(03-12-2018 12:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Canadian journalist Lauren Southern has now been detained.

Lauren Southern has been released. She was held under Section 7 (the terrorism act), and banned from the UK for "racism", i.e. her critique of radical islam.

Londonistan is fricked

I would go ahead and have the state department issue travel warnings.

(03-11-2018 07:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were Trump, I think I would recall our ambassador. That is a very serious “don’t f- with me” signal in the world of diplomacy, and I think not unwarranted here. UK needs us a lot more than we need them, so let them twist in the wind a bit if they want to pull this sort of stuff with our citizens.

And what of refusing entry to the US by Cat Stevens? In each case, the respective nations look foolish, but recall of ambassadors would be a serious over-reaction.

It would be a pretty clear shot across the bow.
When another country does something that offends, I don't know that overreaction is wrong.

If you're not familiar with my reference to Cat Stevens, the US essentially did the same thing... wiki provides a good summary: Cat Stevens - Denial of entry into the United States, with the reason being some very tenuous links to HAMAS... I am inclined to believe him that he never intentionally gave any support to them.

I don't agree with UK's speech laws, and agree with HoD about the implications of them. The US remains exceptional in its free speech laws being near-absolute. I don't see how the US can reasonably demand that its citizens be immune to the laws of any nation, and of all the nations to complain about, I don't see that the UK would be the one to select.

I think we can expect that US citizens was be treated with respect above and beyond what is custom when they are found in violation of local laws, and if there is anything to complain about, it may be how she was treated, if she were a US citizen, not whether or not she is let in to the country, provided it's according to their laws.

(03-12-2018 03:46 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were Trump, I think I would recall our ambassador. That is a very serious “don’t f- with me” signal in the world of diplomacy, and I think not unwarranted here. UK needs us a lot more than we need them, so let them twist in the wind a bit if they want to pull this sort of stuff with our citizens.

And what of refusing entry to the US by Cat Stevens? In each case, the respective nations look foolish, but recall of ambassadors would be a serious over-reaction.

It would be a pretty clear shot across the bow.
When another country does something that offends, I don't know that overreaction is wrong.

If you're not familiar with my reference to Cat Stevens, the US essentially did the same thing... wiki provides a good summary: Cat Stevens - Denial of entry into the United States, with the reason being some very tenuous links to HAMAS... I am inclined to believe him that he never intentionally gave any support to them.

I don't agree with UK's speech laws, and agree with HoD about the implications of them. The US remains exceptional in its free speech laws being near-absolute. I don't see how the US can reasonably demand that its citizens be immune to the laws of any nation, and of all the nations to complain about, I don't see that the UK would be the one to select.

I think we can expect that US citizens was be treated with respect above and beyond what is custom when they are found in violation of local laws, and if there is anything to complain about, it may be how she was treated, if she were a US citizen, not whether or not she is let in to the country, provided it's according to their laws.

They are certainly within their rights to deny her admission. Its how she was treated after having no reason to believe she would be denied.

The Austrian is an EU citizen, so it seems like they have problems there.

(03-12-2018 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:46 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were Trump, I think I would recall our ambassador. That is a very serious “don’t f- with me” signal in the world of diplomacy, and I think not unwarranted here. UK needs us a lot more than we need them, so let them twist in the wind a bit if they want to pull this sort of stuff with our citizens.

And what of refusing entry to the US by Cat Stevens? In each case, the respective nations look foolish, but recall of ambassadors would be a serious over-reaction.

It would be a pretty clear shot across the bow.
When another country does something that offends, I don't know that overreaction is wrong.

If you're not familiar with my reference to Cat Stevens, the US essentially did the same thing... wiki provides a good summary: Cat Stevens - Denial of entry into the United States, with the reason being some very tenuous links to HAMAS... I am inclined to believe him that he never intentionally gave any support to them.
I don't agree with UK's speech laws, and agree with HoD about the implications of them. The US remains exceptional in its free speech laws being near-absolute. I don't see how the US can reasonably demand that its citizens be immune to the laws of any nation, and of all the nations to complain about, I don't see that the UK would be the one to select.
I think we can expect that US citizens was be treated with respect above and beyond what is custom when they are found in violation of local laws, and if there is anything to complain about, it may be how she was treated, if she were a US citizen, not whether or not she is let in to the country, provided it's according to their laws.

They are certainly within their rights to deny her admission. Its how she was treated after having no reason to believe she would be denied.
The Austrian is an EU citizen, so it seems like they have problems there.

No, I’m quite familiar with the Cat Stevens incident. If you are equating possible ties to a terrorist organization with coming to exercise free speech by conducting an interview with someone, then I question your sense of materiality. And I don’t believe he ever denied contributing, just saying (as you quote) that he did not do so intentionally. I would probably have let him in eventually, but I would have made him jump through some hoops first, and offered no apologies for doing so.

(03-11-2018 08:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Yet another reminder that free speech is uniquely American and needs to be fought for.
Europe does not have our level of freedom. France even controls what you wear (not its not just against bad fashion-its burqas).
Things they can jail you for or prevent are distinctly un-American.

Amen. That needs to be on a billboard in every town in America.

(03-12-2018 05:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:46 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 06:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  And what of refusing entry to the US by Cat Stevens? In each case, the respective nations look foolish, but recall of ambassadors would be a serious over-reaction.

It would be a pretty clear shot across the bow.
When another country does something that offends, I don't know that overreaction is wrong.

If you're not familiar with my reference to Cat Stevens, the US essentially did the same thing... wiki provides a good summary: Cat Stevens - Denial of entry into the United States, with the reason being some very tenuous links to HAMAS... I am inclined to believe him that he never intentionally gave any support to them.
I don't agree with UK's speech laws, and agree with HoD about the implications of them. The US remains exceptional in its free speech laws being near-absolute. I don't see how the US can reasonably demand that its citizens be immune to the laws of any nation, and of all the nations to complain about, I don't see that the UK would be the one to select.
I think we can expect that US citizens was be treated with respect above and beyond what is custom when they are found in violation of local laws, and if there is anything to complain about, it may be how she was treated, if she were a US citizen, not whether or not she is let in to the country, provided it's according to their laws.

They are certainly within their rights to deny her admission. Its how she was treated after having no reason to believe she would be denied.
The Austrian is an EU citizen, so it seems like they have problems there.

No, I’m quite familiar with the Cat Stevens incident. If you are equating possible ties to a terrorist organization with coming to exercise free speech by conducting an interview with someone, then I question your sense of materiality. And I don’t believe he ever denied contributing, just saying (as you quote) that he did not do so intentionally. I would probably have let him in eventually, but I would have made him jump through some hoops first, and offered no apologies for doing so.

I think he offered as much of a denial as he possibly could. I don't even know that it's wise to make a categorical statement like that ... I know someone whose US citizenship was delayed because he said he'd never committed a crime... his application was initially rejected when they pointed out a speeding ticket (under 10 mph).

Nevertheless, they're clearly not equivalent. Among the obvious issues that also relate to free speech, his was a much more high profile case that substantially impacted public opinion regarding the US. This case is much lower profile that most people don't care about.

Back to your suggestion about recalling ambassadors, I can't recall any incident among allies that's led to a recall of ambassadors. Even among enemies, this seems like a trivial incident to lead to that kind of action. The UK may need the US more than the US needs the UK, but, the repercussions of action like a recall would almost certainly hurt the US more than the UK. When push comes to shove, having the UK stand by the side of the US in confronting countries like Iraq, Russia, and Iran is very important in convincing the world that the US is in the right. I think the US would have much more trouble acting on the international stage without the UK as a willing partner, and it's not worth ensuring that members of the racial realist movement are able to speak in Trafalgar square.

(03-12-2018 10:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think he offered as much of a denial as he possibly could. I don't even know that it's wise to make a categorical statement like that ... I know someone whose US citizenship was delayed because he said he'd never committed a crime... his application was initially rejected when they pointed out a speeding ticket (under 10 mph).
Nevertheless, they're clearly not equivalent. Among the obvious issues that also relate to free speech, his was a much more high profile case that substantially impacted public opinion regarding the US. This case is much lower profile that most people don't care about.
Back to your suggestion about recalling ambassadors, I can't recall any incident among allies that's led to a recall of ambassadors. Even among enemies, this seems like a trivial incident to lead to that kind of action. The UK may need the US more than the US needs the UK, but, the repercussions of action like a recall would almost certainly hurt the US more than the UK. When push comes to shove, having the UK stand by the side of the US in confronting countries like Iraq, Russia, and Iran is very important in convincing the world that the US is in the right. I think the US would have much more trouble acting on the international stage without the UK as a willing partner, and it's not worth ensuring that members of the racial realist movement are able to speak in Trafalgar square.

The recall of ambassador was more figurative than literal. I don't think we play hardball enough in our foreign policy. We bluster and bully a lot, but when the rubber meets the road we back off. I'm not sure that our best ally is the proper place to make the first change to that approach. What I would probably do is to have a serious chat with Teresa May about how the UK conduct in this matter is not an acceptable way to treat American citizens, and recall or a State Department travel warning would be two options explicitly on the table if things were not handled acceptably.

Your last sentence does cause me to wonder a bit. It is my understanding that this visit was simply for the purpose of conducting a private and peaceful interview, not for making incendiary speeches in Trafalgar Square. If that is not correct, if we had indications to the contrary, then I would be more inclined to accept the UK action. They clearly have a national interest in preserving the peace, and in furtherance of that interest I would say they are justified in keeping out foreign rabble-rousers who are there to disturb the peace. But I'm not aware that was in play here.

And if she did get in and did engage in behavior designed to incite, and if she were arrested and detained for such behavior, I would say throw the book at her, just as I would support doing the same here. I just don't support denial of entry because of political incorrectness--there or here. With Stevens, there was competent evidence of troubling behavior that justified caution. I don't see that element here.

The speeding ticket story reminds me of my own SF-86 experience, since we have been talking elsewhere about the significance of errors and omissions in submitting them. I was in Dallas attending a play at the Fairgrounds theater, and in heading back home afterwards I took a short cut through a really bad part of Dallas. Not familiar with the area, I ran a stop sign. I was pulled over, given a warning, and advised that this was not a part of town to be in late at night because of drug activity. When I did my SF-86 for my next TS renewal, I did not include it because no ticket was issued. It came up on something that they reviewed and I got hammered about it in my interview. I still think the interviewer thought that I was a drug dealer and lying about it. They question you pretty severely if you omit anything. But I did get my clearance renewed.

We admittedly do not believe you to be a terrorist, but we are going to detain a female journalist with WH press credentials under Schedule 7 (the terrorism act) until we can conjure up something that you've done wrong to ban you from our country.

The UK is an orwellian shitehole.

You guys just need to understand that Trumpian level discourse is not acceptable anywhere outside your little bubble. Nor will the UK likely look kindly on Trumpers after Trump's BFF Russia is widely and almost universally seen to have perpetrated another terrorist attack on British soil, without appropriate support of the DJT administration (even being accused of firing Rex for even daring to take Theresa May's side in the Russian terrorism argument).

(03-13-2018 12:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys just need to understand that Trumpian level discourse is not acceptable anywhere outside your little bubble. Nor will the UK likely look kindly on Trumpers after Trump's BFF Russia is widely and almost universally seen to have perpetrated another terrorist attack on British soil, without appropriate support of the DJT administration (even being accused of firing Rex for even daring to take Theresa May's side in the Russian terrorism argument).

Trump's BFF Russia? Based on any facts?

(03-13-2018 12:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys just need to understand that Trumpian level discourse is not acceptable anywhere outside your little bubble. Nor will the UK likely look kindly on Trumpers after Trump's BFF Russia is widely and almost universally seen to have perpetrated another terrorist attack on British soil, without appropriate support of the DJT administration (even being accused of firing Rex for even daring to take Theresa May's side in the Russian terrorism argument).

Sorry Tom. UK authorities just dislike any light being shined on the Muslim/Terrorism issue that they have. Citizens there are arrested and fined for anti Islamic social media posts. As well as other Euro countries. Nope has nothing to do with Trump. Thanks for playing.

(03-13-2018 10:53 AM)Kronke Wrote:  We admittedly do not believe you to be a terrorist, but we are going to detain a female journalist with WH press credentials under Schedule 7 (the terrorism act) until we can conjure up something that you've done wrong to ban you from our country.
The UK is an orwellian shitehole.

I believe she is a Canadian citizen, not US, so the same level of response from the US is not prompted. And the "social experiment" that she ran, apparently in France, strikes me as very likely not being as innocent as she describes it. But I do see an alarming trend.

I've posted this before, but if I were president, I would make the following statement on the basis of our foreign policy.

We believe in human rights including life, liberty, and property. We will protect your citizens' rights to those things while in the USA, and we expect you to extend the same protections to Americans while in your country. If so, fine. If not, we will have problems, and we will do our best to see that those problems exceed your abilities to cope with them.

(03-13-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 10:53 AM)Kronke Wrote:  We admittedly do not believe you to be a terrorist, but we are going to detain a female journalist with WH press credentials under Schedule 7 (the terrorism act) until we can conjure up something that you've done wrong to ban you from our country.
The UK is an orwellian shitehole.

I believe she is a Canadian citizen, not US, so the same level of response from the US is not prompted. And the "social experiment" that she ran, apparently in France, strikes me as very likely not being as innocent as she describes it. But I do see an alarming trend.

I've posted this before, but if I were president, I would make the following statement on the basis of our foreign policy.

We believe in human rights including life, liberty, and property. We will protect your citizens' rights to those things while in the USA, and we expect you to extend the same protections to Americans while in your country. If so, fine. If not, we will have problems, and we will do our best to see that those problems exceed your abilities to cope with them.

But you're not President. Trump is. And he apparently doesn't care about anyone outside his base.

(03-13-2018 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think he offered as much of a denial as he possibly could. I don't even know that it's wise to make a categorical statement like that ... I know someone whose US citizenship was delayed because he said he'd never committed a crime... his application was initially rejected when they pointed out a speeding ticket (under 10 mph).
Nevertheless, they're clearly not equivalent. Among the obvious issues that also relate to free speech, his was a much more high profile case that substantially impacted public opinion regarding the US. This case is much lower profile that most people don't care about.
Back to your suggestion about recalling ambassadors, I can't recall any incident among allies that's led to a recall of ambassadors. Even among enemies, this seems like a trivial incident to lead to that kind of action. The UK may need the US more than the US needs the UK, but, the repercussions of action like a recall would almost certainly hurt the US more than the UK. When push comes to shove, having the UK stand by the side of the US in confronting countries like Iraq, Russia, and Iran is very important in convincing the world that the US is in the right. I think the US would have much more trouble acting on the international stage without the UK as a willing partner, and it's not worth ensuring that members of the racial realist movement are able to speak in Trafalgar square.

The recall of ambassador was more figurative than literal. I don't think we play hardball enough in our foreign policy. We bluster and bully a lot, but when the rubber meets the road we back off. I'm not sure that our best ally is the proper place to make the first change to that approach. What I would probably do is to have a serious chat with Teresa May about how the UK conduct in this matter is not an acceptable way to treat American citizens, and recall or a State Department travel warning would be two options explicitly on the table if things were not handled acceptably.

Your last sentence does cause me to wonder a bit. It is my understanding that this visit was simply for the purpose of conducting a private and peaceful interview, not for making incendiary speeches in Trafalgar Square. If that is not correct, if we had indications to the contrary, then I would be more inclined to accept the UK action. They clearly have a national interest in preserving the peace, and in furtherance of that interest I would say they are justified in keeping out foreign rabble-rousers who are there to disturb the peace. But I'm not aware that was in play here.

And if she did get in and did engage in behavior designed to incite, and if she were arrested and detained for such behavior, I would say throw the book at her, just as I would support doing the same here. I just don't support denial of entry because of political incorrectness--there or here. With Stevens, there was competent evidence of troubling behavior that justified caution. I don't see that element here.

The speeding ticket story reminds me of my own SF-86 experience, since we have been talking elsewhere about the significance of errors and omissions in submitting them. I was in Dallas attending a play at the Fairgrounds theater, and in heading back home afterwards I took a short cut through a really bad part of Dallas. Not familiar with the area, I ran a stop sign. I was pulled over, given a warning, and advised that this was not a part of town to be in late at night because of drug activity. When I did my SF-86 for my next TS renewal, I did not include it because no ticket was issued. It came up on something that they reviewed and I got hammered about it in my interview. I still think the interviewer thought that I was a drug dealer and lying about it. They question you pretty severely if you omit anything. But I did get my clearance renewed.

Surprised they didn't arrest you. Dallas police are not very friendly.

(03-13-2018 12:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 10:53 AM)Kronke Wrote:  We admittedly do not believe you to be a terrorist, but we are going to detain a female journalist with WH press credentials under Schedule 7 (the terrorism act) until we can conjure up something that you've done wrong to ban you from our country.
The UK is an orwellian shitehole.

I believe she is a Canadian citizen, not US, so the same level of response from the US is not prompted. And the "social experiment" that she ran, apparently in France, strikes me as very likely not being as innocent as she describes it. But I do see an alarming trend.
I've posted this before, but if I were president, I would make the following statement on the basis of our foreign policy.
We believe in human rights including life, liberty, and property. We will protect your citizens' rights to those things while in the USA, and we expect you to extend the same protections to Americans while in your country. If so, fine. If not, we will have problems, and we will do our best to see that those problems exceed your abilities to cope with them.

But you're not President. Trump is. And he apparently doesn't care about anyone outside his base.

Query relevance to this discussion?

(03-13-2018 12:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 10:53 AM)Kronke Wrote:  We admittedly do not believe you to be a terrorist, but we are going to detain a female journalist with WH press credentials under Schedule 7 (the terrorism act) until we can conjure up something that you've done wrong to ban you from our country.
The UK is an orwellian shitehole.

I believe she is a Canadian citizen, not US, so the same level of response from the US is not prompted. And the "social experiment" that she ran, apparently in France, strikes me as very likely not being as innocent as she describes it. But I do see an alarming trend.

I've posted this before, but if I were president, I would make the following statement on the basis of our foreign policy.

We believe in human rights including life, liberty, and property. We will protect your citizens' rights to those things while in the USA, and we expect you to extend the same protections to Americans while in your country. If so, fine. If not, we will have problems, and we will do our best to see that those problems exceed your abilities to cope with them.

But you're not President. Trump is. And he apparently doesn't care about anyone outside his base.

So you are saying he's a Democrat? Deplorables?

(03-13-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've posted this before, but if I were president, I would make the following statement on the basis of our foreign policy.

We believe in human rights including life, liberty, and property. We will protect your citizens' rights to those things while in the USA, and we expect you to extend the same protections to Americans while in your country. If so, fine. If not, we will have problems, and we will do our best to see that those problems exceed your abilities to cope with them.

Well put, I agree with that stance.

(03-13-2018 12:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 12:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys just need to understand that Trumpian level discourse is not acceptable anywhere outside your little bubble. Nor will the UK likely look kindly on Trumpers after Trump's BFF Russia is widely and almost universally seen to have perpetrated another terrorist attack on British soil, without appropriate support of the DJT administration (even being accused of firing Rex for even daring to take Theresa May's side in the Russian terrorism argument).

Sorry Tom. UK authorities just dislike any light being shined on the Muslim/Terrorism issue that they have. Citizens there are arrested and fined for anti Islamic social media posts. As well as other Euro countries. Nope has nothing to do with Trump. Thanks for playing.

He doesn't care, his covenant with the 51% coalition of "others" demands that he side with 3rd world invaders that would just as much tie his hands, blindfold him, and throw him off a rooftop as thank him for it.

Cutting his nose (or his disbelieving throat) to spite his face.