If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
A threat level assigned to every passenger.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Civil liberties groups are objecting to a government plan for a new system that would check background information and assign a threat level to everyone who buys a ticket for a commercial flight.
I put this under the well the country might survive but the things that made it worth saving didn't. What do all of you think?
I put this under the well the country might survive but the things that made it worth saving didn't. What do all of you think?
0
Comments
But, as you said, I can see many groups opposing it.
If the ticket isn't in your name, they don't let you board. How's that?
you give them the ticket at the gate and they let you in... dear shit, what kind of airlines have i been flying on...
oooohhh we are cheeky!
Here in the USA you must prove who you are before you get to gate to board. AT that point ticket exchange would be pointless.
ahhh ic, i guess its just my traveling ignorance. i, also from the usa, have always traveled with my parents or friends who are more responsible than me. i've always just stood in the background and answered random questions the've thrown at me and done anything else they've asked. i never put 2 and 2 together before
You can't surrender freedom for security.
Yes you can, it's happening as we speak. It's just not always a good idea.
I'm not just concerned about the loss of privacy, but about the fact that this kind of profiling might not spot the real threats.
I do think this is the essential debate regarding Al Qaeda. It's much more of a concern than war. To me the war is a given. North Korea, Iran and Iraq do sell weapons and would sell low grade nuclear by-products to anyone. I have no doubt.
What's good for business my friend, is not good for America and certainly not good for the world.
And yet, who has been more instrumental than Pakistan in handing over our enemies? For instance, my friend is a Pakistani Muslim. If he visited his ethnic homeland and came back to his home, America, the computer would shoot his name out.
The real threat is right in our own capitol, lil man.
You might be interest to note that these asylum seekers were decent kids, one of whom had to leave his HS and all his friends (with little more than the clothes on his back) to seek some sense of welcome and personal security. Doesnt say too much about our claim to being the land of the "free" and home of the "brave" does it? More like land of the controlled and home of the paranoid.
The civil liberties questions are the biggest ones in this war.
I think this would happen to any society having to deal with a new threat, especially one of this magnitude. Remember, the same sort of thing happened in the 1950s, only with a political rather than religious/racial group as the target of fear and suspicion. And I feel the only reason this happens more in America than elsewhere now is that they were the most directly affected. Had attacks of the magnitude of September 11th been carried out against London, I suspect that a good many of the anti war protestors would be baying for blood.
And you're right there is a lot of fear-driven laws in the US right now because these people lived here who attacked us.
My friend's father, a Muslim Pakistani American, has an American flag on his house and car. I hope they are there out of patriotism...not fear.
The peace marchers don't particularly care about balance right now. Their sole objective is to prevent the war, and if that means using biased arguments, so be it. Signs against Saddam or the French would cloud the uncompromising message that they are trying to get across, and possibly convince Blair that they are weak and can be safely ignored. They are using the same sort of simplistic message that the government is using, just for opposite ends. The government says "the war is good", the protestors say "the war is bad", and it all degenerates into something of a pantomime, with nobody bothering to point out that the issues here are complex and that there is no black and white answer. Unfortunately, that wouldn't make a good media soundbite, so nobody's going to say it.
As for being at peace with people being tortured, I suspect that every last one of them considers Saddam repugnant beyond measure, but you have to understand that he is far from the only despot who tortures or kills anyone who gets in his way. Many of us are simply uncomfortable that Saddam alone has been singled out, when places like China (among innumerable others) also have a somewhat questionable history on human rights, and seem to get away without so much as a slap on the wrist. We also wonder why he's only being dealt with now, when we've known for a long time exactly what kind of tyrant he is.
And as for Chirac, some of us over here in the UK reckon he's just holding on for some kind of extra oil concessions. Personally, I think he's doing it just to prove that he can. French governments do sometimes enjoy putting two fingers up to the US and/or UK just to annoy us.