The Orlando shooter and Boston Marathon bombers were identified as likely terrorists before they did anything. Fat lot of good it did us.
Also, Gitmo is not something to be proud of. It was specifically set up under a weird constitutional theory to be somewhere the rule of law would not apply.
That's not the point. The point is that people we want visiting the US are being turned off. There was a mention above of a Canadian denied entry because of her birth country. The US has been becoming a less inviting country for scientific conferences, since scientists from other countries aren't sure they can get to the conference, and that hurts US science. Tourism is good for the US, and it's being discouraged. Business trips are being discouraged. One of the effects of Trump's EO is that it emphasizes arbitrariness. If you're not a US citizen, but have all your papers in order including your visa, you don't know when you get on your flight whether Trump will do something to stop you from entering.
I flew to the UK about twenty-five years ago. They had us pick up our luggage and walk through a room to the outdoors. I didn't realize we'd passed through Customs for some time. On the way back, the airport X-ray machine picked up a suspicious looking can of shaving cream in my backpack. The inspectors were polite and didn't seem to think it said anything about me as a person.
Exactly what was the government supposed to do about the Orlando terrorist? We knew he was likely to do something like that, but the only thing we could do is keep a 24/7 watch on the guy. How about the Boston Marathon bombing? The Russians flat-out told us that the bombers were bad guys, and to keep an eye on them. What is gathering more data on people we already know are likely to commit terrorism going to do to help? We had all the data we needed in these cases. Violating the privacy of everyone on the planet wasn't going to give us more relevant data.
US citizens sometimes want to travel to other countries, and will face reciprocal treatment there. Brazil, for example, instituted the fingerprints of US citizens entering Brazil. Expect US citizens to be denied entrance to countries when they don't share social media passwords.
You don't understand. The default is set by us, and if you're referring to Trump's EO of questionable legality just now. It's like jacking up the price of medicine and giving discounts to not much over the previous price to people who do what we want.
As soon as traveling Americans start blowing people up or trying to murder innocent people abroad for having different religious views.
I've got news for you: it happens a lot. The reasons are of course sugar-coated for internal consumption.
What we do is get influence in other countries by various methods, not always above-board. We support brutal dictatorships. Then, when people there get too uppity, we bomb them.
It's the rough equivalent of being annoying to someone, talking over them, poking them with sticks, and getting them angry enough to throw a punch, so we shoot them.
That handcuffed 5-year-old picture going on was not an immigration picture as claimed, but inexcusable brutality in a school, from what I've been able to learn about it. Still, I believe there are bad immigration officers, just as I believe the TSA has bad employees, despite my personal experience with them.
There are tens of thousands of active radicals/terrorists in those countries who are actively committing acts of violence. That none of them have successfully committed an attack on US soil recently is only for lack of opportunity.
Entirely true, but there's an implication you don't seem to see. Where does this "lack of opportunity": you speak of come from? As long as America remains great, there will be large numbers of irrational radicals trying to do horrible things to us, so that hasn't changed. The only reason they aren't killing us in noticeable numbers is that they're over there and we're over here, and whatever we're doing to keep that up is working.
I'm not personally worried about man-eating tigers, terrorists, or venomous snakes, because there aren't any where I live, and what the government is doing to ensure that is working. As far as my safety goes, I'd get much better results with the government working harder to prevent drunk and distracted driving, because that's an actual current threat where I live.
Since 9/11, the US has become quite hostile to scientific conferences. If more and more of them are held outside the US, that's not good for the country.
That's actually the reason for a lot of stupid-looking questions on forms for entering the US. The US isn't going to check up on you checking the box that indicates you aren't a member of a terrorist organization (if there is one). However, if it turns out you were, and said you weren't, that's grounds for being kicked out of the country without further ado.
I never agreed to not reveal my city of origin. I have agreed not to reveal my Facebook password. Moreover, knowing I live in Minneapolis, while useful in specifically identifying me, does not reveal any private information about me or my friends and family.
The CFAA doesn't ban bona fide government investigations. However, the user does have an agreement with Facebook (US courts have found EULAs legally binding) not to hand over his or her password.
Where do you get this from? Zoning laws are not designed to prevent imminent threats of irreversible harm. You' started talking about an apartment building, and in those places the residents are not the owners, and have only very restricted property rights.
The first Muslim I ever spent much time with was M.A.R. Barker (the Tekumel guy) who looked like an average white American, except rounder and with a cooler beard.
Slashdot Mirror
The Orlando shooter and Boston Marathon bombers were identified as likely terrorists before they did anything. Fat lot of good it did us.
Also, Gitmo is not something to be proud of. It was specifically set up under a weird constitutional theory to be somewhere the rule of law would not apply.
That's not the point. The point is that people we want visiting the US are being turned off. There was a mention above of a Canadian denied entry because of her birth country. The US has been becoming a less inviting country for scientific conferences, since scientists from other countries aren't sure they can get to the conference, and that hurts US science. Tourism is good for the US, and it's being discouraged. Business trips are being discouraged. One of the effects of Trump's EO is that it emphasizes arbitrariness. If you're not a US citizen, but have all your papers in order including your visa, you don't know when you get on your flight whether Trump will do something to stop you from entering.
Don't you read? The woman has been in Canada for twenty years, and is a Canadian citizen. For all legal and practical purposes, she's Canadian.
I flew to the UK about twenty-five years ago. They had us pick up our luggage and walk through a room to the outdoors. I didn't realize we'd passed through Customs for some time. On the way back, the airport X-ray machine picked up a suspicious looking can of shaving cream in my backpack. The inspectors were polite and didn't seem to think it said anything about me as a person.
Exactly what was the government supposed to do about the Orlando terrorist? We knew he was likely to do something like that, but the only thing we could do is keep a 24/7 watch on the guy. How about the Boston Marathon bombing? The Russians flat-out told us that the bombers were bad guys, and to keep an eye on them. What is gathering more data on people we already know are likely to commit terrorism going to do to help? We had all the data we needed in these cases. Violating the privacy of everyone on the planet wasn't going to give us more relevant data.
First, they came for the non-US citizens.
US citizens sometimes want to travel to other countries, and will face reciprocal treatment there. Brazil, for example, instituted the fingerprints of US citizens entering Brazil. Expect US citizens to be denied entrance to countries when they don't share social media passwords.
You don't understand. The default is set by us, and if you're referring to Trump's EO of questionable legality just now. It's like jacking up the price of medicine and giving discounts to not much over the previous price to people who do what we want.
I've got news for you: it happens a lot. The reasons are of course sugar-coated for internal consumption.
What we do is get influence in other countries by various methods, not always above-board. We support brutal dictatorships. Then, when people there get too uppity, we bomb them.
It's the rough equivalent of being annoying to someone, talking over them, poking them with sticks, and getting them angry enough to throw a punch, so we shoot them.
Damn, I've got to get my patent application for that in before you file. Then I can see if it would actually work.
That handcuffed 5-year-old picture going on was not an immigration picture as claimed, but inexcusable brutality in a school, from what I've been able to learn about it. Still, I believe there are bad immigration officers, just as I believe the TSA has bad employees, despite my personal experience with them.
Entirely true, but there's an implication you don't seem to see. Where does this "lack of opportunity": you speak of come from? As long as America remains great, there will be large numbers of irrational radicals trying to do horrible things to us, so that hasn't changed. The only reason they aren't killing us in noticeable numbers is that they're over there and we're over here, and whatever we're doing to keep that up is working.
I'm not personally worried about man-eating tigers, terrorists, or venomous snakes, because there aren't any where I live, and what the government is doing to ensure that is working. As far as my safety goes, I'd get much better results with the government working harder to prevent drunk and distracted driving, because that's an actual current threat where I live.
Since 9/11, the US has become quite hostile to scientific conferences. If more and more of them are held outside the US, that's not good for the country.
Well, we do. Some other people go to social media to be social. Weird.
However, requiring the password shows disrespect for the person entering the US, and will therefore become mandatory under der Trumppenfuehrer.
That's actually the reason for a lot of stupid-looking questions on forms for entering the US. The US isn't going to check up on you checking the box that indicates you aren't a member of a terrorist organization (if there is one). However, if it turns out you were, and said you weren't, that's grounds for being kicked out of the country without further ado.
I never agreed to not reveal my city of origin. I have agreed not to reveal my Facebook password. Moreover, knowing I live in Minneapolis, while useful in specifically identifying me, does not reveal any private information about me or my friends and family.
The CFAA doesn't ban bona fide government investigations. However, the user does have an agreement with Facebook (US courts have found EULAs legally binding) not to hand over his or her password.
What does that have to do with normal zoning laws, or laws requiring buildings to be reasonably safe for their actual use?
Do you live in NYC? If so, you're free to campaign and vote for the politicians of your choice.
Do you live elsewhere? In that case, what's it to you?
There's always discretion in law enforcement, if only because of limited resources.
We're not social people, really, but we're inoffensive.
Which doesn't mean it's time to throw up our hands and stop discouraging assholes.
State and local governments tend to be more influenced by the people.
Where do you get this from? Zoning laws are not designed to prevent imminent threats of irreversible harm. You' started talking about an apartment building, and in those places the residents are not the owners, and have only very restricted property rights.
Who modded this crap up?
The first Muslim I ever spent much time with was M.A.R. Barker (the Tekumel guy) who looked like an average white American, except rounder and with a cooler beard.