# US  fingerprints 'allied' visitors



## Giaguara (Apr 2, 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3595221.stm and
http://www.repubblica.it/2003/j/sezioni/esteri/terrorismo/impronta/impronta.html:



> A US requirement for visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed is being expanded to include citizens from America's closest allies.
> 
> The move will affect visitors from 27 countries* - including the UK, Japan and Australia - whose nationals had been able to visit the US without a visa.
> 
> ...



[* =Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. ]


What do YOU think?

The only place I have had my fingerprints so far taken is in Brazil. But there it was not discriminating: everyone must have the fingerprints taken for the national identity card - both Brazilians and all non-Brazilians.


But these? 

I think all those 27 countries should as a response make the exact same requirements for the visitors from USA. So anyone from USA visiting ANY of those countries would need to be photographed and fingerprinted .. again. So if you'd visit e.g. UK, Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain and UK and Ireland again on your Europe trip, you'd be fingerprinted and photographed nine times. (or any number crossing borders in Europe, only because of the passport you have).   


I love the French attitude ..  France tries to impose the same visa / working licence etc requirements for the other countries than they do for the French. So if a French person can work easily in a country A, a person from country A can work easily in France. If a French person needs a lot of paperwork and bureaucratic marathon to get a visa or working licence in a country B, a person from country B will have the same kind of treatment in France - a lot of paperwork .. that can be a lot of paperwork. 

Now what if all these countries would add the actual same policies toward USA (and not only .. also to other countries) ??  ::ha::


----------



## ScottW (Apr 2, 2004)

I think we should finger print ALL foreign visitors.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 2, 2004)

Shouldn't every country do that then, to everybody?

What if suddenly these 27 countries would start fingerprinting US citizens?? They should maybe do it, for their own safety (i.e. I think there are about as many 'unsafe' persons coming from lets say from Sweden to US than from US to Sweden or any other of those countries)

Of the countries the ones I've seen doing fingerprinting on the least discriminating way were Brazil (above) and Portugal - they as well fingerprint everyone, Portuguese or non-portuguese.


----------



## ScottW (Apr 2, 2004)

They can fingerprint me if I go somewhere else. I have nothing to hide.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 2, 2004)

I have the same opinion as Scott.  Personal freedom / convenience arguments aside, the U.S. has been infiltrated very easily before, and this move is not a surprise to me.


----------



## markceltic (Apr 2, 2004)

I say it's within any countries right to apply whatever means they think is necessary to protect itself.So just be sure to research the requirements of said country before you travel.


----------



## speedfreak (Apr 3, 2004)

I have 3 passports. US, Bermuda, British/EU When I go to Europe I use British, when I come back I use the US one.  How does this affect me?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 3, 2004)

speedfreak said:
			
		

> I have 3 passports. US, Bermuda, British/EU When I go to Europe I use British, when I come back I use the US one.  How does this affect me?


Can you give me the number of that guy who made you two of those three passports? I need one for Croatia..   
Seriously, I feel somehow humiliated by this. They have to brand me like a cow..  No thanks!


----------



## speedfreak (Apr 3, 2004)

They are all legitimate.


----------



## Randman (Apr 3, 2004)

It's an interim step until biometric passports come about. I don't see anyone complaining about biometric passports.
   If you have nothing to hide, what's wrong with a fingerprint? Citizens of those countries still don't require visas. Why not complain about other countries with strict laws concerning entry?


----------



## Cat (Apr 3, 2004)

The fact that I have nothing to hide does not mean that I give license to anybody to check on me. That's called privacy. I have nothing to hide, but that does not mean my life is completely public.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm willing to give up some personal freedoms if that means a safer world.  And a finger print is not an unreasonable thing.


----------



## pds (Apr 3, 2004)

Last time I was arrested it took about 24 hours to get an answer to my prints.  So what good does it do to print someone at the gate? Do they actually get a readout on them before the person is let in? I haven't traveled since January, but that sounds like a nightmare of delays at immigration.

MDLarson, just how does a fingerprint lead to a safer world? Back in the mid 90's there was this push to fingerprint children so that they could be "protected." From what and how exactly? Seems fingerprints are used to catch bad-guys after the fact, not before it.

It may do some good before they get to the gate of the airport - i.e. if it is part of the process when applying for a visa or a ticket/boarding pass so you can have the print run through whatever international database there may be, or to make sure that the person coming in actually is the one who got the visa/ticket/boarding pass. Just getting someone's fingerprint and then letting them go through seems obnoxious to me.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 3, 2004)

I am forced to agree with the position that this finger printing won't stop any determined terrorist. Our technology is not up to the instant speed people think it is. This announcement is purely political in nature and does nothing to protect us. Do they really believe terrorists fingerprints are on file? I don't think so.


----------



## Randman (Apr 3, 2004)

> The fact that I have nothing to hide does not mean that I give license to anybody to check on me. That's called privacy. I have nothing to hide, but that does not mean my life is completely public.


 Have you ever applied for a visa for another country? You're asked plenty of personal information, and where you're staying, what you're doing and even your profession. 
  For some countries, I've had to leave a visa with the embassy for a few days until it came back. I didn't have to but I wouldn't have been able to enter the country without it. Give and take.
   Two weeks ago, I had to change travel plans as I was told my S/O might not be allowed to enter Japan even though she's a professional actuary and earns a good living. We had to wait a day and go to Australia instead, but only after applying for travel visas.
   Fingerprints will be an inconvenience, but many parts of travelling is a pain these days. And expect more security, or the semblance of it, on trains as well.
  And as far as France goes, as Gia said, wait and see what happens after a bomb goes off on the Metro and kills a few hundred.
  Don't forget it's a political year (across many places in the world) and comments/themes are going to be amped up, especially security issues, realized or not.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2004)

Fingerprints = safety and less terrorism?

So Brazil and Portugal must be totally terrorismless and safe countries, as their fingerprinting includes the people of their own country and the foreigners. 


Can anyone come with a good reason why Brunei is in the visaless list?


----------



## Randman (Apr 3, 2004)

Brunei joined ASEAN on January 7, 1984--one week after resuming full independence--and gives its ASEAN membership the highest priority in its foreign relations. Brunei joined the United Nations in September 1984. It also is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Brunei hosts the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in November 2000.

U.S.-BRUNEI RELATIONS 
Relations between the United States and Brunei date from the last century. On April 6, 1845, the U.S.S. Constitution visited Brunei. The two countries concluded a Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation in 1850, which remains in force today. The United States maintained a consulate in Brunei from 1865 to 1867.

The U.S. welcomed Brunei Darussalam's full independence from the United Kingdom on January 1, 1984, and opened an embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan on that date. Brunei opened its embassy in Washington in March 1984. Brunei's armed forces engage in joint exercises, training programs, and other military cooperation with the U.S. An MOU on defense cooperation was signed on November 29, 1994. 

Sounds very similar to Singapore-US before the FTA was signed.


----------



## Randman (Apr 3, 2004)

Brunei's oil production peaked in 1979 at more than 240,000 barrels per day. Since then it has been deliberately cut back to extend the life of oil reserves and improve recovery rates. Petroleum production is currently averaging 200,000 barrels per day. Japan has traditionally been the main customer for Brunei's oil exports and in 1999 took in about 50.3% of Brunei's export production, followed by the United States (13.9%), Korea (13.5%), and Thailand (13.3%). Other major customers include Taiwan and the countries of ASEAN.

Oil = another good reason.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 3, 2004)

It's not visa OR fingerprint.
It's visa AND fingerprint


----------



## markceltic (Apr 3, 2004)

Actually the U.S. could learn a thing or two from the E.U.They've had alot more experience with "terrorists",going back to the Munich massacre,Red Brigades & all that other riff raff!But I have to agree with Randman this is a year of politics so put on your boots people it's going to get deep ::ha::


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 5, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> MDLarson, just how does a fingerprint lead to a safer world? Back in the mid 90's there was this push to fingerprint children so that they could be "protected." From what and how exactly? Seems fingerprints are used to catch bad-guys after the fact, not before it.


Well, how 'bout a safer world for ME?  _At least I would feel_ safer knowing that foreigners coming to the U.S. are better documented.

The intellectual part of me believes that a fingerprint could assist in an investigation of a terrorist attack.  For instance, a recovered fingerprint off an unexploded bomb in a multi-bomb attack (similar to the Madrid bombing) could be compared to the fingerprint database.  *Without the database, the print off the bomb would be useless, or much harder to track.*

I don't understand how you can compare this to fingerprinting children; as we're not trying to "protect" terrorists?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 5, 2004)

If fingerprints = safety and easier to track the terrorists after the attacks - wouldn't it be worth fingerprinting everyone in all the world? So lets say everyone in US was fingerprinted .. and the bomber of Oklahoma would have been tracked faster (in case the fingerprints would have been in the exploded bomb etc..) ?

Not all the bad behaviour, violene or terrorism comes from outside. The 9/11 hijackers had Saudi Arabian passports, and were all resident regularly in US with a regular visa (not the regular turist visa)... they were not _from_ USA, but so many other people causing some big misfortunes have been. I mean, even one schoolkid shooting an other schoolkid is a major misfortune, even if the sufferers are only 1 (and 2 families, and all school, and all city probably). .. I mean incidents like those, or those that Michael Moore discusses in Bowling for Colombine .. 

Fingerpints. So, they would protect from violence/terrorism etc afterwards, when whatever has already happened, by then having the easiness to compare the fingerprints on .. an exploded bomb to those of the local  residents / legal and illegal aliens?


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 5, 2004)

Collecting fingerprints would _probably_ not *prevent* a terrorist attack, but it would be helpful in the investigation afterwards, like any other crime.  Do we not have a database of criminals' fingerprints?  Should we not take steps to protect our borders from future terrorism?  _Of course_ we don't want to treat our allies like criminals or terrorists, but I think it's obvious that security is a very big issue these days, and fingerprinting folks coming into our land is a necessary step.  Why is this so difficult an issue?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 5, 2004)

Maybe because most of the countries (Portugal and Brazil as ecceptions) tend to collect the finger prints ONLY from the criminals??

Fignerprinting could be applied with the same security reason for US citizens (and any non-EU citizens) visiting EU countries. For security. So in case there are any terrorist attacks in EU it will be easier to track down .. the non-Europeans.  

Having everyone's fingerprints filed instead of selected (non-criminals such as people born in other places) people's would fasten solving and tracking down a lot more crimes. (robbaries, thefts, murders, terrorism, vandalism etc etc etc)

Being filed with fingerprints feels being categorized as a criminal (because of you having been born in a wrong place) if you have lived in countries where the fingerprints are taken exclusively from the criminals. Would that be one valid reason for it sounding so difficult?


----------



## Cat (Apr 6, 2004)

> Of course we don't want to treat our allies like criminals or terrorists


... but that is exactly what you are doing. It is essential to the judiciary system that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By pre-emptively taking mug shots and fingerprints, you are treating all foreign visitors as potential criminals, i.e. as presumed guilty. This is quite insulting and invasive. Next step: thoughtcrime and camera's everywhere as in 1984. ::


----------



## Randman (Apr 6, 2004)

Solution: Don't go to a country where you have problems with the entry requirements.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 6, 2004)

what about business trips?


----------



## Randman (Apr 6, 2004)

> what about business trips?


 What about them? When you have to travel internationally for business, you just want to pass through customs as quickly as possible and hope your luggage isn't lost and that the hotel is halfway decent.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 6, 2004)

Exactly! It would really bother me if I had to go over some weird fingerprint + pic + visa routine..


----------



## Randman (Apr 6, 2004)

But giving your passport to an embassy for a few days and submitting papers and a photograph is acceptable? And that is a requirement for many places. Puh-leeze. 
  Besides, if you did travel for business, you'd realize soon enough that each place has its own set of rules and regulations. Some make more sense than others.


----------



## pds (Apr 6, 2004)

I started this this morning and only now have finished it off. I hope it is still germane to the topic.

It is not a difficult issue at all. It is a political decision to lull folks into a false sense of security. It costs no votes at home and creates the illusion that something big is being done.

The substitution of emotion for objective fact is to me one of the indications of a society in decline. Feeling safe is *not* the same as being safe. It is an illusion that has little or no bearing on reality. Take for example a walk around the block on an evening in Harlem (a black/spanish ghetto for the unitiated). I know of people who won't even think about it. To me it's a walk in the park so to speak. I feel safe, the other doesn't. How does that affect the reality of being mugged in Harlem? One who feels safe may be the one who gets mugged while the one who is terrified is the one who doesn't. (This is not meant as a racist slur - de ninguna manera! It is just an example.)

The one who feels safe may be the one who ignores reality and therefore doesn't deal with the fundamental issues that makes him unsafe in the first place.

Re: fingerprinting children... It is similar in that the companies involved used a ploy to exploit people's fears, presented a false promise of safety, and then benefited from the whole charade (funny - pay $25 to give away your anomynity). Today the politicians and the whole "homeland security industrial complex" are cashing in on the false promise.

Sorry folks, the world is not safe. Accidents happen and bad guys kick good guys when they get a chance. It is a wonderful world, but there are no guarantees.

Re: finding people through fingerprints. I don't think too many crimes are or could be solved by fingerprints. Even if I identify the perp, how will I find him without detective work. Was the Oklahoma bomber found quicker because of fingerprints? I thought it was the fact that he was an idiot and was stopped for speeding with an expired license the same day of the blast. (or is my memory fuzzy on that?). Madrid bombers caught through fingerprints? Don't think so. It was a direct identification by the mobile seller wasn't it? If they had found that Ahmed Ayahaga had left his prints on the bomb, how will they find Ahmed Ayahaga? 

It's funny, but there are three Mohammed Attas in my school and I know at least ten others personaly. So the "universal fingerprint database" only leads to the need for a "universal location registry". 

I usually like to keep my paranoia in the night table by my bed, but the idea of universal fingerprint databases smacks of Big Brother. For me, I'd rather be vigilant than falsely secure.


----------



## chevy (Apr 6, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> What about them? When you have to travel internationally for business, you just want to pass through customs as quickly as possible and hope your luggage isn't lost and that the hotel is halfway decent.



I agree. No problem if the Swiss administration wants my finger prints and my image to be added (electronically) to my passport... if it saves me 30 minutes the next time I have to cross the US (or any other) border.

I would be reluctant today to give my DNA as this is too often miss-used as most people do not understand that several people share the same DNA identifiers (justices uses some 10-15 traces to identify an individual with DNA, which is o.k. to demonstrate that this is not my DNA, but which is not sufficient to demonstrate that this IS my DNA as at least 10-15 people share the same traces worldwide, therefore any DNA identification can lead to 10 to 15 possible suspects) DNA is a hint, not a proof.

And I agree that all countries should require the same image and finger prints information, so that a single system would serve all.

And I think that we should have an international way to verify the integrity of the information relative to any person (I want to know that the information that FBI and others collect around me is correct).


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 6, 2004)

Well, I guess I can understand your guys' points... I can only speak for myself, and myself thinks there doesn't have to be a conspiracy with every security measure introduced as a result of the "War on Terror", including this one (fingerprinting).


----------



## Cat (Apr 7, 2004)

Have you ever been fingerprinted, MDLarson?


----------



## pds (Apr 7, 2004)

I live in the land of the conspiracy theory, but I am not talking about a conspiracy, just a mindset that style is more important than substance. 

And one that will accept style over substance (objective reality).

@ cat - I think the new fingerprint scans are less humiliating than having some smelly policeman twist your fingers in the black ink.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 8, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Have you ever been fingerprinted, MDLarson?


Once in grade school probably.  I think I thought it was fun and cool at the time.  (It's ok, I'm sure they were protecting me!   )

Let me just paraphrase my point of view.  I live in Minnesota, pretty much in the middle of North America, and far away from most other countries (except friendly Canada).  I saw the 9/11 tragedy on TV, and I know that I personally didn't do anything to deserve such a death as those in the Trade Center received.  I also know that people have dedicated their lives to killing 'Americans'.  *That includes me.*  I AM ON SOMEBODY'S HIT LIST.

I have also heard many reports about the inadequate immigration / customs procedures and how the bad guys still managed to get through, even coming through Canada's unprotected border.

I view steps that tighten security in the U.S. as a *good thing*.  If reasonable security measures like fingerprinting offends utopians like yourself, then so be it.

I fail to see how this issue is just a ploy to somehow lull Americans into thinking they're more safe than they really are.  Obviously somebody in Homeland Security thought fingerprinting is worthwhile, and I believe them.


----------



## Randman (Apr 8, 2004)

I have to disagree with you on that. As an American who's been working abroad and traveling a bit these past few years, there are other countries that are far more difficult to enter. And some have double standards. Last year, my fiancee and I went to Germany, she for business, me for holiday.
  I was let through Customs in a matter of seconds, no questions asked. She, being Chinese, was held up for more than 5 minutes and had to reply to a number of questions, including her purpose for being there, contact information, hotel arrangements, languages spoken, etc.
  But it seems that the US is a lightning rod for criticism. I would bet that if another country started doing the same, Spain or Japan, for example, that the outcry would be far less.
  It's an election year and, for good or bad, security it a prime issue and steps are going to be done to placate the masses, even if it alienates some visitors.
   Overall, this topic is much ado about nothing. If it gives people of mind, so be it. And six months from now, people will hardly remember what the fuss was all about.
   Have a latte and sit back and relax some. Life's not that difficult in most places, be it Minnesota, elsewhere in the US or most other places on the planet.


----------



## markceltic (Apr 11, 2004)

Being a Canadian myself MDLarson I hope you realize that incompetence knows no borders!We have our share of ignorants true,but I don't see people here making a "cottage industry"of paranoia.What other countries allow their citizens to publish books on making explosives,faking their indentities?Wasn't the book (Diary of a Hitman) from the states?Aren't more people murdered in the states every year through gun violence than any terrorist attacks? I'm sure someone here has the number,it will be staggering!Would you look upon this as a price of freedom?


----------



## Randman (Apr 11, 2004)

And the last point has to deal with fingerprinting people upon entry in what way?


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 12, 2004)

All I know (or think I know) is that terrorists want in, and I want to keep them out.  If we can't keep them from coming in, maybe fingerprinting them will allow us to track them.  Sheesh, that's all folks.  I'm not a criminal investigator.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 12, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> All I know (or think I know) is that terrorists want in, and I want to keep them out.  If we can't keep them from coming in, maybe fingerprinting them will allow us to track them.  Sheesh, that's all folks.  I'm not a criminal investigator.


Hmmm, let me give an extreme example so ppl get the point why some are against this fingerprinting:
if this fingerprinting is to make life more secure, what would you say if EVERYONE would get a GPS-module implemented and somehow guarded? Someone posted before, that there is a higher killing rate on _national_ criminality than some international terrorism. So, wouldn't such a guarding idea make everyone out there feel more safe? If I got the logic of some ppl here, they should accept this. But I wouldn't, since I enjoy my privacy. So, it's a question of balance between security and privacy. Some ppl weight security more, some other prefere the privacy. I believe fingerprinting brings more loss in privacy than a gain of security.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 12, 2004)

Here is a novel idea. How about the US INS actually do their job and check green card applicants and visitor visas for backgrounds, etc. With todays technology there is no reason to hook all Interpol records and files to police and INS agencies around the world. If the French or germans consider person a as a possible terrorist then the US denies them a Visa or reviews the person a lot more carefully. 

You wouldn't believe the amount of ignorance/hatred between US agencies toward each other. This is even after 9/11. Plus, we are not alone. I saw a report about how Canadian equivalent agencies have 1930 paper technology at their borders and people (terrorist toward Canada and the US) on the Canadian's terrorist watch list (by Canadian standards) are walking right in (from flights, boats, etc.) and sometimes it took two weeks for the border guards to get info on person.

I'm just afraid that our governments are incapable to protect a determined terrorist  no matter what they try because they are so far behind the technology curve (most people don't know how far). In the US there is such a distrust between departments they will never really work with each other.   So this finger print idea looks good on paper, but in reality it will just be a headache for normal, law-abiding decent people trying to enter the US (or any other country).


----------



## pds (Apr 12, 2004)

> I'm just afraid that our governments are incapable to protect a determined terrorist no matter what they try because they are so far behind the technology curve (most people don't know how far).



So we should spend more time and effort rooting out the sources of terrorism while making effort to generate more synergy on the beaurocratic front, and less on political feels-good posturing that will produce data that will stay at the bottom of that curve.

Our present efforts in the former are disastrous at best. The present situation, regardless of all the politics in Washington with the Condi-Clarke revue, throws nitro-fuel on the fire of the resentment, angst, anger and despair that coughs up suicide maniacs and the cadre of the terror network. The Arab youth (face it - they are the only terrorists these days) has to be given hope that springs from within, not that is handed down from some high-handed military manoever (sp). It is by no means a simple task but it starts about 150 miles east of the shore of the Mediterranean with a commitment to the territorial and economic rights of the Palestinian people.  

It is too late to say a stitch in time saves nine, the situation is already torn. But the victory in the war on terror will never come until the Palestinian people are dealt with fairly.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 12, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> The Arab youth (face it - they are the only terrorists these days) has to be given hope that springs from within, not that is handed down from some high-handed military manoever (sp).



I disagree with that. 

I know more Christian extremists than Arab extremists. I have worked with some Arab people, and generally people from around the world (including people from the countries Bush does not like). 

But, of course, being a Christian With Strong Opinions is widely accepted.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 12, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> I believe fingerprinting brings more loss in privacy than a gain of security.


I can understand this point of view.



			
				Giaguara said:
			
		

> I know more Christian extremists than Arab extremists. I have worked with some Arab people, and generally people from around the world (including people from the countries Bush does not like).
> 
> But, of course, being a Christian With Strong Opinions is widely accepted.


Well, I would bet you could classify me as a Christian extremist, but I have don't think I'm extreme (who does?).  Isn't it Bush who is constantly saying "Churches, synagogues and mosques"?  My point is that Bush is not targeting "Muslims", but Muslim terrorists and extremists.  Do you hang out with many terrorists and extremists?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 12, 2004)

No, I avoid all extremists no matter what is their ideology .. (well, I don't avoid those who are extreme about Macs, but everything else.. any religion and political ideology)


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 12, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> No, I avoid all extremists no matter what is their ideology .. (well, I don't avoid those who are extreme about Macs, but everything else.. any religion and political ideology)


Yeah, I guess my two biggest pashions are being a Christian and Macs.  Kinda weird to just think about that.  ANyway, I'm done talking about fingerprints...


----------



## pds (Apr 13, 2004)

There is a difference between an extremist and a terrorist. "Terrorism" is a world level problem, a challenge to progress and stability. 

Extremism/fundamentalism are related problems, connected to the same tensions of modernity, globalization and opportunity, and they must be dealt with too. But the clear and evident danger is the Al Qaida challenge and the support that they get from Hamas to Abou Zaiyef. And the festering sore that feeds the ranks is in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

(Interestingly, the mobilization of the west to deal with that problem will entail a PR push that may help to mitigate the effects of extremism in the Christian world. It is not a panacea, but it would help to stretch our 'Christian values' of justice and freedom to some who are not part of 'our group.')


----------



## habilis (Apr 24, 2004)

[pessimistic rant]
It's not like fingerprinting is going to make any difference at all in any way whatsoever. Christians aren't going to change any time soon, Muslims aren't going to change any time soon. As long as 2 different religions or races exist on this planet, they will fight and kill each other. As long as human nature exists as it does today, we will keep killing each other. World peace is an unobtainable fantasy. Rwanda was you and me killing thousands of children. It happened yesterday under our noses, and nobody missed a beat.

In the long run, fingerprinting or no, it's not going to stop a terrorist. It might stall a plot here, foil a plan there, but it's just a band-aid really. _Today_, Nothing can stop terrorism. Not money, not love, not being nice, not clean water, not renouncing our gods to please Islam, not erasing Israel to please Islam, not staying out of foreign countries. Had all this terrorism happened before mass media, America would have invaded the middle east, beheaded all the Muslim political and religious leaders, killed hundreds of thousands of men-women-children, occupied and annexed the land and its resources, completely redrawn the map of the Middle East, and over 20 or so years, forcefully westernized and indoctrinated the entire remaining Arab populations to Christianity and conquered Islam as a whole.

But since that solution isn't going to happen until we have a huge smoking crater in the ground where NYC used to be, you can expect Fingerprinting, homocide bombers, and band-aids to be in vogue for quite some time.  
[/pessimistic rant]


----------



## pds (Apr 24, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> [pessimistic rant]
> As long as 2 different religions or races exist on this planet, they will fight and kill each other. As long as human nature exists as it does today, we will keep killing each other.


Hmm, human nature is the root of the killing? Boy did you get up on the wrong side of the bed!  As far as I can remember it has been a long time since anyone I know just got up and killed someone. Murder and killing is deviant behavior, not human nature. Most people don't kill other people. Most people look for ways to get along. My own family is an example. My sister is happily married to a Pakistani, my brother to an Italian girl, I to a German, another sister to a Jew and another to an Algerian. People of different races and cultures can get along. It just requires focus on our sameness rather than on our differentness.


> World peace is an unobtainable fantasy. Rwanda was you and me killing thousands of children. It happened yesterday under our noses, and nobody missed a beat.


Interesting mix of (subliminal) metaphors here. The buyers and the sellers were no diff'rent fellers... The remorse felt that _we_ didn't do anything leads me to feel there is hope that we _can_ make the right choices at some point.


> In the long run, fingerprinting or no, it's not going to stop a terrorist. It might stall a plot here, foil a plan there, but it's just a band-aid really. _Today_, Nothing can stop terrorism. Not money, not love, not being nice, not clean water, not renouncing our gods to please Islam, not erasing Israel to please Islam, not staying out of foreign countries.



I'm not sure who offered any of these solutions, but it wasn't anyone in the thread. I certainly hope that what follows is not a suggestion of a plan of action. 


> Had all this terrorism happened before mass media, America would have invaded the middle east, beheaded all the Muslim political and religious leaders, killed hundreds of thousands of men-women-children, occupied and annexed the land and its resources, completely redrawn the map of the Middle East, and over 20 or so years, forcefully westernized and indoctrinated the entire remaining Arab populations to Christianity and conquered Islam as a whole.


uh, isn't that what Richard the Lionheart tried to do? That was some few years before the advent of mass media, as I recall. Interestingly, the Arab populations are not sure that the idea was put to bed by history and that it lives in the mind of a certain western leader. Seems it does live in the pessimistic rants of some re-educators 



> But since that solution isn't going to happen until we have a huge smoking crater in the ground where NYC used to be, you can expect Fingerprinting, homocide bombers, and band-aids to be in vogue for quite some time.
> [/pessimistic rant]



I can understand a pessimistic rant every once in a while. World peace does indeed seem elusive. I hope that after a good nights rest you will rethink the idea of ethnic cleansing as a viable policy for the future of mankind.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 24, 2004)

Hmm, I'm a Christian and I've never considered this whole thing a "war against muslims".  I consider it a war against terrorists who usually *are* muslim.  Every group has a bad bunch, including Christianity.

It's embarrasing to me as a Christian to remember the crusades.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 24, 2004)

Not ALL muslims are terrorists. 

Maybe they should just add to the turist visa questions about religion. "Are you muslim? If so, are you a terrorist?"

Asking that would not be any more discriminating than the actual questions there about health.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 24, 2004)

Sorry, I don't mean to imply that only muslims are terrorists.  I should have made that clear.


----------



## pds (Apr 24, 2004)

> Maybe they should just add to the turist visa questions about religion. "Are you muslim? If so, are you a terrorist?"


lol! Hey, the form asks if you are a drug addict, so...

Most terrorists would classify themselves as freedom fighters though - terrorist is a label saved for US soldiers and Israeli Prime Ministers. Washington is not the only spin-city in the world...


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 24, 2004)

Yes, it asks not only about being a [drug] addict but also other issues about [standard health, and meantal] health. 
And still they ask if you were involved in genocides during World War II ... 
Just add a "Do you plan to involve in terroristic behaviour while you are in the States? If so, please specify which kind of []hijacking planes []bomb attacks []disturbing white people []sue mddonalds for the obesity they caused you in your home country   etc etc. so just a few more crosses and yes and nos to the form. It would do more as if anyone would do anything controindicated, they could be caught for a lie as well ...


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 24, 2004)

This reminds me of something I heard on the radio... one of the tax forms actually have a section telling you that you MUST report all income, including illegal activities... haha!


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 25, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> This reminds me of something I heard on the radio... one of the tax forms actually have a section telling you that you MUST report all income, including illegal activities... haha!


----------



## markceltic (Apr 25, 2004)

Sounds just like something a govt. employee would come up with.Well you never know some fool might report his illegal activities.I wonder how long it would take before they actually caught the offender.As slow as any govt. is the offender will probably get a refund to put towards their escape from the feds!::ha::


----------



## Arden (Apr 26, 2004)

I fail to see how fingerprinting anybody coming into the country is going to stop terrorists, or whatever they want.  As (someone) said above, it's a false sense of security that it builds.  Fingerprints can only incriminate a person after he does something, IF he's dumb enough to leave them, and IF he hasn't blown himself to smithereens already.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 26, 2004)

welcome back Arden!


----------



## MDLarson (May 7, 2004)

I AM VINDICATED!!!

Good thing somebody, somewhere collected Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints, the U.S. lawyer who recently converted to Islam and was involved in the Madrid bombings!

::ha::


----------



## Giaguara (May 7, 2004)

.. well, a man was arrested in Birmingham airport because he left his teddybear in lounge while he went to have a cigarette. Geezh...


----------



## pds (May 7, 2004)

The man (Mayfield) had been under surveillance for a long time, given his support for the Portland Seven... and he was not fingerprinted at any airport (being an American citizen).

I don't know if his status as a lawyer makes him liable to be fingerprinted. If he is involved (assumption of innocence and all that) it is great that they got him.


----------



## Randman (May 8, 2004)

A few weeks ago, I came through LA customs and other than a sign saying a digital fingerprint would be taken for foreign nationals entering the US, there wasn't a big deal still. People were coming in, the lines were moving at the same speed as they always have and no one was grumbling about any extra inconveniences. 
  So has anyone here had to deal with it? I'd be more interested in hearing from someone who has had to be digitally fingerprinted than anyone up in arms over something they haven't experienced or that that have first- (or even second-)hand knowledge of.


----------

