US fingerprinting foreigners

[Slytovhand]

I'm surprised this little baby hasn't made it to the boards yet (and only now due to a remark I made in CS).

Here's one link:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/1...-visitors.aspx

Here's another one about Japan doing the same (note the hostility expressed to this one, but not in the first!)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...941320246.html

And just for a bit more fun:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3367893.stm


Lastly - the shoe goes on the other foot (as far as the debate goes...)

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...rint-departing

(if you're not going to the links, and don't get the subject line... the US government has implemented a policy of photographing and fingerprinting all incoming foreigners to US shores, and keep them on a database... allegedly for 'anti-terrorism' purposes. Japan has followed suite, as did Brazil - but only to US citizens.. no doubt as a protest! This requirement is only for those needing a visa to enter the US - so Aus, UK and most of Europe currently don't, but......).

Now.. at this moment in time, as an Australian, I don't require a visa (last I checked...) IF I'm staying for less than 90 days. I would then wonder (from a government point of view) how are they going to know if I do or not...unless they take my photo and prints, and check them on a database 90 days later to see if I've left?


I see a bundle of issues with this.

As one of those potentially affected, I have a major issue with being considered a terrorist, which goes beyond the US's own 'innocent until proven guilty' theory. If you are an American on here, and you agree with this policy, is it any different to the other one where you will be printed and photographed if you leave your country?

But I'm not in America, and apparently, I thus feel safer here (well - my government thinks I do ).


Thoughts anyone?


Slyt

[ebonyknight]

I personally think it sucks. It shows how soft we have become as a country. We went from dying for liberty not 100 years ago, to giving away our rights in exchange for a little security. (I can't believe how many idiots who voted for bush in 2k4 have the nerve to regret it and say that they were scared).

As with most of these asinine laws, they only deal with the law abiding. The law breakers are going to come in illegally and blow up whatever they want, just as they have been.

But, the United States is a sovereign nation and as such, they have the right to treat foreigners who come here as they like (diplomats, being the exception). Don't like it, don't come. That is a better form of protest.

[AFPheonix]

My understanding of the first article is not that everyone's information will be put into a database, just that they'll be compared to their terrorist watchlist.
Yeah, the same one that they can't seem to keep updated properly and keeps catching people with the same name as others actually on the list, and repeatedly fouling up their travel plans.

I'm sorry that our government is retarded, we're attempting to replace it with something slightly better.

[Dreamstalker]

I'm sorry, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in the watchlist comparisons being accurate. I'd love to get a look at the algorithms that are used; all it seems to be is name or vague facial matches/similarities.

Known false positives

[rahmota]

Yeah another orwellian program installed with little thought about the political repercussions or proper implementation to make sure that it is error proof as well as idiot proof. So all in all very representative of how this government has turned out.

[powerboy]

As it was mentioned earlier, the Illegals will still come over and blow something up. I think that we should do something to make our self's safer, but it has to be done right.

[BlackIronCrown]

As one of those potentially affected, I have a major issue with being considered a terrorist, which goes beyond the US's own 'innocent until proven guilty' theory. If you are an American on here, and you agree with this policy, is it any different to the other one where you will be printed and photographed if you leave your country?

Well, you are going to disagree with me on this, but I think it is an excellent policy. After all, as far as I'm concerned, American rights only apply to American citizens - and that applies to innocent until proven guilty. Non-citizens do not fall under our laws - or may, depending on how we feel at the moment.

Conversely, I don't see any reason why another country HAS to respect my "rights" as an American citizen. Heck, Australia could dump me in their version of Gitmo or shoot me in the head on the spot. I'm not an Australian citizen. I don't have Australian rights. The only "rights" I get are privileges granted by treaty with the USA and which may be revoked at any time at the discretion of the Australian government. Their country, their sovereignty.

[BlackIronCrown]

As it was mentioned earlier, the Illegals will still come over and blow something up. I think that we should do something to make our self's safer, but it has to be done right.

And what is your alternate practical solution?

[Boozy]

After all, as far as I'm concerned, American rights only apply to American citizens - and that applies to innocent until proven guilty

I agree. My civil rights are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Civil Rights and Freedoms. Those rights end where Canadian sovereignty ends; at the US border.

Fingerprinting foreign visitors likely does not violate any bilateral agreements, so the US is free to do it.

I haven't stepped foot in the US since 9/11, and I have no immediate plans to do so. I'm not being forced to travel there, so if I don't like the new policies, I don't have to go.

[Slytovhand]

Ah yeah... true on the legalities, and therefore they can do what they want.

My thing is (and it comes through in some of my posts) that I look to humanity, and can still see a great future... but we'll never get there unless we actually put things in place that allow it to happen.

In this particular issue... we are all human beings.. and that's about all we are. The concept of being of a particular nation is an illusion.. and thus, all people should be treated as such... a 'person' and not as a 'nationality'. That's an us versus them thought pattern.


(spot the idealist )

Besides which, as a foreign policy to prevent terrorist attacks... there are far better ones that could be used but which are being ignored...

[DesignFox]

Besides which, as a foreign policy to prevent terrorist attacks... there are far better ones that could be used but which are being ignored...

Such as? I haven't really formed an opinion one way or another...I'm just following the argument.

[Pedersen]

Such as? I haven't really formed an opinion one way or another...I'm just following the argument.

Well, the simplest foreign policy to follow to avoid terrorist attacks is to stop giving them a reason to do something so desparate.

For instance, when the USA went into Iraq, conditions began happening there that made the people of Iraq desparate, too. Creature comforts were all but destroyed. Possibilities of a bright future for their children were eradicated in the short term. Since things were not restored promptly, such possibilities have been removed for what some would now call the long term.

Getting food can be difficult. Maintaining a home can be difficult. Roving gangs set people on fire. Day to day survival is difficult and bleak. And what constant do these people see?

American soldiers. American government officials. Promising that things will be better real soon now. And that promise being broken, day after day.

Is it any wonder that these people start to see us as liars? As disruptors who come in, take what we wish, and screw over the country?

They want us out. And we won't get out, all the while we continue to make (and break) promises. If I were forced to live in those conditions, I could see myself becoming a terrorist, too.

After all, I'd get to kill people who have angered me. I'd get to leave this miserable existence behind. And, as another benefit, since this is all a holy war, I'll get to go to heaven for having done so.

So, want to stop attacks? Stop pissing people off. Such a simple lesson, and one which our government simply refuses to learn.

[DesignFox]

So, want to stop attacks? Stop pissing people off. Such a simple lesson, and one which our government simply refuses to learn.

Seems easy enough...except we can't always make everyone happy.

I think that's a start though...and more to the point, if we're going to interfere in another country, we'd best do it with at least the backing of the UN. That way, if we piss people off, at least we've got some good allies!

[kamn]

offtopic, why is the term terrorist used for what was once guerrila warfare? From what I've seen, people in Iraq, attacking soldiers, any soldiers, are immediately labeled as terrorists, when all they are doing is defending (in their minds, the best way) their life and home. Were the Vietnamese terrorists? Were Tito and his troops terrorists?



on topic, personaly, I've never been in the USA, but it sounds so restrictive. Even so, it is my own choice to visit there and they have every right to fingerprint me if they want to and deem it necesarry.

[Pedersen]

offtopic, why is the term terrorist used for what was once guerrila warfare?

Consider the following two sentences, and then read the questions I pose below:

"Terrorists attacked a group of soldiers on patrol."
"Guerillas attacked a group of soldiers on patrol."

Which one sounds scarier?
Which one sounds more legitimate?
Which one is more likely to make the people hearing it hate the attackers more?

It's called propaganda. And it is something that the US Gov't has been practicing for a long time.