Busy chasing
this story from today's New York Times:
"LONDON, May 1 - Omar Khyam, the ringleader of the thwarted London bomb plot who was sentenced to life imprisonment on Monday, showed the potential for disaffected young men to be lured as terrorists, a threat that British officials said they would have to contend with for a generation.
But the 25-year-old Mr. Khyam, a Briton of Pakistani descent, also personifies a larger and more immediate concern: as a British citizen, he could have entered the United States without a visa, like many of an estimated 800,000 other Britons of Pakistani origin.
American officials, citing the number of terror plots in Britain involving Britons with ties to Pakistan, expressed concern over the visa loophole. In recent months, the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has opened talks with the government here on how to curb the access of British citizens of Pakistani origin to the United States.
At the moment, the British are resistant, fearing that restrictions on the group of Britons would incur a backlash from a population that has always sided with the Labor Party. The Americans say they are hesitant to push too hard and embarrass their staunch ally in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as he prepares to step down from office.
Among the options that have been put on the table, according to British officials, was the most onerous option to Britain, that of canceling the entire visa waiver program that allows all Britons entry to the United States without a visa. Another option, politically fraught as it is, would be to single out Britons of Pakistani origin, requiring them to make visa applications for the United States.
Rather than impose any visa restrictions, the British government has told Washington it would prefer if the Americans simply deported Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States, British officials said. The British also screen at their end, and share intelligence with the Americans."
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Well as un popular as this is bound to be I'd say:-
'single out Britons of Pakistani origin'
Now I'll hide in a bunker.
Jonnie (1) do you really mean that? It sounds like apartheid to me. Where would you draw the line - first generation, second generation, people with 1 parent or grandparent from Pakistan?
I really don't agree. I think that if the Americans want to screen at their end, that's up to them, just like it's up to us to screen at our end.
I never normally publicise other networks on Eddie's blog - but for anyone who'd like to hear a fiesty interview with a contributor who resembled one of Catherine Tates characters then click on the link below and spool to 1 hour - 40 mins. It's worth it :-)
/radio/aod/networks/radio2/aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine_wed
Poor Jeremy :-(
Oh dear. I don't see this working out well whichever way it goes. I have colleagues who need visas to travel to the US and I gather it's not a straightforward process - doing away with the waiver would probably have an enormous impact on UK-US travel. Singling out 'Britons of Pakistani origin' is surely a non-starter. And yet, looking at it from a US perspective, you cannot imagine them wanting to leave this route open. Look at the outrage over here about the decision not to follow up a couple of people deemed not to be "risks" during an operation - maybe they weren't at the time? Anyway, I can see the waiver going for all Britons when this story has had time to develop.
Good grief....am shocked, appaled and also wondering what our rules are?? what with the gun culture etc of the States how much of a risk do disenfranchised types pose to us? Are visas required? An, to be honest, if people want in to a country in order to reek havoc and violence they'll find a way, visa or not.
To Eddie Mair (PM)
Nothing, I believe ought to detract from the performance of the security services in foiling the horrific fertiliser bomb plot. I think their success speaks of admirable professionalism, but the case has thrown up issues connected to the 7/7 London bombings which I think must be clarified. Only an independent inquiry can satisfactorily demonstrate whether those atrocities could realistically have been prevented.
For the practical reason that Islamist cells are undoubtedly planning (according to John Reid) the next terrorist attack, the facts need to be established – as far as they can be – as to who knew what, when they knew it and what they did or did not do with the information. The security agencies need the benefit of an unbiased assessment as to why, precisely, the 7/7 plotters escaped attention despite their known association with the fertiliser bomb gang.
Additionally, there is the issue of clearing the air for the sake of those who were bereaved by the July 7 attacks, and those who were injured by them. In the course of the year-long trial of Omar Khyam and his fellow conspirators, doubt was cast on the accuracy of some of the information they received. From a humane point of view, the importance of this cannot be over-estimated. Lives were wrecked, and establishing the facts is, as always in such cases, a vital part of the slow process of rebuilding them.
John Reid now has in his possession a letter submitted by the 7/7 Inquiry Group asking him to set up a wide-ranging inquiry, and I think he should heed it. Politicians cannot be seen to be colluding with the security services and the police in order to prevent the full facts being made publicly known. If the police and MI5 have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, and if Ministers are blameless, neither have they.
Refusal to hold such an inquiry can only heighten speculation that the full facts are being hidden simply to protect reputations, and sadly a great deal more is at stake than that.
Whilst I have a certain sympathy with Jonnie, I don't see quite how you can do this. These people were born in the UK (and many of them are very nice - I have several friends among them), so how many generations do you trace back?
And also I wouldn't mind if those of Pakistani origin who happen to be terroristically inclined were to go to the US rather than stay here. Do we want them?
Re today's Newsletter - I had thought that the Big Bang* was a sort of clever analogy - "stars after the Big Bang, not before" sort of thing. But no. Just a missing postscript. Who are these "artistes"? Very strange.
'British citizens of Pakistani origin' - just how is that to be defined? We have been here before. Visa denial, yellow stars on coats, it's only a small step.
If a Briton has done something which makes them unacceptable to another country, that country should be prepared to say what it is that justifies denying them entry. And that cannot be the colour of their skin or the geographic origins of their grandparents.
Perhaps given the propensity of gun-toting Americans to massacre their own citizens, we should require all Americans to be screened for their attitude to guns before allowing them to visit here.
Paranoia and fear can be easily generated, especially now. We should clearly not be complacent but to label entire sections of any population as potential mass murderers risks permitting state control such as I do not believe any of us wants. It also plays into the hands of radicals for whom a division of society into 'them and us' is an essential prerequisite for the promotion of hatred and violence.
Tricky indeed. But what makes the US think that none of their citizens wouldn't want to cause havoc on our shores?
I think the suggestion made by your interviewee on yesterday's programme was the most useful: i.e. that communities in this country need to be vigilant of the trends they note, and that other areas, including the academic, must be prepared to voice concerns, even if they are fearful of removing the right to free speech. It is better that these concerns be investigated than that destructive forces should be allowed to germinate and flower. Free speech should be open to scrutiny, not something to be hidden behind.
I'll join you behind the bunker, Jonnie!
Well, I know courtesy of a work colleague, that if someone fails screening when they land in the US, they are deported straight back already (even if they are only in transit in the US, rather than attempting to enter the country). My colleague (originally from Peru) had attempted to get a green card many years ago. In the end he gave up. However, someone fraudulently used his name after he had left the US. By this point he had already moved to the UK and become a British Citizen (so a number of years had passed, as you can guess). The INS (Immigration and Naturalisation Service) decided that he must still be in the US illegally.
Fast forward a couple of years, and he was flying with his 6 year old son to Peru to visit the family. It was the w/e before Christmas. He had to change flights in Dallas. After checking their computer systems, he and his son were refused transit. Instead, they were placed on a flight back to the UK. When he went to the US Embassy in London with proof that he was now a British citizen, and had been resident in the UK at the time of the offence in the US, they took all his documents (including his passport) and said it would take months, and may never get resolved. After three months, he gave up (as he needed his passport for a business trip. As you can guess, he's very frustrated!
As an aside, I bet that if UK citizens were forced to apply for a visa every time, that a) a lot less people would travel from the UK to the US, and b) US citizens would still be allowed into the US without having a visa. There's be uproar if US citizens were forced to apply for visas...
Fred, did you mean: "US citizens would still be allowed into the UK without having a visa"?
(apologies if about spelling and vocabulary in my first post; fingers faster than brain!)
I bit of light relief on this frighteningly serious topic.
I know it was a feature on UK-US relations, but "Labor Party" - since when.....
There have been some American terrorists of Anglo-Saxon origin who have bombed various places over the pond. Should white Americans be required to have a visa to visit UK?
(oh, and again)
The measure will be impossible to implement.
"Pakistani origin" is a very difficult term to use to segregate out a particular portion of the travelling population, never mind that one of the terrorists convicted this week was from Algeria so would presumably have been let through the net on these measures.
It is simply racist, nothing else, rather like saying that due to the events at Virginia Tech recently, the UK will ban all South Koreans from entering the country, just in case they happen to have severe mental problems and socialpsychotic tendencies.
Secondly, if UK citizens need a visa to enter the US, then US citizens should need a visa to get into this country. The UK does not pose a greater threat to the US than the US does to the UK. Given that these two countries are the only friends that each one has left in the world, it would be counterproductive at this time to install barriers between them.
You can't ask people from only a certain background to apply for visas. The Americans wouldn't accept it if it were the other way round. I appreciate their concerns, but the consequences would be to annoy those who had a perfect right to travel to the US with no visa, and add fuel to the fundamentalist flames of those who wish the USA and her allies harm.
Anything which causes an inconvenience to air travellers has gotta be a good thing!
xx
ed
Isn't it illegal in this country to single out people of one particular ethnic origin for harsher treatment than is given to others of different ethnic origins? That's how I understand the laws about not discriminating against anyone on the grounds of race, religion, colour or creed. If that's the case, we can't legally assist the USA in singling out Pakistani-origin people for discriminatory treatment.
If the USA goes back to the system that used to exist, whereby Britons had to apply for visas before travelling to the USA, that might not be an entirely bad thing: it would cut down on people taking weekend breaks in New York, and that would help reduce the carbon footprint like anything.
No pain without gain, perhaps.
Big Sis (11) Yes, that's what I meant. Oops! That;s what you get for trying to frog quickly....
Ed & Chris (18 & 19) I agree!
This is Jonnie's S/O here, not Jonnie. - He doesn't mean it. As an ex radio producer he just enjoys baiting and damn the concequences. Makes for great airtime (I think that's the expression) and usually gets someone ranting down a phone line, or in this case a blog line. Please don't start hurling bricks through our windows, I know what he's like. - S/O
Well gossipmistress - err -- as a late night check in I've just seen the above post, left in my name from Simon (SO)
I really *was* out at the Gym - after seeing my 2007 photo - however.....
As you said - Where do we draw the line?
Perhaps I was a little rash in my earlier comment - but it just seems unfortunate that we all have to suffer because of a few extremists.
I made my comment after arriving back from Bournemouth Airport - and my Sister being quizzed extensively about her innocent violin. As it's very valuable she managed to eventually convince the ground staff that she could take it on board.
Okay - I take back my earlier comment - but -Why does the government some of us voted for seem to have put the majority of us in this OTT security ridden lifestyle?
And now we all have to suffer the consequences because of the few.
I must log off after leaving comments in future :-(
Jonnie: About loggin off - Surely you'd have learnt from Eddie's own example? ;o)
Tell SO that we always love to see him on the Blog. Such shiny hair .....
As the computer security expert Bruce Schneier has blogged extensively, the problem with racial profiling is that the security people then tend to take their eyes off those who don't match the profile. The terrorists also know this and therefore take extra efforts to recruit and employ those who don't match.
Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7th July bombers, was of Jamaican origin. Three of those accused in the 21st July attempted bombings are African (Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian). Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", is half-Jamaican.
Well Jonnie you put me to shame. The last time I visited the Gym was to pay my membership fees.... Anyway (I don't feel I can use the 'anyhoo' word, being a Buckinghamshire girl!)
I agree that we're all put through what seems like crazy rituals just because of the actions of a few - a very small example being that in Liverpool many garages ask people to 'pay first' because some people drive away without paying. Being somehwat obstinate, I refuse to be treated like a criminal and only go to garages where you can pay at the end, which usually means a supert.
I agree with Elec. Dragon above about racial profiling making people complacent. I also agree with others above about it being inflammatory in the extreme. Imagine if it was middle class white brits only being excluded?
I think they should share all their intelligence and work together to identify individuals or groups with suspicious activities or links.
As for the musical instruments - maybe they could play them to prove they're authentic - it would calm the passengers and not many terrorista would bother getting Grade VIII violin in order to board a flight!!!!! ;-)