AR

Can we clarify one thing before this descends into a UK v US slanging match?

This is the European Parliament and the UK Government are opposed to it. They have stated that if it indeed becomes policy in September then the UK Government have an easy and legal option which is to have a separate agreement with the US Government complying with the US Homeland Security demands. Easy as long as no transiting European challenges it!

I do, however, object to my credit card and bank details (and other such irelevant details) from being given to the US officials. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut when you consider stories about individuals like Cat Stevens and a 2 year old boy being denied entry because their names sound similar (Islam, Abdul, Khan etc etc - Yup, a few of those. Imagine the UK denying every Smith or Jones entry!) Pity the US Government weren't as picky when Gerry Adams was granted visa after visa to raise money fro the IRA in the 80's and 90's.

AAFrequentFlyer

US response may be to take away the visa waiver rights away from EU countries. That way, US will get all the info they want from anybody wanting or need to visit our fatherland.

Does this madness help security - absolutely NOT!

Will this hurt our tourism? absolutely YES!


OTOH, I still think there will be some agreement before any of this takes effect.

For our sake, I certainly HOPE SO!

I live in Florida on an island where we get thousands of Europeans every summer and for the last year or 2 and so far this year the local tourist economy is hurting because of low numbers of European tourists. It's the fact people, it's not some imagined statistic.

At the same time South America and Asia are seeing record numbers of Europeans for the last couple of years.

ira

Before getting all riled up about this 2-year old agreement, you might want to read http://tinyurl.com/rlq9r.

Special food requests could be a legitimate concern.

>...="and the pre- 9/11 days showed perfectly safe airtravel was possible..<

but not always attainable.

Anybody remember Black September?
http://www.cedarland.org/black.html

>..At the moment there is more freedom in russia than in the usa....<

Oh, pish tosh.

bob_brown

And you enjoy having NSA listen to your phone conversations?

If you do say hello for me.

NorthShore

Bobby, you know darn well the NSA is not listening to phone calls just for fun. Get serious, this is not a game. If anybody is talking to a terrorist outside the US or inside the US, the government needs to listen to it, plain and simple.

Robespierre

"Hitler faced the threat of terrorism, which was exemplified by the firebombing of the Reichstag. Immediately after that terrorist attack, the German parliament granted Hitler’s request for temporary emergency powers to wage war against terrorism.

The problem is that the crisis became deeper and deeper, which meant that the “temporary” powers being exercised became more entrenched, until the possibility of restoring the rights of the German people became almost impossible.

The German citizenry discovered too late the difficulty of regaining freedoms that had been temporarily surrendered to someone who then wields the power to prevent his temporary powers from being relinquished, especially someone who truly believes that such powers are needed to preserve the nation in the midst of crisis."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0310a.asp

AAFrequentFlyer

<b>Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.</b>

Benjamin Franklin

<b>Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.</b>

Benjamin Franklin

kerouac

As an airline employee, I am somewhat amused that people actually think that such information is useful in fighting terrorism. Shortly after 9-11, I was in a meeting with the anti-terrorist division of the police department, and it was admitted that just about everything that is done is known as &quot;flattering public opinion&quot; and is of no real value except to calm the general public, just like making internet providers keep records for 2 years of all sites visited by each computer. This is aimed at &quot;amateur terrorists&quot; as any professional terrorist knows exactly how to go about his business undetected, with his excellent quality authentic passports, gold credit cards in various names, and a multitude of telephone code words for getting messages across. Spies and terrorists still find the tried and true methods from WW2 and even WW1 extremely effective -- innocuous ads in the personal columns of newspapers, messages hidden under stones in the park, and the last minute recruiting of unstable people with no ties. Keeping airline records is just a way of the government informing us how stupid they think we are if we believe that it is effective.

ira

&gt;&quot;Hitler faced the threat of terrorism, which was exemplified by the firebombing of the Reichstag. ...&lt;

It is highly likely that the Nazis set the fire for the purpose of blaming the Communists and declaring a state of emergency.

President Hindenburg was near death and senile and issued his decree under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution.

The full text of the Decree is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

The US Constitution does not provide for such a decree.

Also see the March 23 Enabling Act, which also could not be enacted under the US system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

Robespierre

I'm not convinced that an equivalent Executive Order couldn't be issued. After all, the present administration holds the view that the threat of terrorism negates the Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure - and there's no one in D.C. both able and willing to oppose them.

PrincessOfPenguins

&gt;&gt; &quot;It will make it easier for those in power to control the population, though … and that is the real goal, after all.&quot;

&gt; The above is a very silly assertion.

Far from it, actually. It's a very legitimate assertion.

willit

I think the problem would be if there was an escualation of the problem. The Europeans refuse to hand over the data, the US imposes visa restrictions and restricts the number of incoming flights. Europe does the same for US citizens.

I think there is compromise needed on both sides. I believe part of the European courts concerns is how the data will be handled, and who would get access to it under what circumstances.

I have lived in a police state where many of the freedoms were taken away in the fight against terrorism. The problem being that it starts with the detention of a few extremists that every body agrees with, and ends up with detention of people who dare to differ with the powers that be. The constitution would seem to be of little use when the President can decide how he wishes to interpret it (phone tapping).

Without passing any political judgement on rights, wrongs or needs, had somebody suggested 10 years ago that things like the Patriot act, and Guantanimo would have existed in the modern day US, I would have been convinced that it were not possible under US law.

NorthShore

The constitution would seem to be of little use when the President can decide how he wishes to interpret it (phone tapping).

What the president did was legal. Congress knew about it. It needed to be done. Letting terrorists speak freely on the phone is crazy.

MarkvonKramer

&gt;What the president did was legal.
&gt;Congress knew about it. It needed to be
&gt;done. Letting terrorists speak freely
&gt;on the phone is crazy.

Blindly giving up freedoms is crazier. The constitution defines processes where these actions could have been done legally yet they were bypassed. Whatever this President says is legal, becomes legal.

NorthShore

So sue him and take it to court - you will not win.

It was legal, saying it wasn't is a liberal whine from weak people soft on fighting terrorism.

If it makes you feel better, than continue to say it, but don't get in the way of responsible people who are protecting your life. Which is the greatest freedom of all.

Rillifane

&quot;the present administration holds the view that the threat of terrorism negates the Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure&quot;

There is no constitutional; prohibition against &quot;illegal&quot; search and seizure but against &quot;unreasonable&quot; search and seizure.

Whether a search is unreasonable depends on all the facts and circumstances and under what authority it is undertaken.

It is quite clear to those who are actually educated in the field of law that the President does have considerable power to investigate threats to the national security. The cases are in accord.

Please confine yourself to timetables, and leave questions of law to people who have the education and intelligence to address them. You clearly know nothing about what you are talking about.

MarkvonKramer

I guess Patrick Henry's famous quote &quot;Give me liberty or give me death&quot; makes him a liberal whiner. Darn those liberal whiner founding fathers. What were they thinking?

Ignore the constitution all you want, NorthShore. If you are one of the &quot;responsible&quot; people I'm getting in the way of protecting me, I'll step aside. You are so blind to reality you're going to run someone over.

MvK

Intrepid1

It's always an interesting sight when those who compalin about &quot;the liberals&quot; are the first in line to scarf up the benefits some of those &quot;liberals&quot; have brought about like Social Security benefits.

Robespierre

Ah, yes, &quot;...leave questions of law to people who have the education and intelligence to address them.&quot; In other words, &quot;anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.&quot; What a great way to advance a position.

How one interprets the provisions of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act appears to be a function of one's political pursuasion. Since I am a registered &quot;other,&quot; I don't have a dog in any partisan fight. But I do think the president acted illegally in authorizing warrantless domestic wiretaps. The Act defines mechanisms to proceed timely and legally, but hubris or arrogance or ignorance induced this president to do it without court approval.

kr

Just a bunch of stubborn people posting and as usually each side doesn't listen to the other.

You have the occasional dumb ignorant insulters, by country, politics and the only thing we are missing are the racial slurs.

Wake up,and grow up. Nothing like adults acting like school kids.