Topic awaiting preservation: All Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed (Page 1 of 2)

All Britons Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed

quote:

---

All Britons Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed

By Mark Sage, PA News, in New York

All British travellers arriving in the United States will be fingerprinted and photographed from tomorrow.

Until now, the procedure applied only to visa holders, but Homeland Security officials decided to expand the programme.

It means even travellers arriving under the visa waiver programme will have their digital photographs taken and fingerprints scanned.

The new policy affects people from 22 countries, including Britain, who are able to travel to the US without a visa for less than three months, provided they are not seeking work.

Britons, and other foreign nationals travelling under the visa waiver programme, will now be screened when they arrive at the at 115 major airports and 14 major seaports in the US.

The information will be checked against security databases to verify the travellers? papers and flag names which appear on terrorist or law enforcement watch lists.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates the new requirement will affect 33,000 people coming to the United States every day.

The Association of British Travel Agents raised concerns that the policy could result in even longer immigration queues at US airports.

A spokeswoman in London said the problems may be worse at bottle necks like Miami, Dulles in Washington and Houston, Texas.

She added: ?The US authorities have assured us that they have appropriately resourced airports, so now it is a matter of seeing whether it is implemented smoothly.?

She said some travellers had raised concerns about privacy.

But she added: ?We think it will probably enhance the safety for travellers to the US.?

---

This really bothers me, because it effects my wife (who is a German national). I can only hope that this preceedure gets axed, eventually.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I think it's a good thing all-in-all... But they should also implement it on other means of travel (ie: ships). Its messed up but I can understand it...

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

and the line between security and paranoia thins even further ...

--------------
"...cause it's a war between evil and it's a war between good ..."

As does the line between security and our freedoms.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

Well. I know I won't be traveling to the us while that rule is in effect.
Don't want my money? Fine. I'll not be criminalized without reason.

I don't enjoy it, since I've people in the US who're like family to me.

so long,
->Tyberius Prime


BlackHat: May I suggest you tone that signature down a bit? As much as I enjoy such a sight, this is a minor friendly forum, we'd rather not shock any parents. Also I suspect that this image is not your own work and you don't have the right to use it like this.

I'm at 100% with Tyberius Prime on that point.
That's funny I've had never seen Black Hat's sigs. It has always been blocked by the custom CSS of FireFox

I don't see anything wrong with this rule except longer immigration queues. Most, if not all, American citizens have been fingerprinted and photographed sometime in the past. Why not foreign visitors? After all, America isn't their country. There isn't a good reason why an organization such as the U.S. Government shouldn't maintain at least a minimum profile of visitors for security and fairness.

Saving bandwidth...

A little article i did read last week said something like this:

"Terrosists think the newlong cue lines and crowded airports are good targets, al lot of damage could be done with some small explosives. The terrorists don't even have to enter the country anymore.....
New technologies and more security personnel will be used to shorten the cue lines."

Then there was this "accident" in the uk with an reporter who could easily enter an airport and walk around freely in all the restricted areas.

A week later the belgium TV showed an documentary from an other Reporter which showed that the reporter put some grey clay (this could be easily some C4 explosives) in a food-cart used by the cabine personnel. And he had time to film it too, also the guy had No Security training whatsoever, he lied about his studies and noone had checked on it.
He proofed to me that whoever who fits in a security suit is able to enter all different kind of areas on an airport and do all different kind off damage. So even more security guards are needed to check on the security guys, so the chance of more security guys with bad credentials will enter the airports, again more checking is needed, more personnel is added.....and so on.


I don't think that criminallizing people from other countries, or ten security guys for each passenger will make a country more secure. Especially when a country sells everything you need to make trouble and do damage in almost any shopping mall.

Securing you buildings, make it possible for people to leave very fast when something does happen, increasing the strengh of targets and stuff like that makes much more sense in my eyes.

just my 2c

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

Being fingerprinted and photographed isn't criminalization. C'mon... get real.

I agree, it is not criminalization. However, it has been reserved for criminals, in the past. What I don't like about it, is that it leaves a permanent record, and way of identifying people, that could be given further.

I also find it personally insulting to my wife. She is outraged, and I can't blame her. Even the Germans, with their Orderliness and law-crazy society, respects Personal Privacy Laws, in this respect.

Just another step, in a long series of steps, back to 1984.

This is not the America that I served, and fought a war for.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

^and that says it all.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

I fail to see how this invades anyone's privacy. What exactly do you/your wife think they are going to do with these photos and fingerprints, sell them on eBay? Do you think while they're fingerprinting you they're going to slip some implant under your fingernails that will allow them to track your every move?

It's just a photo and a fingerprint folks. It in no way "criminalizes" you; that's just silly. I was fingerprinted several times in elementary school as a safety precaution for missing children/kidnapping kind of things. I was far from incensed.

I don't think this is a bad idea at all.

Oh, and WS: "...and way of identifying people, that could be given further." Care to explain what "given further" means?

:::11oh1:::

(Edited by krets on 10-08-2004 00:09)

They're going to cut out their faces and put them on dirty video tapes and send them to their friends and relatives.

I personally don't really give a crap if someone wants my fingerprint and a picture. I wouldn't unless I was doing something illegal.

Oh wow, they'll know who I am. Big whoop.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
... it leaves a permanent record, and way of identifying people ...

---

Yea, that's a good thing. Names do that too which is why a newborn is usually given one.

quote:

---

I also find it personally insulting to my wife.

---

Now, are you insulted or are just observing that your wife is insulted? Either way, why would one be insulted?

quote:

---

She is outraged, and I can't blame her.

---

Why is she outraged? You can blame her for being outraged because, y'know, emotions are singular.

quote:

---

Even the Germans, with their Orderliness and law-crazy society, respects Personal Privacy Laws, in this respect.

---

Okay... that has nothing to do with the topic...

quote:

---

This is not the America that I served, and fought a war for.

---

Yes, it is. Your opinion has only changed.

Well, then let me spell it out for you all.

I used to work in a business, where tracking down people was part of the job. Stuff like this just makes it easier. You are also not really thinking, further than the borders of the US, which is pretty typical.

Some things, that are not considered illegal in the US, might be in other countries, and vice versa. Can anyone say, with 100% certainty, that such information is going to be protected?

What about the potiential for abuse?

Meta -

quote:

---

Yea, that's a good thing. Names do that too which is why a newborn is usually given one.

---

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you. A name itself, doesn't allow one to track much down, really. Unless it is a really unusual name. The name John Smith in america will get you nowhere fast.

Krets, you were once a schoolteacher...you know about the Constitution, and about history. I would have hoped you would have a much better understanding, of where I am coming from. Apparently not. Sad.

Be it as it may, I'm out of this thread. Maybe it will happen to one of you. And maybe, you will be the one concerned. As if it is going to stop terrorists from blowing themselves up. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. They'll just select those, who have no prior records.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

The fact that there are so many people who see no harm in this worries me, really worries me. I can only imagine that they have become so desensitized to it, by being catalogued, assessed, processed and "herded" into governmentally defined catagories since birth, that they think it is normal.
I can totally understand the need for vigilant security in these troubled times, but this is not the way.
People often try to justify this by saying if you are not breaking the law then you have nothing to hide or worry about.
The law changes every day, you do not know what will happen in the future. How long ago was it illegal to drink alcohol in the USA? A few years ago I could take a bull terrier for a walk on a lead legally. Now I have to mussel it or I can be arrested. The law changes all the time.
These may be bad examples (I have a gift for bad examples) but, from where I stand, I see personal liberties and freedom being eroded almost an a daily basis.


:::tao::: ::cell::

(Edited by Tao on 10-09-2004 01:16)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Some things, that are not considered illegal in the US, might be in other countries, and vice versa. Can anyone say, with 100% certainty, that such information is going to be protected? What about the potiential for abuse?

---

That's a laughable argument. The U.S. government already has a photographic record of nearly every U.S. citizen that has obtained an identification card or driver's license at least once in their life. If U.S. citizens are required to submit information about themselves to their government, non-citizens should be subject to even more scrutiny. The fingerprints taken allow governmental agencies to identify those marked by Interpol (and foreign intelligence/police services). This therefore helps to aid foreign relations as well as protect us, the citizens, from threats.

quote:

---

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you. A name itself, doesn't allow one to track much down, really. Unless it is a really unusual name. The name John Smith in america will get you nowhere fast.

---

Well, you often say stupid things and this will just be added to your collection. You said that this method of recording U.S. visitors is a method for leaving "a permanent record and a way of identifying people." Names do the same thing. You're the one who added the tracking attribute to your argument after I made the last statement. I only said that names leave a permanent record and names are a way of identification.

quote:

---

Krets, you were once a schoolteacher...you know about the Constitution, and about history. I would have hoped you would have a much better understanding, of where I am coming from. Apparently not. Sad.

---

You don't need to work or have worked in education in order to know U.S. history. In fact, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are posted on the U.S. Congress's Web site which is available for all to see and read. Moreover, nowhere in either document is mentioned that photographs and fingerprints are "personal insults" or invasions of privacy.

quote:

---

Be it as it may, I'm out of this thread.

---

Good because it's quite clear that you lack rational or even semi-intelligent arguments to support your cockamamie ideas about privacy.

quote:

---

Tao said:

The fact that there are so many people who see no harm in this worries me, really worries me. I can only imagine that they have become so desensitized to it, by being catalogued, assessed, processed and "herded" into governmentally defined catagories since birth, that they think it is normal.

---

It is normal. Categorization is a natural cognitive process. We use it constantly to determine right from wrong, west from east, idiot from intellectual, Arab from Israeli, Italian from Russian, glass from plastic, etc. Categorization is used in graphic design, in advertising, in marketing, and in all facets of life.

quote:

---

I can totally understand the need for vigilant security in these troubled times, but this is not the way.

---

So you think non-Americans are righted to freely trespass into United States territory without being subjected to any scrutiny? That's silly. Non-citizens are permitted entry; they aren't righted and they are not subject to the same rights as citizens.

quote:

---

The law changes every day, you do not know what will happen in the future. How long ago was it illegal to drink alcohol in the USA? A few years ago I could take a bull terrier for a walk on a lead legally. Now I have to mussel it or I can be arrested. The law changes all the time. These may be bad examples (I have a gift for bad examples) but, from where I stand, I see personal liberties and freedom being eroded almost an a daily basis.

---

You're right. The future is forever unknown so cease assuming what it may hold for civil liberties.

just out of curiosity, i wonder how the members of this forum define "the right to privacy?" what do you think that means? what "rights" need to be private?

i'll start the list...

1. what happens in our bedroom (our sex life)
2. how we vote
3. what happens in our homes
4. our conversations
a. on the telephone
b. in our mail
c. in our email + email address
d. live and in person
7. who we talk to
8. whether or not we wear underwear
9. who we use for isp service (in rl - obviously ip is viewable to many on the internet *while* we are connected.)
10. which credit cards we have
11. how much we are in debt
12. how much we spend and who or what we spend it on (except at tax time :p )
13. what we drink and how much
14. what we eat and how much
15. who we like and don't like
16. how often we bathe
17. who does our laundry
18. where we vacation/holiday
19. if we have a religion
a. if we practice that religion...
...

I think claims of right to privacy are only valid when that which is private does not contradict the laws of the State in which the claimant resides. Some examples...

* You have a right to privacy in the bedroom if you're not using children to produce pornographic media or raping men/women, etc.
* You have a right to privacy in discussion through any medium as long as such discussion does not involve plots to murder with intent to perform according to the plot, etc.

Privacy is a subjective and sensitive issue. Some people would maintain that their right to privacy is being infringed when they are required to "show themselves" when they enter another person's home but I say that's rubbish.

You're one smart fella metahuman, you certainly put me in my place eh?
You managed to quote my whole previous post, cut and pasted each paragraph, and still read your own twisted interpretation into it!
After enlightening me about the "normal" cognitive process in such an arrogant manner

quote:

---

Categorization is a natural cognitive process. We use it constantly to determine right from wrong, west from east, idiot from intellectual, Arab from Israeli, Italian from Russian, glass from plastic, etc. Categorization is used in graphic design, in advertising, in marketing, and in all facets of life.

---

Oh, you really thought needed to hear that?

You say

quote:

---

So you think non-Americans are righted to freely trespass into United States territory without being subjected to any scrutiny? That's silly. Non-citizens are permitted entry; they aren't righted and they are not subject to the same rights as citizens.

---

Where did I say that fella? Well ?
Metamouth strikes again.

:::tao::: ::cell::

quote:

---

metahuman said
I think claims of right to privacy are only valid when that which is private does not contradict the laws of the State in which the claimant resides. Some examples...

---

sometimes the laws need changing.. not using children is positive, yet there were (and may yet be) laws which prohibit certain sexual acts between consenting adult partners. why should what consenting adults do sexually be the business of the government?

quote:

---

Some people would maintain that their right to privacy is being infringed when they are required to "show themselves" when they enter another person's home...

---

say what? you mean like a thief?

Actually, my image and my fingerprints are my property. I don't know about other countries, but in France your image/voice/fingerprints/... can not be used without your conscent. I understand I have to and fully agree to provide them to get/renew my ID card in my country but I don't want to give them to another government. My ID/passeport is quite enough to identify me at the borders and airports. I know this new law also affect the short term trips that don't need a VISA, but when a VISA is needed you have to identify yourself at the embassy and give the reasons and proofs of validity of your trip, so if the US government wants to check every single person going in their country, why don't they simply require a VISA for everybody ? And as Tyberius Prime said above, I don't want to go through some processes that are applied to criminals. What about the innocence presumption.



(Edited by poi on 10-09-2004 14:12)

poi, i believe that is also true in the u.s. that our voice and image are private, otherwise celebrities and other actors wouldn't be able to sue those who use their images/voice without their consent.

As paranoid as I tend to be, and as much as I despise increased government control....

I just can't manage to find a real issue with this...

*why* should the government not have solid information on who is crossing the national borders? Why is this in any way invading your privacy? If you're here, and you need to document that you're here, why is it any more invasive, insulting, angering, or anything else to have that documentation verified?

They can scan your bags, search your body, question you all day long, but documenting your identity is problematic?

I really can't see the issue here.

quote:

---

Tao said:

You're one smart fella metahuman, you certainly put me in my place eh?

---

Yes, I sure am and I sure did. Such is evident because the only response you could proffer was ad hominem.

quote:

---

poi said:

Actually, my image and my fingerprints are my property. I don't know about other countries, but in France your image/voice/fingerprints/... can not be used without your conscent.

---

French law is irrelevant. If you're entering the U.S., you must abide by U.S. laws and regulations. In contract law we have what's called an implied-in-fact contract. That's a contract to which you agree based on your behavior. You enter into an implied-in-fact contract by entering the United States.

quote:

---

I don't want to go through some processes that are applied to criminals. What about the innocence presumption.

---

Still, you fail to comprehend that being processed through more thorough identification processes is not criminalization.

When you travel overseas (or even within your own country) you've already given up far more valuable information for tracking you down than what a photo or fingerprint would provide. Passport information, other identification, addresses, phone numbers, and possibly even credit card information. All of that is easily available to any government office that might request it from an airline.

I'm still not clear on exactly why WS thinks this is such a huge abuse of privacy since he has never given any solid reason besides "potential for abuse." If you don't give the government any reason to track you down why would they waste the money and manpower to do it? If you do give them reason, I think it's a good idea to have as much information as possible about you.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

:::11oh1:::

I'll go with krets on this, as long as the information is very clearly defined for what it can be used for in court, and everyone is made aware of it before they travel. These new regulations arn't made to prosecute travellers for small offences they might commit while in the country, and we'll have to trust the court system to make sure the power isn't abused (lets hold judgement on the law enforcement - until they actually do something wrong, so no claiming potential for abuse).

Seriously, you have no problem with a government keeping tabs on something as private as how much its citizens earn, for the purpose of penalizing them for earning it? But you find something wrong with taking pictures of non-citizens entering the country. That's backwards logic. Even if fingerprinting/photographing was unconstitutional, the constitution should protect the citizens of the United States, not those of the United Kingdom.

There are far more serious issues to deal with, than rules of entering the country.

quote:

---

krets said: As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

---

That about sums it up.

I really don't think it is entirely necessary though . . . I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. That would only be common sense, but I suppose something like that is not viable in todays politically correct infested world. You would violate less people's privacy that way, all while accomplishing the same goal.

Ramasax

Ramasax, I think that last statement;

quote:

---

I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. That would only be common sense, but I suppose something like that is not viable in todays politically correct infested world. You would violate less people's privacy that way, all while accomplishing the same goal.

---

is outrageous and saddens me greatly. Unless of course I have misunderstood you, and indeed, what would be the racial profile of 99% of the worlds terrorists?
I live in the UK, if I had a criminal record of any description, it would already be accessible to those agencies in the US or Europe who deal with serious crime and combating terrorist activities. If I had a criminal record, my fingerprints would already be "on file".
I realise I seem to be in the minority here, indeed most of my immediate family see nothing wrong in being fingerprinted if one is going to the US, I just believe it is not the path down which we should be going.
Just recently while on a night out with a group of friends in Liverpool city centre, I was shocked to find that we were all to be seached (body and belongings) before we could enter some nightclubs, about four in all. I refused to be treated like this, and made some polite excuses to my friends and left the "party".
The search was mainly for drugs I believe but I will not tolerate this kind of thing, I'll quite happily not bother going to places that enforce such restrictions.
If I really needed to go to another country, then I would follow the customs/laws dictated by that country. That does not mean I like them or think that they are right.
Tao

quote:

---

...is outrageous and saddens me greatly. Unless of course I have misunderstood you, and indeed, what would be the racial profile of 99% of the worlds terrorists?

---

Do you really need to ask this questions Tao? I think you know the answer. . . If you say you don't you either (a) live under a rock or (b) are deluding yourself.

I'm sorry my POV saddens you, but what is truly outrageous to me is that we are searching 75 year old women and 12 year old children and now, as far as many are concerned, we are violating the privacy rights of everyone entering the country. Why waste the resources when we know exactly what the profiles of the perps are.

Why inconvenience everyone when we are truly on the lookout for a small minority of a certain group, namingly Arabs? This is not racism, but common sense.

Back in April, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines [in the U.S.] if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, because that's discriminatory."

Hmm...is 19 more than two? That train of thought, to me, is incredibly foolish and dangerous, and will cost us dearly in the end.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-10-2004 18:15)

Anyone who thinks you can racially profile 99% of all terrorists is foolish. Terrorists come in all colors and races.

The IRA has been a major terrorist threat in the UK for decades and they're all white.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Islamic terrorists, those currently the biggest threat to the US, those who would use any devastating device they can get their hands on, who believe it is a sin under their religion not to aquire those devices, come in primarily one color, one race, and one religion! This is not foolish, it is fact.

We are talking threats to the US here aren't we? Is the IRA a threat to the US? Were they responsible for the bombing of the WTC in '93, attack on the USS Cole, do I need to give you a full run-down of recent (last 2 decades) of terrorist attacks/kidnappings/hijackings/beheadings on US and US interests around the world and who has been responsible?

Once again, common sense vs. inconveniencing every person who enters our borders.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-10-2004 19:25)

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030514c2.html - so you do know better than your own goverment, ramasax?

quote:

---

The Real IRA is a militant group that seeks to end British rule in Northern Ireland and bring about the political incorporation of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.

---

Yes the IRA is a terrorist organization, but they are not the problem which faces the US right here and right now. The simple fact of the matter is that Islamic terrorists, made up primarily of Arab Muslims are what we in the US have to worry about and we should direct our efforts there.

That's my $.02, take it or leave it, I don't care.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Islamic terrorists, those currently the biggest threat to the US, those who would use any devastating device they can get their hands on, who believe it is a sin under their religion not to aquire
those devices, come in primarily one color, one race, and one religion! This is not foolish, it is fact.

---

The greatest threat to any empire is its citizenry, not terrorism or foreign powers. Terrorism originating from foreign regions that target local citizenry is not at all the "biggest threat" to the U.S. despite the events that transpired on 9/11. 9/11 converted many Americans' ignorance of international terrorism to ignorant paranoia of international terrorism. Today's power players merely use that senseless paranoia to move up the hierarchy of power into positions of influence. The paranoia of terrorism has thus far succeeded in the sacrifice of some civil liberties for the illusion of national security, which actually works as a detriment to terroristic attack due to the ignorance of national security that terrorists seem to possess, rather than provide actual national security. Today I attended the Chrysler Classic car races on a Navy base in San Diego. Wearing glasses, I was able to sneak items beyond the entry checkpoint within my glasses case. Those items were my car keys and some coins but imagine if what was contained in that case were explosives. At airports, the X-Ray scanners do not scan your entire body. In fact, the scan stops right above your ankles and thus allows passengers to quickly shuffle their feet beyond the scanner without being scrutinized. Imagine if such shoes contained explosives as in a past incident. Most of our coastal borders are unprotected from underwater attack. Terroristic divers could easily infiltrate the U.S. and perform their duties or plant explosives on harbored ships. Fortunately, most terrorists tend to lack the knowledge required to perform truly devastating attacks. The destruction of the Twin Towers could not be considered an intelligent attack because the attack consisted of the mere crashing of two explosive vehicles into two static structures. Moreover, those terrorists intended to knock the towers into each other as though they were trees. That is the "immense threat" with which we are dealing with: a group of savages most experienced with unsophisticated vehicular bombs.

By the way, the attack on the USS Cole was not the product of terrorists since the USS Cole is a valid military target. It was spun as a terroristic attack for obvious political reasons. Unfortunately, the spinners failed to realize that the attack on the USS Cole was a declaration of war, which is probably the reason terrorist groups like al-Qaida claimed before 9/11 that they are at war with the United States. Incompetence caused 9/11 and nobody was fired... except Bill Maher and perhaps Dennis Miller. Since the aforementioned declaration of war was mostly ignored, one could argue, considering the process-oriented culture of the Muslims (e.g., inconsistent warfare (e.g., opposing sides break for religious tradition, hit n' run tactics, no large-scale 24/7 engagements like Western nations)), that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a result of the ongoing "terrorists"-U.S. war. Some would counter, "But they're terrorists because they attacked civilians!" So did Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. Before Churchill, wars were primarily fought between opposing armies and efforts were made to decrease and prevent civilian casualties. In the American Revolution, for example, opposing armies agreed upon battlefields which were not near large populations of non-combatants. In World War II, Churchill felt he had insight into Hitler's thinking and ordered the bombing of Dresden in Germany. Of course, this was not only a strategic move which influenced Hitler to move his troops into a strategically unsound position but also a political action to impress Stalin, stop Germany (Britain's rival at the time), and make certain the Soviets would seize a dead city. Still, it was Churchill that began the trend of "area bombing" (tactic invented by British Air Marshal Arthur Harris) civilian centers and nearly every war-involved nation has followed his lead since.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-11-2004 10:41)

quote:

---

metahuman: Still, you fail to comprehend that being processed through more thorough identification processes is not criminalization

---

Yes, but I'm not the only one.

quote:

---

krets said: As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

---

Indeed, that's another reason that make me reluctant to go the US.

quote:

---

ramasax: I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. (...)

---

Wow! This is really insulting and criminalizing. That's amazing to still hear that sort of garbage. Wake up, the time where there was a separate queue for black people is gone ! And it's not time to create a separate queue for different people.

If that group of people fits the bill then why the hell not? You are just being stupid if you can't recognize that.

And you are "just" being racist by doing a discrimination ( and criminilazition ) based on ethnic and/or religious criterias. That's absolutely amazing.

Ramasax: You don't seem to understand that not all terrorists look alike. Reality isn't Counter-Strike.