View Full Version : Pakastani Politician Detained By US Customs Over Opposition To Drone Strikes
ElNono
10-28-2012, 02:19 PM
"According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/detention-imran-khan-drones). Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"
Winehole23
10-28-2012, 03:02 PM
embarrass the US government, be detained to explain your views to concerned US officials. fucking bullshit.
Winehole23
10-28-2012, 03:06 PM
I wonder how often this sort of thing happens to US citizens.
Good, cause an American official would be beheaded in his country if he voiced opposition to government acts.
lol "I'm opposed to drone strikes against the Taliban, but it's OK for a group of insurgent rebels to shoot a child in the head for wanting to be educated."
Oh the outrage.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 05:48 PM
Good, cause an American official would be beheaded in his country if he voiced opposition to government acts.
So that makes it allright?
boutons_deux
10-28-2012, 05:50 PM
I wonder how high up the order to intimidate and harass him came from?
So that makes it allright?
Makes it alright with me.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 06:29 PM
Makes it alright with me.
What other freedoms should we relinquish because the bad guys do it too?
dbestpro
10-28-2012, 06:55 PM
What other freedoms should we relinquish because the bad guys do it too?
Sine 9/11 I'd say we already have quite a list.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 07:26 PM
I thought Greenwald put it nicely:
Strictly on pragmatic grounds, it seems quite ill-advised to subject the most popular leader in Pakistan - the potential next Prime Minister - to trivial, vindictive humiliations of this sort. It is also a breach of the most basic diplomatic protocol: just imagine the outrage if a US politician were removed from a plane by Pakistani officials in order to be questioned about their publicly expressed political views.
Spurminator
10-28-2012, 09:04 PM
Makes it alright with me.
America, striving to be the greatest country in the world (compared to the worst.)
What other freedoms should we relinquish because the bad guys do it too?
To the bad guys? All of them. Pakistani politicians should not have Constitutional rights here. Anyone who wants to concern themselves with how Pakistan's politicians get treated in the US, just go there and voice your opinions. See you on Rotten Tomatoes.
boutons_deux
10-28-2012, 09:12 PM
USA does unto to others as other better not do unto USA
USA is exceptional
USA does unto to others as other better not do unto USA
USA is exceptional
There's always Canada. You already have the name.
FYI, the world isn't a democracy. We got here because we killed everyone who opposed us.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 09:32 PM
To the bad guys? All of them. Pakistani politicians should not have Constitutional rights here.
The US Constitution makes no such exclusion, and the SCOTUS has been clear repeatedly that they indeed are protected (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Wong Wing v. U.S, Plyler v. Doe, etc)
Anyone who wants to concern themselves with how Pakistan's politicians get treated in the US, just go there and voice your opinions. See you on Rotten Tomatoes.
How they treat people in their country is entirely immaterial to this discussion. They have their own laws and ways of doing things.
Here in the US we're supposed to respect our laws and our Constitution. Reciprocity has never been a requirement to apply the law.
I mean, this is an alleged ally we're talking about. This is how we treat our allies? At the very least it's a diplomatic epic fail.
The US Constitution makes no such exclusion, and the SCOTUS has been clear repeatedly that they indeed are protected (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Wong Wing v. U.S, Plyler v. Doe, etc)
So? I didn't say they aren't protected. I say they should not be. Do I need case law to support an opinion?
How they treat people in their country is entirely immaterial to this discussion. They have their own laws and ways of doing things.
Not at all. Eye for an eye. That's their religion and it should not offend them when we follow their lead. How they treat people matters very much. I believe you get what you give. I don't believe in some facade of showing how much better we are as a society by allowing these fuckers the freedoms in our country they deny others in their own.
Here in the US we're supposed to respect our laws and our Constitution. Reciprocity has never been a requirement to apply the law.
I mean, this is an alleged ally we're talking about. This is how we treat our allies? At the very least it's a diplomatic disaster.
Ally? lol
We went into their airspace, attacked a home in their country and killed a man they were harboring. Not something you do to an ally. If my friend was protecting a man who killed my family, he's no longer my friend. Let's not get sanctimonious here. Even you and I don't get the benefit of the doubt. We get held for just about anything.
I cannot follow the "we are pious" line of reasoning when everything in our history says otherwise.
ChumpDumper
10-28-2012, 09:41 PM
USA is exceptionalNot if DMC gets his way.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 10:05 PM
So? I didn't say they aren't protected. I say they should not be. Do I need case law to support an opinion?
You certainly do not.
Not at all. Eye for an eye. That's their religion and it should not offend them when we follow their lead. How they treat people matters very much. I believe you get what you give. I don't believe in some facade of showing how much better we are as a society by allowing these fuckers the freedoms in our country they deny others in their own.
Well, I disagree. We're supposed to be better (or at least strive to be) and you're that by actually acting like it every day. Leading by example. Lowering your standards to theirs simply validates their methods.
Ally? lol
We went into their airspace, attacked a home in their country and killed a man they were harboring. Not something you do to an ally. If my friend was protecting a man who killed my family, he's no longer my friend. Let's not get sanctimonious here. Even you and I don't get the benefit of the doubt. We get held for just about anything.
While I agree that our alliance stems more from necessity than anything else, they're indeed our allies until told differently.
I cannot follow the "we are pious" line of reasoning when everything in our history says otherwise.
Well, we certainly like to claim the moral high ground.
Well, I disagree. We're supposed to be better (or at least strive to be) and you're that by actually acting like it every day. Leading by example. Lowering your standards to theirs simply validates their methods.
So if a man takes a shot at you, you don't fire back. You instead make him a sandwich.
While I agree that our alliance stems more from necessity than anything else, they're indeed our allies until told differently.
Wrong. We don't need to be told which nations get the bullshit term "ally" when we are bombing the fuck out of their borders and carrying out incursions within their borders. It's common sense.
Regardless, even if they were our allies, if the UK government accepted that some rebel factions were killing children who wanted education or if they were harboring OBL and wouldn't allow us inside to check, do you think we would just sip tea and eat crumpets and talk about fox hunts? We wouldn't treat them like allies. That's how you show your mettle, not by how you pretend to suck them off.
Well, we certainly like to claim the moral high ground.
I don't. I like to claim the "walk softly and carry a big stick" ground.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 10:23 PM
So if a man takes a shot at you, you don't fire back. You instead make him a sandwich.
Why would I do that? Self-defense is legal in this country. What's not legal is kidnapping somebody (American or not) for two hours because they said something I didn't like.
Wrong. We don't need to be told which nations get the bullshit term "ally" when we are bombing the fuck out of their borders and carrying out incursions within their borders. It's common sense.
This isn't up for discussion. The US considers Pakistan an ally. As a matter of fact, we hand them a shitload of money every year to make sure we buy their allegiance. You or I might not like it or agree with it, but that's irrelevant.
I don't. I like to claim the "walk softly and carry a big stick" ground.
The country does.
Latarian Milton
10-28-2012, 10:26 PM
So? I didn't say they aren't protected. I say they should not be. Do I need case law to support an opinion?
Not at all. Eye for an eye. That's their religion and it should not offend them when we follow their lead. How they treat people matters very much. I believe you get what you give. I don't believe in some facade of showing how much better we are as a society by allowing these fuckers the freedoms in our country they deny others in their own.
Ally? lol
We went into their airspace, attacked a home in their country and killed a man they were harboring. Not something you do to an ally. If my friend was protecting a man who killed my family, he's no longer my friend. Let's not get sanctimonious here. Even you and I don't get the benefit of the doubt. We get held for just about anything.
I cannot follow the "we are pious" line of reasoning when everything in our history says otherwise.
DMC with the usual goods. pakis ain't never an ally of US, nor is any other country (israel included) in the middle east has ever been an ally of us. muslims are taught to hate each other that's why they never stopped fighting in that area, hence it's supposedly very hard for them to befriend any peace-loving people like americans
if there's something in the muslim culture that i can appreciate, that is their treatment to females. it's a dick and a brain that makes a man different than a woman tbh
Why would I do that? Self-defense is legal in this country. What's not legal is kidnapping somebody (American or not) for two hours because they said something I didn't like.
It's not about legal. It's legal to detain obviously. It's about right. How much better are we than anyone else if we simply abide by the law without thought to right or wrong?
This isn't up for discussion. The US considers Pakistan an ally. As a matter of fact, we hand them a shitload of money every year to make sure we buy their allegiance. You or I might not like it or agree with it, but that's irrelevant.
We hand a lot of countries money. It's not about what we are told by our government, but about what we see. We don't see ally treatment. I am not an idiot so I don't parrot terms just because someone in an "official capacity" says that's how it is. Ally has a definition and it's not simply up to what someone says. I can say you are my friend but if I am trying to kill you, do you consider that I might not really feel that way? Would you still say you are my friend? "I must be his friend, he said I was"
The country does.The country is a piece of land. I haven't spoken to "the country" so I don't know how you could know what they collectively think or say. I have not read an official statement claiming moral high ground and since you are using anonymous sources, that would be required to remain consistent. Where is this "moral high ground" document? Who do you consider to be "the country"?
Spurminator
10-28-2012, 10:45 PM
It's "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I can see how your confusion over the actual quote has allowed your ideology to divert so far from its meaning.
ElNono
10-28-2012, 11:04 PM
It's not about legal. It's legal to detain obviously. It's about right. How much better are we than anyone else if we simply abide by the law without thought to right or wrong?
Not so obvious. No authority can detain you for exercising your free speech rights, except for very narrow and specific circumstances (ie: yelling bomb in a public place).
Moral dilemmas don't supersede the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The law should apply the same to all. If it doesn't, then that clause is being violated. I mean, if Congress wants to do away with that with a Constitutional amendment, they could. But so far they have not, and thus every person should be subject to it.
We hand a lot of countries money. It's not about what we are told by our government, but about what we see. We don't see ally treatment. I am not an idiot so I don't parrot terms just because someone in an "official capacity" says that's how it is. Ally has a definition and it's not simply up to what someone says. I can say you are my friend but if I am trying to kill you, do you consider that I might not really feel that way? Would you still say you are my friend? "I must be his friend, he said I was"
The country is a piece of land. I haven't spoken to "the country" so I don't know how you could know what they collectively think or say. I have not read an official statement claiming moral high ground and since you are using anonymous sources, that would be required to remain consistent. Where is this "moral high ground" document? Who do you consider to be "the country"?
This is silly. You're basically telling me diplomacy doesn't exist. Of course we have, as a country, proper channels to tell the rest of the world who our allies and our enemies are. It's also obviously understood that not all citizens agree with that. That doesn't mean that the "official" stance is any less official. You can count me as another person who thinks the Pakistani alliance has everything to do with keeping control of the nukes they have, and nothing else.
As far as the moral high ground, when you bomb the fuck out of Iraq and change it's government under the guise of "freedom and democracy", you're effectively claiming the moral high ground.
The guy was detained for 2 hours in Canada. How does the Equal Protection clause even come into play?
What you are told is rarely what actually is.
Are you from the middle east originally? You seem to have a biased slant on this. You seem eager to forgive transgressions of the middle east but harp on anything the US government does.
ElNono
10-29-2012, 12:00 AM
The guy was detained for 2 hours in Canada.
He was detained and interrogated by US authorities. There's obviously some cooperation by Canadian authorities, but the actual call to detain him was made entirely by US immigration authorities.
How does the Equal Protection clause even come into play?
That was in response to this statement:
How much better are we than anyone else if we simply abide by the law without thought to right or wrong?
The constitution itself says the law should be applied equally to everybody. There's no moral or reciprocity considerations. It's the law of our land.
Are you from the middle east originally? You seem to have a biased slant on this. You seem eager to forgive transgressions of the middle east but harp on anything the US government does.
No relation whatsoever with the Middle East. I'm also not 'eager' to forgive transgressions by anybody. I personally consider certain people from that part of the world fairly barbaric, but that's beside the point.
I simply think very highly of the US Constitution, and the standards it sets. I find the government being proactive in taking a shit on it fairly offensive.
This specific episode reeks of "free speech is great until you say something we don't like". I don't like it. I don't think that's what free speech is all about. After all, this was a civilian participating in a political process. Not an 'enemy combatant' or such thing.
Your disagreement is noted. I'll simply agree to disagree.
Winehole23
10-29-2012, 02:49 AM
Good, cause an American official would be beheaded in his country if he voiced opposition to government acts.Actually, you're wrong about this. Pakistani authorities do complain about what US diplomats and officials say, not infrequently, but they don't behead them. Or even detain them. Not that I know of.
You got any examples, or are you just talking out of your hat?
Winehole23
10-29-2012, 02:57 AM
Who's been beheaded over the drone attacks?
Pakistan has complained loudly about them, but who got beheaded over it? I dare you to name one person who did.
Winehole23
10-29-2012, 03:00 AM
Certainly wasn't a US diplomat or politician. We'd have heard about that. I bet you can't even name a soldier this happened to within the context of your own remark.
Winehole23
10-29-2012, 03:10 AM
Are you from the middle east originally? El Nono's from Argentina, asshole.
You seem to have a biased slant on this. You seem eager to forgive transgressions of the middle east but harp on anything the US government does.Pakistan ain't the Middle East. It's South Asia, you ignorant fuck. Plus, the Middle East ain't one big undifferentiated thing. But maybe it is to you, though . . .
Everything the US government does ain't right. This is fucking bullshit. But maybe you agree with whatever the party in power does . . .
Wild Cobra
10-29-2012, 04:37 AM
"According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/detention-imran-khan-drones). Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"
I got to the part I bolded before i decide to post, and before reading anything else.
1) Glenn Greenwood...
2) Guardian...
Can I trust the rest to be true?
Wild Cobra
10-29-2012, 04:44 AM
Here is what The Nation says:
Issue of Imran Khan's offloading solved: US State Department (http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/29-Oct-2012/issue-of-imran-khans-offloading-solved-us-state-department)
boutons_deux
10-29-2012, 06:06 AM
He was harassed and intimidated, with State Dept knowledge and approval. "issue was resolved" is meaningless bureaucratic pablum.
ElNono
10-29-2012, 11:20 AM
I got to the part I bolded before i decide to post, and before reading anything else.
1) Glenn Greenwood...
2) Guardian...
Can I trust the rest to be true?
smh
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 03:17 AM
so quick to resort to the ad hominem. just because you distrust the source doesn't refute what it says, WC. that's just where your argument fell down and you fell back on name calling.
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 03:20 AM
you do know that ad hominem counts as a logical fallacy, right?
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 03:23 AM
hell, you distrusting a source that disagrees with you almost counts as an unintentional joke . . .
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 11:58 AM
"According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/detention-imran-khan-drones). Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"
Ok, then, how do we sort out the people who just are opposed to this, and the people who are willing to mow down unarmed civilians with truck bombs over their concern?
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:03 PM
Given the overall rabid tone of virulent anti-Americanism in Pakistan, I personally don't trust anyone coming to the US from that country.
They fucking hate our guts. Set aside any discussion of how/whether this is deserved, that is a reality that we, and the intelligence/security people we employ must deal with.
Sorry the guy missed his flight, but sussing him out on how/why he hates our country before letting him into the country, does not seem unwarranted, nor unreasonable to me.
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 12:12 PM
he was interrogated about his publicly expressed views, and you seem to be begging the question about this guy hating us.
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 12:12 PM
criticizing US policies isn't equipollent to "hating the US"
boutons_deux
10-30-2012, 12:13 PM
"how/why he hates our country before letting him into the country"
who cares? there are plenty of Americans who hate democracy, hate the Constitution, want to overthrow the govt, "take our country back" and they don't get harassed or intimidated, they get encouraged by the Repugs/VRWC/Fox.
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 12:14 PM
that said, Pakistan has some legit grievances against us. the hatred, if it is that, has been to some extent earned.
Winehole23
10-30-2012, 12:18 PM
gotta say, the notion that all citizens from a particular country should be interrogated before admission to the US based on broadly ascribed attitudes is facially ridiculous and notably embarrassing for any American to espouse, imho.
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:34 PM
criticizing US policies isn't equipollent to "hating the US"
He is also a vehement critic of US drone attacks on his country, vowing to order them shot down if he is Prime Minister and leading an anti-drone protest march last month.
"Whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad," the Guardian quotes Khan saying in what is apparently a line from the Quran. "The people who are fighting in Afghanistan against the foreign occupation are fighting a jihad."
Hating the US? I don't think it is too far, given what I have read of his views.
A bit more background:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/pakistans-imran-khan-must-be-doing-something-right.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/1/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/136430/Default.aspx#136430
While I would have some reservations about the efficacy of questioning him, if it is his first visit, I am not sure I would want to second guess the people responsible.
I would point out that a lot of the people who end up inspiring violence were political/releigious leaders of some sort.
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:36 PM
gotta say, the notion that all citizens from a particular country should be interrogated before admission to the US based on broadly ascribed attitudes is facially ridiculous and notably embarrassing for any American to espouse, imho.
I agree.
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:37 PM
that said, Pakistan has some legit grievances against us. the hatred, ... , has been to some extent earned.
I would agree with this as well.
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:41 PM
he was interrogated about his publicly expressed views
Indeed.
I would point out that the kinds of people we would like screened from entry to the country tend to have publicly expressed views as well.
I will ask you as well.
How do we tell the difference, if not asking them about it?
What makes him different than any other person from parts of the world that Al Qaeda recruits people willing to kill/die?
RandomGuy
10-30-2012, 12:47 PM
. Pakistan['s] .. hatred, if it is that,
It is.
Start here:
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1
Filter on to here from 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22pew.html
and end up in 2012:
74% Call America an Enemy (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2297/pakistan-united-states-extremeist-groups-barack-obama-economic-aid-military-aid-taliban-haqqani-kashmir-khyber-pakhtunkhwa-asi-ali-zardari-yousaf-raza-gilani-imran-khan-tehreek-e-insaf-india)
TeyshaBlue
10-30-2012, 01:29 PM
Given the overall rabid tone of virulent anti-Americanism in Pakistan, I personally don't trust anyone coming to the US from that country.
They fucking hate our guts. Set aside any discussion of how/whether this is deserved, that is a reality that we, and the intelligence/security people we employ must deal with.
Sorry the guy missed his flight, but sussing him out on how/why he hates our country before letting him into the country, does not seem unwarranted, nor unreasonable to me.
I doubt the effectiveness of basically asking "Hey, Mr. Pakistani man. Are you gonna blow something up?" I know that's kinda strawmanish, but it seems to me this is a good case for boots on the ground to watch over the lad.
Wild Cobra
10-31-2012, 03:34 AM
so quick to resort to the ad hominem. just because you distrust the source doesn't refute what it says, WC. that's just where your argument fell down and you fell back on name calling.
Why are you assuming I disagree with the article?
Not trusting the source is not the same as saying it isn't correct now, is it?
If you noticed, I offered no disagreement, and simply asked if I could trust his article.
My God WH. You are one of the few here that I have had respect for, but it keeps diminishing. Why these unfounded attacks against me? I hope you aren't shooting for that LCD (lowest common denominator) aspect that most others here have.
If you notice, I did link a somewhat supporting article to the OP. The Nation most certainly isn't conservative, but I found that as one of a few decent looking pieces.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.