# Convince me to risk visiting the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800 "2004-01-05T13:54:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/61 "2004-01-06T15:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by netscape 6 \* > cite about the phone taps? Using google I found a copy of the complete act [here](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). > [@](#): > > Also while your at it. Please explain how the part where they can hold people indefinitly without trial is ok and not a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. Use my link to show the part of the Patriot Act where it gives the government the power to hold people indefinately without a trial. You won’t be able to because it isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/62 "2004-01-06T16:22:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by deb2world \* > **I am a US citizen, never been arrested, never been in any trouble with the law. YET my fingerprint is on file, my photo is there too. Yep to get some document called a “driver license” they fingerprinted me and took my photo (and not a good one at that!). I have been fingerprinted at Home Depot to write a check.** I worked as a bank teller for a bit. When someone came in to cash a check and did not have an account with us, we asked that they put their thumbprint on the check. If they refused, we didn’t cash the check. Almost nobody was bothered by it. They obviously didn’t find it too embarassing. ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/63 "2004-01-06T18:01:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mehitabel \ ***I also can’t get over the fact that the number of terrorist incidents in America has equalled zero in two years … we haven’t even had a suicide bomber in the most lightly policed mall.** Well, you must have forgotten about about the snipers and the anthrax. But, the thing is that we really didn’t have regular attacks before 9/11. I’m not quite sure what terrorists think they could accomplish by sending a guy into a US mall and blowing himself up in front of the Radio Shack. Yeah, terror. But what benefits would the terrorists get except a few thrills? I think they are looking for terror on a huge scale and aren’t really concerned with the small stuff. Bombing buses and markets seems like it’s most useful for local conflicts, like when you want an invading army or country to leave. ---
**Author:** ![deb2world](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7cd45c/32.png) [@deb2world](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deb2world)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/64 "2004-01-06T19:54:48Z")
I am not bothered by getting fingerprinted (sorry if I gave that impression). It is just that someone from another country who is reticent about entering the US cause of security measures that require fingerprinting needs to understand that even US citizen have been reguired recently to have fingerprints taken to allow them to do stuff, ie drive, cash/write checks. It is a whole new world we live in. That is why I figure we need to first debate if fingerprints and photographs are things that are covered by privacy rights. And no I have no answer to that question. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/65 "2004-01-06T20:03:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mehitabel \* > OK, somebody’s a little off the tracks today… > > I’m also one of those people who thinks this will not stop a really determined suicidal organized terrorist who’s been careful to keep his record clean, but I also can’t get over the fact that the number of terrorist incidents in America has equalled zero in two years. Wait, are you trying to attribute that to the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? That’s like the old joke, “Well, you don’t see any elephants on my lawn, do you?” > [@](#): > > Plots against the Brooklyn Bridge (look for articles on Iyman Faris) and other landmarks have been thwarted, not by this program exactly, Not _exactly_? You mean not _at all_. Here’s what the article says: > [@](#): > > Kelly credited the posting of police in marked cars at the ends of the Brooklyn Bridge, where its suspension cables are considered most vulnerable to attack, for helping foil the plot. > > The cars, which slowed bridge traffic, have since been replaced by foot patrols, surveillance cameras and alarms, Kelly said. It was accomplished by simple precautionary measures and good police work, not by curtailing civil rights. The guy was a U.S. citizen. In fact, many terrorist plots were foiled _before_ all this Homeland Security nonsense, and I have never heard of a case where authorities were thwarted because they lacked the power to take action. > [@](#): > > but the point is the Bridge is still there, and we haven’t even had a suicide bomber in the most lightly policed mall. I don’t like everything Homeland Security is doing but their job is not to make me feel happy but to protect me. I disagree. Personally, I think Homeland Security is just a whole lot of window dressing to make it look like the administration is doing something. We’re not stopping terrorists any better than we have in the past. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/66 "2004-01-06T20:09:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lord Ashtar \* > \*\*I worked as a bank teller for a bit. When someone came in to cash a check and did not have an account with us, we asked that they put their thumbprint on the check. If they refused, we didn’t cash the check. Almost nobody was bothered by it. > > They obviously didn’t find it too embarassing. \*\* This is off-topic, but that seems odd to me. What’s the purpose of getting a fingerprint? Let’s say you got the fingerprint on the check, and the check turned out to be a forgery. What did you do, take it to the police and have them compare it against their database, then put out an APB on the guy and find him? ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/67 "2004-01-06T20:16:38Z")
Oh yes, I do remember reading that the Brooklun Bridge plot, even if he’d carried it off, was so flawed that the Bridge would have been OK, but that wasn’t really my point. [QUOTEI disagree. Personally, I think Homeland Security is just a whole lot of window dressing to make it look like the administration is doing something. We’re not stopping terrorists any better than we have in the past.[/QUOTE] Well, I think the second sentence is _partially_ right, that there’s some sound and fury and CYA stuff there, but the last sentence–how can you tell? Isn’t the fact that there haven’t been any terrorist attacks (Muhammed was a nutcase who was not tied to any group besides the NOI, and the anthrax has also not been linked to anybody at all yet) a useful criteria at all? ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/68 "2004-01-06T20:33:55Z")
I would love to see the Grand Canyon. But the thought of some airport official seeing the pages and pages of Middle Eastern visas in my passport - UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Jordan - is a genuine concern. I believe that although I am not Arab, or Muslim, or Middle Eastern in appearance, they would be suspicious. And then I start thinking of rubber gloves, and the Grand Canyon starts to lose its appeal… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/69 "2004-01-06T20:46:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gum \* > **If you’ve got nothing to hide, then what’s the problem? They can check anything they like, as far as I’m concerned.** :mad: This is the attitude that makes me despair of America retaining its Bill of Right protection wrt privacy. Let’s face it, ANY protest against the intrusion of government into private affairs can be and has been met with this reponse. Sigh. Wish we were in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/70 "2004-01-06T20:59:09Z")
istara, I think it depends on your nationality. But the Grand Canyon alone is worth some efforts… And while you are in the USA you can go on seeing a few other miracles of Nature. And some beautiful architecture here and there… And experience some other nice US things. It is not all pain and sorrow overthere 🙂 Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/71 "2004-01-06T21:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mehitabel \* > Well, I think the second sentence is _partially_ right, that there’s some sound and fury and CYA stuff there, but the last sentence–how can you tell? Isn’t the fact that there haven’t been any terrorist attacks (Muhammed was a nutcase who was not tied to any group besides the NOI, and the anthrax has also not been linked to anybody at all yet) a useful criteria at all? No, it’s absolutely not useful, because there were years with no terrorist attacks _before_ Homeland Security. Here are the terrorist incidents listed by the State Department for North America from 1997-2002 (scroll down the page to find the appropriate charts): [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19997.htm](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19997.htm) 1997 - 13 incidents, 7 deaths 1998 - 0 incidents, 0 deaths 1999 - 2 incidents, 0 deaths 2000 - 0 incidents, 0 deaths 2001 - 4 incidents, 4,091 deaths 2002 - 0 incidents, 0 deaths I defy you to make a case for any conclusion other than that 9/11 was an anomaly. The fact is that terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are rare. They had already been in decline when Clinton was in office. I see no evidence that Homeland Security/Patriot Act has changed anything. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/72 "2004-01-06T22:03:00Z")
Aha, I hadn’t thought of it that way. However, I’m not sure I agree that 9/11 wasn’t the _beginning_ of something terrible, nor that no reshuffling of the myriad government departments that didn’t communicate before that day is needed. Of course, the only way I’ll be “proved right” is with another incident, so I wouldn’t mind being wrong. But I don’t know why you seem sure the ‘anomaly’ will not be repeated. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/73 "2004-01-07T04:35:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Using google I found a copy of the complete act [here](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). > \*\* Interesting some strikes against the Unpatriot Act (might as well give it a more truthfull name) your cite lists at [http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) . > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > The Act did not, however, provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill – without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately. > \*\* Congress was bullied and black mailed into in other words. > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > The implications for online privacy are considerable. For example, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to authorize installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices (a pen register collects the outgoing phone numbers placed from a specific telephone line; a trap and trace device captures the incoming numbers placed to a specific phone line – a caller-id box is a trap and trace device), and to authorize the installation of such devices to record all computer routing, addressing, and signaling information. The Act also extends the government’s ability to gain access to personal financial information and student information without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply by certifying that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. > \*\* Congress bullied into by the opportunistic ashcroft in otherwords. > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > lectronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Governs government access to stored email and other electronic communications. Within ECPA, the Pen Register statute governs real time interception of “numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached.” Although the use of such devices requires a court order, it does not require probable cause: there is no judicial discretion, and the court must authorize the surveillance upon government certification. A government attorney need only certify to the court that the “information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Therefore, the Pen Register and Trap and Trace statute lacks many of the privacy protections found in the wiretap statute. > \*\* Basicly amounting to a removal of 4th Amendment rights. > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > Section 204 amended Title III and the Stored Communications Access Act so that stored voice-mail communications, like e-mail, may be obtained by the government through a search warrant rather than through more stringent wiretap orders. Section 204 also brings voice mail under the authority of Section 209, which permits nationwide search warrants. Messages stored on an answering machine tape remain outside the scope of either statute. > \*\* That private voice mail message you left was not so private after all. Don’t leave any vioce mail messages you don’t want some stranger to hear. > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. The new “secret search” provision applies where the court “finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse effect.” Although the Administration’s “Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation” states that the new authority “is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches,” the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds “reasonable necessity” for this seizure. The law requires that notice be given within a “reasonable period,” which can be extended by the court for “good cause.” “Reasonable period” is undefined, and the Administration’s Field Guidance advises that this is a “flexible standard.” > > This significant change in the law applies to all government searches for material that “constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States” and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity. Prior law authorized delayed notification of a search only under a very small number of circumstances (such as surreptitious electronic surveillance). The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches constitutes a radical departure from Fourth Amendment standards and could result in routine surreptitious entries by law enforcement agents. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Use my link to show the part of the Patriot Act where it gives the government the power to hold people indefinately without a trial. You won’t be able to because it isn’t there. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > Section 218 expands the application of FISA to those situations where foreign intelligence gathering is merely “a significant” purpose of the investigation, rather than, as prior FISA law provided, the sole or primary purpose. “Significant” is not defined, and this vagueness could lead to inconsistent determinations and potential overuse of the FISA standards. The more lenient standards that the government must meet under FISA (as opposed to the stringent requirements of Title III) are justified by the fact that FISA’s provisions facilitate the collection of foreign intelligence information, not criminal evidence. This traditional justification is eliminated where the lax FISA provisions are applicable, at least in part, to the interception of information relating to a domestic criminal investigation. The change seriously alters the delicate constitutional balance reflected in the prior legal regime governing electronic surveillance. > \*\* the cite provening the wire tapping claim. > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > uch “generic” orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring. > > The “generic” roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that any search warrant “particularly describe the place to be searched.” That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally. > \*\* Another example of antifreedom ashcroft peeing all over the Constitution > [@](#): > > \*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) \* > \*\* > ction 156 grants the FBI the authority to request an order “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Although the amendment is entitled “Access to Certain Business Records,” the scope of the authority is far broader and applies to any records relevant to the individual. This amendment, which overrides state library confidentiality laws, permits the FBI to compel production of business records, medical records, educational records and library records without a showing of “probable cause” (the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime). Instead, the government only needs to claim that the records may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities. Individuals served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under penalty of law, the existance of the warrant or the facts that records were provided to the government. The final version of this provision contains an important clause – which was not in the Administration’s original bill – restricting the potential misuse of the law. Although the USA PATRIOT Act deleted the requirement that any records requested pertain to an agent of a foreign power (or a foreign power), the Act prohibits investigation of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment. A second change from the ATA was the infusion of judicial involvement into the process. > \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\* > Use my link to show the part of the Patriot Act where it gives the government the power to hold people indefinately without a trial. You won’t be able to because it isn’t there._\* I concede that your right it was not in there. Where ever this enemy combatent nonsense is coming from needs to be stoped. It’s a violation of bothe Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights. \*\*Bakhesh \*\* you risk your freedom be coming here. You could be declared an “enemy combatent” Stay way. Enough people do and a statement will be made. Maybe wake the goverment up from this insanity. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/74 "2004-01-07T04:59:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*Just a quick note… don’t know how it is elsewhere… but fingerprinting is usually what you do to arrested criminals. > \*\* Ah, but finger printing isn’t just for criminals any more. I’ve had mine done twice and had two criminal background checks. Why? Because that’s now standard practice in my state for working with children. And not just paid positions, either, volunteers in school systems are required to have the same done and they’re usually not even reimbursed the $30 that it costs to do it. Besides the cost, few people put up a fuss since it’s being done in the interest of protecting children from people who’s motivations for working for them are base. I don’t know, if one can understand why it’s required to be fingerprinted when wanting to do something _good_ it makes it harder to feel bad about people entering the country with unknown goals being subjected to the same thing. If fingerprinting red-flags child molesters and terrorists under assumed names, good. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/75 "2004-01-07T08:22:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mehitabel \* > Aha, I hadn’t thought of it that way. However, I’m not sure I agree that 9/11 wasn’t the _beginning_ of something terrible, nor that no reshuffling of the myriad government departments that didn’t communicate before that day is needed. Why do you call it “reshuffling”? They created an entirely new government agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Reshuffling seems the wrong word. > [@](#): > > Of course, the only way I’ll be “proved right” is with another incident, so I wouldn’t mind being wrong. So if there are no more terrorist incidents, it proves that Homeland Security is working. If there _are_ more terrorist incidents, it proves Homeland Security was needed.:dubious: > [@](#): > > But I don’t know why you seem sure the ‘anomaly’ will not be repeated. When did I say that? All I said was that a “zero incident” figure in two of the years _after_ 9/11 doesn’t prove anything in light of the fact that there were two years closely _preceding_ 9/11 that also had zero incidents. There have been terrorist incidents throughout history; 9/11 is only anamalous in the sense that so many people were killed by the one event. I most certainly didn’t say that there will never be another terrorist attack. Your speculation that 9/11 was the “beginning” of something, but that this “something” hasn’t happened because we prevented it, is unfalsifyable. (The elephant _would_ have been on my lawn, but I prevented it.) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/76 "2004-01-07T11:51:03Z")
Bakhesh - Look…don’t be a freakin’ pussy. Millions of people visit the United States every year. If you don’t break the law, you won’t have any more trouble here than you would have anywhere else. God forbid the government institute any security procedures without the conspiracy nuts and anti-Bush flower children on this board all getting up in arms. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/77 "2004-01-07T12:50:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\* If you don’t break the law, you won’t have any more trouble here than you would have anywhere else. > \*\* Lets make every crime a capital offence. If you don’t break the law, you won’t have any more trouble here than you would have anywhere else. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\*God forbid the government institute any security procedures without the conspiracy nuts and anti-Bush flower children on this board all getting up in arms. \*\* So your against the Geneava Convention and the Bill of Rights? It’s no conspiracy fantasy, They really are being violated. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/78 "2004-01-07T15:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > Why do you call it “reshuffling”? They created an entirely new government agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Reshuffling seems the wrong word. Because Homeland Security is just a re-amalgamation of the myriad other preexisting agencies which had functions that involved keeping the country safe in some respect. INS, Customs, Federal Protective Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service, and Coast Guard, among others. Most of these agencies have aspects that could be considered part of national security, but also have other aspects which have nothing whatsoever to do with national security (Dept. of Agriculture?) I think “reshuffling” is a dandy word. As someone who has to deal with Citizenship and Immigration Services and/or Customs and Border protection on a daily basis, I sure as hell haven’t seen any additional coordination. In fact, the one agency I used to deal with is now two, one of which has changed its name twice in the past year and farmed out most of its external information function to outside contractors who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Maybe they’re trying to confuse the terrorists until they give up and go home. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/79 "2004-01-07T15:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe they’re trying to confuse the terrorists until they give up and go home. I’m sorry for the difficulties you seem to have by doing your work… But this line is so witty that it made me laugh. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800/80 "2004-01-07T15:34:37Z")
Thanks so much, **Eva Luna**! I remembered INS and the Coast Guard but was surfing around trying to find all the other agencies that had been moved. It looks like they’re still not all getting along and have the free flow of info they’re supposed to, but Homeland Security itself is “an entirely new government agency” mostly on letterheads AFAICT. I worked in state gummint when a New Starry-Eyed Republican Gov came riding in and vowed to streamline and cut everything; my beat at that time was Environment, and sure enough two smaller agencies (out of nine) were merged into one and everybody had their names changed. But the main benefit seemed to be to printers of new stationery. > [@](#): > > In fact, the one agency I used to deal with is now two, one of which has changed its name twice in the past year and farmed out most of its external information function to outside contractors who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. But…but **Eva Luna** , gummint bureaucracy baaaaad, private sector goooood! Don’t be such a socialist!! 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-to-risk-visiting-the-us/222800.md?page=5)