What is Digg?147 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+131"I think the world is looking for a new source of inspiration"
The best observation of the article.
It's gag-inducing to reflect how much we've lost under this administration. Schoolchildren will study this period as the death knell of what was once the world's most powerful and promising country. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50In my experience people that work at INS are the most stupid people in US, they can't get or hold a decent job in private sector.
It's no wander they renewed Mohamed Atta's visa months AFTER 9/11. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
The terrorists won!
Yup, they won. Wasn't even a battle. They killed a few thousand people, and died themselves, but your country lost more than that... One big attack on 9/11 and your politicians (and apparently many Americans) have been more than content to let the government throw out freedoms and liberties.
So keep that warm and cozy feeling when your politicians say they're "winning the war on terror", and "mission accomplished", because you've lost so very much more... - phucku2, on 10/12/2007, -21/+50Yeah bossman, when they've got their fist up your arse and when they send you to Gitmo for questioning what they're doing, you'll think differently. The US is a nation of fear, promoted by an administration for its own pollitical purposes. Terrorists are the least of your worries, and you can't do anything about them.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -14/+40Before everyone decides that the US sucks because the Ubuntu person got stopped, make sure you realise the facts. He flew in on his own plane. To use a visa waiver you have to fly on a carrier that has signed up to it. He says himself that the plane operator hadn't. So what's the problem?
It's got nothing to do with bits of paper, bureacracy or anything, that's what the rules are and so if you're found not to be complying (willingly or unwillingly) then that's the result. It wasn't his fault, but he was still violating the rules. That's life.
To the first poster: surely you can't possibly blame the US administration for this? The rules have been there for years. I am not American and dislike your government like most people outside the US, but please at least look at this objectively. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34This case really has more to do with a beuracracy out of control than security.
I'm sure any other pilots here will agree - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36When I entered the US at the end of March the entire experience was a joke.
The first problem I had was I failed to declare the bottle of diet coke I had in my hand. Then I got in trouble for declaring nicotine lozengers.
Then I discovered they didn't take $canadian at the US-CA border, so I had to go bug other chumps off the bus to find someone who would exchange money with me just so I could pay the measly $6 to enter the country.
The customs chump also had a problem with my passport, because the only other stamp was for Canada. Like not having travelled to many places is a crime.
Then they had a problem with my itinery, which was to "travel around and see the country for a bit".
After all of that they made me hoist my huge-assed bags of ***** up onto the gaydar just in case I was smuggling a bomb or something to blow up the bus that only had 1/2 a dozen passengers.
None of the other passengers had any trouble, or had their baggage scanned. - Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Go do it. See how you like living under a Communist regime...
I really love it when these actors, students, whatever, proclaim their love for China or Cuba or other Communist nations. Go live there for a decade. My family came from the Soviet Union. I don't want to live in the horror stories that I hear all the time. - SPNKrPunk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28sigh. I'd like to go one day where I am not embarrassed to be an American.
- charliechaplan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28Dude i got a mate who works at customs, and trust me, NOTHING is RANDOM at all when it comes to the searches.....if one of the customs officers doesnt like the look of you, or what ur wearing or standing...he will set you up for the search
This is one of the perks of the jobs...to search anyone you want to
Damn wrong reply...oh well - jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@charliechaplan
I can absolutely verify this. I have never had a normal check-in. I don't know what it is about the way I look (I'm not Arab) but literally every time I've flown anywhere in the last six years I've gone through extra security. And I fly pretty regularly.
I've been taken in for questioning, gone through the air puffer a few times, searched (never strip searched), forced through additional security gates, and I've been patted down with explosive detection cloths. Every single time I fly. I go to the airport two and a half hours before departure because I KNOW there is going to be some kind of hassle. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+35the hurricane was obviously not his fault.
but the fact is was the disater it was, is his fault. to took far too long for the government to react. and it's because new orleans is full of black people. if that ***** happened to NYC they wouldn't wait 4 days to send troops. - pwsegal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Its all due to the over aching power of the Dept of Homeland Security. They are on a power trip thinking that they are the "one true" protector of the land.
I'm an Aussie and come to the US on a regular basis, I have visited pre and post Sept. 11, and have seen the difference and its a big difference (does the phrase "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" ring any bells).
I've also noticed that the Dept of Immigration stamp that you get in the passport when you enter the US has changed over the last couple of years, it used to just read US Immigration, now it reads Department of Homeland Security US Customs and Border Protection. The only mention of immigration is the part that reads Section 217 of the INA.
Every other country I have visited (and its been a fair few) the passport stamp is from Immigration, and its widely thought off that you can tell a lot about a country by the procedures to enter the country and as has been noted in previous comments, these procedures are tedious and mostly un-necessary (whats the point of finger-printing and taking digital photos of everyone, its not as if there is real time matching going on).
The US is widely regarded (if that's the right term) to be a closed, narrow minded, overly paranoid country, and passing thru immigration at an airport just reinforces that view (and if you even look middle eastern then theres a whole different story).
It's not entirely Bush's fault, he did exactly what he could after Sept. 11th given his limitations (both personally and politically), it goes deeper than this, but past experience has shown me that a frank and open discussion of the root causes of Sept. 11 is generally impossible with the average US citizen (although I would hope that the Digg audience is more open to this type of discussion, but I'm not willing to put up with the jingoistic drivel and abuse that will come my way if I'm wrong).
If you take offense to my comments, mod me down or block me, I don't care. I'm just telling it like a lot of people outside of the US see it. - silkworm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Mark Shuttleworth is not your typical dirty Linux hippie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Don't fire the beuracrats, just put them on Ship "B" and tell them the planet is doomed and we'll all meet up in a bit.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"People don't remember that Blowjob Bill invaded a country."
Do YOU remember that WMDs were hammered in as the number one reason to invade Iraq? How about the shift from going after Osama to going after Saddam?
Heck, how many people still remember that we have troops in Afghanistan aside from the families of said troops?
The public can't remember ANYTHING before the current 'big' issue of the day, which is why scandal cover-ups work so well. The only reason people know that we have troops in Iraq is because they see it on TV every day.
Blaming the MEDIA because the sheeple can't remember events that happened a decade ago, with hundreds of scandals, new conflicts, and controversies in between? That's not just unreasonable, it's damn stupid.
Now, did YOU remember that Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Communications Decency Act, and the Iraq Liberation Act? How about the push to improve the US's counter-terrorism capabilities? How about his part in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was then abandoned as soon as Bush took office and brought back only after 9/11?
Clearly, you don't remember your history at all. It must be the 'conservative media' brainwashing you.
---
While it's true that reporters and journalists tend to be liberal, it's also true that their employers and editors tend to be conservative. The two generally do a good job of balancing out, and repeated studies since the mid '70s have shown that the only significant media bias is in media which is intentionally biased, like Fox News or Air America.
In reality, the media is completely biased in favor of *ratings*. Heck, CNN - the media outlet most often accused of having a liberal bias - is owned by Time Warner, who donated 1.6 million to GWB's campaign in 2000. - darkclarity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I personally have so far avoided travelling to the US. The sort of information they store on record is way over the top these days including taking a finger print and photo. You are basically considered a criminal by default, and are screwed for years if the computer system flags you. I have been to various countries all over, all I did with those was fill in a small form and had nothing to worry about.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"Amazing how you forget that during Clinton's presidency, there were 6 ***** terrorist attacks on the United States."
No, I remember those clearly. What's amazing is that you missed my mentioning Clinton's pushes for improved counter-terrorism.
Now, lets look at those terror attacks closely:
February 26, 1993 - WTC bombing: Six dead, over 1000 injured. Most of those injuries were minor. Foreign terrorism against the US.
April 15th, 1995 - Oklahoma City: 168 (Possibly 169) dead, over 800 injured. Domestic terrorism. Suspects were successfully brought to justice.
May 12, *2003* - Riyadh compound bombings: 26 dead, 160 injured. It did not occur on American soil, was not an attack on the US, and happened years after Clinton left office.
June 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing: 20 dead, 372 injured. It did not occur on American soil. Further, the building was populated by military personnel; Attacks on military personnel are generally considered acts of war, not terrorism.
August 7, 1998 - Simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and Nairobi (Kenya): 220 dead, 4,000 injured. Prompted Operation Infinite Reach, as well as other actions to sabotage Osama Bin Laden's efforts. Foreign terrorism.
October 12, 2000 - USS Cole bombing: 17 dead, 39 injured. Did not occur on areas claimed by the US. As a military target, usage of the word 'terrorism' is tenuous at best.
February 28, 1993 to April 19, 1993 - Waco Siege: 76 dead (Including 27 children). It was a textbook case of a situation getting ***** Up Beyond All Recognition. Not related to terrorism, and you DID go and mention it.
Prior to 9/11, terrorism was considered unimportant - a red herring to distract from 'real' issues. Looking from that lens, Clinton appeared to be wagging the dog and was fought every step of the way. Post 9/11, terrorism is considered to be of the utmost importance. Looking from that angle, Clinton appeared to be not doing enough.
However, I would hope you would remember that Clinton authorized the capture/assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and met with heavy republican resistance each time he attempted to eliminate Osama.
Does that mean that the republican-controlled congress was filled with terrorist sympathizers from 1992 to 2000? ***** no! It means that you've mixed-and-matched your rose-tinted glasses with your hindsight, retroactively deciding what you think people did in the past to suit your current opinions.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, since everybody does it. However, you need to disabuse yourself of the illusions you hold to about the past and judge people and actions based on the knowledge they had at the time.
I don't see how you can scoff at Clinton's record on terrorism, considering how the other major party actively tried their damnedest to keep him from doing anything about it. That's like bitching about how horribly some guy preformed in a marathon, and intentionally neglecting that a knife-wielding mob severed both his Achilles tendons and were bludgeoning him with random objects. - GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Shadowman, when was it during the Carter years that the US started its decent into tyrrany? When was it during the Carter years that the US started secret torture camps? When was it during the Carter years that the US went to war under bogus pretenses?
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20No, it gives you Somalian citizenship.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The root cause of the problems in the US? It's not Bush. It's not the Republicans. It's not the politicians. It's the American people. The last two presidential elections have been statistical dead heats. More and more incumbents are winning and winning and winning (redestricting or no redestricting). Voter turnout is dismal. You have voting scandals in several States. You have electronic voting companies that refuse to co-operate with local election authorities. Essentially, the majority of the people do not give a damn about the democratic process in the US. It's sad.
- kitsonk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Well, the problem is that he wasn't aware of this and now doesn't qualify under the VWP from that point forward. My partner didn't realize that while you are denied, no matter what someone tell you, including US Customs, which pre-cleared him, that you need a visa once denied under the VWP. It is a pain in the ass... trust me. It wasn't his fault that the company hadn't signed up for it...
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I'm sorry for your experience but, seeing only one person on a bus having their bag "scanned" seems like a pretty loose border crossing.
I'm from the U.S. once I drove into Mexico, at the wrong crossing. I realized this when on the other side the pavement ended so, I made a u-turn. I was in Mexico all of 30 seconds. The border patrol decided this warranted taking my car apart for three hours.
I really had time to spare so, I pulled out a book and let them search.
Most interesting moment is when they found my pistol. "You know you're not supposed to have that in Mexico, don't you?" "Yea, well, I'm not in Mexico, its 10 ft that way" they put it right back in the glove box, after they put the glove box back in the car.
I almost managed to finished my book before they finished the search.
At the time, I really didn't care but it made me think.
Why is it not legal for the police to search your car without probable cause but, its ok for a federal officer? If anybody understands that, I'd appreciate it. - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16But if you go live in China how will you google up witty responses to people on the internet?
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well, instead of being embarassed by the actions of other Americans, you could get out and make a change in the world to change that viewpoint. Do some little thing to make this rock a better place to live.
- bmson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Are you telling me that if you are rich the US treat you as the common man.
If you think that, you will be for a big surprise, if you go to Europe or Canada.
You're always welcomed :) - slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Every 200 people are randomly picked to be strip searched, apparently. Kind of odd. Maybe that's why people aren't flying very much anymore. Security is unnecessarily too high.
- WinterSolstice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When I went to France I was treated better then when I went to New York. I guess being Californian is some sort of sin on the US east coast.
-WS - pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Jambarama,
Post a picture and I'll tell you... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18i'm not left wing.
but i am also not from america, and i have an outsiders view of things, which means i'm not as partisan as the rest of you.
you neatly dodged my question of if that happened to nyc would it take 4 days to send help. - zackr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - B Franklin
The terrorists look like they accomplished more than they could possibly have dreamed of. - Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Hmm. Thanks Kimi. I was wondering because my father is an American citizen and my mother is an American and French citizen. I have both American and French citizenship and I was born in London. Was wondering if i could have UK citizenship as well. :)
- jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If strip searching is COMMON procedure applied to almost EVERYONE as you claim - that doesn't mean we should take it lying down. We should bloody well get that changed, nevermind the gross invasion of privacy, a strip search is humiliating and unecessary. If you can't find my weapon with a metal detector, what is a strip search going to do for you?
- NexusOfNow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's not only non-US folks who have begun to be a bit concerned on the ubiquitous overtones and aggressive border-watching the Dept of Homeland Security has taken on. There's a very strong line of defensiveness on the whole topic, too, as Shuttleworth encountered, and as you've seen just in this thread. It's actually become "expected" for people to get defensive when someone questions whether it's right or even wise, responding with insults that question everything from your sanity to your right to breathe American air.
Of course, all this is half the fault of those of us who know better. If we'd spoken up years ago when knee-jerk narrowmindedness and jingoism started becoming standard, it wouldn't have become "normal".
------
Kyle
http://www.nexusofnow.org - Philoushka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12too bad only half of that sentiment applies to the Saudi Royal Family.
- mrbro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Sounds a bit ironic of americans talking about other totalitarian regimes.
- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ZamboniDriver
People all over the world know and think everyone in the USA are... huh... not very bright. I KNOW that's very far from being the truth... but you really fit the stereotype.
You clearly fail to see the difference between stopping a genocide and invading a country based on a lie and on a hidden agenda. That's the difference between Clinton and Bush. In a language you may understand: Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969, whereas under Bush... that's not quite right, is it?
@nogami
Unfortunately, you're right... but not totally. It will be worse. - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Sounds like someone who isn't blinded by psuedo-democracy facist government to me.
- zoltanthebold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Surely all this misses Shuttleworth's point, namely that the US has abandonded freedom under the guise of "security"? Every government wants more control, and it's generally unnacceptable in Western democracies to exert too much. Except the US. Although it's hardly surprising since the US and the UK can invade a country on one pretext, then change it when it doesn't go their way and nobody bothers. They know they can rely on people's short memories (a tactic used by the Nazi's incidentally).
As for Bush versus whatever Democrat you want to pick - that's simply not the issue. It's classic divide and conquer tactics. None of them are any good since they're just mouthpieces for the people who really run the country. Focussing on the guy who becomes the president just helps take our eye off the ball with serious issues - like who really benifited from the invasion of Iraq because it sure as hell wasn't the dead Iraqis, Americans and British. The fact that they have the gall to claim they are bringing "democracy" to a country that they've destroyed says it all. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's not wilco. It's just something about crossing international borders that changes the rules. An FBI agent can't just randomly search through the car parked across from his parking spot or other nonsense.
- affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well why dont you come over to Canada.
- Kimi3013, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not totally sure, but you're your parents nationality, but you'll be able to claim a UK citizenship if you live there as your permanent home with your parents if they apply for it when you're toung. When you're older being born here means it'll be easy to get it if you've lived here all you life.
- skyshark88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This 82nd Airborne paratrooper is here to tell all that liberty is dead.........
When 66% of the American people think its OK for the feds to wiretap Innocent people the liberty and freedom I have seen men die for is gone...................................................................
Bush Kerry Clinton and gore as well can all go to hell.... We need men, real men like Ben Franklin, Washington Jefferson ya know the guys who put their lives on the line for liberty.... ya them and about 25,000 men with rifles to go to Washington and clean out the house our house............... - macjonesnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ever wonder why there is terrorism? Because the USA is so strong militarily, and terrorism is the only thing that can penetrate those defense's, if the terrorists had a real military (planes etc) they have no chance against the USA's power.
Which brings me to ask the question, why do people want to attack the USA.... and not....um, Sweden, or Brazil.... well... the USA does tend to run around being the worlds policeman, but only where is suits.
If you want to me the worlds policeman, go where you're needed, like Zimbabwe!
Now to Iran.... why can't a sovereign nation enrich uranium for civilian purposes..... I don't see any problem with that. They need power stations just as much as anyone else. And if they ever do get/make a bomb, so what, the USA has bombs, how can you say that Iran can't have a bomb, when you have bombs? (p.s USA is the only country to have actually used a bomb, 100,000+ people killed).
So maybe you should just leave other countries alone, I'm sure "terrorism" would stop if you did.
Or if you must "liberate" other countries, liberate those with mass murdering ***** as their leaders, not just countries with oil (Iraq), or oil pipelines (Afghanistan).
Now on to 9/11, please tell me that someone, somewhere in the USA knows that Sadam was not behind 9/11? 17 of the 18 nutters in those planes were from Saudi Arabia, isn't Mr. Bush best friends with the Saudis? If 17 of my best mates kid's trashed my house, I'd think of changing mates!, or is he the mate with all the free beer...(oil).
Which brings me on to elections, someone a post or two back said why not vote President Bush out next time. Well that is what democracy is all about. He is your leader because he deserves to be, because he got a majority of the vote. That's the way it works. However, I'd have to say what if my democracy used electronic voting machines, I'd want them to be open source. How could the USA use close source voting machines?. it's a counter for ***** sake, a+=1? a=a+1.... there is absolutely no reason not to post the source code for the machines on the Internet. Make sure you get that source code before your next election, closed source voting smells funny to me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10yes, and i bet they knew it was that ubuntu dude who does that linux stuff. so they got together and decided to strip search him!
like it matters if a "celebrity" almost got strip searched. the parent is right, ALMOST. - bossm4n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@phucku2 "when they've got their fist up your arse and when they send you to Gitmo for questioning what they're doing, you'll think differently. The US is a nation of fear, promoted by an administration for its own pollitical purposes. Terrorists are the least of your worries, and you can't do anything about them."
Ignorant, misguided, propaganda sucking people like you are a bigger concern than anyone in our current administration or entire political system. You have no means of reading news objectively nor do you likely have any personal life exerience in which to help you judge things for yourself. Keep having your information strained and spoonfed to you by Michael Moore and the Hollywood Left. Exactly how many airline passengers are being shipped/held at Gitmo for lack of documentation? What a hypocrite--talk about fear mongering. - Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"it'd be like having North American citizenship"
Not really, the US and Canada are no more linked than any other two countries whereas the UK is a union with one foreign policy, one taxation system and a lot of common laws (among other things).
So we have British citizenship as well as British passports because having Scottish, English, Irish (NI not ROI) or Welsh passports would be like having Texan or Californian passports, their seperate politcal powers don't affect international matters. - ucbrave92, on 10/12/2007, -18/+20American has the most overprotective, waste of time and money airport security of any country in the world. it is absolutely a joke. i am a student and i recently almost missed my plane to China because of them taking an hour and a half to "randomly" search me. it is actually quite pathetic. i really wish i could simply live in China. it is so much nicer here and the people are much more friendly.
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"isn't the UK more than one country...
it'd be like having North American citizenship"
No, the UK is one country, comprised of four countries. You have UK citizenship.
To answer the parent, I'm in the process of filling out my passport application since I'm no longer on my parents' passports. If I remember correctly, in the guidebook for the form, it states that being born in the UK does not make you a citizen of the UK. You are only a citizen of the UK by default if you're born in the UK to parents who have full UK citizenship already. - sspooner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Typical. People getting blown out of proportions again. I've travelled all over the world, and can honestly say the US is on the easiest places to enter. While I admire Mark and the work put in on Ubuntu it is indeed his responsibility to ensure he's eligible for the visa waiver program. It's not a right guys, it's a steamliner.
I've been stopped many times even in the UK (I'm a UK Citizen still) but live in America. The Brits often waive me through but every now and again question why I'm back and do I plan to get married in the UK... I kid you not.
This is not a reflection on the US folks, it's everywhere. I don't even want to tell you about China and India experiences. -
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is