There is more than a shade of difference between a serial killer (arguably the worst kind of murderer) and a terrorist or group of terrorists who have the ability to do a trillion dollars worth of economic damage. Even with all the hubub the beltway snipers caused, their economic impact paled in comparison to 9/11.
Oh...so this is not about protecting human lives......but money? Sigh, it always seems to come down to money.
Oh c'mon guys (and Cathy). This is just a case of someone being denied entry because they didn't have a work visa. If she was a tourist it's fine. But working journalist, bass player, line cook...you better have a work visa. It's the law. Period.
I thought the human loss of life disparity between terrorists and serial murderers was so blatantly one sided that it went without saying. Once again serial killers are no comparison to terrorists in the sheer number of humans they are able to kill when they are willing to blow themselves up in the act. IMO There is no way anyone can equate terrorism to murder. Terrorism is much more than murder. The economic impact is important, the heightened terror aspect of terrorism is significant. The number of people a terrorist can take out is enormous. The fact that terrorists are often willing to give up their life to take as many people with them and to do as much damage as they can is significant. If the terrorists had run the planes into 3 nuclear power plants instead of the twin towers and pentagon, and the worst case scenario unfolded, I don't think you would be so quick to place terrorism on the same level as murder even though far fewer people likely would have died from the initial impact.
Or if each of the planes had been carrying even a small amount of anthrax or other biological agent, the total impact would have been much worse. It didn't take much anthrax to wreak havoc on the postal service and to shut down much of the capitol building for a couple of weeks.
I do not understand how one can think that murder and terrorism are not the same thing. Terrorism is when a group pools resources to murder a lot of people. Still murder.
You may or may not suppose this definition correctly for now... but I garauntee it will be extended (broadened) greatly in the coming years. I.E.: A terrosist is anyone who causes fear (terror) in another individual, thereby limiting the freedom of said individual.
So Pabst, if your wife/girlfriend/mother had unwittingly broken the law on entering a foreign country, you would be ok with her getting handcuffed and dragged away in front of other passengers, then strip-searched and detained for half a day like some suspected criminal, all on the say so of some jackbooted Robocop wannabe? If she had just been politely but firmly told to go back home and get the right documents, there would have been no story. It wasn't the denial of entry that was the problem, but the way they treated her. There is a big difference between intentionally committing a crime (i.e. being a criminal), and unintentionally failing to comply with legal requirements (i.e. a normal person who accidentally fell foul of the law). Treating normal citizens as criminals, just because they don't have their "papers" in order, is the sort of thing you expect in some 3rd world police state.
Agreed Cutten, IF we're getting the whole story. My guess is that a lot of typical female yelling and hysteria has been ommited. Except for going to the U.K., Pabst would never leave the good old U.S.A.
On the other hand, in Northern California a guy was allowed on a plane with some black powder and a fuse last week, by the federal security people. They stopped him at first but he gave a story about using the stuff in a movie or something and they let him on the plane. That story got squashed apparently, one of those "now you see it now you don't" stories.