×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakastani Politician Detained By US Customs Over Opposition To Drone Strikes

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the think-differently dept.

Censorship 560

First time accepted submitter Serious Callers Only writes "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, U.S. 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."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

560 comments

Disgousting behaviour (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797531)

"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797569)

Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

Exactly, which is why I can't wait for them to be placed in charge of my health care.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797639)

But highways, drinking water, air control, military are fine?

Re:Disgousting behaviour (5, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797681)

Highways, with the exception of the interstates is mostly up to the individual states and drinking water is mostly local government. As for air travel, well it's pretty screwed since 9/11 but at least the hijackings have stopped although I think that is maybe as much due to lack of passenger tolerance of it as anything else. The military, blowing people and things up, is what the Feds are actually very good at.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797807)

You're in a dark alley, surrounding by brick buildings. In front of you, you see the back of a naked boy spreading his arms out as if he's pretending to be an airplane. You look towards his butt crack and spot a small red toy who is, similarly, spreading its arms out as if it's pretending to be an airplane. That toy then vanishes and you hear the sound of an elevator... twice.

My question to you is this: What if, just as you're looking at the boy's ass and watching a toy use his ass as an elevator, the boy is looking at your ass and witnessing a similar event? What if there is a wall of some sort in front of you that is a portal of sorts that allows you to see into another area: the area where the boy is. However, the brick wall in front of the boy is also a portal that allows him to see into the area where you're at. The boy sees a brick wall when he looks at your portal, and you see a brick wall when you look at his portal.

The point? Your ass is now a rumblehouse ass.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (2, Informative)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798047)

"individual states" and "local government" are still government. Both are, in the end, subject to the US Supreme Court, and in many cases to other branches of the Feds.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797603)

Not a big fan of the US, but I think the biggest threat to peace and tolerance nowadays is Islam...

Re:Disgousting behaviour (5, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797733)

I said the US Government, not the US or it's people.

Islam is a religion or a belief not a people. If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists then yes you're right but only if you group them with the KKK, white supremacists and many other similar organizations. You should also understand that they represent a very very small minority of the people with Islamic beliefs.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (1, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797777)

I said the US Government, not the US or it's people.

Who do you think the US government is made up of.......Martians?

Re:Disgousting behaviour (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797959)

The US Government is made up of corporations and a small subset of the people. Grouping an entire population in there is the kind of ignorance we should strive to end.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41798033)

Right, because white supremacists are plowing planes into buildings, bombing market squares filled with their own people, stoning and beheading others with government backing and attacking embassies at the drop of a hat. Right right right.
 
I just love how Slashdot keeps their perspective on these matters. Islamic fundies will kill as many people this weekend as the KKK and other assorted racists groups in the US have killed in the last 50 years.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41798141)

"Islamic fundies will kill as many people this weekend as the KKK and other assorted racists groups in the US have killed in the last 50 years."

If you add the killings by the US government to the total of the KKK and other assorted racist groups, I rather suspect that you will get a different total.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798111)

If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists

Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).

Re:Disgousting behaviour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797755)

Good thing you posted anon......

Re:Disgousting behaviour (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797983)

Not a big fan of the US, but I think the biggest threat to peace and tolerance is Religion...

FTFY

Re:Disgousting behaviour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41798097)

The biggest threat to peace seems to be crazy people. If i was a Pakistani, i wouldn't be happy that flying bombs are cruising all over my head.
Of course, i wouldn't be happy with guys in exploding vests either.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797625)

Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

And its master, Bibi... who is getting the blowjob of his life from the Americans

Re:Disgousting behaviour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797627)

"disgousting"? "byte"?

Re:Disgousting behaviour (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797825)

I agree. This disgusting behavior of Slashdot editors to turn this site into mush, why is it getting wrose? Why is this news for nerds??? Oh, because drones can somehow be included. Views on drone usage. Opinions about drones.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797943)

Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

How exactly is that flamebait? Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, that's what a lot of people outside the U.S. think.

When Customs starts interrogating foreign lawmakers over their political positions, it's only going to make that perception worse.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797963)

Agreed.

Nearly every official past and present of the US government are criminals and should be prosecuted. If laws were applied equally, none of them would ever see the light of day again-- nearly every one of them is guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to murder.

Someone really needs just to nuke the US and get it over with.

Re:Disgousting behaviour (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798095)

"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"

Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.

Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.

Unfortunately, it also seems like a strikingly incompetent thing to do, even if you adopt the 'the US can do whatever it feels like' school of international relations... The guy is a fairly high profile politician, if ICE wants to know what his views are, all they have to do is crack a newspaper, ask the state department, or both. Not Hard. If there is some suspicion that there is more there than meets the eye, a couple of hours in some dingy airport getting harassed by customs goons certainly isn't going to find it, and is certainly far less subtle and more offensive than more effective ways of gathering intelligence.

So, provoke an incident with Pakistan, a country with which we can barely pretend to be even frenemies with these days, in exchange for absolutely no gain? Um, good work there, guys...

What they were doing in Canada? (5, Interesting)

DogKia (2761911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797535)

On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York
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.

What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (5, Funny)

farlukar (225243) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797565)

What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?

Spreading freedom.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797595)

And democracy.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797801)

And peace and joy to the world.

(tearing up)
It's Santa's work. He would have wanted us to carry on after we accidentally killed him with a drone strike for attempting to move towards the US while carrying a gun, funny thing is, it turned out to be a toy gun, afterwards the analyst was quite sheepish about the whole thing, admitting that yeah, the orange color of the gun should have really given it away, but he figured terrorists would know this and just paint their guns orange, so better safe than sorry.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797907)

Oh man. Where's the mod points when you need'em?

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (5, Informative)

frobbie (2756533) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797607)

What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?

When flying from Canada to the US, US immigration occurs in Canada. This is known as "pre-clearance" and allows the plane to land in the US as if it were a domestic flight - including allowing flights to US airports that do not have immigration facilities.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797631)

What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?

The US and Canada have the system set up so that you pass through US Customs in Canada if you are leaving by air. That means that your flight goes to the domestic gates in the US (and can go to small airports without any customs at all). It is actually a very useful system if you are transferring to another flight in the US; as long as you make your flight in Canada, you should have no trouble changing planes in the US.

By the way, it has an interesting legal corollary - they can't arrest you, not being in the US. They can tell Canadian police to arrest you, but they can't do it themselves. That may not help you if they find pot on you, and it certainly won't help you if they find a bomb on you, but it does mean that someone like Khan is not going to just get carted off to Guantanamo without Canadian involvement. (I suspect that he wasn't technically "detained" either, but that is probably a fine line, and he may well have felt like it was a detention.)

Note: IANA and this is not legal advice.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797721)

Being ordered off an airplane sounds like detention to me.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (-1, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797855)

You sound like a moron to me.

Words don't mean what you want them to mean.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (3, Informative)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797937)

This is also true of Canadian train stations. At least it is true of Vancouver's train station. You clear in Vancouver, and then just ride past the border.

Some people were hoping to set up a station closer to the border, but officials didn't want to clear there too.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797665)

Most (if not all) major Canadian airports host US Customs & Immigration for flights destined for US ports. This permits Canadian travellers to "pre-clear" US Customs prior to departure (treating the airport from the security checkpoint to the departure lounge as if it were US soil), permitting faster service to the US. It is a "feature" of our closeness with the USA, and our "longest undefended border" (now patrolled by US drones).

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797713)

Most (if not all) major Canadian airports host US Customs & Immigration for flights destined for US ports.

Not all. Last year when I left Quebec City going to Detroit, I had to pass through customs in Detroit.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (1)

lurker1997 (2005954) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797887)

Quebec City is not a major Canadian airport. All major airports have pre-clearance, little regional airports do not. I used to fly to Boston from Fredericton and had to clear customs in Boston, but Fredericton Airport is basically a shed with one international flight a day (usually with about five people on it).

Toronto, Montreal, even Ottawa which is a tiny airport, Vancouver, Calgary etc, all have pre-clearance

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798025)

QC may not be major, but it is not tiny.

I do understand that cost-benefit analyses must be made, but I was surprised to see a Provincial Capital not included in the system.

Re:What they were doing in Canada? (1)

ntropia (939502) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797981)

The US custom *is* in Canada. They probably have a treaty, so if you're going in US through Canada, you go through custom (or not) before actually entering US.

Pakastani? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797551)

Is this a new middle-eastern republic?

Where's Pakastan? (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797577)

I can't find it on the map. So embarassed. I hope we're not at war with it; I'd hate to be that stereotypical American.

Re:Where's Pakastan? (1)

liquidweaver (1988660) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797629)

I'm an actual American, I can find all the 'stans, and I am opposed to our involvement; but then again, I never voted for it nor did anyone else.

Swing and a miss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797711)

The proper spelling is Pakistan, not Pak-A-stan.

As an editor, spelling and grammar as part of their jobs, why oh why do they fail so often at it and none of their bosses call them out? 20-35 stories a day are NOT that much to get right, even if the number of submissions is in the hundreds.

Re:Swing and a miss! (2)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797729)

People get paid for clicking `yeah, that'll do - bung it on the front page`? Why?

Re:Swing and a miss! (4, Funny)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797931)

Worse than that, this bit of the title was the only change made to the submission! oh well. Hopefully an editor will fix it at some point.

Re:Where's Pakastan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797723)

Whoosh!!!

I can find Pakistan but not Pakastan. Perhaps you could share the location of this Pakastan, as you say you can locate all the 'stans?

Re:Where's Pakastan? (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797735)

That's OK, it wasn't mentioned in the Foreign Policy Debate [slate.com], even as Pakistan, so it clearly must be of no real significance.

Re:Where's Pakastan? (1)

Pulzar (81031) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797811)

That's OK, it wasn't mentioned in the Foreign Policy Debate, even as Pakistan, so it clearly must be of no real significance.

You must've not listened to the debate, but like to pretend that you did.

According to the transcript, it was actually mentioned 25 times.

Re:Where's Pakastan? (2)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797903)

The title was rewritten by slashdot editors I'm afraid... It did start with his name, but presumably that was considered too obscure?

Thugs. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797583)

Translation: "You have freedom of speech but we don't like your opinion, so we'll make you miss your plane and then let you go. Like that, we can claim to the world that you have the freedom to express your opinions, when in reality what we're pulling off is wrongful arrest."

FYI I'm not flying to the U.S. anytime soon even if they paid me to.

Re:Thugs. (2)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797693)

FYI I'm not flying to the U.S. anytime soon even if they paid me to.

This is my policy since PATRIOT act. Even more so since NDAA... Land of the free (to do what we tell you), home of the (not) brave (enough to kick the rich out of power).

Re:Thugs. (5, Insightful)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797835)

This is also my policy since 9/11. From european POV post-9/11 United States seems to be half-way between civilzed country and banana-republic-style police state. This also applies to freedom of speech and amount of bullshit propaganda - compare Fox News with any mainstream european media and you'll see huge difference. Do something with this folks ! You're losing your freedoms and your country way faster than you think !

seriously Slashdot (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797599)

Please use a spell checker before submitting stories.

It's just not cricket. (4, Insightful)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797605)

Seriuosly , how much lower can the US go, now questioning politicians from allied countries over their views.

Allied? LOL. (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797699)

Pakistan says it's our ally because otherwise we would take/destroy their nukes.

We're going to take them anyhow, just not today. We already 'helped' them secure the warheads.

Don't pretend for a second that anybody believes the fiction. The Saudis, Pakis, Egyptians etc are not our allies. We're just keeping them 'closer then our friends'.

Re:Allied? LOL. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797889)

Actually, they say that they're our ally because of the huge amounts of money that we send to them. All of their mid- and high-ranking military officers are living high on the hog because of us (and stashing huge amounts of money outside of their country, in preparation for the coming deluge), and don't want to lose that lifestyle. Without our money they would either bend to the will of the Pakistani people or leave the country. But otherwise, point well taken.

Re:Allied? LOL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41798101)

It's Pakistanis, not Pakis.

Funny how people who like to promote multiculturalism and tolerance sometimes exhibit the worst kind of racism against people from Muslim countries. I sometimes wonder what would cause an otherwise rational person to adopt a worldview of "US and Israel vs the world".

Re:It's just not cricket. (5, Informative)

thePig (964303) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797805)

Another factor here is that Imran Khan is one of the few politicians who stands up against extremism. He was previously the captain of their cricket team (and a very capable player and leader - I must say), and was even then known for his secular, non-conformist views and opinions. Of all the people from Pakistan to detain, he should be the last.

Customs abuse (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797613)

The US seems to have a nasty habit of using customs officials to put pressure on people it doesn't like. Customs is unique because you pretty much have to cooperate or you won't get into the country, and it is difficult to arrange to get a lawyer.

Re:Customs abuse (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797727)

When you say the US? Who? Who would direct that? Customs drones don't do anything outside the law unless directed to unless they want to go to jail or be fired.

If this administration does not have control of the levers of government who ordered that?

Re:Customs abuse (3, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798121)

If this administration does not have control of the levers of government who ordered that?

It was someone who knew who the guy is and what his political views are. This can't be just discovered while clearing him for travel. This means he has a thick dossier on him; his speeches were translated and analyzed, and someone made a decision to tag him as an "enemy of the people." Where would such a dossier be? At the State Department most likely, or at CIA as a remote second possibility.

Freedom of Speech limited to Americans (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797737)

One can only conclude that the US government sees Freedom of Speech as a uniquely American right. Which is just plain wrong.

Re:Freedom of Speech limited to Americans (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798079)

From past stories it seems that US customs have no qualms about harassing "unpatriotic" US citizens either. But it's true: customs (and not just the US one) have the power to harass and detain, and you pretty much have zero legal recourse if for example you miss your flight. Even regular police are more accountable for their actions (as they should be).

Beyond pale (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797649)

"USA , freedom of speech as long as you agree with us" if it happened as reported then it should be the new motto of the USA.

Re:Beyond pale (2, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797821)

I'd say he's free to speak but not necessarily free to come to the US to do it. People disagree with the government here all the time but generally they are citizens with at least that much standing. I see people all the time that harangue against the US government and it's policies with no repercussions. I think if many people who sneer at the free speech of the US were to travel to Iran and start talking about how Mohammed liked to butt fuck little boys they'd find out just what intolerance is. Try to keep a little perspective.

Re:Beyond pale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797891)

> People disagree with the government here all the time but generally they are citizens with at least that much standing.

Oh... I must have missed the past in the constitution which says it only applies to US citizens.

Re:Beyond pale (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798143)

The question becomes where is he doing his free speech and for what cause? If it is one to help his party, that is one thing.

OTOH, if it is to fund taliban and AQ, well, no.

Re:Beyond pale (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797953)

"I'd say he's free to speak but not necessarily free to come to the US to do it."

Wut? Political speech is protected in the US and doesn't apply to citizens only.

"I see people all the time that harangue against the US government and it's policies with no repercussions."

And why not? He's not making threats. The government is only a group of people who hold power. They're not royalty. No one is above criticism. Not even religious figures or deities.

You fail to understand the first amendment. A shame you hold American citizenship.

Re:Beyond pale (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797929)

"freedom of speech as long as you agree with us"

That's the left's mantra. That's the core of political correctness. Tolerance is a one way street.

Why is he allowed to fly outside Pakistan? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797655)

Why are corrupt politicians from a terrorist nation allowed to do fund raising? Why is he even allowed to fly anywhere out of Pakistan? Put him behind bars for all the anti-US crap he says to his people in his country? Isn't guantanmo bay still open?

Re:Why is he allowed to fly outside Pakistan? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798139)

I'm sure he would say the same about you - let's lock up all ACs who say anything against our Gloriously Free nation of Pakistan! Why are you even allowed to fly out of the US? You're on a PK no-fly list!

Diplomatic Issues (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797671)

I suspect that the DHS has no idea how this will play in Pakistan. It would not surprise me much if people from the State Department are going to have a little talk with the DHS about this early next week (assuming Sandy doesn't get in the way).

For an analogy, imagine Ron Paul was detained a few hours in Lahore over his views on cutting Defense spending...

Dishonest (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797679)

If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.

Re:Dishonest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797857)

Hey might have been popular for a little while.. until that accidental drone strike. ohh but he was against it? well... he never actually made it into office.

Re:Dishonest (1, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797859)

That would be a great way to shoot themselves in the foot (as usual). He is well known globally as peace activist who doesn't happen to like the way that America is indiscriminately murdering innocent people in his country. I do not think that the US would like it if Russia decided to start bombing the US on a regular basis and kept saying "ooh, yes, we have reason to believe that mother and baby were terrorists". I realise that the average American swallows the BS when they say that they got a bad guy and they forget to mention that they have no way of knowing who they got and that the the city block they took out killed 20 people, but the rest of the world have got their brains turned on.

Re:Dishonest (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797985)

If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.

I do agree with you that the President and the Secretary of State should set diplomatic policy, not some agent at the counter. However, I don't think they would support this. This person should be our friend. This is not the way to go about achieving that.

Imran Khan (an ex-professional cricket player) is no more Al Qaeda than is Ron Paul. (He is frequently described as Pakistan's Ron Paul.) He has a fairly classic liberal agenda. (Note that classic liberalism is the basis of our system of government.) He is explicitly against the Taliban.

Yes, he is also against drone strikes. That is a widespread sentiment in Pakistan. Heck, I believe that some politicians (even, dare I say, Ron Paul) feel the same way here.

Note also that Al Qaeda is against sports and the Taliban shut down all sports in the territory they controlled, at least up until recently. Knowing that, you might even think that they would threaten to kill a Paikistani politician who played sports and espoused liberal values. You would be correct [indianexpress.com].

We should probably apologize to the guy, and should certainly welcome him into the country. One does not have to agree with everything a friend says to recognize them as a friend.

Re:Dishonest (0, Flamebait)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798093)

most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country

Winner of the prize for most ignorant comment on Slashdot.

Imran Kahn is an Al-Qaeda supporter. Levels of stupidity too deep to plumb.

"Paklstan's Ron Paul".

Hah.

Drone protestor detained by drones (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797785)

DHS Drones detain a drone protester.

The DHS drones see anybody from the Middle East as a terrorist of course ignoring the obvious irony that the USA is behaving like a terrorist with its drones flying over and bombing other nations.

But is it all a cunning plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797795)

The USA persecuting the Pakistani politicians it wants in power is probably a good way to give them a boost with the Pakistani public.

I don't really know how good Kahn is but he sounds much less corrupt than the current crop.

Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797823)

Khan was coming to the US to raise funds for his political party, which opposes the interests of the US government. The debate should center more on the points of conflict, rather than the US government blocking Khan's attempt to use US funds against the US.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797979)

Khan was coming to the US to raise funds for his political party, which opposes the interests of the US government.

Don't you think that's it's kinda sad when a centrist liberal political party, promoting human rights (especially for women and non-Muslims) and a fight against corruption is determined to be "opposing the interests of the US government"?

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser (1, Informative)

andy1307 (656570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798119)

Don't you think that's it's kinda sad when a centrist liberal political party,

Imran Khan's party can't be described as centrist, liberal or secular by ANY stretch of the imagination. He's frequently justified the actions of the taliban as jihad i.e. justified under islamic law.

Re:Khan was coming for an anti-US fundraiser (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798031)

Actually, I can understand why he wants the drones to stop. I really can.

The problem is that the pakistanis need to clean house and solve the taliban/AQ issue that they created. If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.

Imran Khan - Sportsman (-1, Flamebait)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#41797899)

Before becoming a politician, Imran Khan was a sportsman. He was one of the greatest allrounders to play cricket. He captained Pakistan to a World Cup win in 1992. He was married to a Jew - Jemima Goldsmith.

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797977)

politician, loudmouth, and a jock and uses his wife's race as a selling point for more votes

sounds like a twat to me

Re:Imran Khan - Sportsman (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798115)

I doubt very much that marrying a jew will win a lot of favours with voters in predominantly muslim Pakistan.

Nine more day until we vote out Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797923)

What's that evil cretin going to do next at Cheney's insistence? Start killing US citizens with drone strikes?

Maybe he was pro-rape? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797987)

Maybe he was pro-rape? Like GOP pro-rape:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-asTO6M3l1jE/UIouyJAk2KI/AAAAAAAACYI/hT3GZzIB_i8/s1600/gop_rape_advisory.gif

Incredible quotes!

The Republican Party
Rape Advisory Chart

GIFT-FROM-GOD RAPE

“When me begins with that horrible situation at rape,
that is something that God intended to happen."
--Republican senate candidate Richard Mourdock (IN)
October 23, 2012 (1 day after being endorsed by Mitt Romney)

“The right approach is to accept this horribly created,
in the sense of rape, but nevertheless... a gift of human life,
and accept what God is giving to you"
--Republican senator & Presidential candidate Rick Santorum(PA)
January 20, 2012

“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans...
believe that life is a gift from God."
--Republican Senator John Cornyn (TX),
supporting Richard Murdock's statement
about rape-induced pregnancies
October 24, 2012

LEGITIMATE RAPE

“If it's a legitimate rape, the female body
has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
--Republican Congressman & Senate candidate Todd Akin (MO)
August 20, 2012

HONEST RAPE

“If it‘s an honest rape,
that individual should go immediately to the emergency room
I would give them a shot of estrogen.“
--Republican Congressman & Presidential candidate Ron Paul (TX)
February 3, 2012

EMERGENCY RAPE

“If was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced
to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape"
--Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon (CT)
(also confusing churches with hospitals)
October 15, 2012

EASY RAPE

"if you go down that road, some girls they rape so easy."
--Republican State Representative Roger Rivard (WI)
December 21 2011 (endorsed by Paul Ryan on Aug 9 2012)

FORCIBLE RAPE

Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan"

Todd “legitimate rape" Akin and 214 other Republicans
co-sponsored the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"
which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances
of “an act at forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.“
--H.R. 3, 112th Congress, January 20, 2011

Bonus: The "Father" of Republican Rape Apologists

ENJOYABLE RAPE

"If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."
--Republican Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams (TX)
March 25 1990

Drones get a new target... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41797997)

Citizens soon.

Recording? (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798019)

I hope that this was recorded. If this is true, then things really need to change in INS.

don't forget this (3, Informative)

andy1307 (656570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41798107)

He's also justified the taliban's actions as jihad [guardian.co.uk].

Afghan politicians have reacted with disbelief, with one parliamentarian suggesting Khan should be arrested. The Ulema Council, a grouping of senior clerics, declared his comments "unislamic". A Kabul foreign ministry spokesman said Khan was "either profoundly and dangerously ignorant about the reality in Afghanistan, or he has ill will against the Afghan people. "Our children are killed on daily basis, civilians killed and our schools, hospitals and infrastructure attacked on a daily basis. To call any of that jihad is profoundly wrong and misguided."

So he's not on their radar just for his opposition to the drones...

US Shoots Foot Of AGAIN. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41798133)

What kind of morons do you Employ / Elect! in the states? Those clowns just just gaurenteed wold wide front page headlines on the horrors
of Drone attacks on Cilvillians. Err. Proberbly not in the US Fox Media. Glad Murdochs no longer an Aussie.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...