. In this day and age, having last name like "Habib" with you on the plane is enough to get a lot of Americans scared shitless.
It's possible your assertion is correct. However, the story in the link below describes a Republican study that came to the conclusion you claim, and pointed out how the study was flawed - it didn't even describe the timeframe examined, whether the applications in the study were the same ones reviewed by the people implicated in the "scandal", and only used one liberal keyword, "progressive", instead of say, "peace", as in "Americans for Peace".
Here's the study; http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives
Do you have a citation for any study that is not an obvious partisan hatchet job? Remember, these are the same people who inserted a poison pill for the ACA into unrelated budget bills, then called the resulting mess the "Obama Shutdown".
Indeed, the only creator of me of which I'm aware. So where did she get her rights from?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Not necessarily.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I can see where this is headed. I've seen it many times. Most likely, anything that disagrees with your point of view will be labeled as a hatchet job.
But you can try this. Lots of facts there.
Even liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill knows the IRS did wrong in targeting conservative groups. It is a scandal. I bet you don't think Fast & Furious is a scandal either.
Thank you. I would give you points if I had some.
Your national review article lists more "be on the lookout" keywords that could trigger reviews of progress group applications than the study from your first post used, which claimed a disproportionate review of conservative groups' applications.
What you have done is cast doubt on the study that YOU cited, without showing any citation to an objective study using a more complete list of the keywords used by the IRS.
You do understand you just undercut your own argument, and bolstered my point that the study was a hatchet job, don't you?
You obviously didn't read the article. Conservative keywords triggered closer scrutiny, elevated to higher management in DC for evaluation. Local agents could still approve liberal groups, and did.
The IRS's own review showed this bias. People were fired over it, or forced to retire. Yet the loyal still say "no scandal here".