Newsstand - Brazil judge orders U.S. citizens fingerprinted

View Full Version : Brazil judge orders U.S. citizens fingerprinted

monahos

Dec 31, 03, 7:21 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/12/30/brazil.usa.immigration.reut/index.html

 -- A Brazilian judge furious at U.S. plans to fingerprint and photograph Brazilians entering the United States has ordered Brazil to do the same to U.S. citizens...

The order, set to go into effect on January 1...

"Unless the court order is contested in the justice system, it will be complied with," said a spokesman for Brazil's Federal Police, the agency overseeing immigration...


IIRC, Brazil and South Korea are the two non-WWP countries sending the most visitors to the USA. It could reasonably be argued neither country is a hotbed of terrorism.

[ed. I just noticed this has already been reported at the bottom of this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/007717.html).]

[This message has been edited by monahos (edited Dec 31, 2003).]

richard

Dec 31, 03, 7:45 pm

I for one welcome this fight on terrorism. With my fingerprints and who knows what safely in Brazilian government computers, I will sleep more soundly.

edited to add:

This is going to backfire in surprising and interesting ways.

Remember that a lot of authentication is done in less-than-controlled circumstances, e.g. with you putting your finger on a machine that is unattended.

I predict that the supposed biometric value of fingerprint authentication will become null, with identity theft of stolen, filched or purloined fingerprints essentially rendering them meaningless.

[This message has been edited by richard (edited Dec 31, 2003).]

monahos

Dec 31, 03, 8:39 pm

I doubt all Brazilian entry points will be equipped with fingerprint scanners linked to a central database in the next few hours...

More along the lines of an ink pad, a piece of paper, and a large trash can filled with fingerprints from irate US citizens http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

NoStressHere

Dec 31, 03, 10:40 pm

I think they are trying to make a point and actual implementation is low on their list of concerns.

Cygnus X-1

Dec 31, 03, 11:17 pm

And to think all of this nonsense started when Bush got that chicken pox vaccine shot in his buttocks.

GUWonder

Dec 31, 03, 11:38 pm

Quid pro quo. We knew some countries would do that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

GUWonder

Dec 31, 03, 11:39 pm

Originally posted by monahos:
I doubt all Brazilian entry points will be equipped with fingerprint scanners linked to a central database in the next few hours...

More along the lines of an ink pad, a piece of paper, and a large trash can filled with fingerprints from irate US citizens http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

... wait until people show up back in the office Monday morning with black fingertips. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

CarmelGreg

Jan 1, 04, 1:16 am

My Brazilian Visa receipt states on it that the "fee is in reciprocity" for the fee the USA charges for it's VISA. This finger printing deal doesn't surprise me either. Probably only to be enforced (eventually) at the main intl airports opposed to the border crossings where you just cross and go register at the nearest town/polic station.

pb9997

Jan 1, 04, 9:24 am

It's really sad that the world has gone backwards in such a short period of time.

GRU airport fully enforces this new rule and all US citizens (crew included) undergo these new procedures.

Efrem

Jan 1, 04, 12:03 pm

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I don't find it the least bit unreasonable for Brazil to subject US citizens to the same indignities that Brazilians visiting the US must submit to.

If more countries did this, maybe the US (my country, lest anyone wonder) would wake up to the arrogance with which it treats foreign visitors while expecting other countries to admit anyone who shows up with a US passport.

H2O_Goalie

Jan 1, 04, 12:23 pm

Originally posted by Efrem:
...while expecting other countries to admit anyone who shows up with a US passport.

And we expected this exactly when? I have zero problem with Brazil's actions. Fingerprint away!

NickP 1K

Jan 1, 04, 12:28 pm

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
And we expected this exactly when? I have zero problem with Brazil's actions. Fingerprint away!


Dream away...

H2O_Goalie

Jan 1, 04, 12:31 pm

Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Dream away...


Meaning what? Quid pro quo...we want to fingerprint/track visitor to the US, I have no problem with other countries wanting to do the same to us. I have absolutely nothing to hide, therefore I have no fear of said plans to fingerprint.

Felix Unger

Jan 1, 04, 12:36 pm

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
Meaning what? Quid pro quo...we want to fingerprint/track visitor to the US, I have no problem with other countries wanting to do the same to us. I have absolutely nothing to hide, therefore I have no fear of said plans to fingerprint.



In fact, I voluntarily leave my fingerprints in no less than hundreds of places every day. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Sure is a lot of paranoia about fingerprinting.. I don't understand it, except as a political agenda item to try to whip fear into a lot of people who really dont care about it.

NickP 1K

Jan 1, 04, 1:51 pm

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
Meaning what? Quid pro quo...we want to fingerprint/track visitor to the US, I have no problem with other countries wanting to do the same to us. I have absolutely nothing to hide, therefore I have no fear of said plans to fingerprint.



Yeah fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers would have found JACK and SQUAT. They weren't wanted, no criminal records, etc. Do you not see how absurd this is. There is no bloody database of "KNOWN TERRORIST" fingerprints, you may think there is but something called reality tells me there isn't.

GUWonder

Jan 1, 04, 2:08 pm

Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Yeah fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers would have found JACK and SQUAT. They weren't wanted, no criminal records, etc. Do you not see how absurd this is. There is no bloody database of "KNOWN TERRORIST" fingerprints, you may think there is but something called reality tells me there isn't.

Fingerprints are useless... terrorists and other criminals will soon learn (if they have not already) that acid burning their fingers or creating various other scar tissues on their fingertips will negate the efficacy of this biometric linked to a prior record.

A DNA database could work based on body secretions and tissue/excretion residues, but don't forget some wacko could decide to go to some mom and pop barber shop in Kansas pick up the trash full of hair, and decide to courier it to Afghanistan or the Afghan-Pakistan border area for some sprinklings here and there. Then a few people in Kansas get a special visit from Uncle Sam some time later.

H2O_Goalie

Jan 1, 04, 2:36 pm

Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Yeah fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers would have found JACK and SQUAT. They weren't wanted, no criminal records, etc. Do you not see how absurd this is. There is no bloody database of "KNOWN TERRORIST" fingerprints, you may think there is but something called reality tells me there isn't.

Someone is arrested for committing a crime. They are fingerprinted, processed, possibly tried and held, released. They fall in with a know terrorist organization (or were already a member before being arrested on an unrelated charge). Now you have a suspected/known terrorist who's fingerprints are on record. Now you can compare new sets of prints against the prior set.

QED.

Try again Zippy.

NickP 1K

Jan 1, 04, 2:37 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Fingerprints are useless... terrorists and other criminals will soon learn (if they have not already) that acid burning their fingers or creating various other scar tissues on their fingertips will negate the efficacy of this biometric linked to a prior record.

A DNA database could work based on body secretions and tissue/excretion residues, but don't forget some wacko could decide to go to some mom and pop barber shop in Kansas pick up the trash full of hair, and decide to courier it to Afghanistan or the Afghan-Pakistan border area for some sprinklings here and there. Then a few people in Kansas get a special visit from Uncle Sam some time later.

Or, any operative who has "tainted" himself by being printed would simply not be put into a high risk operation.

Felix Unger

Jan 1, 04, 2:37 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Fingerprints are useless... terrorists and other criminals will soon learn (if they have not already) that acid burning their fingers or creating various other scar tissues on their fingertips will negate the efficacy of this biometric linked to a prior record.

A DNA database could work based on body secretions and tissue/excretion residues, but don't forget some wacko could decide to go to some mom and pop barber shop in Kansas pick up the trash full of hair, and decide to courier it to Afghanistan or the Afghan-Pakistan border area for some sprinklings here and there. Then a few people in Kansas get a special visit from Uncle Sam some time later.

When your goal is to "prove" any security useless, it is easy to find reasons why fingerprinting won't work, database matching won't work, physical security won't work.. nothing will work.

But the fact is that they do work, we know they work when implemented properly as part of a multilayered approach, and will continue to work as needed in the futire.

NickP 1K

Jan 1, 04, 2:47 pm

richard

Jan 1, 04, 2:51 pm

Originally posted by Felix Unger:
When your goal is to "prove" any security useless, it is easy to find reasons why fingerprinting won't work, database matching won't work, physical security won't work.. nothing will work.

But the fact is that they do work, we know they work when implemented properly as part of a multilayered approach, and will continue to work as needed in the futire. 

The issue is much more complex than this simplistic view that "biometrics works."

It depends for instance on false positives. If there are more than a small percentage, then the system will not work because nobody will trust it.

Also, it depends upon who has access to the database. Who can update it? Chances are it will be taken as "gospel" even though it is very inaccurate, resulting in numerous people being denied their rights, filing court challenges, creating massive political fallout, etc.

Look at the gun registration effort in Canada. That was supposed to be simple and cheap. It has become a massive billion dollar embarrassment and is not close to working. That is just an exmaple of how these things that are supposed to "work" don't. And why we shouldn't be rushing into biometrics or any other unproven technology that is far more complex and subtle than we can imagine.

Occupationalhazard

Jan 1, 04, 7:20 pm

Originally posted by Efrem:
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

While I am not particularly in favor of indiscriminate mistreatment of foreign nationals, get a load of this:

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.

It appears that other countries have wacko judges, too...

O/H

[This message has been edited by Occupationalhazard (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

Felix Unger

Jan 1, 04, 8:56 pm

Originally posted by NickP 1K:
They won't work for catching terrorists...

We disagee, and sadly, pretty much every law enforcement organization in the world is playing on the same team.. and it isn't yours.

FoothillFlyer

Jan 1, 04, 9:15 pm

Brazil and its residents are in denial they are a third world country. They do not like the fact we will not give their citizens unlimited opportunity to immigrate to the US illegally so they play the reciprocity game, which is to imply the same visa application fee charged to everyone else in the world is charged against them specifically.

Combine this with the irony Brazil harbored some of the worst of the Nazis to whom the judge makes his comparison (why not take in the useful nazis like the US did?) and this is reduced to the temper tantrum it is.

Jan 1, 04, 9:24 pm

laughing loudly ! i love this, may other countries join the game soon !

Doppy

Jan 1, 04, 9:48 pm

Originally posted by Felix Unger:
Sure is a lot of paranoia about fingerprinting.. I don't understand it, except as a political agenda item to try to whip fear into a lot of people who really dont care about it. 

Yes, the US government certainly is trying to whip fear into the American public.

History has shown fear is government's #1 means of controlling people.

d

Doppy

Jan 1, 04, 9:51 pm

.

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

Felix Unger

Jan 1, 04, 9:56 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
Yes, the US government certainly is trying to whip fear into the American public.

History has shown fear is government's #1 means of controlling people.

d

Inspiring massive fear in the electorate among the incumbent party is a well known tactic, especially during election years. Just think of the.. the... well, it must be a well known tactic, right?

Wait, wait, I know. The evil right cabal is planning to use the fears they create to cancel elections and make George Bush King. I knew the answer was buried in a conspiracy theory somewhere. Such nonsense.

Again, we are talking politics, instead of security, aren't we? We dont seem to be able to have this conversation without it degrading into that.

PW1P

Jan 1, 04, 9:57 pm

GUWonder

Jan 1, 04, 10:31 pm

Originally posted by Felix Unger:
We disagee, and sadly, pretty much every law enforcement organization in the world is playing on the same team.. and it isn't yours.



They were basically playing on the same team on 9/10/01 too... and we all know what happened on 9/11/01. Law enforcement and "pre-empters" are great at trying to prevent the last tragedy or matter of concern. They are lousy at being ahead of the creative curve. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif [It's true sadly and probably always will be -- short of Orwellian technototalitarianism [patent/sm/tm/c pending].]

GUWonder

Jan 1, 04, 10:35 pm

Originally posted by FoothillFlyer:
Brazil and its residents are in denial they are a third world country. They do not like the fact we will not give their citizens unlimited opportunity to immigrate to the US illegally so they play the reciprocity game, which is to imply the same visa application fee charged to everyone else in the world is charged against them specifically.

Combine this with the irony Brazil harbored some of the worst of the Nazis to whom the judge makes his comparison (why not take in the useful nazis like the US did?) and this is reduced to the temper tantrum it is.

Did you not read what I wrote before in this thread? Brazil and much of Latin America did host Nazis fleeing justice for their crimes against humanity; however, before that and after that, Brazil (and other countries in that region) saved many a jewish family I know from down there by letting them in, when even FDR was turning them back.

So before you harp on Brazil for allowing entry to Nazis, don't forget to thank Brazil for allowing persecuted peoples of the jewish and other faiths escape the Old (Messed Up) World too.

Felix Unger

Jan 1, 04, 10:40 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
They were basically playing on the same team on 9/10/01 too... and we all know what happened on 9/11/01. Law enforcement and "pre-empters" are great at trying to prevent the last tragedy or matter of concern. They are lousy at being ahead of the creative curve. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif [It's true sadly and probably always will be -- short of Orwellian technototalitarianism [patent/sm/tm/c pending].]

Yup, and they learned and adapted, as much as they can. They learned, for example, to correlate disparate sources of intelligence. They learned, also, to look to worldwide chatter levels as a rough indicator of danger. They learned to listen a lot, and to act decisively when enough information suggests a real threat. Since they must be right 100% of the time, there will be false positives... that is the price of having to be as close to always right as possible.

The current system is imperfect, but it is worlds ahead of any of the suggestions I have heard coming from elsewhere.

fastflyer

Jan 1, 04, 10:41 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
While I am not particularly in favor of indiscriminate mistreatment of foreign nationals, get a load of this:

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.

I also think that the fingerprinting is a bit over-the-top, but this statement by a Brazilian official is beyond the pale. Strongly-worded letters are in order here. This man must be disciplined by the Brazilian authorities.

To compare fingerprinting alien immigrants to the Nazi atrocities is an attempt to make the Nazi crimes appear less significant. That a Brazilian official would make such a statement is cause for outrage.

GUWonder

Jan 1, 04, 11:27 pm

Originally posted by fastflyer:
To compare fingerprinting alien immigrants to the Nazi atrocities is an attempt to make the Nazi crimes appear less significant. 

I doubt that is what the judge was attempting to do. I also think there was a translation error from Portuguese to English. I do agree that there is a big difference between the worst atrocities of the Nazi/fascist regimes and what we are doing; however I have yet to find a major Brazilian publication having the alleged "original" quote in print and in Portuguese. I wonder why that is? Could a journalist have gotten a translation wrong perhaps? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis".

"Worthy of the worst horrors"... are you sure that is what the judge said in Portuguese? I am not so sure yet.

When you read O Globo's quote (and/or listen to the audio or the court's own transcript), and translate such for yourself, then we will talk. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

Marco Polo

Jan 2, 04, 1:14 am

On Wednesday, Brazil's foreign ministry formally requested Brazil be removed from the list of countries whose citizens must be photographed and fingerprinted upon entering the United States, or Brazil would deal with entering U.S. citizens the same way.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/01/01/brazil.fingerprints.ap/

Marco Polo

Jan 2, 04, 1:19 am

www.crossmatch.net/pdf/brazil.pdf (http://www.crossmatch.net/pdf/brazil.pdf)
so the ability is there if they do enforce it

pb9997

Jan 2, 04, 7:25 am

The topic here is about a country implementing procedures for aliens and getting reciprocity.

A state is allowed to implement whatever procedures to aliens as it's an independent country. Such procedures may be discussed and receive negative comments in the press. International law allows the other state to implement a reciprocous measure on citizens from that state.

In Brazil it was not the Government but Justice who enforced this law.

Those who don't like, don't travel to that particular country.

Let's not slander citizens of one country calling them imperialists or the other country calling them third-world. This is Flyertalk - a place to openly discuss opinions respecting everyone and their different cultures.

Haven't read the exact quote of this judge but it's somehow related to an episode where a minister of the former Government (left Office in Dec.2002), under an official visit to the US, was submitted to an inspection that included removal of parts of his garments.

Though Americans may feel natural to remove their shoes, belts, open the top of trousers to prove their not carrying a weapon also appreciate that the rest of the world finds it too intrusive.

[This message has been edited by pb9997 (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

whirledtraveler

Jan 2, 04, 7:29 am

Originally posted by pb9997:
Though Americans may feel natural to remove their shoes, belts, open the top of trousers to prove their not carrying a weapon also appreciate that the rest of the world finds it too intrusive. 

This has to be the saddest thing I've read so far this year. What have we become?

pb9997

Jan 2, 04, 7:33 am

Dup. - deleted.

[This message has been edited by pb9997 (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

H2O_Goalie

Jan 2, 04, 7:55 am

Originally posted by whirledtraveler:
This has to be the saddest thing I've read so far this year. What have we become?


Strippers? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Daydream

Jan 2, 04, 9:26 am

I love it! I wish more countries would do this, and the way Brasil does it - for the Americans http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I like the US, but the way they treat anyone seeking a Visa or having a Visa (I have a non-immigrant F1 Visa), even from one of the supposidly "privileged, safe" visa-waiver countries, is just barbaric.

Felix Unger

Jan 2, 04, 9:34 am

Originally posted by Daydream:
I love it! I wish more countries would do this, and the way Brasil does it - for the Americans http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I like the US, but the way they treat anyone seeking a Visa or having a Visa (I have a non-immigrant F1 Visa), even from one of the supposidly "privileged, safe" visa-waiver countries, is just barbaric.



I love it, too. Americans are more than willing to abide by the rules of the contries they visit. Anyone who wants my fingerprint... please take it.

I will leave it not only at immigration, but all over your country, especially in stores, hotels, and restaurants, where I will spend my money buying your goods and services to enjoy.

Hopefully, those of you from overseas will understand that America is the target of terrorists right now, and that requires more stringent immigration procedures than we have had in recent memory. We would like to see your fingerprints all over our country, too. But like you offer us, we offer you the total freedom to make your own decisions as to whether to visit or not. We respect your "rules of the road," and expect no more of you than that.

richard

Jan 2, 04, 10:59 am

Originally posted by Felix Unger:
I love it, too. Americans are more than willing to abide by the rules of the contries they visit. Anyone who wants my fingerprint... please take it.

I will leave it not only at immigration, but all over your country, especially in stores, hotels, and restaurants, where I will spend my money buying your goods and services to enjoy.



Wonderful for you. Here's why I think that is a foolish statement:

Someone has your fingerprint, digitized, they can say they are you and you have a tough time denying it.

They can forge your signature and use your fingerprint to cash a large check drawn on your account, for instance, commit a crime and say you were there.

For a few dollars in household items, your fingerprints can be convincingly transferred to a crime scene "proving" you were there. They can use "your" fingerprint any way they want, any time you want, and since "everyone knows" fingerprints are "proof" good luck denying you were there or created the document or whatever.

And it's plain stupid anyway: Once someone has your fingerprint they can bribe an immigration officer to accept it and enter a country. Whatever happens, it's "you" who entered the country and committed mayhem.

Fingerprints are taken as gospel, so repudiation is very tough and expensive. Yet they are very easy to re-use fraudulently.

Best not to give your fingerprint to anyone if at all possible. Especially someone in a foreign country.

DallaStarwooDelta

Jan 2, 04, 11:06 am

Originally posted by richard:
Wonderful for you. Here's why I think that is a foolish statement:

Someone has your fingerprint, digitized, they can say they are you and you have a tough time denying it.

They can forge your signature and use your fingerprint to cash a large check drawn on your account, for instance, commit a crime and say you were there.

For a few dollars in household items, your fingerprints can be convincingly transferred to a crime scene "proving" you were there. They can use "your" fingerprint any way they want, any time you want, and since "everyone knows" fingerprints are "proof" good luck denying you were there or created the document or whatever.

And it's plain stupid anyway: Once someone has your fingerprint they can bribe an immigration officer to accept it and enter a country. Whatever happens, it's "you" who entered the country and committed mayhem.

Fingerprints are taken as gospel, so repudiation is very tough and expensive. Yet they are very easy to re-use fraudulently.

Best not to give your fingerprint to anyone if at all possible. Especially someone in a foreign country.



Aahhhh! which brings me back to my favorite quote.....

"The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a sh*t whether you live or die. There, you feel better now?"

Dennis Miller (b. 1953) - US Comedian, Emmy winning TV host, actor.

GUWonder

Jan 2, 04, 11:11 am

Originally posted by DallaStarwooDelta:

Aahhhh! which brings me back to my favorite quote.....

"The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a sh*t whether you live or die. There, you feel better now?"

Dennis Miller (b. 1953) - US Comedian, Emmy winning TV host, actor.



Dennis Miller is a coward and in light of concern for his own physical safety will accept totalitarianism and set aside principles. Apparently, the law of the jungle is back and respectable ... at least with Dennis Miller and Alan Dershowitz and a few other civil libertarian turncoats.

Most all reasonable people are not concerned about government conspiracies. However, most all reasonable people should be concerend about non-government conspiracies -- namely, criminal conspiracies and criminal actions -- that involve identity theft and/or facilitate identity theft.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

DallaStarwooDelta

Jan 2, 04, 11:16 am

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Dennis Miller is a coward and in light of concern for his own physical safety will accept totalitarianism and set aside principles. Apparently, the law of the jungle is back and respectable ... at least with Dennis Miller and Alan Dershowitz and a few other civil libertarian turncoats.

Ok then how about this one?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
--Ben Franklin

But then again I guess he was a coward too....

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Spiff

Jan 2, 04, 1:05 pm

Originally posted by Daydream:
I like the US, but the way they treat anyone seeking a Visa or having a Visa (I have a non-immigrant F1 Visa), even from one of the supposidly "privileged, safe" visa-waiver countries, is just barbaric.



Agree with you 100%. America has lost its collective mind with its security obsession.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

GUWonder

Jan 2, 04, 1:40 pm

Originally posted by DallaStarwooDelta:
Ok then how about this one?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
--Ben Franklin

But then again I guess he was a coward too....

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif



How about this one?

"Only a fool would not criticize, condemn and complain when confronted by fools and foolishness." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

DallaStarwooDelta

Jan 2, 04, 2:39 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
How about this one?

"Only a fool would not criticize, condemn and complain when confronted by fools and foolishness." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I'll assume your OK with me using it when appropriate as long as give credit to it's author.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Plato90s

Jan 2, 04, 2:48 pm

Originally posted by richard:
And it's plain stupid anyway: Once someone has your fingerprint they can bribe an immigration officer to accept it and enter a country. Whatever happens, it's "you" who entered the country and committed mayhem.

Fingerprints are taken as gospel, so repudiation is very tough and expensive. Yet they are very easy to re-use fraudulently.

Best not to give your fingerprint to anyone if at all possible. Especially someone in a foreign country.

If anyone actually cared enough to go to all this bother to frame you, your trash can will provide more than enough fodder. Unless you wipe off every single item that goes in your trash can or wear gloves at all times, lifting your prints is hardly an issue.

As for acid-burning, let me reference you to this entry I found in 60 seconds of Google search.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/3.html?sect=21

In fact, people who have tried to burn or cut away the tips of their fingers to remove the telltale prints have found that they grow back, and they take on exactly the same pattern they had before. The patterns also go down through several layers of skin. Even if an attempt to distort them succeeds, the distortion itself becomes part of the pattern, which means there's no real way to elude the fingerprint experts.

GUWonder

Jan 2, 04, 5:11 pm

Originally posted by Plato90s:
If anyone actually cared enough to go to all this bother to frame you, your trash can will provide more than enough fodder. Unless you wipe off every single item that goes in your trash can or wear gloves at all times, lifting your prints is hardly an issue.

As for acid-burning, let me reference you to this entry I found in 60 seconds of Google search.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/3.html?sect=21

In fact, people who have tried to burn or cut away the tips of their fingers to remove the telltale prints have found that they grow back, and they take on exactly the same pattern they had before. The patterns also go down through several layers of skin. Even if an attempt to distort them succeeds, the distortion itself becomes part of the pattern, which means there's no real way to elude the fingerprint experts.

True; however, the "distortion itself becomes part of the pattern" means the scar tissue and the scar tissue pattern becomes part of the fingerprint and thus substantially alters the fingerprint making a positive match improbable. Also, this is a reference to non-deep tissue burns. Deep tissue burns or deep tissue scarring does alter the fingerprint making any kind of point-on-point match likely to cause a skip in most databases and automated matching processes. The failure of the acid burns occurs when not enough of the area is acid-burned or enough skin overlays are not grafted. "Around the acid-burned area a sufficient number of ridge patterns remained" is the reason that the fingerprint was still discernible. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Cut off the tips of your fingers, and you are not likely to have fingerprints of the part of the finger most often used... namely the finger tips. Good research however. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

richard

Jan 2, 04, 5:15 pm

Marco Polo

Jan 2, 04, 6:12 pm

Brazilians reciprocate on US travel policy
Friday January 02, 2004 08:18 - (SA)
SAO PAULO - Brazilian police photographed and fingerprinted all arriving Americans on Thursday - tit-for-tat for a similar US program that begins next week. In all, 230 American citizens were thus identified Thursday at Brazil's largest international airport here under what a federal police spokesman called a "judicial decision." Sunday Times ZA

Pakistan advised to fingerprint Americans
Staff Report
WASHINGTON: Pakistan should follow the Brazilian example and start fingerprinting and photographing all arriving Americans, a community leader has proposed.
The community leader, who did not wish to be identified, such is the atmosphere of intimidation which many Pakistanis have experienced here since 9/11, said one way the Bush administration can be made to realise what humiliation Pakistani travellers to the United States suffer on arrival is to “give visiting Americans a dose of the same medicine”. Brazil has shown the way and we should follow, he said.
Daily Times Pakistan

ByrdluvsAWACO

Jan 3, 04, 1:05 am

Agree with you 100%. America has lost its collective mind with its security obsession.


A new McCarthyism has arisen where the catch word "Communist" has replaced with the word "Terrorist".

Is anyone here old enough to remember those days?

GUWonder

Jan 3, 04, 1:25 am

H2O_Goalie

Jan 3, 04, 3:42 am

Originally posted by richard:

When you let someone take your fingerprint they can easily digitize it, store it, and reuse it. 

Specific example(s) please...

tom911

Jan 3, 04, 7:42 am

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
Specific example(s) please...

Everyone we arrest and book has their fingerprints scanned and sent on to DOJ in Sacramento (the days of finerprint cards are gone). We get a computer message back confirming ID within a few hours, if they match an existing record in the system. This comes in particularly handy if the person won't give up their real name, or has created a name that can't be verified (we see this quite a bit when the person has an outstanding warrant and hopes, by giving a fictitious name, to escape being incarcerated). The technology is most certainly out there.

H2O_Goalie

Jan 3, 04, 7:50 am

Originally posted by tom911:
Everyone we arrest and book has their fingerprints scanned and sent on to DOJ in Sacramento (the days of finerprint cards are gone). We get a computer message back confirming ID within a few hours, if they match an existing record in the system. This comes in particularly handy if the person won't give up their real name, or has created a name that can't be verified (we see this quite a bit when the person has an outstanding warrant and hopes, by giving a fictitious name, to escape being incarcerated). The technology is most certainly out there.



No, what I'm looking for is a specific example of a stored/digitized fingerprint being somehow reconstituted and used by a third party in such a manner to harm/defame the actual owner of the fingerprint...as richard alludes can (and is) done.

attorney28

Jan 3, 04, 8:00 am

Originally posted by monahos:
IIRC, Brazil and South Korea are the two non-WWP countries sending the most visitors to the USA. It could reasonably be argued neither country is a hotbed of terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/03/08/mohammed.brazil/

Police: Mohammed visited Brazil in 1995
Top al Qaeda suspect was in haven for terrorists
Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 1:03 AM EST (0603 GMT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIAL REPORT

SAO PAULO, Brazil (CNN) -- Top al Qaeda suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed spent nearly three weeks in Brazil in December 1995, visiting a region with many Arabs, Brazilian police told CNN on Saturday.

International and regional intelligence officials said the area Mohammed visited in Foz de Iguacu, along Brazil's porous border with Argentina and Paraguay, has been a source of funds and a haven for terrorist groups, including some believed to work closely with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

Police data show that Mohammed, the terror network's reputed operations chief, was in Brazil from December 4-25. He entered the country via Sao Paulo from Pakistan and left for Holland from Rio de Janeiro, police said.

Mohammed was captured March 1 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. His arrest has been heralded as the biggest in the war on terror since it was launched after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in which about 3,000 people were killed. United States officials said he helped plan the attacks on New York and Washington.

A Brazilian police spokesman said investigators are trying to determine why Mohammed was in Brazil and where he went during his visit.

Leaders of the southern region's Arab community have denied links to terrorist groups and say they are being targeted unfairly because of their ethnic backgrounds.

There was no warrant out for Mohammed's arrest at the time of his visit to Brazil. Police learned of his visit in June 1998, when U.S. authorities asked their Brazilian counterparts to watch for him. Police said they have no indication Mohammed has been back to Brazil since 1995.

attorney28

Jan 3, 04, 8:02 am

I was in Iguassu this year and a taxi driver told me that just before 9/11, there were many people openly having hateful slogans against the US on their cars, etc.

Occupationalhazard

Jan 3, 04, 10:21 am

richard

Jan 3, 04, 10:24 am

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:

Specific example(s) please...

Read an excellent article on how to defeat biometrics (http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a=27687,00.asp)

richard

Jan 3, 04, 10:31 am

Originally posted by ByrdluvsAWACO:
A new McCarthyism has arisen where the catch word "Communist" has replaced with the word "Terrorist".

Is anyone here old enough to remember those days?

I would draw the parallel this way: in the "fight against communism", virtually any tactic was considered okay. Against the "war on terrorism" any tactic is considered okay.

Against communism, right of free speech was effectively suppressed. Against terrorism, lots of rights are effectively suppressed including the right of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom from search and seizure. It's all okay under one supposed doctrine or another, but it amounts to a basic suspension of our basic civil liberties, just what happend in the "fight against communism."

Now here is the interesting part: there was some truth to what the enemies of communism used as their justification. And there is certainly some truth to what the "fighers of terrorism" have to say about their enemies. It isn't like either made an argument that was completely false.

The truth is always in the middle somewhere. But the history of the Western world is a history of fighting government control over the individual. There has been a swing towards greater government power and dominion over the individual, with terrorism as the justification.

History shows that a free people with a controlled government are far safer than a people living under authoritarian rule. The free individual is better equipped to protect his or her own safety when given choices. So in curtailing our freedoms, we are also making ourselves less safe, not more.

H2O_Goalie

Jan 3, 04, 10:53 am

Originally posted by richard:

Read an excellent article on how to defeat biometrics (http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a=27687,00.asp)


A decent article to be sure richard, but the problem is that it focuses solely on low-end "home" products. I have two of them myself and I can vouch that they can indeed be fooled (nothing like being a geek and bored on a Friday night...time to conduct tests). Directly from the article:

Conclusions

For fairness' sake we need to emphasize again at this point that according to their manufacturers' statements none of the products tested by us was designed for use in a high-security environment. Nevertheless, the question can be put whether a security application whose protective measures can be foiled with the simplest of tricks is an investment of 300 euros worth making.


As you and I (and everyone else) is well aware, any form of security can be defeated in some way, shape or form. That doesn't mean you don't try it anyway. Do you have locks on your house doors? Do you have locks and/or an alarm on your car? Do you use a password on your computer? Why? They can all be defeated simply.

BTW...the theory or ability to defeat security is not the same as providing an example of an actual occurence of doing it. A testing lab offers an easy, no pressure, try-it-until-you-can-beat-it arena to make attempts. Try beating it by any of the methods they used while an armed National Guardsman or TSA employee is standing over you watching.

richard

Jan 3, 04, 11:02 am

Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
As you and I (and everyone else) is well aware, any form of security can be defeated in some way, shape or form. That doesn't mean you don't try it anyway. Do you have locks on your house doors? Do you have locks and/or an alarm on your car? Do you use a password on your computer? Why? They can all be defeated simply.

BTW...the theory or ability to defeat security is not the same as providing an example of an actual occurence of doing it. A testing lab offers an easy, no pressure, try-it-until-you-can-beat-it arena to make attempts. Try beating it by any of the methods they used while an armed National Guardsman or TSA employee is standing over you watching.

It isn't the same as a lock on the door. I know that this is a deterrent and that I can be burglarized regardless. But fingerprints are regarded as infalliable even though they are far from it. So they will prove far more effective in malfeasance than signatures that "everyone knows" are easy to forge.

pb9997

Jan 3, 04, 12:12 pm

Originally posted by attorney28:
There was no warrant out for Mohammed's arrest at the time of his visit to Brazil.


Regarding the stories about Iguassu in Brazil being a heaven for terrorists let me point out that ;
a) Further investigations (US&Brazilian) involving money laundered proved no connection whatsoever
b) That person who has been in Brazil and later in Holland was not a suspect at the time of the visit

It is a fact : Lots of information currently being printed has no fundamentals. And somehow disappears from the press after a few time. People tend to believe that because it was once published it's true - but it's not.

attorney28

Jan 3, 04, 12:24 pm

tismfu

Jan 3, 04, 2:57 pm

Why do so many foreigners feel like the US should have open borders? It is not a right to visit or live in the United States. The government has the right to impose any measures it sees fit to combat terrorism. As do all other nations of the world. That is why I don't care about Brazil fingerprinting US citizens (and I am going in February).

When I visit other countries I don't ***** and moan about their security. I don't complain... I DEAL. If I am not a citizen of your country you won't hear whining about any laws or regulations. In my opinion, you don't get that privilege until you are a citizen.

Perhaps if we had had all these measures in place before 9/11 the tragedy never would have occurred.

Spiff

Jan 3, 04, 3:10 pm

Originally posted by tismfu:
Why do so many foreigners feel like the US should have open borders? It is not a right to visit or live in the United States. The government has the right to impose any measures it sees fit to combat terrorism. As do all other nations of the world. That is why I don't care about Brazil fingerprinting US citizens (and I am going in February).

When I visit other countries I don't ***** and moan about their security. I don't complain... I DEAL. If I am not a citizen of your country you won't hear whining about any laws or regulations. In my opinion, you don't get that privilege until you are a citizen.

Perhaps if we had had all these measures in place before 9/11 the tragedy never would have occurred.


I'm not a foreigner. I think my country should have open borders.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

GUWonder

Jan 3, 04, 3:10 pm

Originally posted by pb9997:
Regarding the stories about Iguassu in Brazil being a heaven for terrorists let me point out that ;
a) Further investigations (US&Brazilian) involving money laundered proved no connection whatsoever
b) That person who has been in Brazil and later in Holland was not a suspect at the time of the visit

It is a fact : Lots of information currently being printed has no fundamentals. And somehow disappears from the press after a few time. People tend to believe that because it was once published it's true - but it's not. 

There were also stories that Osama bin Laden had been in Brazil and Paraguay in the late 90s. It was completely substantiated to be false as the dates given were the very dates when OBL was most tightly monitored and under around the clock surveillance by Sudanese authorities who were preparing for a deal with our US government that would have resulted in his being handed over to law enforcement.

About KSM, the Brazilian Federal Police can verify that a Khalid Mohammed visited Brazil in the early 90s, but the date of birth of said person (per the passport used to travel) indicate that it was not this infamous KSM who travelled. I do not know about any interviews with the person who was properly issued that passport under the name Khalid Mohammed, but there are at least 47 Khalid Mohammed's in the US.

attorney28

Jan 3, 04, 3:14 pm

I am a foreigner (German) and I am GLAD that security controls are as tight as they are. The threat is real and I'd rather have them err on the side of caution.

BUT - there is a difference between applying tight security and humiliating visitors in an unnecessary fashion. Some of the practices/attitudes of the TSA are degrading and the people lack training in people skills.

JDiver

Jan 3, 04, 6:20 pm

Seems everyone has folks who can overreact and use hyperbole...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- "I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could always e-mail him at emailjuiz@mg.trf1.gov.br

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

RustyC

Jan 4, 04, 10:08 pm

I think the "reciprocity" countries make a good and important point, even at the likely expense of me visiting them (at my budget and relying so heavily on FF awards, things like $100 visa fees are a real deterrent). Brazil, Chile, Russia and Turkey seem to be at the forefront.

Maybe the terrorists will get the message and head to Mexico and crawl under the fence like everyone else.

ozstamps

Jan 4, 04, 10:11 pm

Joh and I are in Peru right now and fly thru SaoPaulo to Buenos Aires in a few hours on Varig.

I'll keep an eye out for the ruckus the Ugly American Tourists make about THIER prints being taken. Should be fun. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

InterflugIL62

Jan 5, 04, 6:14 am

I am sorry that Brazil has gone this route.

I could have visited Brazil a couple of times, last minute travel, but with the visa requirement, it was too much hassle.

If they don't think this will turn off lucrative American tourist travel to their country they are crazy, it will.

It is one more hassle that when you are looking for a place to go on vacation, you will go to Argentina or someplace else.

Likewise, the US pulling this move will turn away citizens who require visas from the USA who will go to Canada, the Bahamas, etc. Kind of sad on both counts.

I suspect that for Business travelers it shall be the status quo. They have to go, though they may whine and grousse.

I think the Gov't means well, but at the same time, they are doing far more damage than good.

Brazil's desire for reciprocity will come back and haunt it.

------------------
YAS+

InterflugIL62

Jan 5, 04, 6:39 am

Originally posted by RustyC:
I think the "reciprocity" countries make a good and important point, even at the likely expense of me visiting them (at my budget and relying so heavily on FF awards, things like $100 visa fees are a real deterrent). Brazil, Chile, Russia and Turkey seem to be at the forefront.

Maybe the terrorists will get the message and head to Mexico and crawl under the fence like everyone else.

Both points here are very good.

It is easy to sneak into the US via Mexico, if not a complete joke and so embarrassing to the Gov't. It is one of the highest security risks on the planet.

Likewise, as you have said, Chile, Turkey, Russia, and Brazil have exorbitant visa costs that deter one from traveling there.

I want to go hit South America. I would love to visit Brazil and Chile, both require visas and I think Chile just raised the cost of the visa. Stupid. $100US is a relevant expense when you are on a budget and yes, I travel on a budget.

I was shocked with Turkey. The US gives $$$ in foreign aid to them and yet they are naive enough to charge us for landing in their country, hence, Greece.

Egypt charged us $15US which is fine, but a $100 bill at entry and I will pass, thanks.

------------------
YAS+

dcmike

Jan 5, 04, 9:23 am

There is an interesting discussion of this on the BBC news site, in case anyone wants to take a look:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3368839.stm

Doppy

Jan 5, 04, 11:53 am

Originally posted by InterflugIL62:
I suspect that for Business travelers it shall be the status quo. They have to go, though they may whine and grousse.

Well, not necessarily:

Visa Delays Cost US Billions
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/007680.html

Eventually, as the hassle factor increases, people will find ways to do business without traveling to the US. Either by cutting out face-to-face, or by doing business in foreign countries that don't hassle them as much.

The US has an arrogant attitude of, "we can do whatever we want, and you'll still love us." That may prove to be the country's fatal flaw.

As I've said before, the US is highly dependent upon getting a continuous stream of foreign investment to fund the country. If that inflow drops low enough, the US will face a serious crisis.

At present, the cheap dollar seems to be bringing in a lot of foreign tourism, but it and underlying factors are also making investors nervous.

d

Spiff

Jan 5, 04, 12:22 pm

Originally posted by attorney28:
I am a foreigner (German) and I am GLAD that security controls are as tight as they are. The threat is real and I'd rather have them err on the side of caution.

BUT - there is a difference between applying tight security and humiliating visitors in an unnecessary fashion. Some of the practices/attitudes of the TSA are degrading and the people lack training in people skills.

Completely disagree with your first paragraph as "erring on the side of caution" is taken to the extreme far too often. When people start using their brains and start very selectively erring on the side of caution, I'll go along with you.

Completely agree with your second paragraph!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

akhullar

Jan 5, 04, 12:40 pm

I have a practical question - What about PAX who are going to transit at GRU without actually having Sao Paulo or any other Brazilian city as their destination ? Are they also going to be fingerprinted ? e.g GRU-SCL ?

GUWonder

Jan 5, 04, 1:01 pm

Originally posted by akhullar:
I have a practical question - What about PAX who are going to transit at GRU without actually having Sao Paulo or any other Brazilian city as their destination ? Are they also going to be fingerprinted ? e.g GRU-SCL ? 

No. I once was flying from NYC to Buenos Aires and because of an American Airlines flight cancellation was routed on American via Sao Paulo with a connecting flight on Varig from Sao Paulo to Buenos Aires. I had no visa for Brazil at that point and it was not an issue as we were not "entering" the country. I don't think things have changed since that happened in 2000, but I could be mistaken. If you don't go through Brazilian immigration/federal police, then there is no fingerprinting and photographing.

InterflugIL62

Jan 5, 04, 1:42 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
No. I once was flying from NYC to Buenos Aires and because of an American Airlines flight cancellation was routed on American via Sao Paulo with a connecting flight on Varig from Sao Paulo to Buenos Aires. I had no visa for Brazil at that point and it was not an issue as we were not "entering" the country. I don't think things have changed since that happened in 2000, but I could be mistaken. If you don't go through Brazilian immigration/federal police, then there is no fingerprinting and photographing.

ditto. Int'l transfer. Most countries other than the US (Canada!?) have an int'l airside transfer system(thank goodness!) and so no formalities are done, though they may look at your passport for your onward destination, BP check, security, all that fun. What gets tricky if you arrive at night but have to go out the next morning, you are sleeping in the airport. ick
(Some lounges are 24 hours http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

Some countries will give you a transit visa. Not sure if Brazil, in this case, gives transit visas and if so do they then fingerprint you for coming in for 12 hours?
That would suck.

------------------
YAS+

Cris L

Jan 5, 04, 2:23 pm

America treats foreign visitors with arrogance while expecting other countries to admit anyone who shows up with a US passport.

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.

I do think the words "and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis" are well over the top, but the rest of the sentence is true.

I do agree that America has lost its collective mind with its security obsession, after all with the attocities committed in the UK in the name of the IRA, it is still possible to travel between Ireland & the UK without a passport.

pb9997

Jan 5, 04, 2:35 pm

Using Brazil as a transfer to an International destination:

akullar, Justice has determined that the reciprocity would apply only for US citizens that intend to stay in Brazil. If you're a US citizen using any Brazilian airport as a transfer point you will be kept in the international area, no need to go through the immigration procedures.

Visa and tourism :
I agree that visa fees may deter tourists. In fact while Brazil charges 100 USD (?) for a visa US charges 120 USD and there's no guarantee the visa will be granted or once issued the citizen will in fact enter the US - lots of stories of Brazilians with a visa being denied entrance after embarassing episodes with INS officials and sent back home. On top of the visa-fee brazilian citizens have to travel to a city where there's a US consulate to attend a personal interview after having to wait in a long line, by the embassy. Embarassing to say the least.

Last but not least, it's sad than in such a short period of time the world has gone backwards in such a significant way.

Cris L, that wording of the judge has already been discussed here and translations mistakes do happen as no Portuguese written newspaper phrased it that way. Interviews with that judge have already made quite clear he acted strictly whithin the international law.

[This message has been edited by pb9997 (edited Jan 05, 2004).]

Occupationalhazard

Jan 5, 04, 2:37 pm

Originally posted by richard:
Against terrorism, lots of rights are effectively suppressed ... it amounts to a basic suspension of our basic civil liberties, just what happend in the "fight against communism." 

*Sigh*. Yes, it's increasingly clear that we now inhabit some fantasy world of paranoia in which civil liberties are repressed by jack-booted John Ashcroft clones. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

America, I note, even enjoys the confidence of its enemies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/02/wirq02.xml):

=====
"At least with the Americans I know I will see my father again, that he will not simply disappear," [Saef Fadil Mahmoud] said, pointing to a photograph of [his father, #47 on the Iraq Coalition's most wanted list] on the wall of his comfortable Baghdad sitting room.
=====

I note that the Ghost of Joe McCarthy gets a lot of curtain calls from folks who are "concerned", while Abraham Lincoln (who suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War) does not. The benefits of being a demigod rather than a bogeyman, one imagines.

Originally posted by richard:
It isn't like either made an argument that was completely false.

Well, if you mean, by "not completely false" that terrorism and communism are evil and destructive, and that Alger Hiss was guilty as hell (as is bin Laden, although there isn't much of a comparison b/w the two) then you might be on to something.

Originally posted by richard:
There has been a swing towards greater government power and dominion over the individual, with terrorism as the justification. 

Or maybe there's been an a realization that terrorists who have professed a "mental-illness-as-religion" present a credible threat to Americans, and, accordingly, the US gov't should be less lax about who wanders across our borders, and what they might choose to do while here.

Does anyone credibly think the gov't would be fingerprinting foreign-types in airports but for the 9/11 attacks?

Does anyone seriously believe that there will now be concentration camps set up for Brazilian tourists?

Geeze-Louise. Enough already.

Originally posted by richard:
The free individual is better equipped to protect his or her own safety when given choices. So in curtailing our freedoms, we are also making ourselves less safe, not more.

How is a "free" individual (and you are, by extension, arguing that the US has become some Orwellian nightmare, occupied by dim, purgatorial souls, which it is, btw, NOT) better equipped than, say, the US Gov't in interdicting terrorists at the border?

O/H

richard

Jan 5, 04, 3:28 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
How is a "free" individual (and you are, by extension, arguing that the US has become some Orwellian nightmare, occupied by dim, purgatorial souls, which it is, btw, NOT) better equipped than, say, the US Gov't in interdicting terrorists at the border?

O/H

I don't know why this is, but it is.

Look at various countries. Who has the least civil unrest and the the least crime and real terrorism? Those countries that are most tolerant of a plurality of opinions, and that have high standards of civil liberties and personal freedoms.

There are authoritarian countries such as Singapore that lack some of these freedoms, but they are still relatively free and also not coincidentally have a low crime rate and a low rate of terrorist crimes.

The more a country abbreviates the rights and civil liberties of its people, the higher the chance that that country will experience terrorism and other crimes.

The USA has had one major incident of international terrorism and it has predictably terrorized the USA government. That one event has been used to justify new controls on citizens and visitors including the fingerprinting thing.

Would this all have happened without 9/11? Yes it would. I predicted it several years ago on FlyerTalk.

People argued with me and called the idea stupid: how preposterous that the government would start tracking citizens' travel patterns and monitoring individuals' personal lives and travel patterns http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

It was already well on the way before 9/11.

JB in Irvine

Jan 5, 04, 3:29 pm

I think the point that a lot of folks in the US do not realize, is that in most countries the only time you ever get finger printed is when you are charged with a crime.

In the US, finger printing is a daily event....sign a loan document...cashing checks etc.

When I moved to the US I was completely horrified that someone wanted to finger print me! When family have come to visit they have likewise been horrified that they were finger printed when cashing a travellers check at the bank.

I can totally understand why Brazilians are so unhappy about this. Brazilians are proud people, from a great country.

Occupationalhazard

Jan 5, 04, 3:53 pm

Originally posted by richard:
Look at various countries. Who has the least civil unrest and the the least crime and real terrorism? 

It would seem to me that having a homogenous population (i.e., Japan) has something to do with it lower crime rates, also....no (or limited, anyway) possibility of cultural misunderstanding leading to violence.

Originally posted by richard:
The more a country abbreviates the rights and civil liberties of its people, the higher the chance that that country will experience terrorism and other crimes. 

To the contrary, truly authoritarian regimes experience far less crime...as was the case in the USSR, and in many dictatorships (fear of getting one's ear lopped off apparently does have a deterrent effect).

Ultimately, it depends on how credible the threat of punishment is, and if a dictatorship is perceived as no longer capable of meting out punishment, then resistance will develop.

Originally posted by richard:
That one event has been used to justify new controls on citizens and visitors including the fingerprinting thing.

I am afraid you have the cart before the horse...if you are suggesting that, after 9/11, Dick Cheney could be heard cackling madly that, "At last! I can implement my Secret Plan to Fingerprint Brazilians!!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!", then I think you are wrong.

If anything, the fingerprinting element, if one beleives it will have no beneficial effect on national security, is, at worst, an example of Heinlein's Law: Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity.

Culturally, Americans have a collective notion that death is an "inconvenience" that can somehow be "avoided". Accordingly, there is an expectation that somehow the government can Keep Us Safe From All Harm (it can't), which also partly explains why the deaths of a relatively small number of servicemen and women (and I do not intend to diminish their sacrifice; I am merely pointing out that the number of fatalities, given the size of the operation is fantastially small), transforms Operation Iraqi Freedom into a quagmire (it isn't).

An alternative European view of the US operation in Iraq can be found here (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/12/29/009.html) It is a rather cogent analysis, and worth reading.

Originally posted by richard:
Would this all have happened without 9/11? Yes it would. I predicted it several years ago on FlyerTalk. ... It was already well on the way before 9/11. 

You are very much assuming the truth of your own conclusion, here.

Absent 9/11, most Americans would neither know, nor care, where Afghanistan is located, or who OBL is, and would be passing the time scheming an upgrade for their next flight, and obsessing about their 401Ks.

*shrugs*

O/H

hfly

Jan 5, 04, 3:57 pm

A couple of facts:

1) If less than 1% of Brazilians did not overstay their visas, they would be in the VWP. Plain and simple. The last numbers I saw on this were something stupid like 7%, one of the highest of all nationalities. From the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais alone, there are an estimated 50,000 illegal Brazilians living in the US. Minas Gerais is not even the state where most illegal Brazilians coming to the US are from.

2) Reciprocity is garbage. Prior to 3 years ago, it was always the Brazilians that jacked up visa fees first. They in fact were the first to start charging fees. It was originally the visa which was in reciprocity. The Us also has reciprocity, and when the Brazilians started charging, so did the US.

It should be noted that many Brazliians get 10 year visas. US citizens get only 5 maximum.

3) Turkey is full of crap. According to a 1955 treaty between the US and Turkey, Turkey dropped all visas for US citizens in return for the US dropping charges for Turkish citizens getting US visas. This was in force until 1995 (specifically the 1st of November) when an idiot Prime Minister imposed a $20 visa in "retaliation" for Turks having to get visas to visit the US. Prior to this date they were free. Since that time they jacked up the fee 3 more times. Only the last hike from $65 to $100 was started by the US gov't. It should also be noted that Turks often get 10 year visas for $100. US citizens get 3 months. It is not a visa anyway in reality but an entry tax.

tismfu

Jan 5, 04, 6:03 pm

Occupationalhazard, thank you for your common sense. It seems many people nowadays (especially on FT) are living in a fantasy world.

[This message has been edited by tismfu (edited Jan 05, 2004).]

ozstamps

Jan 6, 04, 8:07 pm

Originally posted by akhullar:

I have a practical question - What about PAX who are going to transit at GRU without actually having Sao Paulo or any other Brazilian city as their destination ? Are they also going to be fingerprinted ? e.g GRU-SCL ?



Did this yesterday Lima - Sau Paulo - Buenos Aires. They did not care WHAT nationaility I was.

However, I did read that delays for Americans ENTERING Brazil are 8 hours right now.

Wish Donny R was at the end of one of those 8 hour lines. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Watch common sense kick in THEN. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Cygnus X-1

Jan 6, 04, 8:11 pm

I will say that Brasil can fingerprint whoever they want. However, now they should fix their corrupt postal system if they want to be a major player in this game. Won't go to Brasil unless they pay me.

Montys_Mayhem

Jan 6, 04, 9:21 pm

Exactly how? The hijackers had no criminal records, and their fingerprints would have proved squat. So how would fingerprinting and photographing have helped prevent 9/11?

I think it is clear that terrorist operatives are usually fresh recruits -- they are not your average career crimnals. Many of them are professionals, students, etc whose first crime is the terrorist act. Fingerprinting and checking against this farcical "known terrorist" database will not help one bit because the "known terrorists" will not be the ones coming to pepetrate the next terror act. The known terrorsits will just mastermind from locations outside the US.

Originally posted by tismfu:
Perhaps if we had had all these measures in place before 9/11 the tragedy never would have occurred.

tismfu

Jan 9, 04, 8:04 pm

Originally posted by Montys_Mayhem:
Exactly how? The hijackers had no criminal records, and their fingerprints would have proved squat. So how would fingerprinting and photographing have helped prevent 9/11?

I was under the impression that one or more 9/11 hijackers were stopped by police in Virginia for speeding. Perhaps if their photos and prints were on record, when the police looked up their license some sort of alert would've popped-up (ie, past visa termination date, et cetera).

Spiff

Jan 10, 04, 3:20 am

Originally posted by JB in Irvine:
In the US, finger printing is a daily event....sign a loan document...cashing checks etc.

I'm not sure where you bank, but I've never had get printed to do any of these things.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Spiff

Jan 10, 04, 3:24 am

Originally posted by tismfu:
I was under the impression that one or more 9/11 hijackers were stopped by police in Virginia for speeding. Perhaps if their photos and prints were on record, when the police looked up their license some sort of alert would've popped-up (ie, past visa termination date, et cetera).



What a frightening world you live in. I definitely do not want a database to contain that much information about me just to enforce visa laws. It's just not worth it.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

tismfu

Jan 10, 04, 3:57 pm

Originally posted by Spiff:
What a frightening world you live in. I definitely do not want a database to contain that much information about me just to enforce visa laws. It's just not worth it.



So possibly stopping 9/11 is not worth 'that much information' on FOREIGNERS in a government database to enforce visa laws? Hmm... I can't say that I agree with you.

Spiff

Jan 10, 04, 4:01 pm

Originally posted by tismfu:
So possibly stopping 9/11 is not worth 'that much information' on FOREIGNERS in a government database to enforce visa laws? Hmm... I can't say that I agree with you.

It's extremely unlikely it would have stopped 9/11. Also, how do you distinguish foreigners and citizens without having that much information about everybody in the database.

Maybe you think living in a police, 1984, or other authoritarian state is worth it. I most certainly do not. I'm sorry 3,000 people were murdered. But a lot more people than that died so that we might have the nation and freedoms that we have today.

There's no valid excuse to change who we are because of the actions of 19 murderers.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

andrzej

Jan 10, 04, 4:24 pm

Originally posted by Spiff:
It's extremely unlikely it would have stopped 9/11. Also, how do you distinguish foreigners and citizens without having that much information about everybody in the database.

Maybe you think living in a police, 1984, or other authoritarian state is worth it. I most certainly do not. I'm sorry 3,000 people were murdered. But a lot more people than that died so that we might have the nation and freedoms that we have today.

There's no valid excuse to change who we are because of the actions of 19 murderers.



I couldn't have said it any better.

What's wrong with you people?????

I don't always agree with Spiff, but looking at the BIG picture, I certainly do.

Wake up America! This country represented what freedom, happiness was all about. I'm not sure any more. The surprising thing is that the citizens are the ones that are willing to walk and talk like sheep. The USSR Politburo could not envision or implement this kind of behavior of the masses at the height of their power.

Just to clarify few things. I'm a registered Republican. It has more to do with being a true capitalist, so these days I really have a hard time understanding how on one hand my party says that we as citizens should be left alone in making a economic decisions (I totally agree), but somehow on the other hand the government is better equiped to handle all the other stuff. WHAT???? Leave me alone. Build roads, bridges, provide basic education, defend our borders(ok, I know this will be the topic), but DO NOT strip me, abuse me, come to my house, under some misguided thought that this will stop our enemies. Do any of you remember US citizens (of Japanese decent) being interned???? How is this any different???? Wake up!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by andrzej (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

tcook052

Jan 10, 04, 7:09 pm

http://www3.cjad.com/content/cjad_news/article.asp?id=w011061A

BRASILIA (AP) - The Brazilian government will issue an executive order strengthening a new policy of fingerprinting all U.S. visitors in a moved similar to anti-terror measures enforced against Brazilians by the United States, news reports said.

Wheezer

Jan 10, 04, 8:15 pm

Bouncer

Jan 10, 04, 11:00 pm

I am curious why people think targeting US travelers alone in response for the US targeting 150 nations is appropriate?

Brazil isn't applying this to all foreigners entering the country, only US citizens. Further, while the average wait in the US for foreigners to be fingerprinted/photographed is measured in minutes, the average time this is costing Americans in Brazil is NINE plus hours.

Finally and most importantly for Brazil, the political point this Judge is trying to make is going to cost his country in the neighborhood of 600 MILLION dollars over the next year. See, US travelers by themselves are 20% of Brazils tourist business. In the neighboorhood of 85000 people a year. Once this becomes public knowledge, then you can probably expect a 30-40% decline in tourist business to Brazil. At a rough costing of about 2000 dollars per head that works out to around 600 Million dollars. A large protion of which goes to Rio, of course. Needless to say they are rather upset by this bit of Judicial activism and are already trying to get it overturned.

Given that Brazils economy is growing at a miserable 2% (and has been growing about the same for the last couple of years), angering their largest trading partner in this way (25% of their export economy by itself) is probably not a wise idea. Still, on principle of Sovereignty it's Brazil's right to do so. Of course, it's also the US's right to require manual inspection of every head of lettuce and xray over bolt in every car to make sure it meets requirements for strength and safety coming from Brazil. I'm not saying they would do any such thing, but the truth is, that political grandstanding has a tendency to backfire.

The US is NOT grandstanding. They are attempting to secure their borders and better track the foreign nationals coming here on Visa. They are requiring Visa country nationals to put two fingers on a photo scanner and have a snapshot taken. They're not drawing blood, they're not taking hair samples, they're not requiring them to wearing tracking devices or explosive collars. They are taking reasonable steps to make sure that people who have limited permission to be in the US are being kept track of, rather than not having an effing clue who they are or what they're doing. That's NOT unreasonable.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

GUWonder

Jan 11, 04, 12:04 am

Originally posted by Wheezer:
Does anyone really think that such "biometricization" will stop at "foreigners"?

... of course not. But somebody's dream answer to why we must make these changes will be that many other country's require it for American passport holders now so we will mandate it for all. Then the biometric identifiers will get mandated for driver's licenses... and then so will the Social Security Numbers.

Technototalitarianism(copyright pending) is on its way.

Wheezer

Jan 11, 04, 1:44 am

Originally posted by Bouncer:
The US is NOT grandstanding. They are attempting to secure their borders and better track the foreign nationals coming here on Visa. They are requiring Visa country nationals to put two fingers on a photo scanner and have a snapshot taken.

I suspect that intransigence will reign among all who have made up their minds about Brazil's position, myself included (I'm with Juler da Silva), so I won't argue the particulars. I just don't seem to have seen any US posters who object to Brazil's policy stating whether they would object to putting down their own "two fingers" for the privilege of a passport and all the tasty goodness that comes with belonging to a "national database." The gods of the hills are not the gods of the valley, etc.

pb9997

Jan 11, 04, 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Bouncer:
Brazil isn't applying this to all foreigners entering the country, only US citizens. Further, while the average wait in the US for foreigners to be fingerprinted/photographed is measured in minutes, the average time this is costing Americans in Brazil is NINE plus hours.


1.Brazil isn't applying this to all foreigners entering the country, only US citizens
Correct. Brazil is entitled per international laws to apply the same procedure Brazilien citizens have to endure when visiting individual countries. Countries who require a visa may be asked one in reciprocity and countries who require the fingerprints to be taken may be asked the same. There's no point in blaming and slandering one country because US have implemented a procedure US citizens are not comfortable themselves with when traveling abroad.

2. Further, while the average wait in the US for foreigners to be fingerprinted/photographed is measured in minutes, the average time this is costing Americans in Brazil is NINE plus hours.

The average time Americans take to do immigration is currently no more than 30 minutes, including all the new procedures, for all the US passengers in a flight. The 9+ hours you refer to was the first day it was implemented in Rio that a few passengers had to suffer and widely broadcasted as an argument to stop these procedures. In Sao Paulo where the vast majority of international flights do these procedures passengers have never endured more than a 90 minute delay for the last US passenger in the first day ?

Furthermore, the immigration procedures in US usually take more than an hour - it has never been minutes for foreigners, unless you're the first in line and INS officials are available. Aliens are aware of the long lines (MIA, LAX, ...), are patient and know that these lines are very slow. I, myself, have already missed an absolutely legal connection due to long lines in immigration.

The worst part is a passenger that has a legal visa issued by a consulate being humiliated and simply sent back home by INS, without any explanation.

Personally I believe US citizens shouldn't be annoyed for foreign countries to implement similar procedures; Instead they should call their Congressmen.

Last but not least, Brazil in the very near future will have a similar technology to the one currently being used in USA, that has been developed in Brazil.

[This message has been edited by pb9997 (edited Jan 11, 2004).]

Bouncer

Jan 11, 04, 12:20 pm

Okiedoke. Perhaps they could purchase the same system the US uses. That would certainly speed things up. Then in order to facilitate that ...they'd have a US Only line! In Brazil!

SWEEEEEEET! Thanks Brazil! I'll be through customs in Rio faster than your own people!

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: It's a bit tongue in cheek, but the law of unintended consequences certainly applies.

pb9997

Jan 11, 04, 12:24 pm

(dup)

[This message has been edited by pb9997 (edited Jan 11, 2004).]

Occupationalhazard

Jan 11, 04, 5:31 pm

Originally posted by pb9997:
Countries who require a visa may be asked one in reciprocity and countries who require the fingerprints to be taken may be asked the same. 

While this is correct, the US requires a visa of the citizens of a large number of countries, b/c they have a marked tendency to be cavalier about returning home, and for violating US law while here, either by working illegally (and, yeah, there's a strong argument to be made about illegals filling jobs that Americans don't want, but whether or not America decides to be a "workfare" program for illegals is a policy decision to be made by America) or in other ways.

Originally posted by pb9997:
There's no point in blaming and slandering one country because US have implemented a procedure US citizens are not comfortable themselves with when traveling abroad. 

Dewd, let's cut to the chase: it's about showing America up, plain and simple, not "national sovereignty". Let's not pretend otherwise.

This is why the (dis)-Honorable judge da Silva made a stupid an inappropriate comparison of US policy to the Nazis.

If I, or any other American, choose to go to Brazil then clearly I must comply with their entry requirements. (As it happens, a non-US pal and I are planning a trip, and I nixed his Brazil suggestion, b/c I don't want to bother with the crapola. If some wacko Brazilian judge wants to make stupid comparisons to the Nazis, I can take my Yanqui dollars elsewhere).

O/H

hfly

Jan 11, 04, 6:35 pm

Again, to reiterate. If Brazil did something to make sure that its people did not "jump ship" in the US, then Brazil would qualify for VWP and there would not be this problem. A case in point was Argentina that was VWP for several years. After their meltdown their overstayers increased and they were removed from the program.

Track

Jan 11, 04, 7:06 pm

Originally posted by Bouncer:
I am curious why people think targeting US travelers alone in response for the US targeting 150 nations is appropriate?

...

Regards,
-Bouncer- 

Because the U.S. is the only country targetting Brazilian visitors in this way?

aceflyer2

Jan 11, 04, 7:45 pm

Very well said!

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Dewd, let's cut to the chase: it's about showing America up, plain and simple, not "national sovereignty". Let's not pretend otherwise.

This is why the (dis)-Honorable judge da Silva made a stupid an inappropriate comparison of US policy to the Nazis.

If I, or any other American, choose to go to Brazil then clearly I must comply with their entry requirements. (As it happens, a non-US pal and I are planning a trip, and I nixed his Brazil suggestion, b/c I don't want to bother with the crapola. If some wacko Brazilian judge wants to make stupid comparisons to the Nazis, I can take my Yanqui dollars elsewhere).

O/H

SPN Lifer

Jan 11, 04, 8:39 pm

I was fingerprinted at age 17 when I joined the Navy, and have never experienced any adverse repercussions.

Why are so many people so agitated about being able to have their identity positively confirmed? So what if one needs to provide fingerprints to get a U.S. visa (or U.S. passport for that matter)? California has required a thumbprint for a driver's license since around 1990.

The last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about a right to anonymity in international travel, or many other circumstances. Positive ID could prevent many financial frauds and so-called identity theft.

The level of paranoia about positive identification seems extraordinarily high.

Are people planning to violate immigration laws or commit other crimes? What motivates such outrage?

tismfu

Jan 11, 04, 10:23 pm

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
The level of paranoia about positive identification seems extraordinarily high.


You got that right.

andrzej

Jan 11, 04, 10:49 pm

Any student of history knows that it is not the radicals, terrorists that we have to fear. It's been proven over and over that at the end of the day they are harmless. On the other hand it's been proven that it's the governments that in the name of securing the citizens existence took control of their lives and at the end became the real enemy to the citizens.

Think about that.....

ozstamps

Jan 12, 04, 1:36 am

Well I just arrived into the USA after 2 planeloads of Brazil flights, and was lined up behind them all.

Took us and EVERYONE else (Americans included) HOURS to get thru customs/immigration at IAD:

www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/Forum11/HTML/012610.html (http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/Forum11/HTML/012610.html)

In this country only criminals get fingerprinted. Any country that insists I do will not have me visit.

The USA Gov't should go read a condensed history of what happened to the Roman Empire. Trying to run the world on their terms worked for a while too. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

SPN Lifer

Jan 12, 04, 1:52 am

Terrorists harmless? The U.S. Government the real enemy?

Do you pray for our national leadership?

Regardless of who is in power -- and I think we can all agree, regardless of political view, that there have been some unfortunate selections during the past 60 years -- the United States still has a government of laws, not men.

I'll continue to place my trust in the U.S. Constitution, and the country's citizens, voters, and jurors.

Think about that!

davistev

Jan 12, 04, 2:25 am

Originally posted by andrzej:
Any student of history knows that it is not the radicals, terrorists that we have to fear. It's been proven over and over that at the end of the day they are harmless.
Think about that.....

Huh! I dont get it . . . .

Wheezer

Jan 12, 04, 2:32 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
I'll continue to place my trust in the U.S. Constitution, and the country's citizens, voters, and jurors.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead (277 U.S. 438 (1928) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/277/438.html)).

Think about that!

[This message has been edited by Wheezer (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

Jenbel

Jan 12, 04, 7:37 am

aceflyer2

Jan 12, 04, 8:45 am

SPN Lifer, I agree 100% with you.

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Terrorists harmless? The U.S. Government the real enemy?

Do you pray for our national leadership?

Regardless of who is in power -- and I think we can all agree, regardless of political view, that there have been some unfortunate selections during the past 60 years -- the United States still has a government of laws, not men.

I'll continue to place my trust in the U.S. Constitution, and the country's citizens, voters, and jurors.

Think about that!

Occupationalhazard

Jan 12, 04, 9:15 am

Originally posted by ozstamps:
The USA Gov't should go read a condensed history of what happened to the Roman Empire. Trying to run the world on their terms worked for a while too. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Hey, 25 years from now when the Chinese are running sh*t, everybody in the "WAAAAAAAH!!! America is so *mean*!" crowd will be begging for us Ugly Yanks back.

Good luck in the new Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.....

O/H

[This message has been edited by Occupationalhazard (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

GUWonder

Jan 12, 04, 10:07 am

Doppy

Jan 12, 04, 11:17 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Terrorists harmless? The U.S. Government the real enemy?

Who's a greater threat to my liberty right now? The incrimental rollback of rights, liberty and privacy by the US government, or a threat from terrorists?

Terrorists can certainly cause grave harm to some people, but only the government has the ability to harm everyone.

Personally, I'm willing to take my chances with terrorism, to preserve freedom. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything to prevent terrorism, but giving up our rights in order to feel safe isn't a good compromise.

Terrorism is the last thing that the majority of Americans are in danger of. Driving to work every day puts your life in a lot more danger. Heck, we could stop 4,000+ drunk driving deaths each year by requiring all cars to be equipped with breathalizers; why don't we do that? We'd save more lives in a single year by not having any drunk driving deaths than we lost in the past 10 years of terrorism.

d

AAEXP

Jan 12, 04, 12:30 pm

Apparently there is a temporary halt to fingerprinting etc. of Americans in Rio de Janeiro State.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2004/01/12/international/ americas/12CND-BRAZ.html&tntemail0 (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2004/01/12/international/americas/12CND-BRAZ.html&tntemail0)

[This message has been edited by AAEXP (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

richard

Jan 12, 04, 12:41 pm

Originally posted by Doppy:
Who's a greater threat to my liberty right now? The incrimental rollback of rights, liberty and privacy by the US government, or a threat from terrorists?

Terrorists can certainly cause grave harm to some people, but only the government has the ability to harm everyone.

Personally, I'm willing to take my chances with terrorism, to preserve freedom. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything to prevent terrorism, but giving up our rights in order to feel safe isn't a good compromise.

Terrorism is the last thing that the majority of Americans are in danger of. Driving to work every day puts your life in a lot more danger. Heck, we could stop 4,000+ drunk driving deaths each year by requiring all cars to be equipped with breathalizers; why don't we do that? We'd save more lives in a single year by not having any drunk driving deaths than we lost in the past 10 years of terrorism.

d

absolutetly.

The real threat of terrorism is to government, not to individuals. Governments are very threatened because they maintain the monopoly on the use of force.

We have far, far more to fear from the terrorism that the government imposes on us in the name of terrorism, than on terrorism itself.

andrzej

Jan 12, 04, 12:42 pm

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
The U.S. Government the real enemy?


Where exactly did you see that in my post?

Occupationalhazard

Jan 12, 04, 1:51 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
.. wait until it's Greater Africa or Greater Arabia... then O/H will be running for cover or chanting even more not-so-nice words. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif 

Was this part of your post intentionally content-free?

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Asia is on the rise, and ... there is not much that can be done to keep Asia in a subservient global power position.

Your choice of language here is telling. Should the US undertake a policy of containment w/r/t China? Absolutely, unless, of course, you find the ChiCom model for human rights and human liberty other than apalling.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
As an American, I truly believe that if there is to be a uni-hyper-superpower, then America is perhaps the best situated to be in that position and most likely to be benevolent.

"if...perhaps...most likely", by my count, that's 3 qualifications in one sentence, exclusing your preface that you feel that way b/c you are American. Can there be any any question that, until a new equilibrium evolves, that the US (of the possibles) is the most benign option?

If only the US had to ask "Mother, may I?" to the Europeans before it undertook any action.... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

BTW, when Hubert Vedrine used 'hyperpower' to describe the US, he was not attempting to be complimentary. Indeed, he was expressing frustration, tinged with envy.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
However, that position of confidence is in danger of being completely eroded by foolish leadership (as such that currently occupies the White House).

Alas...if we were only more accommodating....more self-abnegating...more European.

Puh-LEEZE. You may not have noticed, but Quaddafi and the Iranians have been at least making the right noises w/r/t their (respective) WMD and nuclear programs, and the Syrians are, well, behving less like Syrians.

This is not b/c we niced them into it, but rather b/c they have profited by the example of Saddam.

If we had behaved like the French , Saddam would still be in power, we'd be up to resolution #34 demanding that he Not Be So Naughty, Lest We Pass Another Resolution, all while protecting the position of TotalFinaElf for the post-Sanctions world.

O/H

GUWonder

Jan 12, 04, 2:41 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Was this part of your post intentionally content-free? .

It was intentional but it was not content free, otherwise how could you realize that there was something that was intentional? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


Your choice of language here is telling. Should the US undertake a policy of containment w/r/t China? Absolutely, unless, of course, you find the ChiCom model for human rights and human liberty other than apalling. 

My choice of language should be telling. Asia (China and others included while perhaps excluding Japan) is moving forward and even human rights and political liberty will come in due time to most there.

"if...perhaps...most likely", by my count, that's 3 qualifications in one sentence, exclusing your preface that you feel that way b/c you are American. Can there be any any question that, until a new equilibrium evolves, that the US (of the possibles) is the most benign option?

If only the US had to ask "Mother, may I?" to the Europeans before it undertook any action....

BTW, when Hubert Vedrine used 'hyperpower' to describe the US, he was not attempting to be complimentary. Indeed, he was expressing frustration, tinged with envy. 

My statement was meant to be qualified. I believe there is an innate worthness to checks and balances in a system innundated with universalistic, humanist values. The qualifications are in the same spirit that the founders of our great country approached "power" too. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

 Alas...if we were only more accommodating....more self-abnegating...more European.

Puh-LEEZE. You may not have noticed, but Quaddafi and the Iranians have been at least making the right noises w/r/t their (respective) WMD and nuclear programs, and the Syrians are, well, behving less like Syrians.

This is not b/c we niced them into it, but rather b/c they have profited by the example of Saddam.

If we had behaved like the French , Saddam would still be in power, we'd be up to resolution #34 demanding that he Not Be So Naughty, Lest We Pass Another Resolution, all while protecting the position of TotalFinaElf for the post-Sanctions world.

O/H



The countries you mentioned are exploiting the situation and not playing so nicely with us. For one of your examples, Qaddafi's actions are meant to make a fool of Pres. Bush as well they have. He knows that he has the upper hand with the Bush Administration's hands tied behind its back and so has decided to negotiate with the British so that we Americans tag along and then look like idiots one week after Bush applauds him for his actions by demanding money from us -- other than with US companies replenishing their overstated oil reserves with desired American investments in the Libyan oil interests.

The Iranians have a fait accompli (i.e., a nuclear weapon). Pres. Bush was too late to do anything and people around him are aware of that if even he is not.

tcook052

Jan 12, 04, 4:23 pm

Here's an update:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V23815B07

[This message has been edited by tcook052 (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

ozstamps

Jan 12, 04, 4:40 pm

From the lonnnnng news link above ..... (which I thank the poster for shortening!) we get this gem:

'U.S. officials have called the Brazilian response discriminatory because it singles out Americans.'

Haven't laughed so much in days. Talk about pot-kettle-black. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Beavis and Butthead must write their material. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

I hope they take DNA samples of Americans too. And Urine samples. Why not?

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Jan 13, 2004).]

Spiff

Jan 12, 04, 5:05 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
And Urine samples. Why not? 

I'll be happy to give them one.

"What did you mean, 'cup'?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Occupationalhazard

Jan 12, 04, 8:30 pm

Originally posted by Spiff:
I'll be happy to give them one.

"What did you mean, 'cup'?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif



Genuine chuckle, Spiff....

...and of course I'd be happy to provide a DNA sample...to a fetching Brazilian lass, perhaps after some wine, and conversation. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

O/H

ozstamps

Jan 12, 04, 9:51 pm

Having witnessed spiff drinking real beer several times, I'd say 'cup' would not be too great an issue given the right circumstances. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

This is how these dumb tit-for-tat issues grow liike topsy.

USA starts with fingerprinting and p!sses off 25% of the world. So someone decides it is THEIR sovereign right to take US citizen DNA samples ..... etc.

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Occupationalhazard

Jan 13, 04, 12:31 am

Originally posted by GUWonder:
It was intentional but it was not content free, otherwise how could you realize that there was something that was intentional? 

Actually, it was the lack of something there, specifically coherent thought, about which I inquired...if you have something to say, you might be better off saying it, rather than, well...whatever it was that you did. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Asia (China and others included while perhaps excluding Japan) is moving forward and even human rights and political liberty will come in due time to most there. 

First off, liberty is not so inevitible, and your "in due time" has a bit of a tautological twist to it.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
...Qaddafi's actions are meant to make a fool of Pres. Bush as well they have...

Hardly, although that seems to be your desired result.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
He knows that he has the upper hand with the Bush Administration's hands tied behind its back and so has decided to negotiate with the British so that we Americans tag along and then look like idiots one week after Bush applauds him for his actions by demanding money from us -- other than with US companies replenishing their overstated oil reserves with desired American investments in the Libyan oil interests.

Wow. All those metaphors to un-mix!

Riddle me this: is it *better* or *worse* for Quaddafi to behave in a more civilized (or at least provide the appearance thereof, subject to further proof) or remain solely in the rejectionist camp?

After all, if liberty is inevitable "in due time", can not Quaddafi's latest overtures be viewed ONLY as a step down the path thereto? *grin*

Originally posted by GUWonder:
The Iranians have a fait accompli (i.e., a nuclear weapon). Pres. Bush was too late to do anything and people around him are aware of that if even he is not.


Is it *better* or *worse* for the Iranians to co-operate with UN inspections of their nuke program?

Or does it matter? It would seem that the most important thing is for each new turn of events to be intepreted as yet another stunning defeat for the Bush Administration. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

O/H

AAEXP

Jan 13, 04, 3:40 am

Originally posted by AAEXP:
Apparently there is a temporary halt to fingerprinting etc. of Americans in Rio de Janeiro State.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2004/01/12/international/ americas/12CND-BRAZ.html&tntemail0 (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2004/01/12/international/americas/12CND-BRAZ.html&tntemail0)

[This message has been edited by AAEXP (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

UPDATE: This court ruling has apparently been overruled by a government decree issued yesterday. This means that it's back to the ink and cameras in Rio de Janeiro state for Americans.

InterflugIL62

Jan 13, 04, 4:51 am

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Hey, 25 years from now when the Chinese are running sh*t, everybody in the "WAAAAAAAH!!! America is so *mean*!" crowd will be begging for us Ugly Yanks back.

Good luck in the new Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.....

O/H

[This message has been edited by Occupationalhazard (edited Jan 12, 2004).]

This is a strong post but will give some credence. You can apply this to Hong Kong now.

Toward 1997 many of the Hong Kongese(Chinese of course, not expats) were happy to see the Britts go. Now quietly, many wish they would come back.

We don't appreciate what we have til we lose it.

Hong Kong has lost dearly since the handover and I give China credit. They have made small, subtle changes over time, but over time, these amount to a quite a grand sum.

HK is not now nor will ever be again the powerhouse it once was when the British left the beautiful place. It is doing ok, but nothing like what it used to be and would you really trust China? I don't. Yoda(Tung Chee Hwa)
is a Beijing puppet. Let him go against Beijing's wishes and see what happens. He would be gone overnight.

As for the US and I am a proud American,
I can see the same idea. Everyone b/tches at the USA and they are jealous and envious of America's power, wealth, size, and ability to manipulate things, and we do that, but at the same time if America were to dissapear, people would cry for us.
I personally think the world would turn to anarchy.

The United Kingdom is really the only country in the world that has gone in and
done anything to save democracy and without the US the beloved UK would be dead in the water. I was amazed how Europe just folded under Hitler's expansion plans and they were giving the SOB everything he asked for. Amazing.

Saddam. Gee, no problem there. They are finding mass graves in the hundreds of thousands but no need to stop him. Again, amazing.

I am astonished as to what we did in Europe only so many years ago. The older English and French and some other Europeans appreciate what we did, but the younger generation has completely forgotten and I saw that in their massive protests in London over the war in Iraq with STRONG and fervent anti-Americanism taking place. I was so sad.

It was nice that our 'friends' were there for us a bit on 9/11, and they were, but otherwise, as on flyertalk and elsewhere, I just hear a bunch of b*tching toward Americans, American this and that. geezzz

So stay home!

------------------
YAS+

InterflugIL62

Jan 13, 04, 5:11 am

Ok, as to the subject of the post.

Brazil has every right to nail whomever visits their beautiful country in any way they please, that is fine. I personally shall elect to abstain from travel to Brazil until it is cleared up.

If any of you wish to boycott the US I am sad, but I can't blame you. I would probably do the same if in your shoes.

Do remember that it is our Gov't who makes the laws, not us.

When the US went to war in Iraq I had lost a lovely English penpal who was furious at America. Ok, fair, but I didn't have anything to do with it. She told me and our country to go 'stuff it.' I was sad. I was held accountable for a policy that I have nothing to do with and some of you here are blaming all 'Yanks' for a policy that our Gov't is doing. We have no say and I have no faith in our ability to elect our leaders, as the last sham of an election really brought home.

As for Brazil, I believe that they will forske millions in loss tourist revenue, business, and its image will just go down the freaking toilet.

Look at France. Many Americans won't travel to France ( I do, however) because of their attitude toward us. In fact someone said that tonight over dinner that they would never travel to France and they said it with venom.

I have a feeling that Brazil will sadly go the way of la France as it tries to take on the most powerful country on the planet.
It ain't gonna happen http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif and they will fall
A$$ backwards for trying it.

Watch and see airline service to Brazil decrease.

As for our visitors coming here, I am sorry that you have to wait in long lines at our airports, we do, too, fyi, and you have my condolensces. again, THERE AIN'T NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Occupationalhazard

Jan 13, 04, 8:43 am

Originally posted by AAEXP:
UPDATE: This court ruling has apparently been overruled by a government decree issued yesterday. This means that it's back to the ink and cameras in Rio de Janeiro state for Americans.

More news here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=B5IKSZE5IJPUICRBAEZSF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=4114858) from Reuters.

I gather from the article that the process itself takes about 10 minutes after the wait.

On the positive side:

"To soften the blow, Rio tourism authorities have take steps to make Americans feel welcome.

Starting on Tuesday U.S. tourists will be greeted with T-shirts saying "Rio loves you" and given souvenirs and flowers as compensation for their discomfort at the airport."

O/H

InterflugIL62

Jan 13, 04, 2:36 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
More news here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=B5IKSZE5IJPUICRBAEZSF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=4114858) from Reuters.

I gather from the article that the process itself takes about 10 minutes after the wait.

On the positive side:

"To soften the blow, Rio tourism authorities have take steps to make Americans feel welcome.

Starting on Tuesday U.S. tourists will be greeted with T-shirts saying "Rio loves you" and given souvenirs and flowers as compensation for their discomfort at the airport."

O/H



Nice gesture, not good enough. I would go to Argentina, no visa, no hassle, instead.

------------------
YAS+

ozstamps

Jan 13, 04, 2:59 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:

On the positive side:

"To soften the blow, Rio tourism authorities have take steps to make Americans feel welcome."



Brazil really does love us.

Apart from me needing a $150 VISA to enter, we were charged $US40 EACH to depart Sao Paolo for Bolivia a couple weeks ago, even tho we were in TRANSIT.

Left a warm and fuzzy feeling with me for sure. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Occupationalhazard

Jan 13, 04, 3:23 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Apart from me needing a $150 VISA to enter, we were charged $US40 EACH to depart Sao Paolo for Bolivia a couple weeks ago, even tho we were in TRANSIT.


But you *did* get a t-shirt, right? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

If it were me, I'd go back to Chile, since I already have the reciprocidad stamp in my passport...otherwise it'd be Argentina or Columbia. *shrugs*

O/H

cadet93

Jan 13, 04, 4:06 pm

I am going to RIO on Thursday. the 10ish pm flight on CO out of EWR changing in GRU. Will let you know how bad it was. I am sure the line is the worst part of it. I always travel carry on and in Business First.....so I hope to be one of the first in line....Hope I get a Tshirt in my size<G>

InterflugIL62

Jan 13, 04, 5:38 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Brazil really does love us.

Apart from me needing a $150 VISA to enter, we were charged $US40 EACH to depart Sao Paolo for Bolivia a couple weeks ago, even tho we were in TRANSIT.

Left a warm and fuzzy feeling with me for sure. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif



Ah yeah, I want to go there real soon!

Don't cry for me, Argentina. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

InterflugIL62

Jan 13, 04, 5:47 pm

Colombia?

sure, if you want to get kidnapped...

I hope you are kidding!

Steve M

Jan 13, 04, 11:47 pm

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
... the United States still has a government of laws, not men.

I'll continue to place my trust in the U.S. Constitution, and the country's citizens, voters, and jurors.

Think about that!

Trust me in saying that I have thought a great deal about what you have said.

I have a question to ask of you: Hypothetically, if you were in Jose Padilla's situation, what would you think of SPN Lifer's statements above?

You say that you put your trust in the U.S. Constitution, but how would you as Mr. Padilla view its application in your situation with respect to:

- Presumption of innocence
- Writ of habeas corpus
- No deprevation of liberty without due process of law

and in particular the rights granted by the 6th Amendment:
- right to a speedy and public trial...
- ... by an impartial jury
- be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
- be confronted with the witnesses against you
- have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in your favor
- have the assistance of counsel for your defense

As far as I can tell, each and every one of the above fundamental rights granted to people by the U.S. Constitution has been utterly and totally violated in Mr. Padilla's case. And, this is not a situation where a minor figure has "fallen through the cracks" such that Lady Liberty has not noticed - these have all been under the direct and specific orders of the President and the Attorney General.

I'd be willing to wager a large sum of money that at this point, Mr. Padilla would be more than willing to place his trust in jurors. Everything else seems to have failed him so far, but he doesn't have access to jurors, does he?

P.S. - the response of "9/11 changed everything" is not an acceptable answer from someone who espouses trust in the U.S. Constitution and believes in a nation of laws, not men.

P.P.S. - I'm not trying to bait you or start a senseless argument - I'm genuinely interested in your answers to the above questions.

GUWonder

Jan 13, 04, 11:53 pm

Very valid points, Steve. I eagerly await SPN Lifer's response.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 14, 2004).]

Steve M

Jan 14, 04, 12:47 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
I was fingerprinted at age 17 when I joined the Navy, and have never experienced any adverse repercussions.

Why are so many people so agitated about being able to have their identity positively confirmed? So what if one needs to provide fingerprints to get a U.S. visa (or U.S. passport for that matter)? California has required a thumbprint for a driver's license since around 1990.

The last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about a right to anonymity in international travel, or many other circumstances. Positive ID could prevent many financial frauds and so-called identity theft.

The level of paranoia about positive identification seems extraordinarily high.

Are people planning to violate immigration laws or commit other crimes? What motivates such outrage?

Let me address what you said on several levels, especially for the benefit of our non-US particpants. All of what I have to say below has applied for some time in the US, and is not in response to 9/11 or any other specific situation:

1. Several people have posted on FlyerTalk that "in my country, only criminals are fingerprinted, and the prints of accused criminals are destroyed unless they are convicted." I've never seen a direct response to this issue, so allow me to provide one now.

In the US, fingerprint files are maintained by many agencies. Full, 10-finger print sets are maintained nationally by the FBI, and in many states by a state agency, in addition to whatever local agency collected them in the first place.

The tradition in the US, with respect to full fingerprint sets, is that they are retained by government agencies in perpetuity, regardless of the reason of collection. So. once a 10-finger set of prints is collected from you for any reason, whether it be from a federal, state, or local agency, you will have a permanent set of prints on file with the FBI for the rest of your life without any right to have them destroyed or otherwise removed from the FBI's files.

2. 10-finger print sets are collected for many reasons, and all will result in a permanent set being on file with the FBI, in addition to state and local agencies. Reasons for prints being collected vary by state, and include but are not limited to:
- Arrest that results in "booking" for any alleged offense.
- Intake into any jail, prison, or other correctional facility.
- Induction into the armed forces (voluntary or otherwise).
- Application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon by a private citizen.
- Application to become a notary public.
- Application to become a police officer.
- Application to become a teacher in a school for children.

I'm sure I've missed many situations. In short, it's not at all uncommon for someone in the US to have a full fingerprint set collected and be put on permanent file, even though they may not be doing anything suspicious. There's no social stigma associated with having a fingerprint set on file, unlike that which may be associated with the question "have you ever been arrested?"

For whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be a privacy issue in the US with having a set of fingerprints on file, unlike what I understand the situation to be in many Western European nations.

I would guess that the government would love to have a complete 10-finger set of every person in the US, but there's no legal justification for collecting it. As a practical matter, they do have a set from a good percentage of the population, and an almost-complete set of "troublemakers."

3. As far as prints being collected at immigration stations, I don't fully know how I feel. On the one hand, I understand the issue of privacy and offense, especially for people from countries where fingerprints aren't treated the same way as in the US.

On the other hand, as others have already pointed out, international border crossings are already situations where positive identification is required and has been in all of modern history. A passport is considered as de facto positive identification, and is required for entry in all countries, and for departure in most countries, that maintain formal border controls. Obviously, I'm excluding the US/Canada border for US/Canada citizens, or the Schengen region in Europe, or similar regions. But generally speaking, passports are required (without respect to the need for visas, or lack thereof) for transit of national boundaries. So, I don't see the problem with requiring that the identity of the passport holder be validated above and beyond what's provided by the photograph as long as the process for such is not too egregious or demeaning.

4. Arrest records: In many states, if you are accused of committing a crime but not convicted, you have a statutory right to have your record of arrest expunged. Among other reasons, it's highly likely that a record of arrest will be held against you by police officers in any future interactions. In many juristications, a police officer in the field will have access to your arrest record, sometimes even before your vehicle comes to a stop in a traffic stop. An officer's interaction with you may be highly prejudiced if he is aware of a previous arrest on a charge (for example, he/she pulls you over because you're in a high-burglary area in the middle of the night. If you have a previous arrest, but were later found "not guily" of burglary, you will no doubt be, shall we say, "held to a higher standard" by any officer that is aware of this situation).

Since one of the reasons you may have been found "not guilty" of the earlier accusation is because you were factually innocent, you have the right in many states to have any record that's made available to police officers of that situation expunged, because of the prejudice that you may face in the future.

Despite the statutory requirements, in many states your record of arrest (in absense of conviction) will not be expunged unless you make a specific point of ensuring that this is the case. If you press the matter, you might be treated as a criminal even though no court has ever determined that this is the case.

5. Thumbprints: Several people have pointed out that thumbprints are requried in many (most? all?) US states in order to obtain a driver license or ID card (which are the only two forms of ID generally recognized in the US other than a passport, since we have no other form of National ID).

I've had a print of my right thumb when getting a driver license collected in a mandatory fashion by every state agency that I can remember since I was 16. It used to be by ink, and recently electronically by machines very similar to that being used under the US VISIT program.

As far as I know, state agencies don't use the thumbrint for any real-time validation purpose, but merely as a means to positively identify the person to whom the license/ID was issued to should there ever be an issue down the road.

Similarly, I don't know that INS, Homeland Security, or whatever the agency name du jour is, is using the thumbprints collected under the US VISIT program for any particular purpose other than having a specific biometeric record of who's entering (and possibly exiting) the US. They may or may not be validating the print against a database. Who knows?

Although I'm very much against "Big Brother" programs in general, I don't see the problem with having programs that require positive identification at national boundaries. Anyone crossing a national boundary (that has immigration control) has been required to present positive identification for decades.

This is completely different than new requirements applied to domestic US traval to supply "ID" above and beyond what's required to assure aviation safety.

[This message has been edited by Steve M (edited Jan 14, 2004).]

Wheezer

Jan 14, 04, 12:58 am

Originally posted by Steve M:
Reasons for prints being collected vary by state, and include but are not limited to:
(...)
- Application to become a notary public.

Really? In which states? I've been a notary here in Illinois, and a $5k bond was about it. Just surprised.

[Edited for verb tense.]

[This message has been edited by Wheezer (edited Jan 14, 2004).]

SPN Lifer

Jan 14, 04, 1:07 am

[GUWonder, instead of routinely hitting the “reply with quote” button (the quotation marks) for the most recent post, it would greatly increase the readability, comprehsibility, and persuasiveness of your posts if you would use instead the “post reply” button at the upper right corner of the page. I know it means one has to scroll up, but in the last example you increased the length of your post by a factor of ten, simply repeating in boldface the words of SteveM. Think what that does to these threads overall. I know a lot of people will emulate your example.]

Steve (in response to your fourth post up), to place things in context, what would have been the fate of a CIA operative unmasked while attempting to infiltrate Al Qaida? In my view, the greater threat is still posed by terrorism than government, whether U.S. or otherwise.

As a former assistant public defender for 6-1/2 years, and prosecutor for 4-1/2 (for another month), I can vouch for the fact that a participant in our legal system -- or our air transportation or frequent flyer system, for that matter -- does not in each and every case receive the overall promised benefits. Sometimes it’s better, other times, worse. There are ways for both sides to game the system. Hence, I think that errors will inevitably occur (making the death penalty problematic). [That’s another thread, but again, I trust the American people to ultimately come to the right conclusion, as they did with slavery and I hope they will with the unborn. Of course, true justice (infinitely just and infinitely merciful) will only be found in the Kingdom of God).] For this reason, civil litigants are also well advised to first seek non-judicial resolution.

Turning to the specific case of Jose Padilla, his views would undoubtedly depend on whether he was or was not preparing to detonate a radiological bomb. If so, he’d probably think, “I’m busted.” After a while, he’d begin to wonder what had happened to his right to an attorney, etc. A factually innocent person would have an even greater concern for abrogated rights, probably tinged with righteous anger.

The issues you have noted, and perhaps more (I’ve not downloaded any of the briefs from www.findlaw.com (http://www.findlaw.com) ) will undoubtedly be considered by the courts. And I have no doubt that a reasoned decision will result. Whether we agree with it remains to be seen. But after the issue is resolved one way or another, everyone will know what is or is not permitted. And if the result is unsatisfactory to a civil-libertarian majority, the political branches of government will overturn it.

Our constitutional, political, electoral, judicial, and legal system obviously does not reach the correct result in each and every instance. But in the long run, and in comparison with most alternatives, I stand by my statements. I still don’t mouth off to cops, constitutional guarantees or not.

By no means do I maintain that our system is perfect or cannot stand improvement. For instance, there is generally no compensation for those imprisoned for quite a long time and then found innocent. This is similar to the economic problem of costs borne by a few, and the benefits spread much more widely -- like outsourcing garment factories to benefit consumers but that costs domestic garment workers their jobs, or other structural and social inequities.

The Constitution is a shield, not a sword.

Steve, when are you coming to Saipan? This weekend I’m meeting my first Flyer Talker to visit the islands at my invitation, who will participate in the 1000th running of the Saipan Hash House Harriers!

Again, GUWonder (and others), please don’t “reply with quote” this entire (perhaps overly long) post! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Mr. Strong

Jan 14, 04, 1:21 am

With regard to posts by Steve M and GUWonder:

I would argue that since Jose Padilla is being held as an enemy combatant, he is not protected by the Sixth Amendment or by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In fact, even under the Geneva Convention, Padilla has no right to counsel to challenge his detention.

A careful reading of the Sixth Amendment supports the fact that Padilla's right to counsel does not attach because the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. The protections of the Sixth Amendment apply once criminal proceedings are initiated. Padilla is being held as an enemy combatant and his detention does not create a criminal proceeding under the Sixth Amendment and until criminal proceedings are initiated against him, the Constitution does not give him a right to counsel to challenge his detention.

I find it perfectly acceptable and prudent to detain Padilla. In fact, under military practice, U.S. historical precedent and the laws of war, there is clear authority to detain enemy combatants without allowing access to counsel to challenge the detention.

Furthermore, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not give Padilla or any enemy combatant, the right to counsel to challenge detention.

Lessons to Learn from Padilla:

1. When travelling to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, don't become closely associated with Al Qaeda leaders and operatives.

2. Don't propose to conduct terrorist plans within the U.S.

3. Don't take Wiring Expolsive Devices 101 at Al Qaeda Community College and plan to detonate dirty bombs or other explosive devices to injure people or U.S. interests.

SPN Lifer

Jan 14, 04, 1:25 am

Steve, thanks for your detailed exegisis on fingerprints.

As they say in the World Wide Marriage Encounter, "Feelings are neither right nor wrong." I certainly understand how those from countries where fingerprinting carries a sense of opprobrium would feel put-upon.

[On multi-page threads, "refreshing" does not bring up subsequent threads, so I can't even read my prior post right now.]

Two other collectors of fingerprints you omitted were bar associations (where applicants have to report juvenile charges and expunged arrests) and immigrants seeking U.S. permanent residence. As you said, I'm sure there are others.

In the international context, all they're trying to do is get more secure ID. Domestically, requiring prints for air travel is certainly a change (good or bad depending on one's point of view), but one likely to be upheld.

Everyone has their own personal privacy threshold. Do you fill out answers to detailed survey questions in return for a "chance" to win miles or something? [Rhetorical question.] The fact that I don't post an e-mail address here speaks for itself, though I may once I'm trying to obtain clients!

On the other hand, it is possible to find quite a lot of information about someone just from an internet bulletin board. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

SPN Lifer

Jan 14, 04, 3:00 am

In a Ninth Circuit case decided a few years ago, United States v. Zhou Liang, 224 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000), the court rejected the government’s argument that U.S. Coast Guard interdiction of an alien-smuggling vessel did not constitute an "arrest" that would trigger the Constitutional provisions pertaining to venue. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, Cl. 3 (“The trial of all crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed”); U.S. Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall [be tried] by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.”).

Occupationalhazard

Jan 14, 04, 9:53 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
[On multi-page threads, "refreshing" does not bring up subsequent threads, so I can't even read my prior post right now.]

You could always right-click on "reply" or "reply with quotes" and then cycle back to review the thread if you wanted to.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
In a Ninth Circuit case decided a few years ago...

While I note that Mr. Strong makes an entirely reasonable (for those of us who have a well-developed survival instinct) argument, and further that the 9th Circus Court of Appeals would have no binding authority (although Zhou appears to be one of their more sane rulings) where Jose Padilla is being held (New York), the 2nd Circuit has ruled his detention is unconstitutional. (http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20031218/securitypadilladc.html)

The 2nd Circuit further ordered that Mr. Padilla (who no longer seems interested in referring to himself as "Abdullah al Muhajir") released within 30 days.

However, before anyone gets all excited, I see your US v. Zhou, and I raise you an Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), in which the Court held, inter alia, that enemy belligerents may be tried by military tribunals, even where civilian courts are available.

The fact pattern in Quirin is deliciously similar to those surrounding Padilla, in that in both cases, the defendants received training in explosives and sabotage in another country and entered the US with the intent of engaging in acts of mayhem, etc.

One of the defendants in Quirin alleged US citizenship, based on the naturalization of his parents while he was a minor, and the Court wrote, "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

Lest anyone shed any tears for the poor, misunderstood Jose Padilla, it is worth noting that he is a Known Scumbag (a gang member in Chicago, and a multiple felon prior to his latest escapades, with a murder conviction (committed while a juvenile) on his resume), who traveled to the M.E. and teamed up with Al-Queda during the time they were bombing US Embassies in Africa.

Of course, the "A" answer would be to release Mr. Padilla...

...within the confines of Gitmo. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

O/H

GUWonder

Jan 14, 04, 12:06 pm

Occupationalhazard:

Your "survival instinct" is an interesting excuse -- and one that I do not buy unless that question is one of direct immediacy. I do not usually have time to watch much TV, but last night I was watching Law and Order, and guess what? The guy who sodomized and burned Arabs/muslims in New York on the show used your very excuse as justification and motive. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

GUWonder

Jan 14, 04, 12:17 pm

Despite the posting by Mr. Strong, and his correct assumption that the Geneva Convention in regards to POWs would not normally apply, he has some seriously flawed arguments. The US Constitution most certainly does apply... or we could keep redefining who is and is not protected. Why not make the argument that violent criminals are really enemy combattants who undermine the US Goverment? Then we just lock them up and throw away the keys... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

In the great American system there are only three kinds of proceedings that have legitimacy. Criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and military proceedings -- and military proceedings should apply only to non-Americans taken in a real military-to-military battlezone or to people currently in our Armed Forces).

For the government (especially an FDR-stacked Supreme Court that would bend over backwards for him) to create a special classification of "enemy combattant" to label Americans is unAmerican as saying women and ethnic minorities are lesser persons... but it is easy for the Executive Branch to do such when they have violated the sanctity of the Court (especially in spirit). This same Court attempted to legitimize the internment of Japanese AMERICANS! It was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

richard

Jan 14, 04, 1:01 pm

what's to stop the government from declaring anyone an enemy combatant? They are taken at their word, apparently, with everything being secret and not subject to any kind of review.

This is workable in time of combat, in the theatre of war, but then they would also be POWs. In any case, an American citizen is an American citizen, no matter what the executive branch says.

I am hoping we get back to Brazilian fingerprinting, the subject of this thread...

GUWonder

Jan 14, 04, 1:52 pm

... back to fingerprinting and immigration.

Does our government (here in the US) really think this is a deterrent for suicidal maniacs to try and make it into the US (or elsewhere) to strike and unleash murder and mayhem? Is a fingerprint (or other biometric) some kind of magic bullet that seeks and destroys terrorists wherever they are -- especially the solo or ad hoc group of nuts with no known record or real links with any known entity or ideology?

Occupationalhazard

Jan 14, 04, 5:36 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
...last night I was watching Law and Order... on the show used your very excuse as justification and motive. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif 

All that tells you is that the witty repartee of my posts, available for free on Flyertalk, is of sufficient caliber to be broadcast on TV. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I occassionally watch Law and Order, and while the acting is normally quite good, they do, with alarming frequency, get it horribly, horribly wrong on the law. Bear in mind that I am licensed to practice law in New York State, the purported location of the fictional drama.

O/H

Occupationalhazard

Jan 14, 04, 5:51 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
....and military proceedings should apply only to non-Americans taken in a real military-to-military battlezone or to people currently in our Armed Forces).

That may well be your opinion, which you are free to hold, however, as to what should be, now you only require a presidential appointment, confirmation by the Senate, and four concurring votes from other justices. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by GUWonder:
...but it is easy for the Executive Branch to do such when they have violated the sanctity of the Court... 

*Chuckle* In one breath you have determined that apprehending civilian terrorists on US soil is some how (magically?) as bad as race-based and gender-based discrimination, as well as undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court...which I find particularly ironic b/c it is to the judicial system that our friends on the Left immediately run to attempt to gain victories that they could never win at the ballot box. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by richard:
They are taken at their word, apparently, with everything being secret and not subject to any kind of review.

Hmm. Was not Mr. Padilla's case reviewd first by a US District Court and subsequently the 2nd Circuit?

Originally posted by richard:
This is workable in time of combat, in the theatre of war, but then they would also be POWs.


Certainly POWs would exist...if they were soldiers of a recognized government, not dressed as civilians, nor carrying out acts of terrorism.

Originally posted by richard:
In any case, an American citizen is an American citizen, no matter what the executive branch says.


I refer you to my quote from Quirin, above.

The real problem of the detainees at 'Gitmo is this: does anyone here rationally believe that if they were released and repatriated to Afghanistan, they would not immediately return to actively plotting and carrying out terrorist acts against America and Americans?

O/H

ozstamps

Jan 14, 04, 9:51 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:

If it were me, I'd go back to Chile, since I already have the reciprocidad stamp in my passport...otherwise it'd be Argentina or Columbia. *shrugs*

O/H

Last year to enter Chile US Citizens needed to pay $US100. US cash only. No local funds. BEFORE you even get NEAR immigration.

Australian and Canadians too has huge fees required. And my year older circular Chile entry tax stamp they told me was NOT valid. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Steve M

Jan 14, 04, 9:55 pm

Originally posted by Wheezer:
Really? In which states? I've been a notary here in Illinois, and a $5k bond was about it. Just surprised.

California has had this requirement for quite some time.

ozstamps

Jan 15, 04, 2:24 am

What an INCREDIBLY stupid thing for someone as senior as a pilot to do:



Brazil Arrests U.S. Pilot Over Gesture (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_us_fingerprinting)

An American Airlines pilot was arrested by federal police Wednesday after making an obscene gesture when being photographed at the airport as part of a newly imposed entry requirement for U.S. citizens ...

The pilot, Dale Robbin Hirsh, lifted his middle finger while undergoing the new security process, said Francisco Baltazar da Silva, chief of Sao Paulo's federal police

... he could be charged with showing disrespect to authorities, a crime in Brazil punishable by between six months and two years in jail or a fine ... He could also be deported without any further legal action.

Occupationalhazard

Jan 15, 04, 1:08 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Last year to enter Chile US Citizens needed to pay $US100. US cash only. No local funds. BEFORE you even get NEAR immigration.

Yeah, I know...I checked on entry requirements before I went the first time, and so knew to stop at the "Fee Because There's a Fee" booth before I went to immigration at SCL.

Anyway, checking the entry requirements at traveldocs.com saved me a line at either the reciprocity booth, or at immigration, b/c all the US/Canadian/Aussie types who walked past me, while I was paying the clip, walked passed me again while I was headed to immigration and they were going pack to pay the fee. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Australian and Canadians too has huge fees required. And my year older circular Chile entry tax stamp they told me was NOT valid. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

Yeah, I kinda wondered about that, b/c the fee went up. It was supposed to be good for the life you your passport, but apparently is not...although the stamp I have is rectangular, not circular, and there's another, stapled-on stamp, as well. I suppose I will find out if I go back to Chile before my current passport expires. *shrugs*

Thanks for the info, either way.

O/H

Occupationalhazard

Jan 15, 04, 1:17 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
What an INCREDIBLY stupid thing for someone as senior as a pilot to do:


Yeah, that's true, although if you look at the photos of him doing it on the yahoo site, it's actually sort of surreptitious, in that he's holding some piece of paper up with numbers on it (which, presumably, he was instructed to do); he has his middle finger on the side of the paper facing the camera, and the others behind.

If you cycle through the photos (there were 5) you see him being "escorted" as the story says, but it looks more like "Spanish-walked" to me; there's three sets of hands on the guy, and they practically have him in a hammerlock.

It was a dumb thing for the dewd to do, but the Brazilian overreaction to it demonstrates that they are hardly running a stupidity deficit themselves....

O/H

Occupationalhazard

Jan 15, 04, 1:35 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
I doubt that is what the judge was attempting to do.

And yet, somehow, he managed to do it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by GUWonder:
I also think there was a translation error from Portuguese to English. 

Well, so far, with no searching effort on my part, CNN, the BBC and the NYT all report Judge da Silva's Nazi quote, so either the English-speaking world press all got it wrong (and I would expect that at least somebody would have a bi-lingual reporter...) or your "I don't like this so I declare that it didn't happen" argument is BS.

I tend to think the latter.

O/H

tismfu

Jan 15, 04, 2:36 pm

I just went to Chile this summer and have the circular stamp. Like O/H was saying it's stamped on your passport and then there is a paper with the stamp stapled in your passport. Mine says it's valid for the life of the passport... it better be.

The one thing that ticked me off about Chile (I came from Argentina) was that they had no ATM machine before immigration. I had no idea about the reciprocity fee and didn't have $100 in cash. What are people supposed to do who don't have it? Are they just out of luck? Granted, I should have done my research, but all that was needed was an ATM machine. How hard would that be? Fortunately a friend with whom I was traveling spotted me the money.

ozstamps

Jan 15, 04, 5:04 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:

If you cycle through the photos (there were 5) you see him being "escorted" as the story says, but it looks more like "Spanish-walked" to me; there's three sets of hands on the guy, and they practically have him in a hammerlock.



Well I am not wearing rose coloured glasses as some Americans reading this may be. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

If I did the same thing at Dulles last week there would be more than THREE sets of hands on me. There would have been cuffs, FBI, TSA, Special Forces and the Marines 'helping' drag me away you can bet. A whole squadron of them.

Not long ago a few shaved head morons in jungle camouflage greens would have been be pointing a loaded M-16 assault rifle in either ear just to be sure.

Think about it.

Brazil is simply doing what the US chooses to do with impunity to anyone that the Americans deem to be the slightest bit suspicious or a "risk". And when they look in the mirror they do not like what they see.

Make an obvious llight hearted joke about a hand grenade in your carry on and be prepared to spend the next 24 hours tied to a chair with bright lights in your eyes etc.

NickP 1K

Jan 15, 04, 7:51 pm

I'm curious as to how the lines are at Rio for immigration if you are NOT a US Citizen and NOT a Brazil passport holder. Do all non locals get lumped into one line with just the US citizens taking the longer time for the formalities.

InterflugIL62

Jan 15, 04, 9:17 pm

Originally posted by tismfu:
I just went to Chile this summer and have the circular stamp. Like O/H was saying it's stamped on your passport and then there is a paper with the stamp stapled in your passport. Mine says it's valid for the life of the passport... it better be.

The one thing that ticked me off about Chile (I came from Argentina) was that they had no ATM machine before immigration. I had no idea about the reciprocity fee and didn't have $100 in cash. What are people supposed to do who don't have it? Are they just out of luck? Granted, I should have done my research, but all that was needed was an ATM machine. How hard would that be? Fortunately a friend with whom I was traveling spotted me the money.

Ok, but what WOULD have happened if you didn't have the cash??

Could be an interesting scenario.

I walked all over Milan Malpensa, couldn't find an ATM to save my life.

Always wondered what does happen if you are short. I may have to try that http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif if I ever get to Turkey.

Occupationalhazard

Jan 16, 04, 12:12 am

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Well I am not wearing rose coloured glasses as some Americans reading this may be.

Spare me the tut-tutting. If I had been writing the copy, I wouldn't have used "escorted"...and neither would anyone writing copy about your hypothetical about "what would happen if I did this at Dulles...."

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Brazil is simply doing what the US chooses to do with impunity .... 

Which brings us back to the point. It's all about showing up America, and nothing more.

O/H

ozstamps

Jan 16, 04, 12:52 am

Originally posted by InterflugIL62:

Ok, but what WOULD have happened if you didn't have the cash??

Could be an interesting scenario.

I walked all over Milan Malpensa, couldn't find an ATM to save my life.

Always wondered what does happen if you are short. I may have to try that http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif if I ever get to Turkey. 

Despite what is posted above I do recall there IS a small 'Bureau de change' before immigration in SCL Chile, with undoubtedly dreadful exchange rates, but what you can you do if you are one of the peasants of the world who do not get paid in $US and not have a wallet full thereof? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As for Turkey, I flew into Istanbul in July. US citizens also get slugged $US100 there. Also cash only.

When you realise how CHEAP everything is in IST that $100 really is outrageous.

A one MILLION lira note bought just one beer or Coke. The largest note they print is only 10,000,000. I took back 20 x crisp Million Lira notes and handed them to FT'ers at the Dusseldorf Dooo this year.

I gave them all out and wished I'd kept a few, so if anyone is going to Turkey soon ... I'm happy to mail greenbacks to have you grab me a few more! Great talking point. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/64675/1/.html (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/64675/1/.html)

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Jan 15, 2004).]

InterflugIL62

Jan 16, 04, 4:19 am

Thanks for the info. What happens if you transit Istanbul and stay int'l, any fees?

Do they nail you once or each time you land, ie. twice but on the same trip?

Same with Santiago, thanks.

Sorry, no Turkish lira to hand out. I am hoping Israeli Shekels soon, plus more Euros...

------------------
YAS+

Jenbel

Jan 16, 04, 8:19 am

Originally posted by InterflugIL62:

Thanks for the info. What happens if you transit Istanbul and stay int'l, any fees?



I transited Istanbul en route to Ankara, and didn't have to buy the tourist visa (£10 for UK people in 2000) until I went landside in Ankara.

OccupationalHazard - of course its all about showing up the Americans - its the only recourse the Brazilian authorities have if they don't like the actions of US immigration.

hfly

Jan 16, 04, 11:02 pm

Tourist Visas for Turkey are generally multiple entry for the period of the visa (3 months for most of the countries discussed above). There is an ATM airside in IST near immigration. Before it was installed they would escort people to bureau de change or the landside ATM if the people were stuck. The Turks are also very generous and are willing to take 100 Euros from Us citizens if they don't have $100!!!!

Spotted above is an example of how crappy Turkey's reciprocity is.... Brits pay 10 quid for a three month tourist visa. Turks pay 56 quid (appx) for the same thing!

At least the Brazilians issue US passport holders with 5 year visas for the $100. The Turks do only 3 months.

tismfu

Jan 16, 04, 11:19 pm

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Despite what is posted above I do recall there IS a small 'Bureau de change' before immigration in SCL Chile,

Well, at least when I was there in August that exchange bureau was AFTER immigration. And while the lady at the entrance fee desk said I could pass to pay it, the immigration officer I saw would not let me go under any circumstances without a stamp.

GUWonder

Jan 17, 04, 12:24 am

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Well, so far, with no searching effort on my part, CNN, the BBC and the NYT all report Judge da Silva's Nazi quote, so either the English-speaking world press all got it wrong (and I would expect that at least somebody would have a bi-lingual reporter...) or your "I don't like this so I declare that it didn't happen" argument is BS.

I tend to think the latter.

O/H'

The original Portuguese-language statement is nowhere to be found in the Brazilian press or even Portuguese press. My jewish Brazilian friends (including some that reside in NY on/off) said that they have not seen the comment anywhere in the Brazilian press and have only heard about it in the US press. Find me the Portuguese original statement in any Brazilian publication and/or the name of the author of said Brazilian/portuguese writer and then any and all will be able to validate this "fact" and the accuracy of the translation.

You can believe the press blindly all you want, but you also believe that most all press has a very liberal bias, despite its being -- largely-speaking -- controlled and/or dependent upon business interests and access to the government officials (which can be based on "friendly" coverage).

Many journalists/editors idea of fact checking or validating "quotes" or translations is to rely upon some other "authoritative" or "respected" journalistic vehicle running the item. That is not fact checking when the original source can still be accessed -- in this case, the judge or the transcripts of the judicial decision.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 16, 2004).]

ozstamps

Jan 17, 04, 1:05 am

Originally posted by hfly:

At least the Brazilians issue US passport holders with 5 year visas for the $100. The Turks do only 3 months.

Brazil VISA for OZ citizens cost me $A130 for 90 days on 2 or 3 seperate times for vacations before I did my block and screwed a 5 year Business one out of them. That $A130 is is about $US100 now. And may even have increased, have no idea.

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

InterflugIL62

Jan 17, 04, 1:18 am

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Brazil VISA for OZ citizens cost me $A130 for 90 days on 2 or 3 seperate times for vacations before I did my block and screwed a 5 year Business one out of them. That $A130 is is about $US100 now. And may even have increased, have no idea.



This is all very good information.
What do the Australians pay for the Turkish visa? Are you closer to the Britts or us Yanks? cheers

edit to fix something

------------------
YAS+

[This message has been edited by InterflugIL62 (edited Jan 17, 2004).]

Wheezer

Jan 17, 04, 1:31 am

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Find me the Portuguese original statement in any Brazilian publication and/or the name of the author of said Brazilian/portuguese writer and then any and all will be able to validate this "fact" and the accuracy of the translation.

Not knowing Portuguese, I can't exactly verify whether this is orginal reportage or a translation back from English-language media. However,

"Consigno que considero o ato em si [medidas dos EUA] absolutamente brutal, atentatório aos direitos humanos, violador da dignidade humana, xenófobo e digno dos piores horrores patrocinados pelos nazistas", afirmou Julier.

Consultor Jurídico (http://conjur.uol.com.br/textos/23718/)

[This message has been edited by Wheezer (edited Jan 17, 2004).]

GUWonder

Jan 17, 04, 2:17 am

Originally posted by Wheezer:
Not knowing Portuguese, I can't exactly verify whether this is orginal reportage or a translation back from English-language media. However,

"Consigno que considero o ato em si [medidas dos EUA] absolutamente brutal, atentatório aos direitos humanos, violador da dignidade humana, xenófobo e digno dos piores horrores patrocinados pelos nazistas", afirmou Julier.

Consultor Jurídico (http://conjur.uol.com.br/textos/23718/)

[This message has been edited by Wheezer (edited Jan 17, 2004).]

This seems to come much closer to what I was looking for. It seems to be relying on more primary sources since it has additional quotes and the relevant decision from said judge than the US press had, so it does not appear to be a mere re-hashing by this Brazilian site of a US publication.

Thanks for the work and helping to sort it out for me.

The judge is correct that xenophobia was the validating reason -- irrational as it was -- for the Nazis to do what they did to jews, gypsies and others. I doubt that this judge was attempting to trivialize the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis (and their collaborators or/even those who were apathetic). The judge was making a valid point that xenophobia is a danger since that frame of reference is used to justify atrocities against the "other".

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 17, 2004).]

ozstamps

Jan 17, 04, 4:35 am

Originally posted by InterflugIL62:

This is all very good information.

What do the Australians pay for the Turkish visa? Are you closer to the Britts or us Yanks? cheers



Brits of course. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

It was $US20 in July for ozzies.

The "Visa" is simply a peel off sticker, about the size of a large postage stamp they put on a passport page. The American in front of me needed 5 of them. And boy was he p!ssed.

It gets a postal type circular dated cancel in red for day you enter and in blue black for day you depart.

The entry point at IST is a shambles.

No-one of course TELLS you that need these "Visa" stamps, so I learned this after I had lined up for 10 mins at immigration line and the guy just grunted and thumbed me over to the choas around the little window.

There an unruly noisy, pushing, yabbering scrum had gathered around ONE window issuing these. No lines of course. Just a mini riot. ONE girl was trying to cope. No receipt issued - to me anyway.

There was NO sign or indication with how MUCH they wanted to extort from each nationality (if anything at all) except a scrawled note on a sheet of paper saying it was $US100 for USA. The chances of dropping currency notes or being pick-pocketed in this scrum were VERY high I thought at the time.

A totally unprofessional and insulting 'welcome' to many vacation visitors to a country who desperately wishes to join the European Union.

These bozos have GOT to be kidding! A million Lira for a beer and they want to be accepted as other than cowboys?

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Jan 17, 2004).]

InterflugIL62

Jan 17, 04, 3:57 pm

Thank you for the info. Yes, that and watching Midnight Express and I will pass on Turkey for the time being.

If our Gov't had some (cojones) they would stop giving millions $$$ in foreign aid to a country that discriminates against us.
Turkey, like Brazil, can do whatever they want, but they won't be seeing my $$$.

Hence ,we have Athens. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
YAS+

ozstamps

Jan 17, 04, 5:47 pm

The PLUS side is of course that Turkey is a great toursit destination. Eat a big meal with beers for a few dollars and catch a cab for 15 mins for a few $$$s.

Get a real nice hotel for $35 a night etc. See how fast that $100 is bypassed in Athens .. Visa or no Visa. Like in about 2-3 days is my guess given they now have the Euro. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Or any other part of Europe using Euros.

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

LUVSWA

Jan 17, 04, 6:10 pm

As I understand it, Turkey's high Visa fees for US citizens was in direct response to the US implementing higher fees. Too bad, the new $100 fee has kept me from returning to IST for a long weekend visit (although it is good for 1 year).

Last time I went to Turkey I got my Visa in advance to avoid the madness, I would suggest that course for everyone.

Regarding the original topic, I think the US should have started some sort of identification system long ago. It is pathetic that the govt can't keep track of Visa abusers. I'm not sure that photos and fingerprinting will help, but it's worth a try I suppose. I have no problem with Brazil or any other country responding with a quid pro quo. Of course, I'm also in favor of a national ID card utilizing biometrics or retinal identification...oh and a mandatory DNA database.

Okay, I'm ducking...

------------------
Randy
-------------------------
HH Gold; SPG Gold; NW Gold; UA PremEx

tismfu

Jan 17, 04, 7:51 pm

Originally posted by LUVSWA:
Okay, I'm ducking...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

InterflugIL62

Jan 18, 04, 3:52 am

-Yeah, duck! it is coming low and fast. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

-If you get the Toykish visa in advance, is it the same price? plus postage, handling and all that fun?

As for Athens, when I was there it was the Drachma and I had a horrible time adjusting to the exchange rate having just arrived from Paris, went to an ATM at Athens Airport and took out way more than needed.

So in that respect, the Euro will be nice but as to the crummy exchange rate and I get to deal with that in Germany soon, yeah, it sucks. Prague is much cheaper and they don't charge ya for landing there. They welcome tourists. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Samba anyone?

------------------
YAS+

Yaatri

Jan 18, 04, 10:30 pm

Originally posted by InterflugIL62:
Thank you for the info. Yes, that and watching Midnight Express and I will pass on Turkey for the time being.

If our Gov't had some (cojones) they would stop giving millions $$$ in foreign aid to a country that discriminates against us.
Turkey, like Brazil, can do whatever they want, but they won't be seeing my $$$.

Hence ,we have Athens. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



What makes you think Turkish Govt discriminates against us? It has been pointed out that visa requirments and fees are usually on a reciprocal basis. It is true they will have more tourists if the visa fee for US citizens were not that high. I was there in 1998 and paid US$45 for a visa at the airport. I think it was a 45 or a 90 day visa.

ozstamps

Jan 18, 04, 10:49 pm

Originally posted by LUVSWA:

Of course, I'm also in favor of a national ID card utilizing biometrics or retinal identification...oh and a mandatory DNA database.

Okay, I'm ducking...



And mandatory urine tests for visitors? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Just out of idle curiosity might I ask how many times you personally have flown OUT of the USA in the past year?

Curiously on FT I find those most in favour of the more extreme measures are never subjected to them. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Yaatri

Jan 19, 04, 12:55 am

Originally posted by Spiff:
I'll be happy to give them one.

"What did you mean, 'cup'?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif



What if they want to watch you to make sure it is your sample? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

InterflugIL62

Jan 19, 04, 2:06 am

Originally posted by Yaatri:
What makes you think Turkish Govt discriminates against us? It has been pointed out that visa requirments and fees are usually on a reciprocal basis. It is true they will have more tourists if the visa fee for US citizens were not that high. I was there in 1998 and paid US$45 for a visa at the airport. I think it was a 45 or a 90 day visa.

Ok. $45 for a 90 day visa and we'll talk business. What I meant was singleing out a country that pays Turkey dearly in foreign aid. Someday the American people will get wise and say enough of that.

Til then, if you want to give me $$$ millions in foreign aid money, I won't be stupid enough to require a visa of you. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
YAS+

Occupationalhazard

Jan 19, 04, 7:23 am

Originally posted by Yaatri:
What if they want to watch you to make sure it is your sample? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Undoubtedly, their shoes would get wet....

O/H

hfly

Jan 19, 04, 8:42 am

Yaatri,

As I have pointed out ad nauseum, the only reciprocity in fees was the jump from $65 to $100. The previous three jumpos and the idea to charge in the first place were all due to the Turks.

Unfortunately, this was not due to any "idealistic" ideas of the Turks regarding reciprocity, but rather the short term idiocy of a Foreign Minister who was about to be fired combined with a short sighted idiocy of a bankrupt government trying to raise revenues any way they could. In the cases of both Spain and the UK, the rate that the Turks charge these citizens is %10 of what their citizens get changed.

LUVSWA

Jan 19, 04, 10:31 am

Originally posted by ozstamps:
And mandatory urine tests for visitors? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Just out of idle curiosity might I ask how many times you personally have flown OUT of the USA in the past year?

Curiously on FT I find those most in favour of the more extreme measures are never subjected to them. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif


Sorry to disappoint you...I've travelled to destinations outside the US requiring immigration 6 times in the last 14 months and will likely do so at least 3 more times through the calendar year.

For the most part security has been an afterthought in the US. The most intensive screenings I've ever had are in foreign countries such as Turkey. You must admit that some change was in order.

Yeah, urine tests...what a great idea. I'm jealous that you thought of it first! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Randy
-------------------------
HH Gold; SPG Gold; NW Gold; UA PremEx

Occupationalhazard

Jan 19, 04, 10:41 am

Originally posted by GUWonder:
...The judge is correct...

No, he's not, and none of the "Ignore that man behind the curtain! doublespeak in your post is going to change that.

Props to Wheezer for busting up your "I don't like it so it didn't happen" alternate reality. Your demand that someone produce a Portuguese-language account had everything to do with you counting on nobody speaking enough Portuguese to find one.

If anyone is looking for me this morning, I will be busy spiking the ball in the end zone....

O/H

GUWonder

Jan 19, 04, 11:22 am

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Props to Wheezer for busting up your "I don't like it so it didn't happen" alternate reality. Your demand that someone produce a Portuguese-language account had everything to do with you counting on nobody speaking enough Portuguese to find one.

O/H

You are wrong. I was hoping someone with better research skills and time would find a more primary, complete source for me. I don't always have the time nor perfect ability to do leg work in other languages so easily -- although you may think differently. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

In the FT community there are plenty of people who make Brazil a frequent destination (for a variety of reasons) and a fair amount of them are from your Fox News contingency and would do anything to prove the paleo-cons and libertarians and moderates and left of centers wrong. Even Fox News gets is somewhat right some of the time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Occupationalhazard

Jan 19, 04, 1:35 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
You are wrong. I was hoping someone with better research skills and time would find a more primary, complete source for me.

LOL. Not likely. A quick review of your 1 January post on the topic belies your post hoc rationalization now. Rather than say, "Hey, has anyone seen this in the Brazilian press?", you affirmatively alleged your belief that there was a translation error, said, "I have yet to find a major Brazilian publication having the alleged 'original' quote in print and in Portuguese", (indicating you might actually be looking for same), and signed off with a flip remark about how, when someone found a Portuguese-language source, then "we will talk".

That indicates that you didn't expect anyone to track down such a source. Well, someone did. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by GUWonder:
...a fair amount of them are from your Fox News contingency and would do anything to prove the paleo-cons and libertarians and moderates and left of centers wrong. Even Fox News gets is somewhat right some of the time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I don't watch Fox, except when there's an NFC game that I want to catch, but believe whatever you want...which, I gather from your other posts, you frequently do, no matter how detached from reality you become.

At least, I suppose I should congratulate you (and our other friends on the Left) who denied the existence of media bias for years...until they discovered Fox. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I am reminded of the scene in Casablanca when Captain Reneault is SHOCKED! to discover there is gambling going on at Rick's.

FWIW, the sources I cited as linked to FT were CNN, the BBC and the NYT. Surely you don't believe their reporters are all foaming-at-the-mouth members of the Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

O/H

[This message has been edited by Occupationalhazard (edited Jan 19, 2004).]

GUWonder

Jan 19, 04, 3:08 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard: LOL. Not likely. A quick review of your 1 January post on the topic belies your post hoc rationalization now. Rather than say, "Hey, has anyone seen this in the Brazilian press?", you affirmatively alleged your belief that there was a translation error, said, "I have yet to find a major Brazilian publication having the alleged 'original' quote in print and in Portuguese", (indicating you might actually be looking for same), and signed off with a flip remark about how, when someone found a Portuguese-language source, then "we will talk".

That indicates that you didn't expect anyone to track down such a source. Well, someone did. 

A good attempt to read my mind. But the attempt failed miserably. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I don't watch Fox, except when there's an NFC game that I want to catch, but believe whatever you want...which, I gather from your other posts, you frequently do, no matter how detached from reality you become.

The Fox News contingency is one you sympathize with. You don't have to watch it too much to sympathize with it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

At least, I suppose I should congratulate you (and our other friends on the Left) who denied the existence of media bias for years...until they discovered Fox. I am reminded of the scene in Casablanca when Captain Reneault is SHOCKED! to discover there is gambling going on at Rick's. 

I never denied that there was media bias depending on individual opinions; however, the bias is certainly not a "left" one. It's a corporate/mass market bias. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

FWIW, the sources I cited as linked to FT were CNN, the BBC and the NYT. Surely you don't believe their reporters are all foaming-at-the-mouth members of the Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy?

O/H 

They are subject to the corporate/mass market conspiracy. But that's capitalism and capitalism is a good thing, is it not? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 19, 2004).]

Steve M

Jan 20, 04, 10:55 pm

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Despite the posting by Mr. Strong, and his correct assumption that the Geneva Convention in regards to POWs would not normally apply, he has some seriously flawed arguments. The US Constitution most certainly does apply... or we could keep redefining who is and is not protected. Why not make the argument that violent criminals are really enemy combattants who undermine the US Goverment? Then we just lock them up and throw away the keys... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif 

Although this point is no doubt lost on many, this point is concisely what is perhaps the most important point in this thread: we can't equate the degree of someone's guilt as being proportional to the seriousness of the accusation. I continue to be amazed at how often I see this violated when I read my local paper, and despite all of the protections built into our system, how often it seems ignored in practice.

For the government ... to create a special classification of "enemy combattant" to label Americans is unAmerican as saying women and ethnic minorities are lesser persons... but it is easy for the Executive Branch to do such when they have violated the sanctity of the Court (especially in spirit). This same Court attempted to legitimize the internment of Japanese AMERICANS! It was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

Again, I don't know how much more to the point I could state it myself. My mother once told me about how one of her classmates in grade school suddenly "disappeared": Even though the friend was no doubt born and raised in America, she was nonetheless sent off to a concentration camp for US citizens solely based on her race, and what other unassociated members of her race did to America on Dec 7, 1941.

I am very worried that this same mentality has once again surfaced in the US. When I have raised the issue of Mr. Padilla, I have in far too many cases been confronted with a very special attitude that I can best describe as stating "Why don't you *get it*??? America is under attack!"

Of course, the reality that we areclearly under attack by some loosely-defined force. The fact that Mr. Padilla may or may not have anything to do with this seems to be completely ignored.

What do we know about Mr. Padilla? As far as I can tell, the only things that the general public knows are two things:

1. They have read in the newspaper that he may be suspected of plotting to detontate a dirty bomb.

2. They have seen a single photo of him. This looks very much like a "mug shot" that bears a striking resemblance in expression and angle to the one commonly circulated of Mohammad Atta.

That is, given the above two situations, it's very likely that Joe Citizen will have a very negative viewpoint of Mr. Padilla. Perhaps this is well-founded - perhaps it is not. We really don't know at this point.

What I do know is that at the current time, we have a US citizen, that was arrested on US soil for no reason other than the speculation stated in the newspaper, is being held incommunicado for an indefinite period of time.

As far as I can tell, the best and only explanation that I can come up with as to why most of the (few) people that are even aware of his situation are not concerned is that his photograph makes him look like a "dangerous" person. This sort of situation could happen to any one of us.

Most of us are familiar with the most notorious of US-soil terrorists that has ever been brought to justice: Timothy McVeigh. His situation is a great example of US justice done right:

- He was identified through solid, verifiable investigative methods.

- He was put on trial based on public charges, in a public forum.

- He was tried and found guilty in a public forum by a jury of his peers.

- He paid the ultimate price for his actions as a result of the federal death penalty.

Of course, I would have preferred that the OKC bombing would have never happened, but given that it did, I think the US justice system worked exactly as designed. I just don't see this being the case for Mr. Padilla. Specifically, he has been charged with no specific crime, no evidence has been presented against him, he has not been able to present a defense, let alone see a judge let alone even a lawyer.

Even to say that the charges against him are so serious that none of the above applies is missing the point: He's been incarcerated for over 18 months, and there aren't even any charges against him at this point. He his imprisoned for an indefinite period of time based solely on the President's signature. This is as un-American as it gets.

SPN Lifer

Jan 20, 04, 11:59 pm

How long are prisoners of war detained?

The premise seems to be that what is at issue is a crime, and that the disparate treatment is due to the severity of that crime.

In fact, I think the justification for his detention is that he's an enemy combatant, is it not?

By now everyone recognizes the shortcomings of detaining U.S. citizens solely due to ethnic relationship to an enemy power.

(Even legal doctrines originally based on racist underpinnings -- such as the Insular Cases -- can maintain a life of their own and acquire independent justification or support from what were deemed less important elements of the decision. The WWII Long Island German spy case will certainly loom large in any analyisis of the Padilla case.)

What is at issue is the status of the detainee -- accused criminal or captured enemy combatant. That will likely be dispositive of the legal issues. Citizenship will likely come second.

On the other hand, if the court rules expansively in favor of individual rights and against the "war-making" powers of the political branches, then citizenship may be more important.

[Spelling.]

[This message has been edited by SPN Lifer (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

GUWonder

Jan 21, 04, 1:48 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
On the other hand, if the court rules expansively in favor of individual rights and against the "war-making" powers of the political branches, then citizenship may be more important.

SPN Lifer, the odds of the current SC justices ruling as a whole in favor of individual rights over "war-making" powers of the political branches is less than good. It's awful. Good men and women in this country should pray that we get another Justice Souter or Ginsberg or we are all going to be walking on coals sooner than later.

[Religious imagery added for the benefit of all religionists out there.]

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

Cygnus X-1

Jan 21, 04, 2:01 am

I arrived connecting at DFW from NRT and the TSA broke the double pad locks on my bag, searched nothing inside and tied the bag shut. Since I'm an American, I find that worse than fingerprinting and photos.

Arrest Bush!

SPN Lifer

Jan 21, 04, 3:57 am

I would prefer to pray that someone who usually gets it right do so again, rather than have someone new on board who usually gets it "wrong."

While I did read Quirin many months ago, I confess to not having read the Second Circuit Padilla decision yet. They surely have some strong individual liberties arguments that perhaps SteveM has already adopted.

To get this back on topic, anyone -- citizen or alien, combatant or civilian -- has fewer rights at an international border.

To what degree remains to be seen.

Query: Does the constitutional (?) right to travel have an international component? [I haven't researched this lately, or even identified what provision of the Constitution would apply, if any. But I'm sure I haven't made the right up. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ] In any event, it seems to be one of our weaker rights.

Wheezer

Jan 21, 04, 4:27 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Does the constitutional (?) right to travel have an international component? [I haven't researched this lately, or even identified what provision of the Constitution would apply, if any.]

Yes to the question mark, it depends on whether you want a passport on the side with that, and the 14th amendment, as I understand it.

SPN Lifer

Jan 21, 04, 5:51 am

I'm sure any Constitutional Law text or treatise would have "Right to Travel," or similar, in the index. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Unfortunately, the leading cases are not on the tip of my tongue. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Steve M

Jan 21, 04, 8:57 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
In fact, I think the justification for his detention is that he's an enemy combatant, is it not?

You're right. Perhaps I've not made this clear enough, but I'm fully aware of this and in fact this is what I've been discussing all along.

I'm surprised how cavalier many people seem to be when using this term, Many people (and I'm not referring to you) use the term as if it was a basic tenet of American law that we all learned in 11th grade civics class. It seems to be used as a stock response to any of the issues I've brought up with regard to Mr. Padilla. Perhaps people (in fact I know that they do) are confusing my arguments with that of a lawyer making a specific pleading in court. I am trying to point out the larger dangers of a policy or situation where the signature of one man is allowed to completely erase all constitutional protections of a US citizen, with no right of appeal.

One of the things I did learn about in 11th grade civics is that our system is based on "checks and balances." Due process is an important part of implementing this.

I have not watched last night's State of the Union address (I have it on tape and will do so later this week), but I do remember one thing we were told in last year's address: that Iraq had attempted to purchase fissile material from a nation in Africa. This turned out to be totally false. We were also told a bit later that Iraq had a large stockpile of WMD that were on "hot standby" and ready to be deployed against US forces in 45 minutes. That turned out to not be true. In the early days of the fighting, we were told that US forces had been attacked with SCUD missiles but that as well turned out to not be true.

I'm not trying to expand this discussion into the larger issue of Iraq. I bring these things up just to make the point that sometimes intelligence is wrong, and that honest people make honest mistakes from time to time. That's why things like "due process" are so vitally important in our system. There has to be a way to correct mistakes, especially when it involves something as serious as incarceration.

Like you, I have not read the entire 2nd Circuit decision on the Padilla matter. From what I understand of it, it deals only with the enemy combatant issue - we still haven't gotten to the meat of the matter of what he did or did not do. We don't really even know what he's accused of doing other than what we read in the newspaper, as he hasn't been charged with anything.

I will leave you with one quote from this very decision of the 2nd Circuit that we're talking about. Judge Pooler said in the decision: "As terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution."

Occupationalhazard

Jan 21, 04, 9:09 am

Originally posted by GUWonder:
good attempt to read my mind. But the attempt failed miserably. 

Nope, no mind-reading. Just a reasonable intepretation of your posts, and certainly better than your post hoc rationalizations.

Oh, yeah, and Judge da Silva is still a wacko for comparing fingerprinting Brazilians at the airport to the worst depredations of the Nazis. E.O.S.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
The Fox News contingency is one you sympathize with. 

I have no real basis to judge Fox News, b/c I've never really watched it, other than during the start of the war, when I switched b/w Fox, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. I don't recall Fox' coverage being much different from the others. *shrugs*

Originally posted by GUWonder:
I never denied that there was media bias depending on individual opinions; however, the bias is certainly not a "left" one. It's a corporate/mass market bias.

That, ami is a retro-fantasy concocted after years of denial that any media bias existed at all. I tend to think there isn't that much of one, but what there is tilts left along with the predilection of the great mass of reporters, etc. There is certainly not a right wing bias, otherwise Dan Rather would have been canned for speaking at a Democratic fundraiser.

O/H

Steve M

Jan 21, 04, 9:24 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Steve, when are you coming to Saipan? This weekend I'm meeting my first Flyer Talker to visit the islands at my invitation, who will participate in the 1000th running of the Saipan Hash House Harriers!

You know, I almost made it out there to Guam and Saipan in late December, but changed my plans at the last minute (I decided to go to Disneyland instead). I was looking forward to meeting you. I will make by best effort to reschedule sometime this year. Don't the HHH run on Saturdays? I've never done one, but they sound like a lot of fun.

I know that you've asked in the past on more than one occasion "how is it that I know such-and-such?" Let me relate a story that perhaps you're in the best position of anyone on FlyerTalk to appreciate. To bring relevance to FT, this occurred on a CO BusinessFirst flight from HNL to LAX. The gentleman I was seated next to introduced himself, and mentioned that he lived on Saipian and was in fact a Commonwealth judge. We exchanged pleasantries, then I asked him the first thing that came to mind: "How's that guy doing that kept bringing all of those Article 12 actions?" I was referring to Theodore Mitchell but couldn't remember his name at the time. You should have seen the look on the judge's face: He said "How do you know about Article 12?!" It's just one of those many facts that's tucked away in my head somewhere. We had a great conversation about Saipan and other travel matters.

[Without going into all the details, let me just say for the benefit of others that Mitchell was an infamous attorney that reportedly made frequent use of and few friends in the courthouses of Saipan. Article 12 refers to a provision of the CNMI constitution, which is the basis for non-federal law in Saipan. It's probably very unusual for someone not from the area to know anything about this.]

[This message has been edited by Steve M (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

Occupationalhazard

Jan 21, 04, 9:35 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
The WWII Long Island German spy case ...

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). You can find the here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1).

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Citizenship will likely come second.

Or not at all, as in the Quirin case.

The fundamental problem with cases like Padilla and the fate of the detainees at 'Gitmo is this: Terrorists operate outside of the norms for warfare and combat, intentionally targetting civilian populations. POWs are released so they can go back to whatever they were doing before the war, and reintegrate themselves as productive members of their native country's society.

The dilemma that the Gov't faces is, what will the detainees do if released? Well, the answer for most is, undoubtedly, go back to being terrorists, which is an unacceptable outcome.

Originally posted by GUWonder:
Good men and women in this country should pray that we get another Justice Souter or Ginsberg or we are all going to be walking on coals sooner than later.

Odd usage of the word "pray"...our friends on the Left all to frequently attempt to gain victories at the courthouse that they cannot win at the ballot box. Anyway, Madam Justice Ginsberg is a formidable intellect, with a definable jurisprudence; David Souter is an unmitigated disaster of a justice.

Originally posted by Steve M:
I am trying to point out the larger dangers of a policy or situation where the signature of one man is allowed to completely erase all constitutional protections of a US citizen, with no right of appeal.

Doesn't the fact that Padilla's case was heard, most recently, in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals more or less defuse that argument?

Originally posted by Steve M:
Judge Pooler said in the decision: "As terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution." 

As an aside, I know Judge Pooler in a professional capacity, and while she is quite personable, she is rather a dim bulb, even for a judge. *shrugs*

O/H

Occupationalhazard

Jan 21, 04, 9:54 am

Originally posted by Steve M:
They have seen a single photo of him. This looks very much like a "mug shot" that bears a striking resemblance in expression and angle to the one commonly circulated of Mohammad Atta.

So should the Attas and Padillas of the world be photographed at Disneyworld, perhaps standing next to Mickey?

Originally posted by Steve M:
As far as I can tell, the best and only explanation that I can come up with as to why most of the (few) people that are even aware of his situation are not concerned is that his photograph makes him look like a "dangerous" person. This sort of situation could happen to any one of us.

1. Nobody's mugshot is going to be confused with their yearbook photo.

2. Padilla, a multiple felon, ex-gang member and convicted murderer, is a dangerous person. Has is occurred to you that he might look like a thug because he actually *is* a thug?

Originally posted by Steve M:
Most of us are familiar with the most notorious of US-soil terrorists that has ever been brought to justice: Timothy McVeigh.

McVeigh, had he been working for a foreign power/entity, could have been held in the same manner as Padilla.

As a practical matter, you just aren't going to see the term "enemy combatant" applied to what amount to Lone Nutbags (McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, etc.)

O/H

GUWonder

Jan 21, 04, 2:45 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
As a practical matter, you just aren't going to see the term "enemy combatant" applied to what amount to Lone Nutbags (McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, etc.)

O/H

Don't be surprised... the FBI is seeking out an apparent solo or two and the prep work is already being done by the US Attorney's office in the Eastern District of VA. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

SPN Lifer

Jan 21, 04, 4:52 pm

Specifically, Article XII refers to the limitations on non-indigenous land ownership in the CNMI, currently set by statute as a maximum 55-year lease.

The two other exceptions to the U.S. Constitution out here are no right to a jury trial in local (not federal) courts -- currently denied by statute unless facing an imprisonment term of 5 years or more -- and the inapplicability of the one man, one vote principle to the geographic-based CNMI Senate (3 senators per island) despite the population disparity.

http://www.cnmilaw.org (CNMI Law Revision Commission, with links to CNMI Constitution, etc.)

I used to have an unusually good memory myself (of things that truly interested me), when I was younger. Now, because of my chosen profession, I tend to look things up a lot more (“to be sure”), and it’s my turn to be impressed by the recall of my 9- and 10-year-old sons.

Hey O/H, while I may agree with some or all of the substance of your posts, I have a question for you. Please don't take this as a flame. Are you as aggressive in court and in pleadings as you are in this forum?

SPN Lifer

Jan 21, 04, 5:14 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
McVeigh, had he been working for a foreign power/entity, could have been held in the same manner as Padilla.

As a practical matter, you just aren't going to see the term "enemy combatant" applied to what amount to Lone Nutbags (McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, etc.)Within the past year or so, I've seen press accounts linked to either from this forum or OMNI, alleging that in fact there was some Iraqi or terrorist support of McVeigh.

Part of what makes terrorism so hard to counter is the existence of sleeper cells, etc.

Could the "war on terrorism" rationale be used to justify mandatory finger-print scans and positive-ID biometric matching before getting on domestic airplanes? It would appear so.

So much for the American tradition of getting a "fresh start." Mind those Ps and Qs! Your record really does follow you wherever you go.

Perhaps 9/11 has "changed everything" more than we realize. Not as a justification, but an observation. Time will tell.

Steve M

Jan 21, 04, 8:58 pm

Originally posted by Occupationalhazard:
Doesn't the fact that Padilla's case was heard, most recently, in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals more or less defuse that argument?

I'm afraid that it doesn't. What's being heard is not any substantive case on whether he did or did not do something. The only issues being addressed in the current case are the ones involving his status as an enemy combatant. And, even in these matters, he has not seen a judge, not met with his lawyers, and it's very likely that he knows nothing about the proceedings that are being heard in his name.

The administration's point of view is that his classification as an enemy combatant is completely appropriate and legal. If this case where decided in the government's favor, then he truly would not have his actual situation heard in court. And, people that may follow him in a similar situation would have even less standing than he has.

As an alternative, check out this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/21/terror.suspect.arrest/index.html

In both this case and in the Moussaoui case, these people are in custody, charges have been filed, and they are making their way through the justice system. It's somewhat ironic that in neither of these two cases are the defendants US citizens, yet they are granted due process and all of the other rights that Padilla is not. And, Moussaoui is actually accused of being the planned "20th hijacker" for the 9/11 attacks - it's hard to think of a more serious charge.

Steve M

Jan 21, 04, 9:04 pm

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
... and the inapplicability of the one man, one vote principle to the geographic-based CNMI Senate (3 senators per island) despite the population disparity.

I can't say that I know how "one man, one vote" is applied to states. But certainly, the US Senate does not apply this prinicple (by design). Is there such a requirement on states?

Steve M

Jan 21, 04, 9:34 pm

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Could the "war on terrorism" rationale be used to justify mandatory finger-print scans and positive-ID biometric matching before getting on domestic airplanes? It would appear so.

Speaking for myself personally, I wouldn't be opposed to such a measure, IF it was used solely for aviation security purposes, and IF whatever watch list databases that you were being checked against had a due process method (there we go with this term again) to resolve any unjust issues. Clearly, providing for aviation safety and security is a legitimate function of government, and if this is better attained by having a quality security screening at the checkpoint and some sort of way of flagging people that need extra attention or need to be prohibited from flying altogether, so much the better.

But we all know that it won't stop with that. For one, the temptation to keep permanent records of everyone's travel and then use it for all sorts of non-aviation purposes will be overwhelming (and is certainly going on today, even with the risk of people having false IDs or genuine IDs that are not their own).

That's one of the biggest problems with the current watch list system and it's been well documented: Once your name is on the list, even if by mistake, you have absolutely no way of resolving the situation. If we implement the proposed Green, Yellow, or Red system, what if you show up at the airport and find yourself on the Red list? Do you just give up the right for an indefinite period of time to get on an airplane, with no recourse, just for the greater good?

Let me put my opinions on the biometric ID issue another way. Whether it be a passport or a US local driver license, if there was a smartcard/biometric component to it such that the authenticity of the document itself and that holder/user of the document is the person to whom it was issued, so much the better.

The problem is that it will inevitably result in "feature creep." For example, in the US, you are required to be at least 18 years old to buy cigarettes, and 21 years old to buy alcohol. If you look anywhere near these ages, you will most likely be required to provide proof of age by the seller before you are allowed to make the purchase. Fine. Imagine a situation where we have biometric IDs, and someone decides that the problem of counterfeit or borrowed IDs is too high, and it gets decided that retailers must verify both using some sort of device to validate the ID and match the biometric. I'd be fine with this, as long as it stopped there.

But you and I both know that it wouldn't. It is inevitable that if they went to the trouble to have electronic devices to do all of this, logs would be kept and used for all sorts of other purposes. At least for me, this is why I have a problem with such proposals. If we could trust the system to not overstep its powers, it wouldn't be a problem. But it seems to be a fundamental problem that such information-collection systems will inevitably lead to abuses.

SPN Lifer

Jan 21, 04, 9:53 pm

See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). The Supreme Court there struck down the composition of the Tennessee Senate where a "cow county" of a few thousand inhabitants had the same representation as the county encompassing Memphis.

According to the Court, "historical and constitutional antecedents" make the federal example inapplicable to states. After all, counties were not independent sovereigns as the 13 original states were.

So in California, for instance, each of the 40 senatorial districts now encompasses exactly two assembly districts of almost exactly identical population.

On the other hand, a CNMI Senate similar to the U.S. Senate model is permissible not because the islands were independent, but because that is what the local people negotiated under the Covenant, 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note, and most importantly because Congress has the power to do so under the Territory Clause. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. See Rayphand v. Sablan, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D.N.M.I. 1999) (3 judge court), aff’d sub nom. Torres v. Sablan, 528 U.S. 1110 (2000) (mem.) (geographically-based CNMI Senate does not violate any fundamental right in international sense).

Occupationalhazard

Jan 22, 04, 9:37 am

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Hey O/H, while I may agree with some or all of the substance of your posts, I have a question for you. Please don't take this as a flame. Are you as aggressive in court and in pleadings as you are in this forum? 

It depends on what the situation calls for. In the case of this particular thread, I just don't have a lot of patience with "I don't like it, so it didn't happen"-type arguments, or that "The federal gov't is trying to make Padilla's photo morph into Atta". I don't suffer foolishness gladly.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Within the past year or so, I've seen press accounts linked to either from this forum or OMNI, alleging that in fact there was some Iraqi or terrorist support of McVeigh.

LOL. I think I'd need more to go on than whatever bubbled up from the Fever Swamp that is OMNI (and very often here, also).

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Part of what makes terrorism so hard to counter is the existence of sleeper cells, etc.

Indeed, it is the constant-yet-ephermal nature of terrorism that makes handling such cases problematic. As I posted earlier in this thread, POWs were expected to return to their societies after the cessation of conflict, and go about being productive members. Not so the nut-job terrorists, who any reasonable person would fully expect to, upon repatriation, immediately go back to operating outside the norms of civilized society, and plotting and carrying out terrorism, murder, mayhem, etc.

I ask this as an open question: Does anyone seriously believe that the ex-Taliban and al-Queda types (taken as a whole; I don't want any BS "well one guy might" arguments), would return to their home countries and suddenly become model citizens?

I think there is a substantial risk, approaching certainty, that they will not. Solve this dilemma, and I would be willing to be more sympathetic to even a known scumbag like Padilla....

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
Could the "war on terrorism" rationale be used to justify mandatory finger-print scans and positive-ID biometric matching before getting on domestic airplanes? It would appear so.

I don't think we need freakish "security"--in fact, I tend to concur with former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) that rather than confiscate knives at the airport, we should be handing them out.

Bottom Line: We've learned the Plane Trick. Everyone has gotta get on board with the idea that, if there's a hijacking, the only solution is Pax Intervention.

Originally posted by SPN Lifer:
So much for the American tradition of getting a "fresh start." 

We lost the American tradition of "personal responsibility", first, and that, my friend, is the bigger problem.

O/H