|
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote:
Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course).
Checkmate?
|
The TSA is a joke 
|
Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc...
|
Wow, people actually defend this? Wouldn't you realise that they were not terrorists after checking them?
|
On February 16 2012 01:16 MeriaDoKk wrote:
Wow, people actually defend this? Wouldn't you realise that they were not terrorists after checking them?
How? You look at their facebook? You ask them questions? Right...
Anyone turned away is entitled to a hearing where they can demonstrate that the belief of security personnel was unfounded. I'll grant that it's a real pain in the ass, but it's a normative judgment on whether you'd rather have questionable people entering the country or be on the safe side and grant them entrance after looking at the situation a bit more.
It's really easy to take news items like this and take 'em at face value, but you have to remember that there are over a million people EACH DAY who enter the united states on flights. It's difficult to do a full comprehensive review of each person who enters. So given the circumstances, I think what happened is justified. Maybe not the best, but justified in the least.
@ post below me: Sorry but the world isn't light and dark, black and white, good and evil. Everything comes in shades of gray. Yes even some of those rights granted to you by your nation's Constitution (dunno anything about Romania) bend and flex depending on the situation. The US 1st, 4th amendment jurisprudence doesn't stop with the Constitution. If you read the actual case law you'll see that even those rights are susceptible to certain important interests of the State (and nation). If you want to get a good discussion on the issue, look up the case law and read the majority and dissenting opinions in some of the major cases. It'll give you more insight than I ever could from a succinct post on TL.
|
coffecup, let's stop all crime all over the world. It's easy, put a camera in every single room in world, ignore all privacy rights and give government godlike powers on individual's freedom. You won't ever again have crime committed by common people. I think NK has a rather low terrorist activity/threat/attacks in it.
|
On February 16 2012 01:29 coffecup wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:16 MeriaDoKk wrote:
Wow, people actually defend this? Wouldn't you realise that they were not terrorists after checking them?
How? You look at their facebook? You ask them questions? Right... Anyone turned away is entitled to a hearing where they can demonstrate that the belief of security personnel was unfounded. I'll grant that it's a real pain in the ass, but it's a normative judgment on whether you'd rather have questionable people entering the country or be on the safe side and grant them entrance after looking at the situation a bit more. It's really easy to take news items like this and take 'em at face value, but you have to remember that there are over a million people EACH DAY who enter the united states on flights. It's difficult to do a full comprehensive review of each person who enters. So given the circumstances, I think what happened is justified. Maybe not the best, but justified in the least.
I understand, but they were still kicked out, there has to be a way to say "Ok I think these people are not terrorists", because if thats not the case then they should just close the airports and don't allow anyone to fly to the US.
And if they can look at your twitter they could at least check your facebook, and if you have pictures with some guy from the middle east or burning the US flag, well that can be suspicius.
|
obamas policys are not the bomb... even if would say something like: "obama is a douche lets blow him up". I should not be considered as a terrorist. It's what you do not what you says that's important.
|
On February 03 2012 22:26 Technique wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote:
Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course). Checkmate?
Don't you think that is a bit harsh stance to take?
|
At first I was laughing at all these people who were going "HAHA TSA" because this wasn't in no way the TSA
Then I noticed that all those people saying that were from the US. :/
There can't be that meany people that don't know who runs what in our government and why.... I hope.
ps This is the TLDR story on what happen. Drunken people acting the fool come to the USA. Not saying this will get you kicked out, but it will get you noticed and some random custom agent may take a closer look at you (-this is unlikely to happen) They just happen to drew the short straw and got noticed by that "one" officer. Five sec of lmgtfy turns up this twitter msg giving everything needed. So another 15min of paper work and few hours of over time for the officer ends with this story.
I don't want to say in anyway what happen was right or just. But it's should just be a common sense rule that no one should never enter another country drunk and/or acting a fool. I know it's a long flight, but just wait to act a drunken fool till your in the US please.
|
On February 03 2012 22:26 Technique wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote:
Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course). Checkmate?
No, I'm afraid not. When one group of people kills another group of people over territory, the group that wins does not become the guest of the people that lost. Are people living in Texas the guests of Mexico?
I'm not condoning what happened, but to say that non native americans are guests is inaccurate.
|
What did you expect? This is America. America is kinda like Blizzard, nothing right gets done BUT we do have awesome social networks, now integrated to airport security 2.0!
|
On February 03 2012 22:26 Technique wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote:
Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course). Checkmate?
Using that logic, there is hardly a country or nation in the world that isn't the "guest" of someone else, especially in Europe lol
|
Hahaha, one more dart to throw at Americans in a USA vs the world debate.
What's all the fear about terrorists anyway, more people die by drinking too much than people who die in terrorist attacks. When I was 7, I went to the US and they confiscated a fucking plastic watergun and ripped my plush open. Looking back, I realize they were afraid of me, which is absurd at best.
Seriously, quit pissing your pants.
|
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote:But what if these had been actual terrorists? How are they supposed to deduce if a tweet is real or not? Now you might not think that many "solo" terrorists would openly announce to the world that they're going to destroy America, but when large terrorist organizations openly announce that they will, how can they not take things like this seriously? There is no way that they can know if this is a real threat or not, therefore they have to treat it as a real threat. Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote:
Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man... I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
what about using some common sense. Its not like i actually believe you are a representative of solheim cup, a golf tournament for women, right?
|
On February 16 2012 01:03 coffecup wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc...
The problem that lead to 9/11 was that the terrorists were allowed to bring box cutters onto the plane.
|
On February 16 2012 23:32 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:03 coffecup wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc... The problem that lead to 9/11 was that the terrorists were allowed to bring box cutters onto the plane.
Furthermore, WTC was 3000 dead and it's the ONLY attack that ocurred on American territory, Pearl Harbour aside. And the reason was much more than "they managed to get through the airport" check but poor decision-making on the CIA's part (!).
It was a tragedy but tragedies happen. I simply find it odd to control the borders in such a tight way and at the same time allow individuals to possess machine guns. The American soil is a piece of land like any other, if you treat it like a sacred space you will only attract hostility from foreign countries.
|
Destroy is slang for part it wasn't even a threat, lol.
|
If I was a terrorist looking to cause damage to the United States, I think the first thing I would do would be to display it for all to see on Twitter.
Then I'd make little "Terrorism FTW!!" banners and take out advertisments in the local newspapers.
|
Why try take a gun or something on a plane to the US, you can just get there and buy one from a shop!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
