US State department admits to lying.

Hobbes

But I love their flippant attitude about it.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020104/us/attacks_us_leaflets.html

Lemming

The other document is a Defense Department leaflet dropped over
Afghanistan (news - web sites) to win the surrender of Taliban or
al-Qaida militiamen still fighting. It includes a photo purporting to be
Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in Western clothing and with his
hair cut short and beard shaved off. It says of the terrorist leader: ``The
murderer and coward has abandoned you.''

That particular piece of info is pointless. It was dropped to f*ck up Taliban morale and spread dissention in the ranks. Nothing more. If I recall, stuff like this has been done in most major wars of this century anyway, from radio broadcasts during ww2 to leaflets during the vietnam and Gulf wars

As for the rest of the article, we all know that the US government isn't exactly squeaky clean. Time will tell

paddymee

As for the rest of the article, we all know that the US government isn't exactly squeaky clean. Time will tell

I'd go as far as to say that no government is squeaky clean. Look at Ireland.

The big difference I feel is the US government is a lot more open to scrutiny.

Hobbes

While agree with what is said about the flyer. In regards that if the picture is doctored or not is immaterial as the whole point is to p!ss off the taliban.

The problem I see is the advert they put in the the paper with false information.

Sand

The State Department official who commented Thursday said Atta's picture was used because he was the most well known of the hijackers, but the ad's text included a composite of activities from several hijackers and Moussaoui.

So it might have been implied that Atta said something when he did not. I for one am shocked, this completely ruins Attas otherwise impeachable reputation. If hes so upset about it he can sue the US in federal court as the article itself says.

Hobbes

The point is that if your going to lie once (prehaps twice in this case) and then turn around and say anything else you submit as evidence is true why should anyone believe you? Heck everyones saying the other side is lying all the time.

That comment you refer to relates to flyer not the advertisment.

Sand

I for one will sleep soundly.

Typedef

The fact is, no matter what you're philosophical or socio-political opinions (or lack thereof) on the United States and it's current conservative government may be, is the inescapable fact is that, that same conservative government have siezed on the opportunity to curtail civil liberties and enact a quasi-orwellian and arguably more totalitarian state in the US then was in existance say twelve months ago.

Example the Federal government has endowed itself with sweeping powers of surveillance in the US and outside the US.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

Also the so-called military tribunals which were supposed to pertain to so-called enemies of the state, can be extended to cover more than 20 million people in the US, so in effect there is a Presidential order by Bush which could allow up to 20 million people to be tried in a secret military court, without gaurantee of appeal of any imposed scentence.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/1130threat.htm

I find it difficult to ascertain how one can be "innocent until proven guilty", but at the same time can be branded an "enemy of the state" who is not "worthy of the protection of the US constitution" and therefore may have the right to a civil trial arbitrarily abrogated, by an order stemming from a man who by all accounts rigged the election in the US anyway http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Lukasiak040901/lukasiak040901.html , but apparently even the Miami Herald is covering up the truth of it's own recount in the wave of fanatical nationalism that has gripped the USA, so I guess in "times of crisis" it's ok to give up a few civil liberties and rights to privacy, because we all know who the enemy is right?

paddymee

The fact is, no matter what you're philosophical or socio-political opinions (or lack thereof) on the United States and it's current conservative government may be, is the inescapable fact is that, that same conservative government have siezed on the opportunity to curtail civil liberties and enact a quasi-orwellian and arguably more totalitarian state in the US then was in existance say twelve months ago.

I can argue that as a resident of the US for 7 years that Americans don't lose much sleep about the invasion of rights of non citizens. As far as they are concerned non citizen residents betrayed America's trust by attacking them. Remember that all the attackers were in the US on valid visas at some stage.

Even the ACLU haven't even tried to fight these new laws, and that's saying something.

I personally dont agree with the laws, but I still dont feel that my civil liberties have been curtailed.

As for Quasi-Orwellian, dont make me laugh. When I go home to Ireland I'm amazed by the willingness of people to be dictated to by the Government. There is always a sense of futility. Trust me, one has a better sense of personal freedom in America.

I'm not excusing everything that the US has done and will do. But your ranting is as off the wall as the right wing nutters over here.

Paddy

Hobbes

Well he does list the things that only effect the 20 million people in the US.

There are parts of the laws which directly effect US citizens but they are so worked up at the moment no one is paying attention.

Sneak and Peak warrents has already been covered in numerous threads (they effect US citizens, no sunset laws, dont need to be terrorist related).

That alone would scare the crap out of me as a citizen.

But there are quite a few other things. Like now any transaction that is over $10,000 is automatically reported to the FBI. Buy a car, and your name goes on a list. Nice to know.

Not so nice for the guy who bought over 10k worth of candy at halloween to resell it. He got detained because of it and branded "a terrorist planning to poison our children" when in fact he was innocent.

Sand

Well at least weve got another thread to bash the US with. Seriously why doesnt someone open a "USA is Evil" thread?

Typedef

Originally posted by paddymee

I can argue that as a resident of the US for 7 years that Americans don't lose much sleep about the invasion of rights of non citizens. As far as they are concerned non citizen residents betrayed America's trust by attacking them. Remember that all the attackers were in the US on valid visas at some stage.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", hmm show me where in this scentence the words "so long as you are a citizen" are written? So, once you are not citizen ie(20 million people living in the US), you can by order of the President of the United States now be denied the right to a trial by your peers because as a non-citizen you could be a "terrorist", I guess "terrorists" like Timothy McVeigh are entitled to trial by jury, but watch out, if you are not born in the US or naturalised, then you are the sort of non-citizen "terrorist"(as opposed to a domestic "terrorist") who is less equal than everyone else and therefore does not deserve a trial, right.

Just to take the McVeigh analogy further, McVeigh "betrayed America's trust" and killed alot of people too, but McVeigh was given a trial by jury. I'm not going to argue the wrongs and rights of trial by jury it should be obvious to everyone that every single person should have a right to a free and fair trial, every person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that marking a section of the population as lesser, a lower-caste of person who does not have the same right of due process as everyone else is racist and an affront to any kind of notion of Republicanism and fraternity that most "western states" have espoused their principals and systems of governance to be based on.

Why stop at foreigners? Why not say that anyone who has comitted a crime before does not have the same right of trial as everyone else, or that if you are black that you may not have the same right of trial, no, there can be no conditional ascription of civil liberties in a society based on freedom, fairness and equality, never, who decides who is worthy of in this case trial by jury, but in a wider sense civil liberties? How does the ability to ascribe right of who is worthy of equality with their fellow man not become a mechanism for abuse and a weapon of partisan political rule?
Who makes that decision in an unbiased and fair way? The answer is that no-one is capable of that kind of infallability , the answer is that people make mistakes and people are fallable and that is why everyone must be afforded the same human rights under law, lest the arbitrary ascription of said rights be abused as George Bush is abusing the human rights of non-Us citizens now, plain and simple.

As far as Ireland is concerned, I agree, the government in Ireland is going to make the Irish people vote on the Nice treaty again citing "misinformation" as the reason that people did not ratify the Nice treaty and therefore once people are "informed" the government will get the outcome it wants and obviously this is the kind of anti-democratic practice that "we" in the "west" criticise other countries about, it is the same kind of logic that "undemocratic" regiemes who wish to ensure their own continuity use to "rerun" elections, or declare an election "void".

With this in mind the Irish electorate could be sent back to the polls to "rerun" the upcoming election inumerate times with "more information" each time until the electorate "realised the error of their ways" and returned a result that satisfied the government(presumably continuity of the current regieme). Obviously the government of Ireland is attempting to set aside the referenda result and while this is not exactly "dictatorial" it is totaly undemocratic,repressive,possibly unconstitutional, and shows how the politicians of Ireland believe the people of Ireland to be stupid or "misinformed" and further shows that these politicians do not believe in democracy and sufferage, in fact it would seem the politicians have contempt for it. In many ways it is dictatorial, no the government has not said "you are obliged to vote for Nice", but the reality is that no other result is acceptable.
Much in the same way the Americans were given reasons that the government should be allowed to act in an extraneous way and deny the right of trial by jury to a select portion of "possible terrorists", the government of Ireland gives reasons why the democratic will of the people of Ireland in a Referendum should be set aside because of "misinformation and the importance of the treaty of Nice", two sides of the same repressive big brother government which allows "liberties" until those liberties and entitlements become a hinderance to the will of the government. Funnily enough it was the "western world" that pointed to these rights , like a trial by jury and democracy and truly representative governance that set us(the west) apart from "them"(everyone else), the worm has turned on that one though huh?

JustHalf

What a perfect time to show off my new signature.

Sand

by an order stemming from a man who by all accounts rigged the election in the US anyway

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/12/120247.shtml
Read it and weep.

As regards the burning anxiety over Bushes tactics-

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/12/17/94746

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/29/83635

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/24/230518

The most important point might be that the US is on a war footing.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal",

If you take it as literally as you wish to, then youd be advocating that women arent covered under the US constitution.

Domestic terrorism is one thing. Foreign terrorism is another - Its activists are more easily identified by virtue of the fact that theyre mostly foreign. Call it profiling if you want or simply common sense.

And its not the first time rights have been repealed in the interests of the greater good. Free speech is an example in the US given incitement laws. All men are free and equal as you say but there are the racially discriminatory affirmitive action laws - and the fact that all men arent free and equal is given as justification for social transfers.

Funnily enough it was the "western world" that pointed to these rights , like a trial by jury and democracy and truly representative governance that set us(the west) apart from "them"(everyone else), the worm has turned on that one though huh?

I take it your moving to Iran to enjoy the civil rights due to you? If not stop being so melodramatic.

paddymee

"

Originally posted by Typedef

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", hmm show me where in this scentence the words "so long as you are a citizen" are written?

And what about blacks? They were still slaves for another 80 years and de facto slaves for another 100. I wouldn't get too worked up about the constitution. It’s the high courts interpretation and precedence that gives it meaning.

After the Omagh bombing a similar striping of rights occurred in Ireland. A person could be held as a member of the Real IRA based on the decision of the Gardai. Also such a person right to silence was waived. I don’t remember all the details but I remember that Amnesty international voiced objection. When I talked to my friends and family they didn't seem too concerned.

Do you remember? Were you outraged then? How do you feel about it now?

I feel a country has the right to defend itself in a time of war. I don’t think this is step towards big brother. America has a distrust of government that is incredible. If these laws get out of hand they will be repealed. When the ACLU gets seriously involved I will really take notice.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
Well at least weve got another thread to bash the US with. Seriously why doesnt someone open a "USA is Evil" thread?

Naa Gandalf would only lock it after 10 posts. You would need a "USA is evil" board.

btw, newsmax as a realiable source? This is the same news site that said the UN is evil because it wants to try bin laden for crimes against humanity.

I notice the first story talks about the votes vs Al Gore. Funny how most news sites talk about the vote mix up but don't talk about the legal issue going on where 18,000 blacks claim they where denied a vote in Florida?

Sand

Opinion pieces can do that Hobbes. Cant argue with the articles I quoted.

It is funny alright about those 18000 blacks. However they were just as likely to vote for Bush given what we know about them as they were to vote for Gore so it all balances out.

Hobbes

Thing is we don't know that.

May as well say "Kill all Afganistans" as they will all probably join Al-Quada anyway being muslims.

Typedef

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...12/120247.shtml
Read it and weep.

Sand that is one opinion, yes I weep that the opinion is so obviously right wing and conservative friendly, in fact the entire newsmax organisation seems prone to articles that are quite defamatory of the American democrats with headlines like
"Clinton Scandals", "Bush really did win", "Enron Pales Next to Daschlegate Death Cover-up" and "Daschle is the Dem's 'Eddie Haskel", so I would have to cast serious aspersions on the objectivity of a stroy eminating from newsmax, let alone four stories from the same media source, ok?

As regards the burning anxiety over Bushes tactics-

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...001/12/17/94746

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...001/11/29/83635

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.s...01/11/24/230518

The most important point might be that the US is on a war footing.

Proves that newsmax has it's own opinions sure, but realistically speaking the US was on a "war footing" well before the World Trade Centre was bombed, the US had withdrawn or was in the process of withdrawing from a lexicon of international military accords vis-a-vis weapons development and proliferation before the World Trade Centre bombings and President Bush when he was governor of Texas Bush was the Govenor who put more people to death than any other govenor in the history of the United States, so Bush's tatics as regards harsh, quasi-totalitarian, and crass disregard for human life had a precedent well set even before the man was a "war President" http://www.bushkills.com/record.html

I digress.

---

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal",

---

If you take it as literally as you wish to, then youd be advocating that women arent covered under the US constitution.

Yes but one might also say that "man" in this context refers to the race of human beings. Thank you, call again.

Domestic terrorism is one thing. Foreign terrorism is another - Its activists are more easily identified by virtue of the fact that theyre mostly foreign. Call it profiling if you want or simply common sense.

I call it segregation and the wholesale revokation of human rights as a political tactic that can encompass 20 million people, why not say that anyone who fought in the Iraqi war as Timothy McVeigh did has the "potential to be a terrorist" and allow those same people to be arrested, put on trial without jury in secret and deny those same people access to appeal? What a joke, the United States, long time preacher of it's freedoms and equalities enacting a policy that can allow 20 million "non-citizens" to be put on trial without jury, because they "might be terrorists". That means that any person coming from Ireland, nay anyone who is not "naturalised", anyone who goes to or visits the United States can be tried by a non-jury court and thrown in prison without right of appeal in secret. Land of the free? What a crock, it's not racial segregation or "naturalised eliteism" it's "anti-terrorism", so that makes it ok. Right.

And its not the first time rights have been repealed in the interests of the greater good.

Hmm maybe "we" should start to burn "undesireable" books "for the greater good", maybe "we" should start to deport "east europeans" for the "good of the economy" with Mary Harneys vaunted "buffer" huh? Why not it's for the "Greater good". Hey maybe "we" should just say "ok China can invade Tibet, after all with 1.6 billion Chinese more land for China is 'for the greater good'". I am not convinced.

Free speech is an example in the US given incitement laws. All men are free and equal as you say but there are the racially discriminatory affirmitive action laws - and the fact that all men arent free and equal is given as justification for social transfers.

Sand in sections of the USA a little over 38 years ago there was an organised militia of white supremecists called the "Klu Klux Klan", maybe you've heard of them, who used to go around hanging black people on whim and in a wider sense the white sections of American socitey were interfering with the rights of the black people to vote, to have access to state amenities, there was a semi-state racial segregation. These laws used to be in operation in the US. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjimcrow.htm
So the so-called equality in the USA does not exist and affirmative action seeks to redress this, and frankly I have trouble understanding why people insist on bashing these laws, what is it a fear that the white elite will loose socio-political and economic ascention or just facile contempt for social change and equilibrium? Affirmative action exists to try to reverse hundreds of years of white favoured domination in legislature and deed.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/recruit.htm

women only make up just under 12% of the House and just 9% of the Senate despite being more than 50% of America’s population.

...in Congress as a whole, there are 38 Black, 19 Hispanics and 5 Asian politicians. Black Americans represent 12% of America’s population and their representation in Congress is 9%. All but one of the Black politicians is Democrat. Hispanics make up 10% of America’s population and 4% of Congress.

I hardly think the US needs any lessening of civil liberties do you, especially by the party in the US (the Republicans) that only has one black member of Congress? Yes it's true Ireland is also an unrepresentative place though last time I checked even non-nationals still had a right to trial by jury in Ireland.

I take it your moving to Iran to enjoy the civil rights due to you? If not stop being so melodramatic.

Sand you may find the prospect of secret military trial for non-citizens melodramatic, but I do not. If you went to the US right now you could be branded a "terrorists" and if the authorities so wished you could disappear into the "military court" system and if convicted could even be denied right of appeal,as a non-national, but the second you get a "green card" that all changes, then you are a real-person, then you are entitled to due process.
All this for "anti-terrorism"? So if the person mailing Anthrax around the US gets caught as turns out to be an American citizen will that person be put on trial as a "terrorist" non-national or as a citizen? Hmm, why should the precedent matter more once the person caught turns out to be a citizen, human rights are human rights, it shouldn't matter wether you have a piece of paper making you part of the politically acceptable elite before you get your rights, the rights are yours as a human being, it's not melodramatic to demand those rights. Simple really.
doubleplusgood

feel a country has the right to defend itself in a time of war. I don’t think this is step towards big brother.

How easily the rationalisation of the curtailing of civil liberties is so often espoused, human rights are not liberties, human rights are just those, "rights" you get because you are a human just like me, just like George Bush, just like the Nazis were, just like Pol Pot and the Pope, all human beings and all should be afforded the same right to trial, access to food, clothing, education, voting and democratic representation, life, the "persuit of happiness" and so on. I don't accept that when someone becomes the "enemy of the state" that those rights are any less, the state does not and cannot define those access to rights, the state is "defined" by the access to rights it grants. Simple premis really , if you think about it.

Sand

/me huggles Type. You lovable arts student you:)

"Sand that is one opinion, yes I weep that the opinion is so obviously right wing and conservative friendly"

Hmm but it was an article on findings by a left wing group that Bush would have won anyway- So stop wasting everyones times with rubbish like it was rigged. It wasnt- even the Democratic cheerleaders accept this as youd see by the headlines that were quoted in the article from left win media. Like this...

that "George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward," as the New York Times conceded Monday

"Proves that newsmax has it's own opinions sure,"

Those articles quote a Anti- Terror Crackdown (ATC) critic getting heckled off stage by students of California State University, A poll (Washington Post/ABC news before you try to degrade it) revealing overwhelming support for the ATC and oh yes, a criticism of the double standards shown by the media (One of these three is an opinion, the other two are facts- guesss:) )

You go on the attack on Bush again- showing you personally despise the man and if he walked on water youd say he was too arrogant to walk like the rest of us. The death penalty is supported by a majority of Texans btw- Thats democracy, not the morals of a political elite.

Yes but one might also say that "man" in this context refers to the race of human beings. Thank you, call again.

Yes, if they had said Man, but they said men. So youre not taking what they said literally. Or rather you take from it what you want to take from it. Unless you want to go head to head with some ardent feminists who take umbrage at Man being used to describe the human race- which also includes women last time I checked. Next:)

Hmm maybe "we" should start to burn "undesireable" books "for the greater good", maybe "we" should start to deport "east europeans" for the "good of the economy" with Mary Harneys vaunted "buffer" huh? Why not it's for the "Greater good". Hey maybe "we" should just say "ok China can invade Tibet, after all with 1.6 billion Chinese more land for China is 'for the greater good'". I am not convinced.

File under R for Rant or U for Unrelated. None of those things are for the common good, no matter what theyre telling you in the Judean Peoples Front meetings.

I call it segregation and the wholesale revokation of human rights as a political tactic that can encompass 20 million people

No its common sense. All of the terrorists from 9/11 were Islamic fundamentalist, and originally from the middle east. Thats a pretty good profile to check against. All those things you said about racial segregation and so on- they were all forms of one group believing they were superiour on racial grounds (Youve really got to spell it out for some people). The ATC is not based on notions of racial superiority but on sheer common sense.

Yeah and the KKK believed in racial discrimination. Thus to beat this 38 years later the lefts great idea is MORE racial discrimination. Course this is the good kind. I wonder when well be allowed to just be ourselves and not be segregated by racially based laws like affirmitive action. As you may have noticed people bash them because of the sheer hypocrisy of them.

"I hardly think the US needs any lessening of civil liberties do you"

Yeah theyve already had plenty from the Democrats like I mentioned. Oh and that last article from News max also detailed some "conincidences" regarding Clinton and civil liberties. BTW given the information you quoted on black members in the congress- (I find it interesting you believe that the congress isnt "right" unless is 12% black, 70% white and so- does this mean people should vote to maintain this balance? ) - Would you agree with me that If i was to take any Black member of congress at random- hed have a higher probability of being a Democrat than if I picked a White member of congress?

"If you went to the US right now you could be branded a "terrorists" and if the authorities so wished you could disappear into the "military court" system and if convicted could even be denied right of appeal,as a non-national"

The question is- Why would they want to convict me when i dont meet the profile for terrorism? (Youd better not go across though given your "views" on terrorism:) ) When Im not a terrorist? And when the real terrorists are still at large?

Coyote

I'm sorry but i had to post this just got it

JustHalf

Sand, they should have gotten the vote. And regardless, Gore did win Florida on most counting methods (if we count all sections of Florida, not those he wanted recounted) -- but he's not pushing for it now, so there's not much we can do about it.

Hobbes

Yeah and the KKK believed in racial discrimination.

So believing that anyone who is not American should denied the same rights is not racial discrimination?


The question is- Why would they want to convict me when i dont meet the profile for terrorism?

What is the profile for terrorism?

I have hit it in England, by buying a plane ticket in cash too soon to the flight which landed in an obscure airport (was the only connecting flight I could get because I bought it so late), oh and because I was Irish.

You should try it sometime, it's quite an eyeopener to be automatically assumed a terrorist.

So far in the US it seems to be "Non Americans, muslims, middle eastern people". That's why you get stuff like a muslim getting detained for buying chocolate and a white American gets a slap on the wrist for trying to smuggle a knife onto a plane.

What will that profile be 5-10 years down the line? The next country to disagree with US policy suddenly becomes part of that profile? (what am I saying, they already are).

Sand

Hmmm would be Hobbes but theyre talking about non-national terrorists- i.e crinimals- i.e before these can be aplied to you you need to fufill the criteria of being a terrorist.

Hobbes you and I both know that Irish republicans have never used suicide bombers (they have however held families hostage to force men to drive bombs to british army checkpoints)- thus why would you buying a plane ticket alert anybody?

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
I have hit it in England, by buying a plane ticket in cash too soon to the flight which landed in an obscure airport (was the only connecting flight I could get because I bought it so late), oh and because I was Irish.

You should try it sometime, it's quite an eyeopener to be automatically assumed a terrorist.

Yup .. been there on several occasions. Not a pleasant experience

My family goes over to Scotland every Xmas and New year (mother is scottish y'see) to see relatives, etc. and we used to drive up through N.Ireland to Larne to catch a ferry. On several occasions, we've had guns (and lots of them) pointed at us simply cause we had an Irish reg. plate on the car. Never mind that there are 4 children in the car who are rather un-nerved by the soldier standing outside a rear passenger door pointing an f*cking gun at them just in case the 8 year old pulls out a sawn-off - heaven forbid.

Also had a machine-gun practically pointed in my face at heathrow when I was 14 (school trip). Security guard heard the irish accent and the rest you can imagine.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
Hobbes you and I both know that Irish republicans have never used suicide bombers

I don't see what that has to do with anything I said.

(they have however held families hostage to force men to drive bombs to british army checkpoints)

As has the British Army/Black and Tans (held catholics as human shields). But again that has absolutly nothing to do with what I posted.

thus why would you buying a plane ticket alert anybody?

It was the conditions of buying the ticket that triggered something.

The Terrorist procedure at airports isn't something new, Irish people have had to put up with it for ages when travelling in England. I easily know a lot of people who have had to fill out the form. I am not a terrorist, I don't support or agree with terrorism and neither does I believe any of the people I know who have had to go through it.

It normally involves a security person (not customs, they are different) grilling you on various things (eg. I was asked where I worked then asked for all the street names around that place as well as loads of other stuff relating to my job, home, reasons for travel), going through your stuff and then finally having to fill out a terrorist form.

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Hmmm would be Hobbes but theyre talking about non-national terrorists- i.e crinimals- i.e before these can be aplied to you you need to fufill the criteria of being a terrorist.

Please tell us what the criteria of being a terrorist are.

From The Guardian

British police have been secretly ordered to treat all Irish-born citizens on their patch as potential terrorist suspects, according to a memo leaked to The Observer .
The investigation, codenamed Operation Pre-Empt, instructs officers to report all dealings with anyone of Irish descent or background - including the most routine checks on drivers and even reports from suspicious landlords - to Special Branch, as a precaution against a feared terrorist bombing offensive.

paddymee

So far in the US it seems to be "Non Americans, muslims, middle eastern people". That's why you get stuff like a muslim getting detained for buying chocolate and a white American gets a slap on the wrist for trying to smuggle a knife onto a plane.

The new laws are US citizens versus non US citizens within America. Muslims can be US citizens too.

Please back up your examples with references because they just sound a bit too convienent for you argument.

As I have said America is trying to protect itself from what it perceives as it's ememy, non Citizens in America. America is pissed off that it has offered millions of foreigners the opertunities available and got slapped in the face.

I dont agree with the new laws, but I think after this initial gut reaction more normal laws will be passed.

Hobbes

The choccy story was discussed in detail on www.snopes.com under the war section.

The other story was about a guy travelling to Boston tried to smuggle a knife in his shoe onto the plane. He was let out on bail and suspended sentance. He wasn't middle eastern decent and claimed he needed it to protect himself in Boston. I think the story was on boston.com or cnn.com (if I can find the link again I'll post it). It's a recent story, less then a week old.

Considering a doctor who was of middle eastern descent was detained trying to fly because his name sounded like one of the hijackers, I think the guy who was trying to smuggle the knife on board should of gotten a more serious punishment.

America is pissed off that it has offered millions of foreigners the opertunities available and got slapped in the face.

Which all may be well and good but it translates to "You are now a second class citizen". Also because of the military tribunals to try non-Americans this "Sub-human" attitude extends outside Americas borders.

A country declaring that the rest of the world has less rights then their own citizens is something you would see of a communist country.

I dont agree with the new laws, but I think after this initial gut reaction more normal laws will be passed.

Too late for that. Some of the laws passed can be repealed but some of them don't have sunset clauses. I'm curious how you go about retracting a law with no time limit?

Sand

Wow you guys got stopped and were checked to see if you were a potential terrorist? By that logic I should have been treated as a terrorist when I visited the UK, I mean Im Irish and thats all they need according to you- But I was only ever treated as a tourist. Funny that.

Paddys right about the laws not being racially based but rather US citizenship vs non US citizenship. Hence they cant be second class citizens given they arent citizens at all? Neither can it be racism or whatever other buzz words have been used.

If the UK police want to check Irish people fine by me. Ive got nothing to hide and a few minutes inconvenience are a small price to pay should someones life be saved on the slight chance theyll identify a terrorist. Amazingly enough youve got a higher probability of being an IRA terrorist if youre from Ireland as oppossed to being from Hong Kong. Hence, if youre looking for IRA terrorists it makes sense to concentrate on people from Ireland as opposed to checking people from Hong Kong and where ever. Again call it profiling or whatever.

Hobbes

Sand maybe you have some kind of blind spot when it comes to reading peoples posts.

Apart from Von's post (Which I wasn't aware of) the reason you get pulled over is because you set up off some conditions.

I have already listed what mine where (and they were based on the discussion I had with the security guy).

But to think that somehow your immune? Hardly.

Anyway Hong Kong aside the point was, try being accused of being a terrorist simply from where you come from then come back and tell us if you like it.