Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:50:33 GMT, Martin WY wrote:

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! :-)

More than a few I reckon. For many people it is only the current
collapsed US dollar and give away air fares that entices them to visit
the place.
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:50:33 GMT, Martin WY wrote:

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! :-)

More than a few I reckon. For many people it is only the current
collapsed US dollar and give away air fares that entices them to visit
the place.
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:56:29 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:41:04 on
Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Binyamin Dissen
remarked:
Fail to see how refusing to admit your racist ilk into the USA is a form of
persecution.

I'm not racist, unless "American Citizens" are suddenly a race, which
seems unlikely as they have had their own racist policies against blacks
that were US citizens.

You are wasting your time 'debating' with that one, Roland. He is an
extreme right nut-case. He starts calling people names as a defence
mechanism when he feels cornered. I see he has called you a racist. If
he hasn't already, then he will probably label you anti-semitic too,
that's his usual pattern, all part of his attempt to cover his own
bigotry. Enjoy!
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:46:22 -0500, nobody wrote:

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

Detention is against rules of international airside management.

Snag is, you've invented these "rules".

They do not actually exist.

You have no jurisdiction to detain someone airside.

Absolute, categoric, nonsense.

He must be allowed landside before
your police can arrest people and detain them.

Again, total fabrication.

If your theory were even vaguely accurate, nations wouldn't be able to
intercept and force down intruder aircraft (which they do), and (for
that matter) wouldn't be able to do anything about illegal fishing in
territorial waters.

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.

Don't lie to try to support your feeble biases.

The Patriot Act, although troubling, doesn't permit police to bypass
the judicial system. It can't. Congress cannot make such
legislation.

Although I suspect you to be uninterested in any facts which don't
support your biases, a rational legal analysis of the USA Patriot Act
can be found here www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf (and FAS is
anything but a mouthpiece for the government), and the implications on
the act on immigration can be found beginning on the 52nd page --
anything approximating your allegations cannot, since they don't
actually exist.

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.

Fabrication, and untrue.

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).

Dream on!

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

Yes. And...?

That's a case where the individual is inadmissable, and French policy
prohibits them from repatriating him to his country of origin.

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.

Have you ever *been* to an airport?

It doesn't appear that you have...

Here's a free clue: compare and contrast the fire exits in an airport
with that of a true secure facility!

Malc.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:46:22 -0500, nobody wrote:

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

Detention is against rules of international airside management.

Snag is, you've invented these "rules".

They do not actually exist.

You have no jurisdiction to detain someone airside.

Absolute, categoric, nonsense.

He must be allowed landside before
your police can arrest people and detain them.

Again, total fabrication.

If your theory were even vaguely accurate, nations wouldn't be able to
intercept and force down intruder aircraft (which they do), and (for
that matter) wouldn't be able to do anything about illegal fishing in
territorial waters.

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.

Don't lie to try to support your feeble biases.

The Patriot Act, although troubling, doesn't permit police to bypass
the judicial system. It can't. Congress cannot make such
legislation.

Although I suspect you to be uninterested in any facts which don't
support your biases, a rational legal analysis of the USA Patriot Act
can be found here www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf (and FAS is
anything but a mouthpiece for the government), and the implications on
the act on immigration can be found beginning on the 52nd page --
anything approximating your allegations cannot, since they don't
actually exist.

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.

Fabrication, and untrue.

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).

Dream on!

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

Yes. And...?

That's a case where the individual is inadmissable, and French policy
prohibits them from repatriating him to his country of origin.

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.

Have you ever *been* to an airport?

It doesn't appear that you have...

Here's a free clue: compare and contrast the fire exits in an airport
with that of a true secure facility!

Malc.

In message , at 12:10:21 on
Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

Your book is idiotic, then.

There's a difference between *being* a subversive person, and being
thought likely to become one.

It's my understanding that the American authorities thought he *was* a
subversive person (hence the "guilty"), but obviously there's the
possibility that he wouldn't have indulged in any such activity on that
particular trip (so only "likely" to have done so).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:10:21 on
Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
In my book that's "guilty of being a subversive person".

Your book is idiotic, then.

There's a difference between *being* a subversive person, and being
thought likely to become one.

It's my understanding that the American authorities thought he *was* a
subversive person (hence the "guilty"), but obviously there's the
possibility that he wouldn't have indulged in any such activity on that
particular trip (so only "likely" to have done so).
--
Roland Perry

Sjoerd wrote:

"Gregory Morrow" schreef in
bericht ink.net...
Not to worry - Sjoerd and his ilk prefer holidaying in such paragons of
human rights as Myanmar and Cuba...

The difference of course being that the people of Myanmar and Cuba can not
be blamed for the government they have, whereas the majority of voting
Americans have just voluntarily re-elected a war criminal.



In what court was this "war criminal" convicted, Sjoerd...???

--
Best
Greg

Sjoerd wrote:

"Gregory Morrow" schreef in
bericht ink.net...
Not to worry - Sjoerd and his ilk prefer holidaying in such paragons of
human rights as Myanmar and Cuba...

The difference of course being that the people of Myanmar and Cuba can not
be blamed for the government they have, whereas the majority of voting
Americans have just voluntarily re-elected a war criminal.



In what court was this "war criminal" convicted, Sjoerd...???

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" schreef in
bericht k.net...

In what court was this "war criminal" convicted, Sjoerd...???


In the same court that his illegal prisoners in Guantanamo were convicted.
In other words: there hasn't been a proper legal process yet.

However, Bush has already lost his case in the world's public opinion.

Sjoerd