Personal patches

[Paul Robinson]

Allan Bowhill wrote:

>Your right to convenient passage as a visitor do not override our
>right to take measures to protect our own safety and security.
>

Except, fingerprinting at customs is not a measure that will protect 
your safety or security.

>It has worked not only in a single case, but in many cases, tourists,
>terrorists, serial killers, and freeing innocent people who were wrongfully
>convicted.
>

Please provide an example where mass compulsory testing has catched one 
of the above criminals. The fact that you are implying catching tourists 
is a good idea is troubling however.

>The area of genetic testing has signifcant merit, although you appear
>not to accept this.
>

Oh it does, in establishing identity. I just don't think fingerprinting 
or genetic testing at airports helps to eastablish identity any more 
than the passport I carry.

>I heard that Brits are exempt from fingerprinting. I hope this changes.
>Simply out of fairness to everyone else.
>

It's the whole EU. We all carry EU passports now. Also, I believe a few 
states like Taiwan and Singapore are going to be mostly exempt.

>The U.S. economy, when healthy, relies on %75 internal spending. 
>If EU businessmen have a problem with this, they can go fish.
>
Yeah, 25% is so insignificant. You'd hardly notice it, eh? Despite the 
dollar being at it's lowest point in decades due to a drop off in 
investment somewhere around 5-8%, I hear.

>I doubt the EU will impose trade sanctions, or sacrifice good business
>for the sake of a few irate travelers.
>

They did for the sake of a few steel workers in the EU.

>So what. My Father is a British Citizen, and he thought we should have
>dropped every nuke we had on Afghanistan. He would agree you're talking
>trash. That doesn't make his hypothetical views relevant to the
>discussion.
>
So, all Afghans are terrorists then?

>We are not new to this, as you seem to believe. Terrorism, Piracy and
>Organized Crime are all intertwined. 
>
Hahahaha. Now I know you're trolling.

>I'm sorry to hear you were almost killed. I don't know much about the
>particulars of your domestic terrorism problems, but I am under the
>impression that Britain's handling of it is somewhat less than
>exemplary.
>

OK, here's a 101 in Irish Republican Terrorism. Most people who aren't 
from Britain have an innaccurate/skewed view of what happened. This is 
obviously not comprehensive, but it'll suffice as an introduction to 
understanding there were faults all round. But as it might give some 
scope to your understanding...

When the British agreed to pull out of Ireland in the early 20th century 
(prior to this, the whole of Ireland had been British for several 
centuries), a large section in the North wished to remain part of the 
United Kingdom. These loyalists were going to cause one hell of a 
stink-up, and at the time 80% of the population of those counties were 
loyalists. So, the Irish and British governments agreed that this area 
should remain part of the UK. The IRA (as their name implies) didn't 
want Ireland to be seperated and so started a terrorist campaign. This 
was all managed reasonably well until 1969.

At that stage, the Catholic Unionists in the North were being attacked 
on a regular basis by the Loyalists. The people who wanted to stay part 
of the UK were attacking those who wanted NI to become part of the Irish 
Republic. These attacks against innocent citizens developed to the point 
where the British army had to intervene. As a result, the army moved in 
to protect the Catholic unionists from attack. Within about a year 
though, the loyalists were rejoicing and the unionists were most peeved 
that NI had become a police state run by the British Army. Attacks from 
Catholics against the army started to occur, and the IRA ramped up their 
terrorist campaign.

This campaign accelerated after "Bloody Sunday", a day where British 
Army soldiers fired on unarmed protesting (unionist) citizens. The 
enquiries into what exactly happened are still going on, but the best 
guess is a soldier got twitchy, accidently fired, and all hell broke 
loose as a direct result. Between then and the mid-1990's, the IRA 
regularly detonated large bombs in the UK against civilian targets.

The infighting in NI has continued, and "the troubles" are currently 
reckoned to have result in approximately 4,000 deaths, mostly of 
civilians. I have no doubt that number would have been much higher if it 
wasn't for an agreement between the IRA and the British Security 
Services (god knows how they did it), that the IRA would phone a keyword 
warning to a local police station about an hour before a bomb was going 
to go off, and law enforcement could at least attempt an evacuation.

As we stand now, terrorism has ceased on the UK mainland, but there are 
still incidents in NI itself. Power is being given to the politicians of 
NI to look after themselves, increasingly important as the 
unionist/loyalist split in population is no longer 20/80 but more 49/51. 
It should be pointed out that Gerry Adams (who is to British politics 
what Osama Bin Laden is to American politics) is in fact an elected 
British MP. He is unable to take his seat in the House of Commons 
however, as to take the seat he would need to swear an oath of 
allegiance to the Monarch of the United Kingdom. Something a former 
leader of the IRA is unlikely to do...

Even so, I've had some close shaves. For background, my mother's family 
is Irish Catholic (Unionist) and my father's is English Protestant 
(loyalist).

>:Right, so you think the FBI and CIA already have every terrorist's 
>:fingerprint on file already do you? 
>
>They have some, 
>
Where from? How did they get those then?

>and will get more with the help of this system. If
>
How? You think they'll have "Terrorist" under "Occupation" on their 
passport?

>the terrorists decide not to show up for their flights, fine. All
>the better. They can stay home and blow themselves up.
>

Alas, the preferred method for using planes as missiles is to hijack a 
plane outside of the US that is US-bound and then use it. So you'll 
never catch them, or get their fingerprints, until the attack is over...

>Not trivial, but possible. All the more reason to go with genetic
>sampling.
>

Which is also not infalliable.

>As far as national defense is concerned, it comes at a price. If it's
>money rather than lives, let it be money.
>
You're forgetting to put liberty and freedom for innocent civilians into 
that equation.

-- 
Paul Robinson