Reply With Quote
embarrass the US government, be detained to explain your views to concerned US officials. ing bull .
"According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan. 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."'"
Last edited by ElNono; 10-28-2012 at 02:26 PM.
embarrass the US government, be detained to explain your views to concerned US officials. ing bull .
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.
So that makes it allright?
I wonder how high up the order to intimidate and harass him came from?
Makes it alright with me.
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.
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.
America, striving to be the greatest country in the world (compared to the worst.)
To the bad guys? All of them. Pakistani politicians should not have Cons utional 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.
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.
The US Cons ution 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)
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 Cons ution. 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.
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 ers the freedoms in our country they deny others in their own.How they treat people in their country is entirely immaterial to this discussion. They have their own laws and ways of doing things.
Ally? lolHere in the US we're supposed to respect our laws and our Cons ution. 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.
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.
Not if DMC gets his way.
You certainly do not.
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.
While I agree that our alliance stems more from necessity than anything else, they're indeed our allies until told differently.
Well, we certainly like to claim the moral high ground.
So if a man takes a shot at you, you don't fire back. You instead make him a sandwich.
Wrong. We don't need to be told which nations get the bull term "ally" when we are bombing the out of their borders and carrying out incursions within their borders. It's common sense.While I agree that our alliance stems more from necessity than anything else, they're indeed our allies until told differently.
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.
I don't. I like to claim the "walk softly and carry a big stick" ground.Well, we certainly like to claim the moral high ground.
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.
This isn't up for discussion. The US considers Pakistan an ally. As a matter of fact, we hand them a load 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.
The country does.
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 and a brain that makes a man different than a woman tbh
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?
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"This isn't up for discussion. The US considers Pakistan an ally. As a matter of fact, we hand them a load 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.
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" do ent? Who do you consider to be "the country"?The country does.
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.
Not so obvious. No authority can detain you for exercising your free speech rights, except for very narrow and specific cir stances (ie: yelling bomb in a public place).
Moral dilemmas don't supersede the Equal Protection Clause of the Cons ution. 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 Cons utional amendment, they could. But so far they have not, and thus every person should be subject to it.
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 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
