What can be gained by fingerprinting travellers? Nothing. The measures needed to prevent September 11 existed before it happened, but a number of people dropped the ball. And that's the problem. Now we get all hyped up with a number of placebo measures which do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks, and everything to destroy the liberty that the current administration claims they are trying to defend.

There is no logical connection between fingerprinting travellers preventing terrorist attacks. You might as well ask everyone who's not a terrorist to carry a “Care Bear” when they travel.

The willingness of Americans to sell out on their fundamental freedoms for dubious security gain is astounding. It’s like they’ve all decided collectively to take a piss on the graves of those who died in the revolution. If Americans, of all people in the world, are willing to sell out on freedom and justice, then these values are surely facing a dark night in our world.

What can be gained by fingerprinting travellers?

Well, the trial alone (in one airport) turned up over 20 people on the FBI's criminal watch list. I don't know if this will dissuade potential terrorists, but it is a simple quick measure that will undoubtedly catch many crooks (especially the less intelligent ones). So you might have a point about the terrorists, but good will still come from this action.

The willingness of Americans to sell out on their fundamental freedoms for dubious security gain is astounding.

I hope you don't really believe this. If you already accept the fact that you have to identify yourself before being allowed to fly (standard practice for decades), what freedom is being given up by a 15 second procedure that takes your fingerprints and photograph? And a fundamental freedom at that? C'mon. Unless you are committing fraud by traveling with false identification, the government already knows who you are. What freedom is being taken away?

Update: Since the fingerprinting took place, 30 criminals have already been caught in the first 3 days...

This includes one person who had excellent phony documentation that he had used 12 times in the last year...

http://www.news.com.au/comm...

Fair enough, it may catch criminals.

As far as your second point, I was speaking more generally about the various measures of questionable benefit in the USA Patriot Act (and others) which Americans have been willing to accept. However, there are two ways in which fingerprinting affects fundamental freedoms.

First, the system is targeted a countries where the majority population is non-white. That's a violation of fundamental freedoms for non-whites.

Second, it makes it a whole lot easier for abusive officials to deny the travel priveleges of those who have reasons for legitimate political dissent. And in a free and democratic society “legitimate political dissent” should be defined quite broadly. For some reason when I bring this point up, people look at me funny, and can't believe that this would ever happen. But all we have to do is look back to the time of the civil rights movement to see that abuse of people exercising their freedoms in ways that don't please the political leanings of those in power, is alive and well.

Typically, the only people who are fingerprinted are people who have been convicted of a crime in a court, and according to due process. It doesn't make sense to me to apply this sanction to anyone, or even to the citizens of a particular nation(s).

Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. That helps me understand your main points. It appears you are discussing two issues. One) a general tendency for Americans to slowly give up freedoms over time and Two) the specific fingerprinting issue.

Issue one is a complex issue, but I agree with you. I'm not happy with parts of the Patriot act, or many other unconstitutional governmental assumptions of power (the successful grab for power by the judicial branch over the last decades, nor the successful grab for power by the federal government over the States in the early 1900s). The people who fought our Revolution and wrote the Constitution would be shocked by the very idea of Federal Income tax, let alone many other “improvements” in government since then.

Issue two, is the specific fingerprint issue (the point of my original post, but I'm glad to discuss issue one as well). Unlike issue one, we seem to disagree on many points about issue two.

First, the system is targeted at countries where the majority population is non-white. That's a violation of fundamental freedoms for non-whites.

Well, you haven't answered my question of what fundamental freedom is being violated. As long as people accept being identified, having fingerprints and a photograph digitally captured does not change matters. You have a point that the requirements are different for citizens of some countries vs. other countries. However, I hardly think this is due to racism, but due to an understandable bias toward more modern countries with a form of democratic government. You can see a list of the exempt countries here (http://www.newsday.com/news...). Note that non-white countries such as Japan and Singapore are on the list - they meet the criteria of being a modern, democratic nation. Also note that countries without a democratic tradition, such as Russia, are not on the list and Russia's population is mostly white.

In addition, the exempt countries must meet certain requirements by October, 2004, or their citizens will also be photographed and fingerprinted when entering the US. By October, all of these countries must have machine readable passports. And I strongly suspect this will include digital photographs being part of what is machine readable.

You also stated that the fingerprinting policy makes it a whole lot easier for abusive officials to deny the travel privileges of those who have reasons for legitimate political dissent.

I won't look at you funny for your concern about some government officials abusing their power. I think your concern is well supported by history. However, I fail to see how it applies here. Given the well accepted policy of requiring identification to enter the US, this potential already exists. How does fingerprinting change this potential in any way other than dissuading political dissenters from committing felonies by entering the country with false identification?

Typically, the only people who are fingerprinted are people who have been convicted of a crime in a court, and according to due process. It doesn't make sense to me to apply this sanction to anyone, or even to the citizens of a particular nation(s).

You seem to be considering fingerprinting a punishment (correct me if I am in error). And that may be because you associate fingerprinting with those who have been convicted of a crime in court. Fingerprinting is more widespread that that. First of all, in the US, any suspect charged with a crime is fingerprinted (so people are routinely fingerprinted long before their guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law). In addition, many government officials – including all members of the military – are fingerprinted upon joining the government.

BTW, the Brazilian judge was even more hypocritical than I mentioned in my original post. Did you realize that when a child is born in Brazil, their government takes the fingerprints and footprints of the baby and the fingerprints of the mother? This may be a good policy, as it certainly makes it easier to find out who committed crimes, but it certainly shows how hypocritical the judge was being in his condemnation of American policy.

Well, you haven't answered my question of what fundamental freedom is being violated.

The same ones that would be violated by the introduction of a national ID card. In addition, without the fingerprinting system, political dissidents (along with a greater number of criminals) can slip by. Personally, I find systems which allow the Government to more easily track political dissidents to be troubling.

You have a point that the requirements are different for citizens of some countries vs. other countries. However, I hardly think this is due to racism, but due to an understandable bias toward more modern countries with a form of democratic government. You can see a list of the exempt countries here (http://www.newsday.com/news...). Note that non-white countries such as Japan and Singapore are on the list - they meet the criteria of being a modern, democratic nation. Also note that countries without a democratic tradition, such as Russia, are not on the list and Russia's population is mostly white.

I would suggest that countries like Japan are exempt simply because they tow the correct political line. They are not normally in disagreement with American foreign policy.

There are no Arab countries whose citizens are exempt, nor will there ever be. Admittedly there are also no democratic Arab countries, however; a country like the United Arab Emirates, though it is not democratic, is not generally in conflict with American security interests. And fanatacism does not fester there.

I also disagree that a "democratic tradition" is the criteria for exemption from fingerprinting. The claim that such countries do not provide an incubator for terrorism makes sense as a reason to exempt them. However, it would be more practical to exempt countries most effective in preventing terrorists from travelling. Totalitarian regimes, should they choose to, would be most effective at that. So if you're looking around for countries least likely to be sending planes carrying terrorist to the US, I don't think "democratic tradition" is the right criteria. Racism is also not the right criteria, but is frequently the one used in times of paranoia.

Taking the example of Brazil, it is not a country likely to produce terrorists, regardless of the fact that it doesn't have a very long democratic tradtion. (Indicentally, some of the countries lacking in democratic tradtion are lacking it because of intervention by the US.) And what about South Africa? There is a country with a very strong democracy (though not very old), strong interest in defending freedom and human rights, and fully comperterized immigration and passport system. There is no reason to exclude South Africa. Unless the policy is racist.

I won't look at you funny for your concern about some government officials abusing their power. I think your concern is well supported by history. However, I fail to see how it applies here. Given the well accepted policy of requiring identification to enter the US, this potential already exists. How does fingerprinting change this potential in any way other than dissuading political dissenters from committing felonies by entering the country with false identification?

If fingerprinting has caught criminals who were not caught before, then something has changed which I believe brings my concerns into play.

Fingerprinting is more widespread that that. First of all, in the US, any suspect charged with a crime is fingerprinted (so people are routinely fingerprinted long before their guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law).

Point taken.

As an aside, in reference to your remarks about the federal government usurping state government powers at the beginning of the 20th century, you might find the comparative history of Canada quite interesting. Canada's founding fathers intended for the federal government to be very strong and the provinces to be extremely weak. But over time, partly through court rulings on federal/provincial disputes, significant powers have devolved to the provinces. It's interesting how the two countries started with different intentions, but wound up where each other intended to be. Especially in light of our common origin in the British Empire.

Thank you for the reply. I appreciated the link too. I'll try to address all of your points in a semi-concise matter. Let me know if I missed one.

1. The ACLU link did not address what fundament right was being violated either. They just expressed concern that a national ID would make it slightly easier to keep track of people. This is a very naïve concern, the government (and many private companies) already have computers than can (and do) easily cross-reference various databases. The technological genie has long since left the bottle.

2. Keep in mind we are discussing the fingerprinting of visitors to the States. You point out that "without the fingerprinting system, political dissidents (along with a greater number of criminals) can slip by." Agreed – however, I firmly believe a free society is better served by capturing these criminals even if it keeps some political dissident out of the States. Nor do I expect any reduction in dissident visitors to noticeably change the lives of US citizens (yet the reduction in criminal visitors should make the States a better and safer place). We have plenty of internal dissidents (a good thing) and criminals (a bad thing) - we do not need to import any more of either.

3. We disagree on the criteria used for exempt nations. I doubt there is any way to prove which opinion is correct, so I won't spend much time here. You have a point that countries like Japan may be exempt because "they tow the correct political line." Perhaps this is the key issue, but that just highlights that the criteria is not one of race. I'd also point out that while South Africa population is mostly black, most of those South Africans who can afford to travel are white. My guess is that South Africa is not on the exempt list because their society is very unstable and will probably remain so for at least a generation as they work out a post-Apartheid society. Racism has nothing to do with it.

4. I 100% agree with your comment that "some of the countries lacking in democratic tradition are lacking it because of intervention by the US." I know my country has made some major mistakes in the past. Some of our past leaders have believed the end justified the means in their war against communism. They were wrong to do so; dictators should not be supported even if it makes life easier in the short-term. However, I strongly disagree with you about Brazil. Many well-funded (drug money) terrorists operate in Brazil. Even liberal CNN acknowledges this.

5. You stated, "If fingerprinting has caught criminals who were not caught before, then something has changed which I believe brings my concerns into play." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you concerned that criminals are being caught? Surely not. I applaud this development and hope that all criminals that try to enter the US are arrested upon arrival.

6. I found your contrast of Canada and the States to be quite interesting. It is an intriguing example on the difference between intentions and long-term results.

I don't think that the judge's words refered only to the brazillian fingerprinting. I thing that xenofobic, comparable to the things done by the nazis, is how USA treats who arrives in their country, legally or ilegally, mainly ilegally. Then, I agree with the judge. Americans receive a good treatment everywhere they arrive. Why it has to be different from USA to the world-wide countries?

Marcelo,
The Nazis exterminated their own citizens – comparing the implementation of a mild identification procedure to the Nazis showed the judge's complete lack of perspective. Not that this is limited to the judge; shamefully, many people now cast the term "Nazi" at anyone with whom they disagree.

Let me address your main point. In general, I agree Americans usually receive good treatment when they arrive in foreign countries. At least that has been my experience. I have had my luggage rudely searched in Amsterdam -- not in the nice polite manner done in the States -- but once I was past customs I have always been treated well. However, I always entered legally. And once legal visitors have passed US customs, I believe we treat them well. I have friends from all around the world and I enjoy their visits. They must enjoy coming to the States else they would not return for pleasure trips.

For people breaking the law, illegal visitors are also treated very kindly. Many countries throw illegal visitors in jail and a few shoot them. The US does not make a major effort to catch illegal visitors and when it does catch them, it treats them well and sends them home at the expense of US taxpayers.

The point of criticism is the new policy of fingerprinting visitors. All countries have the sovereign right to protect their borders and this is a minor way of making it more difficult for criminals to enter the States. Why is this unfriendly or objectionable? It should only deter known criminals. The deterrence of criminals is a good thing, is it not?

I know it's been a while, and we can just agree to disagree on this one. But I feel compelled to address what you said about South Africa. Having lived there for a year (I just returned in August), I do know something about this.

South Africa is in no way an unstable country. Members of the government and the other political parties all strongly support democracy and human rights. South Africa is one of the two largest economies in Africa, with a modern infrastructure, and it continues to grow. While the transition from apartheid and the severe poverty present some serious challenges, South Africa has the resources and the will to overcome them.

While I'm here, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the recent cases of Americans fingering the photographer while being processed for immigration in Brazil.

It's a pleasure to debate with you.

Paul,
Good to hear from you again. I've posted my thoughts on the two Americans since you asked.

Thank you for your comments on South Africa. I'm glad to hear that. I have not had the opportunity to visit there and first-hand information is much better than having to depend upon the media. Of course, does this mean my conclusion about South Africa is wrong? I still have the impression that most South Africans who can afford to travel to the States are white. Or is this impression in error?

I've enjoyed our discussion as well.

That's difficult to say. My impression is that the growing black middle/upper class makes the number of black/white travellers pretty much even. There is probably slightly more whites among the travellers though. As for people emigrating to places like Canada, the US, and Britain, these are almost exclusively whites.