Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / October 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tighter Border Delays Re-entry By U.S. Citizens

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 21 Oct 2007 20:16 GMT
We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...

ASAP.

"Starting Jan. 31, American citizens returning home by land will have to
present either a passport, or a citizenship document like a birth
certificate together with a government-issued identity card with a
photograph. The requirement is the next phase of the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, which Congress adopted in a 2004 bill that enacted
recommendations of the commission that examined the Sept. 11 attacks. It is
intended to improve antiterror intelligence by gathering a record of
everyone entering the United States."

Good...

"In the meantime, Mr. Basham said, “A safer border is well worth the wait.”"

Indeed...

“We are Americans who live at the border, with our economy and livelihood
that depend on moving efficiently back and forth,” said Maria Luisa O’Connell,
president of the Border Trade Alliance, which represents businesses all
along the border with Mexico. “Now suddenly we have measures that make it
less efficient but don’t make us any safer.”

Nonsense...

"“These two communities are very interlinked, not only by trade and
commerce, but by family, religion, education,” Mr. Garcia said, standing at
the base of the Paso del Norte border bridge as pedestrians streamed by,
heading for downtown El Paso.  “When a person leaves El Paso to go to
Juárez, it’s like going across the street.  They don’t consider it leaving
the country,” he said."

An Unacceptable Attitude in the Post 9/11 World...

DSH

God Bless America

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------

October 21, 2007

Tighter Border Delays Re-entry by U.S. Citizens

By JULIA PRESTON
The New York Times

EL PASO — United States border agents have stepped up scrutiny of Americans
returning home from Mexico, slowing commerce and creating delays at border
crossings not seen since the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The increased enforcement is in part a dress rehearsal for new rules,
scheduled to take effect in January, that will require Americans to show a
passport or other proof of citizenship to enter the United States. The
requirements were approved by Congress as part of antiterrorism legislation
in 2004.

Border officials said agents along the southern border were asking more
returning United States citizens to show a photo identity document. At the
same time, agents are increasing the frequency of what they call queries,
where they check a traveler’s information against law enforcement,
immigration and antiterror databases.

The new policy is a big shift after decades when Americans arrived at land
border crossings, declared they were citizens and were waved on through.
Since the authorities began ramping up enforcement in August, wait times at
border stations in Texas have often stretched to two hours or more,
discouraging visitors and shoppers and upsetting local business.

The delays could remain a fact of life across the southern border for the
next few years, border officials said, at least until new security
technology and expanded entry stations are installed and until Americans get
used to being checked and questioned like foreigners. Last year 234 million
travelers entered the United States through land border crossings from
Mexico.

W. Ralph Basham, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the
agency that manages the borders, said longer waits had resulted from added
security measures at border stations that in many cases were aging, outmoded
and facing surging traffic. Saying the new document checks were a “security
imperative,” Mr. Basham called on border cities, which own many of the
crossing bridges, to invest in expanding the entry points.

In the meantime, Mr. Basham said, “A safer border is well worth the wait.”

BINGO! -- DSH

Wait times of up to three hours have also been reported over the past few
months at crossings from eastern Canada. Senator Bernard Sanders,
independent of Vermont, who held a series of town meetings with border
officials about the lines, said low staffing at border stations was the
primary cause there.

The longer lines along the Mexico border have been especially unsettling
here in El Paso, a humming border city long comfortable in its marriage to
Ciudad Juárez, the bigger and rowdier Mexican metropolis on the other bank
of the Rio Grande. Lines of cars and pedestrians at sunrise on the four
border bridges here are a routine for tens of thousands of people, including
many United States citizens, coming from Mexico on their way to school, work
and shopping.

“International bridge wait times continue to escalate, causing frustration
and concern in my district and across the nation,” wrote El Paso’s
congressman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat, in a letter this
month to the House Committee on Homeland Security in which he called for a
hearing on the matter.

One crosser who said she had struggled with the lines was Wilda Laboy, a
37-year-old American citizen who works in Juárez but is studying for her
high school equivalency in El Paso.

“I arrive late, and they don’t let me in,” said Ms. Laboy as she waited to
be checked through the Paso del Norte bridge crossing here. “I miss
classes.”

Many families that straddle the border are feeling the strain. Border trade
groups say the long lines caught them by surprise and are disrupting
economic ties vital to both sides of the border.

“We are Americans who live at the border, with our economy and livelihood
that depend on moving efficiently back and forth,” said Maria Luisa O’Connell,
president of the Border Trade Alliance, which represents businesses all
along the border with Mexico. “Now suddenly we have measures that make it
less efficient but don’t make us any safer.”

Richard Cortez, the mayor of McAllen, another Texas border town that saw
long lines this summer, said the waits had slowed some of the 45,000 trailer
trucks that passed the border there each month.

“There’s a misconception that border communities care only about ourselves
and our own local businesses,” Mr. Cortez said by telephone. “Our border
crossings affect trade across the United States.”

Of $332 billion in trade last year between the United States and Mexico,
this country’s third-largest trading partner, more than 80 percent of it
moved across the border by truck.

Starting Jan. 31, American citizens returning home by land will have to
present either a passport, or a citizenship document like a birth
certificate together with a government-issued identity card with a
photograph. The requirement is the next phase of the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, which Congress adopted in a 2004 bill that enacted
recommendations of the commission that examined the Sept. 11 attacks. It is
intended to improve antiterror intelligence by gathering a record of
everyone entering the United States.

So far the new inspections are not systematic enough to yield measurable
results.

The passport requirement has been in effect since January for most citizens
returning to the United States by air, and it had a rocky debut because many
Americans without passports rushed to apply for one. Passport processing
backlogs overwhelmed the State Department, which was forced to relax the
requirement during the months of June, July, August and September. That
experience has created anxiety among many people who cross at land stations
as they anticipate the next phase.

Also in August, border officials said, the Department of Homeland Security
issued a directive designed to unify inspection procedures for all the
border agencies under its umbrella. It set an eventual goal, with no fixed
deadline, for agents to conduct a database query for every person crossing
the border.

As a result, queries by agents of both American and foreign border crossers
increased. At many older border stations, including El Paso, agents have to
enter some queries manually, taking minutes that quickly mount up to hours
when thousands of cars and people are waiting in line.

Luis Garcia, the El Paso field director for Customs and Border Protection,
said the new policy demanded a change of culture.

“These two communities are very interlinked, not only by trade and commerce,
but by family, religion, education,” Mr. Garcia said, standing at the base
of the Paso del Norte border bridge as pedestrians streamed by, heading for
downtown El Paso. “When a person leaves El Paso to go to Juárez, it’s like
going across the street. They don’t consider it leaving the country,” he
said.

On an average day, some 21,000 pedestrians cross from Juárez on the Paso del
Norte bridge, one of El Paso’s four entryways. Mr. Garcia installed a canopy
over the walkway, and water fountains and overhead mist-makers at the
checkpoint to cool weary walkers on sweltering days.

As the lines into El Paso swelled in mid-August, Mr. Garcia said, he issued
a memorandum directing his agents to gauge vehicle lines in deciding how
many travelers to query. If lines were over an hour, agents should run a
query only for the driver, unless something about the vehicle aroused their
suspicions.

But Mr. Garcia said he did not have great flexibility to speed the lines.
“One thing I can tell you up front, as director in El Paso, I will not
compromise security for facilitation,” he said.

Border groups say they support tougher security measures but want the border
authorities to back them up with increased staff levels and technology to
avoid slowing commerce.

Funds for the Border Patrol, which scouts the border between entry points
for illegal immigrants, increased by 70 percent since 2005 to $3 billion. By
contrast, financing for border station agents, who processed nearly 300
million travelers entering the country legally by land last year, rose by 30
percent since 2005, to $2.1 billion.
Ray O'Hara - 21 Oct 2007 20:32 GMT
> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> "In the meantime, Mr. Basham said, "A safer border is well worth the
wait.""

> Indeed...
>
> "We are Americans who live at the border, with our economy and livelihood
> that depend on moving efficiently back and forth," said Maria Luisa
O'Connell,
> president of the Border Trade Alliance, which represents businesses all
> along the border with Mexico. "Now suddenly we have measures that make it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ""These two communities are very interlinked, not only by trade and
> commerce, but by family, religion, education," Mr. Garcia said, standing
at
> the base of the Paso del Norte border bridge as pedestrians streamed by,
> heading for downtown El Paso.  "When a person leaves El Paso to go to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> EL PASO - United States border agents have stepped up scrutiny of
Americans
> returning home from Mexico, slowing commerce and creating delays at border
> crossings not seen since the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> security measures at border stations that in many cases were aging, outmoded
> and facing surging traffic. Saying the new document checks were a
"security
> imperative," Mr. Basham called on border cities, which own many of the
> crossing bridges, to invest in expanding the entry points.
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> "We are Americans who live at the border, with our economy and livelihood
> that depend on moving efficiently back and forth," said Maria Luisa
O'Connell,
> president of the Border Trade Alliance, which represents businesses all
> along the border with Mexico. "Now suddenly we have measures that make it
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> "These two communities are very interlinked, not only by trade and
commerce,
> but by family, religion, education," Mr. Garcia said, standing at the base
> of the Paso del Norte border bridge as pedestrians streamed by, heading for
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> On an average day, some 21,000 pedestrians cross from Juárez on the Paso del
> Norte bridge, one of El Paso's four entryways. Mr. Garcia installed a
canopy
> over the walkway, and water fountains and overhead mist-makers at the
> checkpoint to cool weary walkers on sweltering days.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> million travelers entering the country legally by land last year, rose by 30
> percent since 2005, to $2.1 billion.

.
be afraid, paranoia is patriotic.
John Briggs - 21 Oct 2007 20:59 GMT
> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...

The war against Tourism?
Signature

John Briggs

James Hogg - 21 Oct 2007 22:32 GMT
>> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>
>The war against Tourism?

The way George Bush speaks, there's no difference between tourism and
terrorism anyway.

James
Adam Whyte-Settlar - 22 Oct 2007 14:35 GMT
>>> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>>
>>The war against Tourism?
>
> The way George Bush speaks, there's no difference between tourism and
> terrorism anyway.

Not true - the war criminal has been *far* more succesfull in deterring
tourism.
Paul J Gans - 22 Oct 2007 17:09 GMT
In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:

>>>> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>>>
>>>The war against Tourism?
>>
>> The way George Bush speaks, there's no difference between tourism and
>> terrorism anyway.

>Not true - the war criminal has been *far* more succesfull in deterring
>tourism.

Curious isn't it that with all the vaunted border security
the US can't keep huge amounts of pot and cocaine out of
the country.

Don't folks realize that if you can smuggle in tons of anything,
you can also smuggle in people?

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

The Highlander - 22 Oct 2007 23:42 GMT
>In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Don't folks realize that if you can smuggle in tons of anything,
>you can also smuggle in people?

As H.L. Mencken pointed out, nobody ever lost a buck underestimating
the intelligence of the American public.

Lou Dobbs has just announced on television that the Chinese leadership
is ten times smarter than the leadership of the US.

The American dream is collapsing.

Alert Chicken Little immediately!

Any country that could promote Hines to the rank of Commander without
screaming "April Fool!" is doomed.
Ian Smith - 28 Oct 2007 00:52 GMT
> >In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Any country that could promote Hines to the rank of Commander without
> screaming "April Fool!" is doomed.

Lol!
Peter Skelton - 22 Oct 2007 21:30 GMT
>>>> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Not true - the war criminal has been *far* more succesfull in deterring
>tourism.

For the past few years, I have found the US border guards
courteous and accomodating.

I'd say that GWB's effect on the dollar has enhanced tourism, at
least from hard currency countries.

Peter Skelton
Adam Whyte-Settlar - 23 Oct 2007 04:36 GMT
>>>>> We need to ramp up to WARTIME RULES...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I'd say that GWB's effect on the dollar has enhanced tourism, at
> least from hard currency countries.

Yes - I can't deny that's true. Since the US dollar went down the toilet I
notice that the Euros have been buying up Florida and the West Coast
wholesale. That's not really 'tourism' though - more carpet-bagging really.
I can only go by the experience of many people I know who now choose to fly
to London via KL or Hong Kong in order to avoid like the plague the trained
gorillas and interminable queues at 'security' in LA.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was in any way effective or achieved anything,
but from the accounts I've heard the whole 'system' seems to be designed
merely to piss people off and to look as if they are doing 'something'
rather than actually catch any would-be plane hijackers.
The Fifeshire Bimbo - 23 Oct 2007 06:32 GMT
> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote

<snip>

>> For the past few years, I have found the US border guards
>> courteous and accomodating.

<snip>

> I can only go by the experience of many people I know who now choose to
> fly to London via KL or Hong Kong in order to avoid like the plague the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> merely to piss people off and to look as if they are doing 'something'
> rather than actually catch any would-be plane hijackers.

This article that I read in my local paper last week would seem to prove
your point O Adorable One. I can't be bothered writing for permission
to quote so please have the patience to read the whole article. Even you
may be shocked at the utter stupidity of the treatment of a triple amputee
(he lives in Brooklyn) by airport security when he was trying to fly to
North Carolina where he has a son who is in the U.S. air force.

It seems we're being bullied into putting up fences around our harbour :(

http://www.thespec.com/article/267575

Cheers,  Helen
D. Spencer Hines - 23 Oct 2007 08:59 GMT
Nonsense!

Such security measures are obviously quite necessary around harbors and
harbours.

We are AT WAR.

Global Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorists want to kill us -- they have cells
in North America, composed of native-born citizens who speak Good English
and who don't look like terrorists.

Further, an artificial leg could be one of the easiest ways of getting
explosives and/or weapons onto an aircraft.

Wake Up & Get Real...

Lose Your Naïveté.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Cheers,  Helen
Adam Whyte-Settlar - 23 Oct 2007 09:26 GMT
>> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> to quote so please have the patience to read the whole article. Even you
> may be shocked at the utter stupidity of the treatment of a triple amputee

Not in the slightest. As the trained gorilla explained; "We are not allowed
to use judgment".
It's all so ridiculous whichever way you look at it.
If it's just to keep Cheney's "climate of fear" going to justify further
attacks on oil-rich countries and remove hard won freedoms it's disgusting,
and if there really *is* a 'worldwide terrorist threat' then the terrorists
are winning easily thanks to our own government's stupidity.
Bin Laden and Co must be laughing their ***** off at the years of
self-induced mayhem and shows of cowardice they sparked with so little
effort.

What happened to the 'business as usual' attitude of the British during the
Blitz. Our parents would be ashamed of us.
Paul J Gans - 23 Oct 2007 19:16 GMT
In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:

>>> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> to quote so please have the patience to read the whole article. Even you
>> may be shocked at the utter stupidity of the treatment of a triple amputee

>Not in the slightest. As the trained gorilla explained; "We are not allowed
>to use judgment".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>self-induced mayhem and shows of cowardice they sparked with so little
>effort.

>What happened to the 'business as usual' attitude of the British during the
>Blitz. Our parents would be ashamed of us.

You denigrate our Great Leaders?  You bad person you.  Who else, in
modern history has lost one war, is losing another, and is looking
for a third one to lose before he goes out of office.

I'll bet your lilly-livered leadership can't even come close to
matching *that* record.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

The Highlander - 25 Oct 2007 08:30 GMT
>In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>I'll bet your lilly-livered leadership can't even come close to
>matching *that* record.

God knows they tried!
Cory Bhreckan - 23 Oct 2007 19:20 GMT
>>> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> For the past few years, I have found the US border guards
>>>> courteous and accomodating.
>> <snip>

> If it's just to keep Cheney's "climate of fear" going to justify further
> attacks on oil-rich countries and remove hard won freedoms it's disgusting,
> and if there really *is* a 'worldwide terrorist threat' then the terrorists
> are winning easily thanks to our own government's stupidity.
> Bin Laden and Co must be laughing their ***** off at the years of

You can't even spell ****** correctly, you illiterate oaf.

Signature

"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall

Adam Whyte-Settlar - 24 Oct 2007 03:49 GMT
>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>>> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> You can't even spell ****** correctly, you illiterate oaf.

It wasn't *****, it was ***** - as was obvious from the context, moron.
Vince - 24 Oct 2007 04:56 GMT
>>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>>>> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It wasn't *****, it was ***** - as was obvious from the context, moron.

now that is funny

Vince
Roger Conroy - 24 Oct 2007 10:51 GMT
> > "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Cheers,  Helen

The problem is that George's speech impediment makes it impossible to
tell wether he is talking about "Terrorists" or "Tourists"

The lyrics of an anti-apartheid song from 1987:

WEEPING
by Bright Blue

I knew a man who lived in fear
it was huge it was angry
it was drawing near
Behind his house a secret place
was the shadow of the demon
he could never face.

He built a wall of steel and flame
and men with guns to keep it tame
Then standing back he made it plain
that the nightmare would never ever rise again
But the fear and the fire and the guns remain.

It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round I heard
it slowly sound
it wasn't roaring it was weeping
it wasn't roaring it was weeping.

And then one day the neighbours came
they were curious to know about the smoke and flame
They stood around outside the wall
but of course there was nothing to be heard at all
"My friends", he said, "we've reached our goal
the threat is under firm control
As long as peace and order reign
I'll be damned if I can see a reason to explain
Why the fear and the fire and the guns remain".

It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round I heard
it slowly sound
it wasn't roaring it was weeping
it wasn't roaring it was weeping.

It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round I heard
it slowly sound
it wasn't roaring it was weeping
it wasn't roaring it was weeping.

Composed by: Heymann/ Fox/ Cohen/ Cohen

Recorded and released by Bright Blue in 1987. One of South Africa's
greatest songs... includes instrumental references to 'Nkosi Sikelel'
iAfrica'.

http://www.rock.co.za/files/weeping_lyrics.html
William Black - 24 Oct 2007 11:33 GMT
> The problem is that George's speech impediment makes it impossible to
> tell wether he is talking about "Terrorists" or "Tourists"

As the US Immigration service treats them all the same,  who cares?

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Paul J Gans - 24 Oct 2007 16:32 GMT
In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogerconroy@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > "Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>
>> Cheers,  Helen

>The problem is that George's speech impediment makes it impossible to
>tell wether he is talking about "Terrorists" or "Tourists"

I'm not sure he knows the difference.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

La N - 24 Oct 2007 19:57 GMT
> In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogerconroy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> I'm not sure he knows the difference.

I said a bad thing about him on the Usenets a couple of years ago after
which I had to take my sandals off at the airport to fly from Vancouver to
LAX!

- nilita (terrorista)
Jack Linthicum - 24 Oct 2007 20:08 GMT
> > In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogercon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> - nilita (terrorista)

Interesting observation that the Daddy Party seems to have become the
Baby Party.

The hysterical party heads for the fainting couch

A month ago, congressional Republicans were so desperate to avoid
discussing the substance of U.S. policy towards Iraq, they decided a
newspaper ad from MoveOn.org was the single biggest threat to Western
Civilization in recent history. The coordinated hissy fit was a
transparent effort to distract attention from the issue at hand, but
it was also a largely successful sham -- Republicans stopped talking
about Bush's failed policy and started talking about the NYT's ad
rates.

This month, those same congressional Republicans are so desperate to
avoid discussing the substance of the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (S-CHIP), they've decided Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.)
has replaced MoveOn as Public Enemy #1.

Far be it for me to give Republicans advice, but I don't think they've
thought this one through.

For the record, what did Stark say to send the right into high
dudgeon? During the debate on overriding the president's veto for
children's healthcare, Stark said, "You don't have money to fund the
war or children, but you're gonna spend it blow up innocent people if
we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to
get their head blown off for the president's amusement."

Intemperate? Sure. But the coordinated hysteria we've seen over the
last few days is more than misguided; it's silly.

There's just no reason for apoplexy here. Stark said something mean
about Bush during a congressional debate. The president is a big boy;
I think he can handle it. But by throwing a tantrum, congressional
Republicans are suggesting that they can't handle it. They're not
grown-ups. Random, intemperate criticism of Bush is just too much for
the fragile, virgin ears.

In other words, by throwing a fit, Republicans end up looking weak and
hysterical. Indeed, it reinforces the least flattering GOP caricature
of all -- these guys can't govern, but they can fall onto a fainting
couch like nobody's business.

For years, Republicans worked to create the opposite reputation.
They're tough. This is the macho "daddy party." They don't care about
"political correctness" and wussies who cry over words that rub people
the wrong way. This is a crowd that calls it like they see it, and
doesn't look bad or apologize.

And yet, they've now spent the better part of a year trembling over
mild rebukes from liberals. If Democrats were smart, they'd look at
this as an opportunity to rebrand the GOP as pathetic cry-babies who
can barely go a week without throwing a hissy fit over one
manufactured outrage or another. Alas, it doesn't look like Dems are
smart at all.
La N - 24 Oct 2007 20:13 GMT
>> > In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogercon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
> manufactured outrage or another. Alas, it doesn't look like Dems are
> smart at all.

Jayzus Murphy!  You'd think Hines was in charge of the GOP these days.

- nilita
Fred J. McCall - 25 Oct 2007 03:40 GMT
:>> > In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogercon...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>>
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
:
:Jayzus Murphy!  You'd think Hines was in charge of the GOP these days.

I find  the sort of people you two elect to defend rather telling
about YOU.

Signature

You are
What you do
When it counts.

The Highlander - 25 Oct 2007 08:34 GMT
>:>> > In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogercon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>>
[quoted text clipped - 113 lines]
>I find  the sort of people you two elect to defend rather telling
>about YOU.

Well, as a certified bona-fide closet Nazi, you would, wouldn't you!
Adam Whyte-Settlar - 25 Oct 2007 01:00 GMT
>> In alt.history.british Roger Conroy <rogerconroy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> which I had to take my sandals off at the airport to fly from Vancouver to
> LAX!

All 69 million (?roughly) passengers that pass through Heathrow each year
have to take their shoes or sandals off in case they are hiding bombs in
their socks. If that isn't ridiculous enough they also all have to walk
across the same filthy sweaty piece of floor in bare or stockinged feet. On
the other side of this disease spreading area there are three (count them)
dirty plastic chairs in a row to cater for the 700 shoeless passengers per
hour replacing said shoes.
This has been going on for about 4 years now and in all that time and in all
the 560,000,000 shoes that have been removed for search they have discovered
a grand total of zero bombs hidden in people's socks. They don't record how
many cases of verucas or athletes foot have been spread thoughout the
country in the same time.

Disgusted of Cairns.
William Black - 25 Oct 2007 17:11 GMT
> All 69 million (?roughly) passengers that pass through Heathrow each year
> have to take their shoes or sandals off in case they are hiding bombs in
> their socks.

Nope.

Transit passengers only ever did for about a month, and that's about a third
of them.

The 'shoes off' routine had certainly ceased being imposed on everyone going
through the ground side/air side interface in UK airports by December last
year.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Paul J Gans - 25 Oct 2007 18:07 GMT
In alt.history.british William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>> All 69 million (?roughly) passengers that pass through Heathrow each year
>> have to take their shoes or sandals off in case they are hiding bombs in
>> their socks.

>Nope.

>Transit passengers only ever did for about a month, and that's about a third
>of them.

>The 'shoes off' routine had certainly ceased being imposed on everyone going
>through the ground side/air side interface in UK airports by December last
>year.

We still do it in the US.  Here the government never admits a
mistake, so we will be taking our shoes off for the indefinite
future.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

Turlough - 26 Oct 2007 00:19 GMT
> We still do it in the US.  Here the government never admits a
> mistake, so we will be taking our shoes off for the indefinite
> future.

As well we should, Mr. Gans. What mistake did the government make this
time? Isn't that *nglishman, Reid, still in jail for trying to blow up
an airliner with plastic explosives, the detonator hidden in the lining
of his shoes? I'll take off my shoes, Mr. Gans. You can go meet the
virgins...

                             Turlough
Paul J Gans - 26 Oct 2007 00:48 GMT
In alt.history.british Turlough <turlough@comcast.net> wrote:

>> We still do it in the US.  Here the government never admits a
>> mistake, so we will be taking our shoes off for the indefinite
>> future.

>As well we should, Mr. Gans. What mistake did the government make this
>time? Isn't that *nglishman, Reid, still in jail for trying to blow up
>an airliner with plastic explosives, the detonator hidden in the lining
>of his shoes? I'll take off my shoes, Mr. Gans. You can go meet the
>virgins...

You managed quite by accident to delete the post to which
I was responding.  The British, who are the ones that caught
Reid, seem to have abandoned the taking off of shoes.

Why do you suppose that is?

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

Adam Whyte-Settlar - 26 Oct 2007 07:14 GMT
> In alt.history.british Turlough <turlough@comcast.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Why do you suppose that is?

As I said earlier - the Americans are so sh.t-scared of everything their
people-sheeple are only too willing to go along with the sham and the
'authorities' are only too willing to pretend they are doing 'something'
constructive.
Cowardly and ridiculous. The terrorists must be laughing their socks off at
the stupidity of it all.
Paul J Gans - 26 Oct 2007 16:53 GMT
In alt.history.british Adam Whyte-Settlar <none@none> wrote:

>> In alt.history.british Turlough <turlough@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>
>> Why do you suppose that is?

>As I said earlier - the Americans are so sh.t-scared of everything their
>people-sheeple are only too willing to go along with the sham and the
>'authorities' are only too willing to pretend they are doing 'something'
>constructive.
>Cowardly and ridiculous. The terrorists must be laughing their socks off at
>the stupidity of it all.

Yup.  The number of ways to bring down an airliner while suiciding
one's self is enormous.  

As long as one can smuggle contraband into the US on passenger planes
(as is done routinely) there is no real safety, only harrassment of
the law-abiding.

As you say, sh.t-scared of everything.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

William Black - 26 Oct 2007 14:47 GMT
> In alt.history.british Turlough <turlough@comcast.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Why do you suppose that is?

Probably because Reid smoked but he didn't go bang and nobody seems to have
produced a working 'shoe bomb'.

The last pronouncement by a senior police officer in the UK claiming massive
terrorist activity and 'we must all be very afraid' didn't go down well.

You can't keep selling the sizzle,  every so often you've got to produce a
sausage.

The last sausage we saw was a kid who happened to have a copy of 'The
Anarchist's Cook Book' on his computer,  who everyone felt vaguely sorry for
because he was a bit sad...

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Turlough - 28 Oct 2007 18:15 GMT
>>As well we should, Mr. Gans. What mistake did the government make this
>>time? Isn't that *nglishman, Reid, still in jail for trying to blow up
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>through the ground side/air side interface in UK airports by December last
>>year.

We still do it in the US.  Here the government never admits a
mistake, so we will be taking our shoes off for the indefinite
future.

I've added the post you replied to, Mr. Gans, but you haven't made clear
what *mistake* you referred to. Don't you believe in precautions? The
biggest mistake I've seen in years was the gov't not rounding up all the
foreigners taking flight lessons. But, of course, who would ever have
thought that these degenerates would have done what they did? Would you
rather just take your chances, in this day and age?
Fred J. McCall - 28 Oct 2007 20:21 GMT
:>>As well we should, Mr. Gans. What mistake did the government make this
:>>time? Isn't that *nglishman, Reid, still in jail for trying to blow up
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
:thought that these degenerates would have done what they did? Would you
:rather just take your chances, in this day and age?

Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
either in the US or elsewhere.

While you're at it, take a look at the 'exceptions' to the "4 oz
containers of fluid or gel" rule.  You might also ask yourself that
since you can have as many of those 4 oz containers as you can fit in
a quart bag just what it is that's being 'prevented' by this silly
policy.

Nobody has ever put a bomb in a laptop computer, either, but you still
have to put them (but not any other electronics) through the scan
separate from everything else.

Signature

You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
   will never know.

Turlough - 28 Oct 2007 21:22 GMT
> Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
> either in the US or elsewhere.

It makes more sense to ask if it is a possibility. Since I believe it
is, then several extra minutes to check out everyone's shoes surely
cannot be that big an inconvenience...
D. Spencer Hines - 28 Oct 2007 21:44 GMT
There are also quite excellent ADDITIONAL REASONS why the shoes-off
technique is a very useful tool of the Transportation Security
Administration.

Gans displays a remarkable Ignorance and lack of Imagination concerning
those reasons.

'Nuff Said.

We don't want to tip off the Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorists.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

>> Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
>> either in the US or elsewhere.
>
> It makes more sense to ask if it is a possibility. Since I believe it is,
> then several extra minutes to check out everyone's shoes surely cannot be
> that big an inconvenience...
Fred J. McCall - 28 Oct 2007 22:04 GMT
:> Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
:> either in the US or elsewhere.
:
:It makes more sense to ask if it is a possibility. Since I believe it
:is, then several extra minutes to check out everyone's shoes surely
:cannot be that big an inconvenience...

By that reasoning, we should all fly nude after having gone through a
cavity check and endoscopy.

After all, it's *possible* that someone could jam a bomb up their a.s
or pussy or swallow one or something...

The problem with wasting time and energy doing something that doesn't
have any positive effect is that it is time and energy that you could
have expended doing something that WOULD make a difference.

You don't fly much, do you?

Signature

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                              -- Thomas Jefferson

William Black - 28 Oct 2007 22:32 GMT
>> Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
>> either in the US or elsewhere.
>
> It makes more sense to ask if it is a possibility. Since I believe it is,
> then several extra minutes to check out everyone's shoes surely cannot be
> that big an inconvenience...

I have yet to see a demonstration of an effective device capable of doing
serious damage to an aircraft made from a shoe.

I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the years,
but never an effective home made shoe bomb.

I therefore beg leave to doubt that such a device is possible...

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Bryn - 28 Oct 2007 22:51 GMT
Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:

>>> Ask yourself if anyone has ever successfully used a 'shoe bomb',
>>> either in the US or elsewhere.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>I therefore beg leave to doubt that such a device is possible...

Certainly not lit with matches...

Signature

Bryn

That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway.

To email remove GREMILNS

CJ Adams - 29 Oct 2007 03:39 GMT
> I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
> bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the years,
> but never an effective home made shoe bomb.
>
> I therefore beg leave to doubt that such a device is possible...

I respectfully beg to differ but am at the same time unwilling to go
into details to back up my point of view.

Let us leave the matter there.

Cheers
CJ Adams
D. Spencer Hines - 29 Oct 2007 04:27 GMT
> I respectfully beg to differ but am at the same time unwilling to go into
> details to back up my point of view.

Wise...

> Let us leave the matter there.

Indeed.

We don't want to educate the terrorists.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

>> I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
>> bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Cheers
> CJ Adams
William Black - 29 Oct 2007 12:36 GMT
>> I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
>> bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Let us leave the matter there.

Translation:

I could tell you but I'd have to shoot you.

It is reasonable to assume that if there is a working 'shoe bomb' technology
then the terrorists know all about it as they built one.

It is then therefore reasonable to assume that there's no secret to be kept.

So why won't someone show us how deadly they are?

When the country was being blown up on a weekly basis by the IRA there were
films on the TV every month or so showing people what the bloody things
looked like,  how dangerous they were and where they'd been planted.

In this silly little conflict it seems what the bad guys already know is too
secret for the potential victims to be told.

If they won't tell me then they're either lying or they've got something to
hide.

I think they've got something to hide.

What's more I have a nasty suspicion that it's that the shoe bomb couldn't
hurt a fly,  never mind a large aircraft,  and that the people in charge are
playing 'I'm in charge' games in a desperate effort to frighten me.

Well I'm sorry,  you can cower in a hole if you want to, I don't frighten
that easily.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Jack Linthicum - 29 Oct 2007 12:59 GMT
On Oct 29, 7:36 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> >> I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
> >> bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

You miss the point. You have to keep the deadly things concealed
because the main product of both the terrorists and the government is
fear. Without fear we would have half our troops back from Iraq now
and more heading out. The Democrats are so filled with the fear
created to counter any wisdom that they cannot use the same tactics
and straegy the other party used in the 90s, when they were a bare
majority: keep hammering, sooner or later the door or wall comes down.

We have a government now that uses the tacts of the enemy, fear, to
counter terrorism. A piece of irony you could not imagine if you
weren't watching it happen.
a.spencer3 - 29 Oct 2007 13:46 GMT
> >> I have seen car bombs,  truck bombs,  culvert bombs, home made incendiary
> >> bombs and a variety of other infernal devices demonstrated over the
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Well I'm sorry,  you can cower in a hole if you want to, I don't frighten
> that easily.

He's talking of shoes being inspected going into Hawaii so that the wrong
bugs aren't imported. They're the only bugs he comes across these days.

Surreyman
David Hansen - 29 Oct 2007 14:22 GMT
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:36:29 -0000 someone who may be "William
Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote this:-

>If they won't tell me then they're either lying or they've got something to
>hide.
>
>I think they've got something to hide.

Sounds like it to me too.

I see from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm that
the so-called security idiots in the USA have had another go at a
minister. We are often told that the USA needs all sorts of
information on people going to that unwelcoming country for
"intelligence".

Signature

 David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Jack Linthicum - 29 Oct 2007 14:50 GMT
On Oct 29, 9:24 am, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:36:29 -0000 someone who may be "William
> Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote this:-
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> information on people going to that unwelcoming country for
> "intelligence".

Well, if you are as dumb as a tree you look for any source for
increased intelligence
William Black - 29 Oct 2007 14:59 GMT
> On Oct 29, 9:24 am, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Well, if you are as dumb as a tree you look for any source for
> increased intelligence

This is the second time this particular gentleman has been turned inside out
by the imbecilic US airport security cops.

He is,  for those of you who don't know,  a Muslim who also happens to be a
British government minister...

As he has just addressed a conference,  alongside the FBI,  on terrorism, it
seem likely that 'intelligence' is what they seek rather than what they
have...

Because 'brown and Muslim' is not really a good reason for doing special
checks on people.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Jack Linthicum - 29 Oct 2007 15:08 GMT
On Oct 29, 9:59 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> > On Oct 29, 9:24 am, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

Little note from the blogosphere, at the Portland Maine International
Airport--the preferred airport for terrorists--the Transportation
Safety people have been seen drinking at the bar, in uniform. You have
to realize that there are now more than 700,000 names on the terror
suspect list, and it is not easy to scan though all of them so they
just harrass the people that look "brown". This guy must look
suspicious if it's his second time. If the airport security types were
smart they would be smuggling cocaine.
David Hansen - 29 Oct 2007 15:40 GMT
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:08:55 -0700 someone who may be Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote this:-

>You have
>to realize that there are now more than 700,000 names on the terror
>suspect list,

Which demonstrates that such lists are of little or no value.

>and it is not easy to scan though all of them so they
>just harrass the people that look "brown". This guy must look
>suspicious if it's his second time.

He is an MP in the Labour Party, which makes him a suspicious
character in my view. However the terrorism he and his political
party are involved in [1] involves mounting illegal invasions of
countries and the consequent blowing up of people and things in
countries a long way away from the UK or USA. The chances of this
terrorist blowing up aeroplanes between the USA and UK are just
about non-existent.

[1] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/shahid_malik/dewsbury confirms
that he was not in the Westminster parliament at the time of th4e
vote for the illegal invasion. However, his record since then
indicates that he would almost certainly have eagerly voted for the
killing of what is now over a million people in Iraq, had he been
able to. One of a number of dangerous criminals which officials have
not even tried to prosecute.

Signature

 David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

James Christie - 29 Oct 2007 16:41 GMT
>Little note from the blogosphere, at the Portland Maine International
>Airport--the preferred airport for terrorists--the Transportation
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>suspicious if it's his second time. If the airport security types were
>smart they would be smuggling cocaine.

Dressed in a smart suit with shirt, tie and briefcase looks suspicious?
Signature

James Christie

Jack Linthicum - 29 Oct 2007 17:39 GMT
On Oct 29, 11:41 am, James Christie <ja...@christie.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In message <1193666935.316960.89...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Jack
> Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> writes>Little note from the blogosphere, at the Portland Maine International
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> --
> James Christie

How smart was the suit? The old tale from the District of Columbia was
that the local teens thought all you needed to become rich and famous
was dress smart and carry a  briefcase. You might remember a lot of
the TSA people come from that era and that background.
William Black - 29 Oct 2007 20:53 GMT
> On Oct 29, 11:41 am, James Christie <ja...@christie.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> was dress smart and carry a  briefcase. You might remember a lot of
> the TSA people come from that era and that background.

Son of the mayor of Burnley,  came up through the Training and Enterprise
Council system,  career politician,  New Labour all the way.

He'll have an expensive haircut,  creases in his beautifully cut bespoke
suit you could slice bread with and a briefcase that would cost most people
a week's wages.

He's what's known here as 'Labour Aristocracy'.

It seems he's also spitting feathers because he was assured the first time
that it was all a ghastly mistake and it wouldn't ever happen again...

Here is a direct quotation from the BBC news web site:

"The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave,
but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should
be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would
bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress."

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Gregory - 30 Oct 2007 01:57 GMT
>>On Oct 29, 11:41 am, James Christie <ja...@christie.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> suit you could slice bread with and a briefcase that would cost most people
> a week's wages.

He should have asked Bob Geldof or somebody important & famous to go
with him, Bono might have been available.
Fred J. McCall - 30 Oct 2007 03:44 GMT
:> How smart was the suit? The old tale from the District of Columbia was
:> that the local teens thought all you needed to become rich and famous
:> was dress smart and carry a  briefcase. You might remember a lot of
:> the TSA people come from that era and that background.

Poppycock!

Signature

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                              -- Thomas Jefferson

Jack Linthicum - 30 Oct 2007 11:42 GMT
> ::"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>  truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
>                                -- Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, you live a sheltered life, Fred. And it was an attache case and
a smart suit.

"The Rise and Fall of Rayful Edmond III" starts in the only place it
could. North East, DC around 1980. While Nancy Reagan cried "Just Say
No" and mandatory minimum prison sentencing and conspiracy laws were
lurking just around the corner, a young Rayful Edmond III started his
path to become the most notorious and successful drug kingpin in the
DC area. The film profiles his life from a child selling drugs on
street corners; rise to lavish fast-paced lifestyle enjoying the best
money could buy; and fall - the infamous drug bust that took down
Edmond and 30 family members friends and associates. A bust made
possible by an organization breach on the highest level - greed and
disloyalty of both his childhood school mate and confidant, and a
woman he trusted immeasurably. But his reign was not over. As did Avon
from HBO's "The Wire", Edmond continued to run his empire from behind
bars, using Columbia drug dealer contacts made while serving two life
sentences, to expand his drug trafficking operation. In turn he
received additional 30 years to his sentence. But still you have to
ask if it's truly over. If you are from the DC area and have heard
buzz about Edmond; the film leaves rumors unaddressed, perhaps to
protect the innocent and maybe the guilty as well. Nonetheless, what
is revealed what many are unaware of - his childhood, and family ties
to crime dating back to the 1950's, painting a picture of one who
never stood a chance to think of aiming to excel anywhere outside of
the only world he knew. No matter where you are from, if you like
crime, social & cultural, or biographical documentaries, you will find
this film an interesting, great start for new Director-producer Kirk
Fraser. Other than shameless plugs for a clothing line owned by the co-
producer, the flow of the film was targeted - hitting the mark. A
definite must-watch intriguing story of wealth, self-indulgence,
disloyalty, and tragedy - an overall great depiction of Edmond's life.
Fred J. McCall - 29 Oct 2007 15:28 GMT
:This is the second time this particular gentleman has been turned inside out
:by the imbecilic US airport security cops.

'Turned inside out'?  What a preposterous image!  We do random checks
here, Willie.  All that involves is being taken aside, wanded, and
having your carryon hand checked.

:He is,  for those of you who don't know,  a Muslim who also happens to be a
:British government minister...

Which is, of course, irrelevant.

:As he has just addressed a conference,  alongside the FBI,  on terrorism, it
:seem likely that 'intelligence' is what they seek rather than what they
:have...

You act as if TSA would have been informed of all that.  They
wouldn't.

:Because 'brown and Muslim' is not really a good reason for doing special
:checks on people.

That's why they're not done that way.  However, when you check people
at random, you're going to get a certain number of 'brown and Muslim'
types.

They can't ALL be little old ladies, Willie...

Note:  Another thing that will get you 'hand-checked' is if you don't
remove your shoes and put them through the scanner.  Then they have to
wand you and such.

Signature

"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
                                     --G. Behn

William Black - 29 Oct 2007 20:44 GMT
> :This is the second time this particular gentleman has been turned inside
> out
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> remove your shoes and put them through the scanner.  Then they have to
> wand you and such.

Rubbish.

He was a British government minister on official business.

This is the second time he got pulled and asked to empty his hand luggage so
a special check can be done for explosives.

It's reasonably obvious that their computer systems don't even bother to
check who people are,  what they are doing,  or how many times they've
'popped' someone for this check.

He's also complaining about the attitude of the people doing the checking.

The fact is that the system is obviously broken,  they're pulling people
based on some imbecilic profile, and well dressed Muslims with brown skin
colour and carrying a British passports fit the profile.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

D. Spencer Hines - 29 Oct 2007 22:07 GMT
Rubbish...

They are rude to all of us.

Their arses are on the line and they know it.

Pogue Black needs to get used to WARTIME RULES AND REGULATIONS.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

> Rubbish.
>
> He was a British government minister on official business....

> He's also complaining about the attitude of the people doing the checking.
James Christie - 29 Oct 2007 22:17 GMT
>Rubbish...
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>DSH

Oh we're at war are we? I must have missed that one.
By the way the term 'wartime' is bandied about by some of you and the
criteria attached to it, there will never, ever be a time when we're not
at 'war'.
Please learn to use the term as per its original application.
Signature

James Christie

John Briggs - 30 Oct 2007 01:25 GMT
>> Rubbish...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
> Oh we're at war are we? I must have missed that one.

Don't you know there's awar on?
:-)
Signature

John Briggs

William Black - 29 Oct 2007 22:18 GMT
> Rubbish...
>
> They are rude to all of us.
>
> Their arses are on the line and they know it.

They certainly are this time.

Who is going to get sacked?

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

John Briggs - 30 Oct 2007 01:25 GMT
>> Rubbish...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Who is going to get sacked?

No-one. Nothing will happen until we retaliate at Heathrow.
Signature

John Briggs

James Christie - 30 Oct 2007 01:53 GMT
>>> Rubbish...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>No-one. Nothing will happen until we retaliate at Heathrow.
Exactly. They will continue in their unfounded belief that they are
right and everyone else must be wrong until someone gives them a taste
of their own medicine.
I can remember one such potent example:
Back in the day (circa 70 years ago), all crews of foreign Merchant
(cargo) ships entering the US for the first time had to undergo the
'short arm inspection'. Basically, before being issued with your 'alien'
pass and being allowed ashore, you had to line up in front of a doctor
who checked your privates for anything nasty. It didn't happen on the
passenger ships, just the cargo ships. It's quite absurd when you think
about it now.
Even back then there was much hullabaloo about such a practice, privacy,
rights of the individual etc, but as usual the US knew best.
That was until the French got involved (the didn't care much for it
either).
So doing what no one else would dare to do, the French waited until a US
passenger ship arrived at Cherbourg. They boarded it and nobody was
allowed off the ship until all the Men AND women had seen the doctor for
their 'inspection'. When I say everyone, I mean everyone - crew,
passengers - the lot!
Our French cousins made it quite clear that this would be repeated on
*every* US ship that visited its ports until the practice was stopped in
the US.
Apparently there were some influential people onboard, senators,
relatives of high heid yins in Govt, Judges, basically the US upper
classes.
Result? Practice stopped within weeks!
Signature

James Christie

William Black - 30 Oct 2007 11:26 GMT
>>> Rubbish...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No-one. Nothing will happen until we retaliate at Heathrow.

That one seems to be bouncing off.

British immigration officials have been giving US tourists a hard time for
years in retaliation for the treatment dished out to British tourists going
to the USA.

As far as I'm aware,  no change so far...

Of course if they start strip searching US politicians of  Irish extraction
it would probably make something of a stir...

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Jack Linthicum - 30 Oct 2007 14:07 GMT
On Oct 30, 6:26 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> >>> Rubbish...
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

You might take a little solace from the fact that a very liberal
newscaster, Keith Olbermann, gave out his "Worst Person in the World"
award to the Homeland Security Department

Oct. 29: Department of Homeland Security
Oct. 29: For the second time this year, the Homeland Security
Department has detained Shahid Malik of Great Britain at a U.S.
airport. He's the British Minister for International Development.
William Black - 30 Oct 2007 14:18 GMT
> On Oct 30, 6:26 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Department has detained Shahid Malik of Great Britain at a U.S.
> airport. He's the British Minister for International Development.

So it has actually made the news there.

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Paul J Gans - 30 Oct 2007 17:02 GMT
In soc.history.medieval Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 6:26 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
>> Time for tea.

>You might take a little solace from the fact that a very liberal
>newscaster, Keith Olbermann, gave out his "Worst Person in the World"
>award to the Homeland Security Department

>Oct. 29: Department of Homeland Security
>Oct. 29: For the second time this year, the Homeland Security
>Department has detained Shahid Malik of Great Britain at a U.S.
>airport. He's the British Minister for International Development.

Excellent!  At least somebody is covering it.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans - 30 Oct 2007 17:01 GMT
In soc.history.medieval William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> Rubbish...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> No-one. Nothing will happen until we retaliate at Heathrow.

>That one seems to be bouncing off.

>British immigration officials have been giving US tourists a hard time for
>years in retaliation for the treatment dished out to British tourists going
>to the USA.

>As far as I'm aware,  no change so far...

That's because it gets no coverage in the US.  The folks being
hassled don't know and certainly nobody who is staying home
knows.

>Of course if they start strip searching US politicians of  Irish extraction
>it would probably make something of a stir...

Oh my gosh.  Profiling!    :-)

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

D. Spencer Hines - 30 Oct 2007 19:24 GMT
> That's because it gets no coverage in the US.  The folks being
> hassled don't know and certainly nobody who is staying home
> knows.
---------------------------------------------------------

Utter Nonsense...

Matt Drudge linked to this article yesterday.

<http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071029121104.dh6a9n7w&show_article=1>

This is another excellent example of Pogue Gans babbling about something
about which he is totally ignorant -- because he is blinkered and doesn't
READ the standard sources for breaking news.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Peter Skelton - 30 Oct 2007 20:32 GMT
>> That's because it gets no coverage in the US.  The folks being
>> hassled don't know and certainly nobody who is staying home
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>about which he is totally ignorant -- because he is blinkered and doesn't
>READ the standard sources for breaking news.

So a link on a notorious right-wing nut-site to an international
news-feed is "US coverage" in Spencer-space?

Peter Skelton
Gregory - 30 Oct 2007 01:50 GMT
>>Rubbish...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Who is going to get sacked?

Did anybody get sacked for allowng (FBI identified) pedophiles to give
swimming lessons in British schools to little kids?

Nah.

G.
Paul J Gans - 30 Oct 2007 03:36 GMT
In alt.history.british William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>> Rubbish...
>>
>> They are rude to all of us.
>>
>> Their arses are on the line and they know it.

>They certainly are this time.

>Who is going to get sacked?

Absolutely nobody.  The incident didn't even make
the papers in the US.  Our government simply does
not care.  

And, I gather, neither does yours or your PM would
have lodged a loud, public protest with Washington.

Signature

  --- Paul J. Gans

D. Spencer Hines - 30 Oct 2007 04:38 GMT
The next time Pogue Gans is told to take off his shoes at an airport he
should stand by his principles and in his shoes -- then loudly protest that
he is NOT going to take any further part in this Shoes-Off Charade ---- and
that we should all stand up and yell "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To
Take It Anymore!"

Then, after the TSA does a painful and degrading body-cavity search on Gans
AND yanks off his shoes for good measure ---- he can file an official
complaint through his Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton -- and one through his
other Senator, Charlie Schumer -- and we'll see what happens.

Deeeeelightful!

When is Gans flying again?...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
J Antero - 29 Oct 2007 23:34 GMT
> Rubbish...
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Pogue Black needs to get used to WARTIME RULES AND REGULATIONS.

If you think this minor conflict we're involved in is "war", how would you
get along and deal with a real war?

God, do some reading. Start with what the Gemans and the Russians were
dealing with in their war of 1941 to '45.
Gregory - 30 Oct 2007 01:48 GMT
> The fact is that the system is obviously broken,  they're pulling people
> based on some imbecilic profile, and well dressed Muslims with brown skin
> colour and carrying a British passports fit the profile.

Why should anybody be spared the inconvenience the Labour govt.
consented to allow? The Brits have very little to offer except foraging
rights, therefore that sort of thing is part of the arrangement.

At least the TSA/DOT/DHS or whatever they are called, are not shooting
wrongly colored people on sight as can happen in London. We had the
death penalty restored by the back door.
Fred J. McCall - 30 Oct 2007 03:43 GMT
:> :This is the second time this particular gentleman has been turned inside
:> out
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
:
:Rubbish.

Oh, rubbish yourself, you gormless git.

:He was a British government minister on official business.

That's nice.  Is your government so inept that it can't get him
pre-cleared through security?

:This is the second time he got pulled and asked to empty his hand luggage so
:a special check can be done for explosives.

You have a point?

:It's reasonably obvious that their computer systems don't even bother to
:check who people are,  what they are doing,  or how many times they've
:'popped' someone for this check.

Of course it doesn't check any of that stuff.  That's what 'random'
means.  

Not to mention they don't keep a record of who gets checked, so how
would they know who got checked when?

:He's also complaining about the attitude of the people doing the checking.

So he's a typical whinging Brit.

:The fact is that the system is