America Does Not Want Foreign Tourism!

Well, the USA has always reserved the right to just tell people at the airport that they won't be admitted - and has apparently not admitted lots of people with no explanation in the past.

I was searched at Heathrow in 1992 (they felt something sharp "in" my handbag - turned out to be a bit of plastic piping that had worked its way out of some trim on the outside!) with no ill-effects to either party, and no resentment on my part.

If your people had legitimate intelligence about something, (unless there was something especially brutal or illegal in how they searched and interrogated people), I would have no resentment or problem with being searched and questioned, and I was/will be a tourist.

Are you over-reacting?

John Webb- You come to some mighty peculiar conclusions. It is a shame that we have to put tourists thru a lot of aggravation when they come to America. If we lose a few tourists, it is certainly better than looking the other way, and allowing a terrorist to come to the U.S.

We are living in strange times, and need to take precautions to prevent tragedies like 9/11.

Dlowan, I do not think mine is an over-reaction. The occasional individual stop and search is normal and understandable. The searching of entire aircraft and luggage, the interrogation of all passengers, all in a blaze of publicity, is very much out of the ordinary.

If permitted to continue, the disincentives to visit America will grow and the damage to tourism and employment, massive.

I believe there is a hidden strategy in operation which, together with a continuing series of other false 'terrorism' alerts, is to progressively place America on a 'War-Footing', using public FEAR to ensure the re-election of the Administration.

However, all at further horrifying cost to the economy and international public relations.

Some evidence of what is being done to tourism (in the interests of the Presidential election campaign?) is indicated in the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/national/01TERR.html?th

I've already abandoned any plans I ever had to visit the US. And considering some of the messages I've sent to the US embassy here, I doubt I'd ever be allowed in anyway.

Wilso, of course, you can come ..... and providing you wear your jackboots, steel helmet, Swastika and say "Heil to der Fuhrer" with regularity, you may even get a Presidential welcome.

Webb
What would you rather be inconvenienced or dead. Most people tourists or not who travel do not object to the inconvenience since it is their safety that is a stake.
Those people who feel it is too much of an inconvenience I would invite to stay home. As I noted before my son his wife and daughter is coming for a visit from Europe next month {He is an American citizen born in the US} and I hope that every precaution possible to protect their safety is implemented. Inconvenience or not.

John Webb, this is not unique. I was on a train in the late 60's going from Belfast to Dublin just after there had been a terrorist bombing. At the border, everyone was taken of the train. All americans were separated out and put back on the train and the rest, the large majority of the passengers, were thoroughly searched. I have no idea why we Americans were singled out. Welcome to the world of terror.

The old adage --- better to be safe than sorry is very relevant in todays climate. The center of London is heavy with armed cops, as is Heathrow Airport. Security squads in planes are said to be highly trained people. A bomb in a train, bus or plane is a great fear. The terrorists have to be deterred.

2 links re. American & it's security measures, right or wrong, we've got 'em

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3339627.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3360601.stm

Past evidence suggests far greater danger of mechanical failures on aircraft than of terrorism. Yet there is much more Administration and media interest in 'highly publicized' security threats in the run-up to an election, than in pilot training and proper maintenance - and only a few here smell a rat or two.

Webb


And therefore because the risk is not great we should ignore it???? I can't help but wonder if your opinions are based upon your world travel and the inconvenience thereof or what you imagine is happening.

When I was twelve, my family and I left belfast by boat to liverpool. I was stopped by twelve soldiers in full flak wear with big guns pointed at my person for over 5 minutes. I had set off the metal detector. My grandmother, bless her soul, had wrapped sandwiches in tin foil for the whole family and put them in my overnight bag. I have never been so scared in all my life. This was a war zone.

Ceili
At this moment in history a greater part of this planet is a war zone. People still seem to be unconvinced that terrorists and terrorism can strike anywhere at any time. That every precaution to minimize or thwart it should be taken.

I've been to the "German Republic of Workers and Peasants" and to "Berlin - Capital of the GDR" a couple of times.

The procedure to get in there, took sometimes longer than the actuall stay. And afterwards, they knew more about me than my parents did.
But they never fingerprinted me, I admit.

AU1929 said "At this moment in history a greater part of this planet is a war zone".

Not when the Clinton Administration was running the country .... and we had the largest budget surplus in history too.

How soon people forget?

I believe the planet is pretty much a war zone at any given time. Whether the US is involved or not.
I relayed the story because this is what airports will be like on this side of the pond very soon. Guns pointed at childrens heads is virtually unheard of over here but it is a reality in many countries.

Webb
Wake up and smell the roses. There was terrorism during Clinton's presidency the WTC had been attacked. I would submit that although 9/11 happened on Bush's watch Al Qaeda did not. The one thing and probably the only thing in my opinion that Bush did right his war on terrorism. If things go as we hope they will it will be his legacy. Only time will tell.

It certainly was. Remember 1993 WTC bombing? The USS Cole & others? There were problems, but Clinton had, er, more important things to attend to than making sure that the terrorists did not get their feet in our door. By not doing much of anything, and having people live in blissful ignorance of the trouble that was abrewing, Clinton allowed the terrorists to grow ever stronger, and 9/11 was the result.

Phoenix32890, if I possessed your faith in every word of the Administration concerning 9/11, I would find it far easier to agree with you.

However, I place just as much faith in their words about 9/11 as I did here pre-invasion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Sadly, it will take a new Administration to learn anything approaching the truth about the worst atrocity on American soil in living memory.