Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:08:43 -0500, nobody wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

This is where the USA is blurring the lines. Cat Stevens was not denied entry.

Yes, he was, and pretending otherwise is stupid of you.

He was arrested probablty under suspicious of terrorist activity (patriot act
allows police to arrest anyone without cause by just using that excuse) and
deported back to UK.

You're wrong. Cause is required. And, apparently, it exists, but
they're not telling us what the cause is.

They forced the plane down prematurely, arrested him,
kept him in prison until they could arrange transport back to UK from Maine
where he was held.

You're confused. They detained him in a detention facility.

And then repatriated him.

Denying entry simply means that when person reaches the immigration desk at
her destination airport, the agent refuses entry and she is then accompanied
to the next flight back home.

No, that's how some countries do it, but if the next flight is not
until 7 days, don't delude yourself into thinking that, say, the UK
would NOT detain someone in a secure facility.

That person is not arrested nor kept in a
prison, nor handcuffed nor deprived of any human dignity.

Don't be fatuous. Do you *really* want to allege that if the next
flight is not for a week, the UK would happily let the individual
wander around without restriction?

Are you *that* naive?

Denied entry means
the person never actually enters the USA and thus is never under USA
jurisdiction and is protected under international treaties to which the USA
has agreed to enforce on the airside side of airport.

Interesting in theory, but in practice total nonsense and unsupported
by anything approximating law.

Go read the damn law on the subject. It's not difficult. Here's a
hint: 8 CFR.

Malc.

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:25:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:16:00 on
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Apparently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
absurd.

Not so.

They may have thought him *likely* to do something contrary to the
public interest if they did admit him.

Malc.

Malcolm Weir wrote:

But as an exercise for the reader, note who gets the responsibility
for ensuring that no-one departs the landing place, and consider
whether that individual has any power over anything but the
aircraft...

Now that's an interesting point. "We ain't going to let you off the aircraft
'cause as soon as your feet touch the ground we have no legal authority to keep
you in the area. Just think of it as a detention cell with padded seats."

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:22:11 +0100, "Sjoerd"
wrote:


"Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht
.. .

Obviously the US has other classes (other than "guilty", whatever that is)
of
people that they would prefer not visit the USA.

The US also has more and more classes of people that would prefer not visit
the USA.

Sjoerd

You have just beaten a few of us here to it, with that comment! :-)

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:22:11 +0100, "Sjoerd"
wrote:


"Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht
.. .

Obviously the US has other classes (other than "guilty", whatever that is)
of
people that they would prefer not visit the USA.

The US also has more and more classes of people that would prefer not visit
the USA.

Sjoerd

You have just beaten a few of us here to it, with that comment! :-)

In message , at 10:41:15 on
Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Binyamin Dissen
remarked:

:But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
:though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
:absurd.

:Not so.

:They may have thought him *likely* to do something contrary to the
:public interest if they did admit him.

:In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

Define "guilty".

Assumed by the US authorities to be likely to commit a subversive act.
In other words, being guilty of being a bad person.

I fail to see why the US must admit non-citizens who are neo-nazis or
terrorist sympathizers, despite the fact that a citizen who is a neo-nazi or a
terrorist sympathizer may not be committing a crime and thus would not be
"guilty".

The whole world is beginning to wonder why they need to visit such an
uncharitable and unwelcoming country. Feel free to scare away the
tourist dollars. Ironically, it was a country founded by immigrants
fleeing from persecution, how much it has all changed!!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:41:15 on
Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Binyamin Dissen
remarked:

:But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
:though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
:absurd.

:Not so.

:They may have thought him *likely* to do something contrary to the
:public interest if they did admit him.

:In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

Define "guilty".

Assumed by the US authorities to be likely to commit a subversive act.
In other words, being guilty of being a bad person.

I fail to see why the US must admit non-citizens who are neo-nazis or
terrorist sympathizers, despite the fact that a citizen who is a neo-nazi or a
terrorist sympathizer may not be committing a crime and thus would not be
"guilty".

The whole world is beginning to wonder why they need to visit such an
uncharitable and unwelcoming country. Feel free to scare away the
tourist dollars. Ironically, it was a country founded by immigrants
fleeing from persecution, how much it has all changed!!
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:11:15 +0000 Roland Perry wrote:

:In message , at 10:41:15 on
:Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Binyamin Dissen
:remarked:

::But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
::though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
::absurd.

::Not so.

::They may have thought him *likely* to do something contrary to the
::public interest if they did admit him.

::In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

:Define "guilty".

:Assumed by the US authorities to be likely to commit a subversive act.
:In other words, being guilty of being a bad person.

Your quite silly dodge noted.

:I fail to see why the US must admit non-citizens who are neo-nazis or
:terrorist sympathizers, despite the fact that a citizen who is a neo-nazi or a
:terrorist sympathizer may not be committing a crime and thus would not be
:"guilty".

:The whole world is beginning to wonder why they need to visit such an
:uncharitable and unwelcoming country.

The vast majority of Americans would be glad if you and your ilk kept away.

: Feel free to scare away the
:tourist dollars. Ironically, it was a country founded by immigrants
:fleeing from persecution, how much it has all changed!!

Yes, we were fleeing from your ilk - who were the persecutes.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:11:15 +0000 Roland Perry wrote:

:In message , at 10:41:15 on
:Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Binyamin Dissen
:remarked:

::But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
::though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
::absurd.

::Not so.

::They may have thought him *likely* to do something contrary to the
::public interest if they did admit him.

::In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

:Define "guilty".

:Assumed by the US authorities to be likely to commit a subversive act.
:In other words, being guilty of being a bad person.

Your quite silly dodge noted.

:I fail to see why the US must admit non-citizens who are neo-nazis or
:terrorist sympathizers, despite the fact that a citizen who is a neo-nazi or a
:terrorist sympathizer may not be committing a crime and thus would not be
:"guilty".

:The whole world is beginning to wonder why they need to visit such an
:uncharitable and unwelcoming country.

The vast majority of Americans would be glad if you and your ilk kept away.

: Feel free to scare away the
:tourist dollars. Ironically, it was a country founded by immigrants
:fleeing from persecution, how much it has all changed!!

Yes, we were fleeing from your ilk - who were the persecutes.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
You're confused. They detained him in a detention facility.

Detention is against rules of international airside management. You have no
jurisdiction to detain someone airside. He must be allowed landside before
your police can arrest people and detain them.

And then repatriated him.

Nop. Sionce he was allowed into the USA (with immediate arrest), he was
DEPORTED. He may or may not have been charged with anything, but patriot act
allowed police to treat him as a convicted criminal during the time he was
held sicne patriot act allows police to bypass judicial system.


No, that's how some countries do it, but if the next flight is not
until 7 days, don't delude yourself into thinking that, say, the UK
would NOT detain someone in a secure facility.

They would find the next flight out back towards their origin and arrange for
the passenger transfer securely at that transfer point. This involve
cooperation with airport police/security at the transfer point, and in some
cases also involves hiring specialised people to escort the person all the way
to the tranbsfer point to ensure proper handover to the next flight. (the goal
is not to thros rejects to a 3rd countrty where they may claim asylum).

Consider the case of the guy in Paris who has lived airside for quite some time.

Don't be fatuous. Do you *really* want to allege that if the next
flight is not for a week, the UK would happily let the individual
wander around without restriction?

That is why airside is a secured location. And it woudln't last a week.