Isn’t Saudi Arabia where lots of oil comes from, too? I mean… I’m no X-Files fan, but perhaps there’s a connection.
Well, I’m not of Arab descent, nor do I wear a beard (and I’m not so dark-skinned either this time of year), and I bet the same goes for Ms. Shahparaki. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why I didn’t get searched on the international flight: I was showing mypassport, which shows place of birth, not my driver’s license, which doesn’t.
Again, can’t we come up with some more intelligent screening criteria?
Darkie Arabs eh? That is, it fits the simplistic, ignorant and ill-informed stereotypes you hold.
Now what does one do about the non-darkies? You know, the the large number of Arabs and Muslims who are light-skinned.
And the converts? Lindh, Padillo, Reid.
And those born in European countries (good numbers of Algerians and other North Africans, as well as others). Massaouie of course, looking like any black American or black Frenchman, the name itself hardly telling you that much: Zack Massaouie? I’ll leave off the good % of North Africans that look no different than I.
What fucking use is a terror profile that wastes resources? We all saw how brilliant profiling succeeded with our whack-job serial killer/criminals in the sniper incident. Yeah, that “saved” resources.
And those of Western descent born in such countries, like my colleague Sammie born in Libya -Dad was an engineer there. Already that’s a pain in the ass to have your passport say born, Tripoli, Libya. Now Sammie boy is a little on the dark side, being of Med descent (I-Talian you know), not uncommon that. Even in Canada. Name changes of course rather bollix up the issue here, radical might very well come to say… Canada, change his name, legally, bingo - screened or not according to such profiling?
The profile is stupid. Profoundly stupid.
Rather like, for example, polygraphing (the stress detector that has never, ever caught a spy) it gives an illusion of certitude and saftey that in fact detracts from the reality.
Getting around this for a well-developed organization isn’t going to strain their mental resources - but it does waste valuable time on something essentially useless.
Rather better than false security is intelligent application of intelligence resources.
I’m going to weigh in here with the other side. Particularly since I am American. Simply put, Customs officials don’t have the time or money to check evryone. They must focus on doing what they can, and since converts are much harder to find since religion is not usually blatantly identifiable in America, this is a close as they can get.
When your charged with protecting the nations’ borders, and you get some MidEastern people coming thorugh - probably for somethign like a birthday party or vacation - what are you going to do, Post 9/11? Just let everyone pass?
I think the country is slowly increasing security everywhere, not just against Canadian muslims or Canuck-Arabs or whatever.
What the hell—I’m going to give you another example of INS stupidity and possible racial profiling, combined with the lack of common sense in enforcement that is all to common over at INS. This one happened to have a relatively happy rending, because as the gentleman in question was represented by my office, he had competent legal assistance available to him. Plus he speaks excellent English and is an articulate person, and he had my boss’ phone number with him.
Situation: Greek middle manager type (i.e. rather olive-skinned, with an accent), employed with the same U.S. multinational for his entire career, in the U.S. legally on a work visa for a few years, leaves on brief vacation in Mexico with wife and two kids. Coming back in through Immigration, INS inspector runs his visa number through the computer system and sees that the system shows it’s been cancelled. This contradicts the valid visas in the entire family’s passports; normally, if a visa is cancelled, there is a big fat “CANCELLED” stamp across it. Plus this visa number applied to a blanket visa petition, used by several HUNDRED company employees at any given moment. Why would a multinational want to cancel several hundred of its employees’ work visas, some of which had been processed only a month or two ago, and many of which apply to people at the middle manager level and upward? Obviously, the inconsistent information, coupled with the lack of a reason for the cancellation in INS’ notoriously scrambled computer systems, pointed to some sort of bureaucratic error.
We discovered, after much scurrying around, that it was a fucking INS DATA ENTRY ERROR; instead of extending the corporate blanket petition several months before, someone had hit the “REVOKE” button instead of “EXTEND,” and had never notified our office, the company’s immigration counsel. The INS inspector who was still holding our poor Greek family in detention quite frankly didn’t give a shit about the situation when we called him; he was quite ready to put the whole family on the next plane back for Athens, because the truth “wasn’t his problem.” It was only Congressional and corporate intervention, with our assistance, that saved his ass. The inspector, and his supervisor, were quite happily ready to waste taxpayer money shipping an innocent family across the Atlantic rather than wait a few minutes or even hours for us to provide evidence that he was a) here legally; and b) not a terrorist (nor were his wife and two small children).
Use some fucking common sense, people!
I am fairly sure Saudi Arabia was included in the expansion of this program, enacted October 1, 2002, along with Pakistan and Yemen. The Administration is keeping this low profile, as it IS politically embarassing. The second paragraph on page 3 of this memo includes Saudi citizens and nationals.
I have no direct knowledge that this has been enacted, but the intent is clear to include Saudi Arabia.
What UncleBill said.
Well, the “List of 26” countries hasn’t technically been publically released, but we in the field are all operating on the assumption that Saudi Arabia IS included.
It amuses me to see how the Americans scurry to find someone outside their country to blame for their ills. Pat Buchannan thinks our country is some kind of haven for terrorists. Yeah, like those two terrorists in Washington, or the one in Oklahoma, or the Unabomber, Waco, etc. And just who taught the 9/11 hijackers how to fly?
Your enemy is within. It is certainly not in Canada.
And just for the record, those were COUNTER ATTACKS in New York and Washington. It’s time you realized you fired the first shots long ago. We spend little on self defense in Canada BECAUSE WE DON’T PISS EVERYONE OFF!
:smack:
“…and the excess of fat on your American bones will cushion the impact, as you sink like a stone…”
Welcome to the Board, Cap’n, Is it good not to piss off terrorists? This column doesn’t think so.
IMHO if Canada behaves in a way that terrorists are comfortable with, that’s nothing to boast about.
Many Canadians are quick to point out that none of the Sept. 11 terrorists came from/passed through Canada, which is absolutely correct. Many Canadians think that this proves Canada is not a haven for terrorists, which is not correct. The Millennium Plot terrorists (remember them?) came from Canada, and a large terror cell was uncovered in Montreal as part of that investigation. The CBC did a fine documentary on it a while back, which was broadcast in the US on Frontline (before Sept. 11, which is why no one seems to remember it.)
According to the Border Patrol, the status of Malvo was changed by an INS agent, so that they would not have to pay the air fare to return him. These two cases shows that the INS does not have a consistant policy governing what they are doing. Despite the stories in this thread our borders are open to just about anyone that wants to get in our country. Perhaps one of the lessons here is that it is easier to harass those that are law abiding than it is to catch those with sinister intentions. In any case, it is obvious that something needs to be done about the INS. It is estimated that we have 8 to 12 million illegal aliens in our country. The idea of amnesty is not a valid one since we did it once and to do it again would just encourage more illegal aliens. We need some sort of policy that keeps out illegal aliens, period.
In the past year, I have gone to Italy, France and Mexico. If I had been detained, asked questions and even strip searched I'd have been extremely pissed. I probably would say I'd never go back there. You know what? It is still their country, not mine and if they want to pay my way to Syria, I'd better pray they take VISA there. :eek:While it may be true that Canada has unwittingly allowed terrorists into our country, to get into the U.S. they have to pass through U.S. gatekeepers. With all your resources, you still can’t keep Saudis from entering the country and signing up for flight lessons. How can we be expected to do a better job of shielding you with our vastly inferior resources? You spent somewhere around $11 billion dollars on anti-terrorism and lost the WTC. We spent next to nothing, and lost nothing. Why is that?
Recent commentary in the U.S. suggest Canada is a “freeloader” when it comes to defense of the continent. I reiterate - we haven’t spent the money because there’s been no need. Even in the nuclear age, the missiles were pointed at you, not us. Ours is one of the rare countries of the world that can sleep at night with little fear of attack. That of course has much to do with our proximity to the U.S. There is evidently more need for defense now, and we should do more to hold up the umbrella. But we believe the U.S. should shore up Canada’s defense because essentially the enemy is upset with the U.S., not with us. How many countries with a population of 30 million could support a defense system of the type needed to protect the U.S.? Put in perspective, there are more people in California than in ALL of Canada. It is like expecting the LAPD to protect your entire country. Frankly, I think the LAPD would have a good chance of kicking our army’s ass. But it isn’t incompetence or a lack of commitment to defense that has put our armed forces in such disarray, it is a historical lack of need. When the U.S. took the world into the nuclear age, little countries like ours were left out, with no choice but to look to our Big Brother to the south for protection. Now that the threat is less likely to be nuclear, we could probably do better at defending ourselves. This is a huge topic of debate up here, and I hope we will do a better job in the future. It will take time for us to rebuild our defenses to meet the new threat, which took us by surprise too. Your country is no more prepared to meet it than we are.
I would hesitate to call this country a “haven” for terrorists. There are some here, there are some in the U.S. But here we prefer to have evidence of terrorism beyond a simple country of origin. Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynksi etc. are (were) Americans. If Canada were to adopt similar criteria of entry to that of the current U.S. policy, we would be photographing and fingerprinting white male Americans right now.
Even mild mannered Canada, a country with no direct enemies, finds itself increasingly cross with you. Doesn’t that indicate to you that perhaps your foreign policy IS a root cause of the anger directed at you? It doesn’t seem to matter if we are talking about Canada or Cambodia. You piss off everyone, not just the terrorists. George Sr. envisioned “a kinder, gentler America”. We anxiously await its arrival.
And please, would someone muzzle Pat Buchannan?
While it may be true that Canada has unwittingly allowed terrorists into our country, to get into the U.S. they have to pass through U.S. gatekeepers. With all your resources, you still can’t keep Saudis from entering the country and signing up for flight lessons. How can we be expected to do a better job of shielding you with our vastly inferior resources? You spent somewhere around $11 billion dollars on anti-terrorism and lost the WTC. We spent next to nothing, and lost nothing. Why is that?
Recent commentary in the U.S. suggest Canada is a “freeloader” when it comes to defense of the continent. I reiterate - we haven’t spent the money because there’s been no need. Even in the nuclear age, the missiles were pointed at you, not us. Ours is one of the rare countries of the world that can sleep at night with little fear of attack. That of course has much to do with our proximity to the U.S. There is evidently more need for defense now, and we should do more to hold up the umbrella. But we believe the U.S. should shore up Canada’s defense because essentially the enemy is upset with the U.S., not with us. How many countries with a population of 30 million could support a defense system of the type needed to protect the U.S.? Put in perspective, there are more people in California than in ALL of Canada. It is like expecting the LAPD to protect your entire country. Frankly, I think the LAPD would have a good chance of kicking our army’s ass. But it isn’t incompetence or a lack of commitment to defense that has put our armed forces in such disarray, it is a historical lack of need. When the U.S. took the world into the nuclear age, little countries like ours were left out, with no choice but to look to our Big Brother to the south for protection. Now that the threat is less likely to be nuclear, we could probably do better at defending ourselves. This is a huge topic of debate up here, and I hope we will do a better job in the future. It will take time for us to rebuild our defenses to meet the new threat, which took us by surprise too. Your country is no more prepared to meet it than we are.
I would hesitate to call this country a “haven” for terrorists. There are some here, there are some in the U.S. But here we prefer to have evidence of terrorism beyond a simple country of origin. Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynksi etc. are (were) Americans. If Canada were to adopt similar criteria of entry to that of the current U.S. policy, we would be photographing and fingerprinting white male Americans right now.
Even mild mannered Canada, a country with no direct enemies, finds itself increasingly cross with you. Doesn’t that indicate to you that perhaps your foreign policy IS a root cause of the anger directed at you? People are not born terrorists. They become terrorists because of perceived ills or crimes perpetrated against them. First you piss off people. Then they react with terror tactics. You piss off everyone, and some of them take their reactions further than others. It doesn’t seem to matter if we are talking about Canada or Cambodia. George Sr. envisioned “a kinder, gentler America”. We anxiously await its arrival.
And please, would someone muzzle Pat Buchannan?
> Darkie Arabs eh? That is, it fits the simplistic, ignorant and ill-informed stereotypes you hold.
Just because something is a stereotype doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Male “darkie arabs” are the ones who perpetrated 9/11 and they’re the ones who comprise al queda, hamas, etc. There is not a single logical reason not to profile such people when they try to come into this country. Note, i’m not advocating kicking them all out or arresting them at the border and sticking them in an internment camp. Just hightened inspection/background check when a darkie arab male tries to come into the country.
Do you think it’s unfair to only profile the males? Wanna defend sexual equality too?
>Now what does one do about the non-darkies? You know, the
>the large number of Arabs and Muslims who are light-skinned.
They should be profiled as well. I’m not saying “only dark skinned muslim-looking men get profiled” … I’m saying as a matter of necessity, all dark skinned muslim-looking men should be profiled. And by “profiled” I mean nothing more than being checked out more thoroughly than the average person attempting to enter the US. Efficiency. Of course, it is typically the darker-skinned (not sure why) muslim men (not women) who terrorist organizations are comprised of.
>And the converts? Lindh, Padillo, Reid.
Reid was a dark-skinned muslim man; he would have been profiled. It’s not solely a question of religion. Just asking them “what is your religion?” when they come into the country is futile, if they know answering “muslim” will cause the gov’t to watch them, they’ll just says “christian.” Only visual profiles are worthwhile. Yes, some will always get by because no profiling system can be 100% effective, but that’s not a reason for not employing one.
>What fucking use is a terror profile that wastes resources? We
>all saw how brilliant profiling succeeded with our whack-job
>serial killer/criminals in the sniper incident. Yeah, that “saved”
>resources.
Just because it is not 100% effective doesn’t mean it is wasting resources, that’s completely fallacious. Doing an extended background check on every “darkie muslim” male who tries to enter the US is the single easiest, most efficient thing we can do to curb islamic terrorism in the US. Profiles do work for serial killers. They’re typically non-darkie (i.e. whitey) middle-aged men. It just so happened that in the sniper case, the perpetrator turned out to be another darkie-muslim man named mohammad. Ya know, I think anyone with “mohammad” in their name (first, middle, last) should be automatically profiled as a matter of course when attempting to enter the US.
>The profile is stupid. Profoundly stupid.
No, inspecting everyone equally is profoundly stupid. Giving the stereotypical 90 year old white grandmother the same amount of attention at the border as a dark-skinned, bearded muslim man named mohammad is so stupid and inefficient and wasteful of resources that it shouldn’t even be considered.
Posted by kniz:
Oh boy, are you right about that! Today’s Washington Post has an article about how all fiancee visas are being held up. Because we all know those foreign women are intending to get married which is pretty terrifying if you think of it.
An American was killed in that Moscow theater. The reason he was in Moscow is he could not get a visa for his fiancee. Maybe Americans who want to marry foreigners are just not patriotic enough and they should be rounded up and interned.
December: At last month’s Francophonie summit in Beirut, Jean Chrétien found himself on the same guest list as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. But the PM saw no reason to treat the man – whose group has killed about 370 Americans – as anything other than a run-of-the-mill dignitary
Ok, this isn’t even a distortion of the truth, it’s a absolute LIE. Jean Chretien just didn’t know who the man was, which is exactly what he told reporters.
Kalt:Just because it is not 100% effective doesn’t mean it is wasting resources, that’s completely fallacious.
So, how many terrorists has the U.S. managed to catch so far? And, by the way, how many Islamic terrorists hold Canadian passports?
I can only characterise the general reaction of the US as hysterical. The terrorist threat is real and needs a well thought out security response. What we got was a series of hastily conceived lunges, like the so-called “Patriot Act” which are costly, mostly ineffective, and lead to a scepticism regarding any effective conterterrism measures that might be developed in the future. You remember the little boy who cried, “Wolf?”
As an example, I live near a large military base. Security since the WTC attacks consists of 100% ID check of all who enter the base with occasional unexpected vehicle inspections.
At the same time this base has over 200 miles of unguarded boundries in the middle of nowhere that anyone with a 4-wheel drive vehicle can easily cross if sabotage is their aim.
In order to provide personnel for the gate security, reserves have been called to California from as far away as Washington state. This is disruptive to their lives and costly to the taxpaper. And as far as I can tell, it is all for the purpose of allowing the base command to report to headquarters that “additional security measures are in place.”
Racial profiling is no more than state sanctioned racism.
The author Rohinton Mistry’s case
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2392847.stm
While it is OK to stop people and perform security checks, especially if the person behaves suspiciously, or hell, even if there is very little data on him/her and s/he was born in or entering from a country, which say, is on the State Department list of terrorist nations… but harassing (not just checking with propriety) a famous Canadian author who doesn’t even meet the usual criteria for additional security clearances speaks volumes of the INS databases and in general the perilous nature of the security situation.
how many Islamic terrorists hold Canadian passports?
Right. You spend so little on defrense because you’re an isolated, if big, country mooching off of Uncle Sam’s military largesse.
Counter-Attacks? Maybe if terrorists, like Bin Laden , like to consider themselves the guardians of some great “Islamic People”. Tell me though, where did the US army go around butchering civilians without cause? Or perhaps you believe that defending Saudi Arabia against Saddam’s army constitutes a gross violation of human decency? Or that trying to keep the Israelis from being annihilated is somehow a monstrous decision?
[devil]Since you enjoy watching us small Americans “scurry around”, perhaps you would not mind if we crushed you pathetic country like the jelly-filled sandwich it is, and watched a few Canadians scurry around, starving as we genocide all the pathetic remnants of your roadkill civilization? [/devil] :wally