NationStates Jolt Archive

Muslim with U.S. family is held, turned away:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16444287/

I myself, in the case of this probably being a left minute thing, would have detained him for maybe an hour or a few more hours, six in total at the most, while we clear things up while we clear everything and make sure everything is alright. Then I would have let him go saying that seeing as he made a last minute purchase would concerned us and that we have cleared everything up and let him go on his way.

Yet, I think holding someone for more then one day it outrageous.

*points to General*

Thanks, yet I have already requested for them to be moved.

Not really. I am suprised they didn't hold them longer. In fact They should have held them longer.

Not really. I am suprised they didn't hold them longer. In fact They should have held them longer.

Erm why? There was no explanation of why he was held in the first place. He hadn't broken any laws. From what I can see so far they had no reason to arrest him. But as ore evidence is revealed maybe I'll be proved wrong.

Not really. I am suprised they didn't hold them longer. In fact They should have held them longer.

Uh, why? He never committed any crime. They never gave him any reason why he was incarcerated. Why should a 60-year-old German be thrown in jail for 4 days just for trying to enter the country with a passport?

two words: Racial profiling

Racial profiling.... for a white person....funny

Religious profiling. And kindly explain why he should have been detained longer?

Why was he detained at all? :confused:

Why was he detained at all? :confused:

That is the point. Noone is telling.

Why was he detained at all? :confused:

"An aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein later told the family that Shehadeh was on a “look-out list,” Mulligan said. Feinstein’s office confirmed Tuesday that the family contacted her, but wouldn’t comment further."

Naturally he denies having done anything suspicious. And, he may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But, I have to assume (correctly, I hope!) that people's names aren't just picked out of a hat and put on their "list".

What it comes down to is that either we have faith that the government acted appropriately or we don't.

But, I have to assume (correctly, I hope!) that people's names aren't just picked out of a hat and put on their "list"

In the past several people in the agegroup 0-3 appeared on that list.

Suppose the US authorities decide, as a result of what appears to be a mistake, to not hold people they suspect of wrongdoing for so long. Then, in 6 months time, someone who really does want to commit an act of terrorism comes along; they think there might be something up, but don't really have anything concrete, so they let him through. The next day, he commits mass murder.

Now do you think the current system's so bad?

"An aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein later told the family that Shehadeh was on a “look-out list,” Mulligan said. Feinstein’s office confirmed Tuesday that the family contacted her, but wouldn’t comment further."

Naturally he denies having done anything suspicious. And, he may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But, I have to assume (correctly, I hope!) that people's names aren't just picked out of a hat and put on their "list".

What it comes down to is that either we have faith that the government acted appropriately or we don't.

Hell...Sen Kennedy was on one of those lists....

what a joke.

Suppose the US authorities decide, as a result of what appears to be a mistake, to not hold people they suspect of wrongdoing for so long. Then, in 6 months time, someone who really does want to commit an act of terrorism comes along; they think there might be something up, but don't really have anything concrete, so they let him through. The next day, he commits mass murder.

Now do you think the current system's so bad?

Yep. :)

Yep. :)

I think the current system is bad because:

a. there are a lot of names on the "list" that are probably innocuous
b. there are a lot of names that should be on the list that are not
c. some names that are on the list and should be, but no one catches them in these filters
d. when they do hold someone, if they're really a bad person, we can't be told, and if it was a mistake, we can't be told, so we never know if the system is really working

However, I haven't seen any more 9/11 style attacks in the US - so maybe something is working.

I think the current system is bad because:

a. there are a lot of names on the "list" that are probably innocuous
b. there are a lot of names that should be on the list that are not
c. some names that are on the list and should be, but no one catches them in these filters
d. when they do hold someone, if they're really a bad person, we can't be told, and if it was a mistake, we can't be told, so we never know if the system is really working

However, I haven't seen any more 9/11 style attacks in the US - so maybe something is working.

I think it's bad because the eroson of civil liberties in the United States since 9/11 has been more damaging than a dozen 9/11 attacks could be. What's the point of being a secure United States of America if we're not the United States of America any more?

I think it's bad because the eroson of civil liberties in the United States since 9/11 has been more damaging than a dozen 9/11 attacks could be. What's the point of being a secure United States of America if we're not the United States of America any more?

I don't know if you noticed, but there's been a steady erosion of civil liberties since I was born in 1961.

Some were done with no justification at all (by way of war or terrorism).

I haven't seen any increase in the rate, if that's what you're implying.

I think it's bad because the eroson of civil liberties in the United States since 9/11 has been more damaging than a dozen 9/11 attacks could be. What's the point of being a secure United States of America if we're not the United States of America any more?

I'd rather have my freedoms than "security" here in the United States.

The whole system is a joke.

I don't know if you noticed, but there's been a steady erosion of civil liberties since I was born in 1961.

Some were done with no justification at all (by way of war or terrorism).

I haven't seen any increase in the rate, if that's what you're implying.

Yeah, I've noticed. But I HAVE seen an increase. Or more importantly I've seen a sharp decrease in outrage from the public. So many people seem to nod like sheep saying, "9/11" or "security" or "must prevent terrorism" that they seem they'll give up anything for the illusion of security.

I wonder if this is how Israel got to where it is: Manipulated by the power brokers through fear and nationalistic rhetoric into an endless cycle of conflict that keep those powerful entrenched in the seats of control. *sigh*

I'd rather have my freedoms than "security" here in the United States.

Indeed, to quote Murrow: "We cannot defend freedom abroad, by deserting it at home"

Yeah, I've noticed. But I HAVE seen an increase. Or more importantly I've seen a sharp decrease in outrage from the public. So many people seem to nod like sheep saying, "9/11" or "security" or "must prevent terrorism" that they seem they'll give up anything for the illusion of security.

I wonder if this is how Israel got to where it is: Manipulated by the power brokers through fear and nationalistic rhetoric into an endless cycle of conflict that keep those powerful entrenched in the seats of control. *sigh*

You missed the days of the "black helicopters" where we were warning you about this, and you were laughing at the tinfoil hats.

Yeah, Waco was OK because they were fundamentalist Christian gun nuts. And Ruby Ridge was just some mom being shot in the head while holding a baby at less than 100 yards - just a simple mistake.

You never noticed the steady militarization of all police forces?

It's just a little louder now, but the pace is the same.

Hell...Sen Kennedy was on one of those lists....

what a joke.

A friend of mine has both a first name and surname that are common in those of Arabic descent. There is apparently an actual terrorist on the watch list that has his same name. For this reason, any time he flies (which is pretty often), he has to carry with him a paper from the department of homeland security that basically says, "I'm not the terrorist."

It's unlikely, since they wouldn't have any reason to hide it from the public, but it is possible that something similar happened with this guy - someone with the same or similar name has been legitimately placed on the list, and he gets to suffer for it.

What I'd like to know is, if they found no reason to suspect him in particular, why did they send him home rather than letting him visit his family?

"An aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein later told the family that Shehadeh was on a “look-out list,” Mulligan said. Feinstein’s office confirmed Tuesday that the family contacted her, but wouldn’t comment further."

Naturally he denies having done anything suspicious. And, he may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. But, I have to assume (correctly, I hope!) that people's names aren't just picked out of a hat and put on their "list".

What it comes down to is that either we have faith that the government acted appropriately or we don't.
Toddlers have made the 'no-fly' list so I guess either we're really gullible or we dont.

What I'd like to know is, if they found no reason to suspect him in particular, why did they send him home rather than letting him visit his family?

Publically admit the system is a joke that does nothing to improve security ?
They can't afford to do that.

You missed the days of the "black helicopters" where we were warning you about this, and you were laughing at the tinfoil hats.

Yeah, Waco was OK because they were fundamentalist Christian gun nuts. And Ruby Ridge was just some mom being shot in the head while holding a baby at less than 100 yards - just a simple mistake.

You never noticed the steady militarization of all police forces?

It's just a little louder now, but the pace is the same.

It isn't louder. The outrage is quieter. That's all.

It isn't louder. The outrage is quieter. That's all.

That's because you would expect the outrage to come from the people who were laughing about this ten years ago. And the people from 10 years ago are quiet because they're hiding in their bunkers, waiting.

Suppose the US authorities decide, as a result of what appears to be a mistake, to not hold people they suspect of wrongdoing for so long. Then, in 6 months time, someone who really does want to commit an act of terrorism comes along; they think there might be something up, but don't really have anything concrete, so they let him through. The next day, he commits mass murder.

Now do you think the current system's so bad?

What if someone of American descend is converted towards a extremist believe and just choses to bomb a goverment building without passing any airport security because they always have lived in the states.

... Oh wait... they did that in 1995 (Oklahoma)...

1. it is impossible to avoid an incident. People will always suffer (not necessary from terrorism)
2. Security if fine, so long it uphelds basic human rights.
3. There are always people who make use of holes in the system (see 1.) but that doesn't have to mean we lower our behaviour to that of terrorists.

Publically admit the system is a joke that does nothing to improve security ?
They can't afford to do that.

They wouldn't have to. If his name was the same as someone on the watch list, they simply admit that, give him his papers saying he's not that guy, and let him go on. If he was picked up because of some suspicious action, but it turned out to be ok, then they were being careful. They can spin it all sorts of ways without saying, "ZOMG, We're such screwups!"

Shehadeh, 62, flew from Frankfurt to Las Vegas last Thursday, hoping to meet with his wife and drive to Bakersfield, California, where his American-born daughter had just gotten news she had passed the California bar exam. Instead, he wound up shivering in a holding cell without ever being told
The waiver limits apply to a person visiting the US.Since he had family here it may be that the concern was he was entering the country with a view to settling illegaly.Still an explaination should have been given.

Edit: I work in this area and even Americans get turned away from Britian on a daily basis for this sort of thing.Also for not being able to prove that they have enough funds to support themselves.Although the policy of informing the person is clear it is also confidential.Maybe immergration did give a reason here but it was forgotten.