Secret no-fly list causes Bangkok holiday nightmare

[FDog]

good i would say, keep the airport's safe

He was made to stay in the terminal. How would this make an airport safe if he is made to stay in it?

[Thai at Heart]

This is a travesty of justice. If USA has any reason to suspect this guy:

1) He should not have been allowed to leave USA

2) Any possibility of terrorism could have been neutralized by USA requiring extra security scanning of individual and belongings.

People are too accepting of the infringement of civil liberties by USA since the 911 incident.

I fully agree.

It seems to me though, that USA wants to dump its (suspected) terrosists on someone elses doorstep. Obviously the USA's "war on terror" only extends to looking after their own and to hell with the rest.

It's much easier to conduct rendition and interrogation off home turf.

[Greer]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why you would wonder the airport terminal for four days waiting to be questioned,why did he not stay in a hotel ?

Perhaps he was already airside - if that's the case, he cant go back...

[FDog]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why you would wonder the airport terminal for four days waiting to be questioned,why did he not stay in a hotel ?

Perhaps he was already airside - if that's the case, he cant go back...

He wasn't permitted to leave the airport.

[hawker9000]

Just wait for them to racially profile white men traveling from and to Thailand and giving them extra checks for child porn making them feel like criminals and wait for ages ect. Bet the tune here would be totally different. Its all fun and games when the rights of others are infringed upon but once you are the one all hell breaks loose.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

That actually happens, and I'm sure FAR more often than no-fly list incidents (that list is reportedly not really a big one). I think you can find accounts of it right here at TV. And guess what... Nobody (except those to whom it happens) cares, and the world keeps turning. We get what we vote for. Voters apparently value safety more than freedom; we keep electing the politicians that do the same things. We wanted safety, and this is what our governments gave us.

Edited July 1, 2013 by hawker9000

[Unkomoncents]

Thing is no fly lists are a pain but a secret one is too much. If there is a secret one you can't even check if you are on it and save hardship. I understand the need to stop terrorists and such but sometimes the good ol US of A goes too far.

Just like spying on its allies that has been brought to light, though I still prefer the US over China as super power it starts to become a question who is the lesser evil. A country that has so much about freedom that spies on its allies, puts on secret no fly lists and such is not that free.

The US government is interested in protecting Americans at home and abroad. If one American, or ten thousand Americans, have to be thrown under the bus so that the other 290,000+ can feel like they are in less danger, the American government will do it. If any number of foreigners have to be thrown under the bus to protect Americans, the US government will do it. To do anything else would be fundamentally illogical, as the US government's job is to protect Americans and Americans alone. Would you expect the government of Japan to take risks so as to protect citizens of Angola? Anyone who has ever worked with a government agency or has any familiarity with the purpose of government (in general) will immediately understand why the US does what it does with secret no-fly lists. The fact is, the US government is largely elected by Americans. Most Americans are not on secret no-fly lists and so the majority don't really care if "conservative Muslims" get put on no-fly lists, legitimately or illegitimately. That may be sad to some, but you can hardly blame Americans when, out of the blue, some Muslim terrorist group declares war on the entire country. Even when Americans hear the horror stories of four-year olds getting manhandled at US airports, you don't see them getting out their torches and pitchforks and marching on the capital. Terrorism sucks for us all. The world needs to get used to it.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unkomoncents

[I Like Thai]

It's not like Muslims are so highly regarded in Thailand.

The Thai immigration official might have been close to or related to someone killed or maimed by the southern insurgency.

I think that you should travel around Thailand before making a blanket statement like that. Northern Thailand, especially Chiang Rai Province has a large population of Muslims, Christians and Buddhists all of whom mix together and show regard for others. Not all Thai Muslims live in the South and even after saying that many who do get on with other religions. I don't see what religion you practice matters much here, what is reported is the fanatical few wanting independence and not caring who they kill in order to get it!

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4 days before drawing the detention.

Yes I never said all or most Muslims however there are a few thousand Thai soldiers who have been killed in the south.

Also I live in CM and I remember a few years ago when someone chucked a pipe bomb into a Mosque off of Chang Klan road.

I've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

Suspicion before respect.

I'd certainly be suspicious of a Roman Catholic priest if he wanted to babysit my son. It would be foolish not to....although I'm sure he's a good guy. People are still people as one guy said.

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

[Unkomoncents]

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4 days before drawing the detention.

Yes I never said all or most Muslims however there are a few thousand Thai soldiers who have been killed in the south.

Also I live in CM and I remember a few years ago when someone chucked a pipe bomb into a Mosque off of Chang Klan road.

I've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

Suspicion before respect.

I'd certainly be suspicious of a Roman Catholic priest if he wanted to babysit my son. It would be foolish not to....although I'm sure he's a good guy. People are still people as one guy said.

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

[I Like Thai]

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4 days before drawing the detention.

Yes I never said all or most Muslims however there are a few thousand Thai soldiers who have been killed in the south.

Also I live in CM and I remember a few years ago when someone chucked a pipe bomb into a Mosque off of Chang Klan road.

I've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

Suspicion before respect.

I'd certainly be suspicious of a Roman Catholic priest if he wanted to babysit my son. It would be foolish not to....although I'm sure he's a good guy. People are still people as one guy said.

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

[Pi Sek]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

[Unkomoncents]

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4 days before drawing the detention.

Yes I never said all or most Muslims however there are a few thousand Thai soldiers who have been killed in the south.

Also I live in CM and I remember a few years ago when someone chucked a pipe bomb into a Mosque off of Chang Klan road.

I've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

Did he or did he not return to his country?

[Unkomoncents]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unkomoncents

[diehard60]

There is surely a lesson here. If you look and dress like Bin Laden, fly to Pakistan and Indonesia meeting with fundamentalist Islam groups like Tablighi Jamaat, there is a very good chance your freedom to travel will be curtailed. If he looked and acted like the Californian med student he claims to be he would have passed through Bangkok without drama. His choice.

[snip]

Not many people are put n that list in error.

[diehard60]

Being on a no fly list is one thing, refusing to answer questions is another, however, the big question remains that why did it take 4 days for the US authorities to show up. Had he been a serious terrorist threat then he would have been long gone only to highlight that the current system need a serious overhaul.

Being on a no fly list is one thing, refusing to answer questions is another, however, the big question remains that why did it take 4 days for the US authorities to show up. Had he been a serious terrorist threat then he would have been long gone only to highlight that the current system need a serious overhaul.

Can you tell me how US authorities are here in Thailand? He wasn't going anywhere anyway. Maybe he should just change his looks a little.

[Pi Sek]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

No, I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be supportive of clear measures to suppress freedom in the name of freedom. I don't think that's fair.

edit to add - especially when the only "threat" is derived through racial profiling.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Pi Sek

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[I Like Thai]

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

Did he or did he not return to his country?

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

[iancnx]

I think the whole world is very lucky that you don't have the qualifications to be in charge! Why does it matter what someone LOOKS like people are still people and deserve respect from others!!

I hope youre not in a position of decision making.

Its because of the ignorance of western PC pollies and public servants that our countries are filling up with all these Islamic creeps.

Appearances tell you so much about people including farangs.

If you dress like a bum you probably are one. See above caption.

You will always be judged by the company you keep!

[Unkomoncents]

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

Did he or did he not return to his country?

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

No, Motiwala. Was Motiwala allowed to return to his country? If he was, then this is a moot point. The International Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say that he should be able to return to his country right now, or tomorrow, or after twenty-minutes of interrogation. As long as he was allowed to return to his country, the terms of the IDHR were adhered to. Period. The IDHR stipulates no timeframe for the return to country of origin. US government actions were fully within the terms of the IDHR. Even if they had detained him for a decade, the government wouldn't have violated any of the UN's terms. Also, how do you know he committed no crimes? I don't know that he committed no crimes. He sounds and looks like an extremely suspicious individual. The US wanted to ask him questions, which they have a right to do, seeing as how he was trying to enter the US.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unkomoncents

[jamhar]

I've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

LOL

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en...index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

He was allowed to return, just not with out checks and resulting delay.

If you cooperate, the checks can occur quickly

If you want to exercise your rights to not cooperate

you get what you get.

[Unkomoncents]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

No, I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be supportive of clear measures to suppress freedom in the name of freedom. I don't think that's fair.

edit to add - especially when the only "threat" is derived through racial profiling.

You're living in a dream world if you think the work of security personnel the world over won't include some element of racial profiling. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. It sounds like you would suggest that counterterror agencies around the world should worry as much about Thai Buddhists engaging in suicide attacks as Iraqi Muslims. That would just obviously be stupid. Law enforcement personnel work to keep people safe. They operate using limited resources. It's completely irrational to suggest that your average Swiss national is just as likely to commit an act of terror as an Iranian. If I were in law enforcement, I would always target the Iranian. Much more cost-effective and more result-oriented.

In New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, the vast, vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by African-Americans (the city is almost 90% black). If I were living there and chose to move my family, my wife and children, into a predominantly white neighborhood for their safety, would you call me a racist? Equality is a cute idea, but I personally would chose safety over equality any day. Would you do differently? Your enemy isn't racist people. You should take up arms against racist statistics.

A lot of things aren't fair. Life, for example. You're basically asking people in one country to care, and blame themselves, for what happens in another country. It's not going to happen. Would you ask Russians to care about the freedom of non-Russians? Maybe you're a freedom fighter. I'm not. If I were American, I would only care about my freedoms in America. I'm always amazed by the number of people who think it's reasonable to expect the US government to act against its interests so that people in Africa, or China, or wherever can have freedoms. That's just plain irrational. If people in those countries want freedom, they shouldn't tolerate governments that don't give it to them, not complain that America didn't stand up for their freedoms. Self-interest is an ugly principle. Unfortunately, it guides human behavior in every country on the planet.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Unkomoncents

[I Like Thai]

Did he or did he not return to his country?

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

No, Motiwala. Was Motiwala allowed to return to his country? If he was, then this is a moot point. The International Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say that he should be able to return to his country right now, or tomorrow, or after twenty-minutes of interrogation. As long as he was allowed to return to his country, the terms of the IDHR were adhered to. Period. The IDHR stipulates no timeframe for the return to country of origin. US government actions were fully within the terms of the IDHR. Even if they had detained him for a decade, the government wouldn't have violated any of the UN's terms. Also, how do you know he committed no crimes? I don't know that he committed no crimes. He sounds and looks like an extremely suspicious individual. The US wanted to ask him questions, which they have a right to do, seeing as how he was trying to enter the US.

Rather than looking at legal documents. How about it's looked at in plain old fashioned right and wrong. The person in the OP, was not an immediate danger to the flight. As a citizen of the USA, it would be the right thing to let him return to his country. If, whilst back in his own country it is deemed that he has done something wrong, then at this time arrest him and charge him. If not then let him go about his business like any other American citizen. If future intelligence suggests that he or any other American citizen is involved in any crimes, then arrest them if need be. I think is was wrong to basically give this man the status of Refugee.

[jamhar]

He refused to speak without a lawyer. So the determination of his status, (citizenship, ect) had to be verified. Without verification, there is no requirement to allow entry into a country.

If I walked up to any US boarder entry, and was asked questions by the boarder police, or immigration official, and i refused to answer any questions without a lawyer, I would expect to be denied entry, until my lawyer arrived, or they could verify my status independently.

[gemini81]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem

I don't see TV posters strapping dynamite to their bodies.

Wonder what the expression on your face would be when you had to awkwardly sit next to this guy for 23 hours.

Being on a no fly list is one thing, refusing to answer questions is another, however, the big question remains that why did it take 4 days for the US authorities to show up. Had he been a serious terrorist threat then he would have been long gone only to highlight that the current system need a serious overhaul.

Being on a no fly list is one thing, refusing to answer questions is another, however, the big question remains that why did it take 4 days for the US authorities to show up. Had he been a serious terrorist threat then he would have been long gone only to highlight that the current system need a serious overhaul.

Can you tell me how US authorities are here in Thailand? He wasn't going anywhere anyway. Maybe he should just change his looks a little.

Flash forward past WWII: The US has been here the whole time. CIA, FBI...where the heck have you been?

[geriatrickid]

Did he or did he not return to his country?

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

No, Motiwala. Was Motiwala allowed to return to his country? If he was, then this is a moot point. The International Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say that he should be able to return to his country right now, or tomorrow, or after twenty-minutes of interrogation. As long as he was allowed to return to his country, the terms of the IDHR were adhered to. Period. The IDHR stipulates no timeframe for the return to country of origin. US government actions were fully within the terms of the IDHR. Even if they had detained him for a decade, the government wouldn't have violated any of the UN's terms. Also, how do you know he committed no crimes? I don't know that he committed no crimes. He sounds and looks like an extremely suspicious individual. The US wanted to ask him questions, which they have a right to do, seeing as how he was trying to enter the US.

Rather than looking at legal documents. How about it's looked at in plain old fashioned right and wrong. The person in the OP, was not an immediate danger to the flight. As a citizen of the USA, it would be the right thing to let him return to his country. If, whilst back in his own country it is deemed that he has done something wrong, then at this time arrest him and charge him. If not then let him go about his business like any other American citizen. If future intelligence suggests that he or any other American citizen is involved in any crimes, then arrest them if need be. I think is was wrong to basically give this man the status of Refugee.

How do you know the man was not an "immediate danger" to the flight? Until all the facts are established and made public, you can not claim he was harmless, anymore than one can claim he was about to launch a terror attack. The fact is that the gentleman refused to answer the questions asked by Thai immigration. He also refused to answer the questions of US officials. Without the gentleman's cooperation there wasn't much anyone could do for him. If the questions were inappropriate or "illegal" he will have the opportunity to seek redress in a US court. He was detained by Thai immigration in accordance with the existing regulations. On any given day there are several detainees that are in BKK's holding room because they do not meet the legal requirements for entry into the Kingdom. The US government did not accuse him of any crime, nor did it treat him as a criminal. the gentleman made the decision not to cooperate thereby delaying his return to the USA because the US officials had to verify information.

The chap fits the pattern for similar domestic terrorists; Interest in contraband drugs, exposure to radical Islamist groups, travel to a region where the radical groups are active, an interest in ultimate fight/physical combat and outspoken in his views that muslims are being targeted by the west. This was all plain to see on his facebook page. All these characteristics are similar to the characteristics of the Boston bombers. This is no wacko. He is an intelligent sentient person and knew what he was doing.

[Unkomoncents]

Did he or did he not return to his country?

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

No, Motiwala. Was Motiwala allowed to return to his country? If he was, then this is a moot point. The International Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say that he should be able to return to his country right now, or tomorrow, or after twenty-minutes of interrogation. As long as he was allowed to return to his country, the terms of the IDHR were adhered to. Period. The IDHR stipulates no timeframe for the return to country of origin. US government actions were fully within the terms of the IDHR. Even if they had detained him for a decade, the government wouldn't have violated any of the UN's terms. Also, how do you know he committed no crimes? I don't know that he committed no crimes. He sounds and looks like an extremely suspicious individual. The US wanted to ask him questions, which they have a right to do, seeing as how he was trying to enter the US.

Rather than looking at legal documents. How about it's looked at in plain old fashioned right and wrong. The person in the OP, was not an immediate danger to the flight. As a citizen of the USA, it would be the right thing to let him return to his country. If, whilst back in his own country it is deemed that he has done something wrong, then at this time arrest him and charge him. If not then let him go about his business like any other American citizen. If future intelligence suggests that he or any other American citizen is involved in any crimes, then arrest them if need be. I think is was wrong to basically give this man the status of Refugee.

The problem with that line of thinking is that of the Muslim extremists who carried out attacks on US soil in the past, most had not committed any crimes prior to the attacks. The Boston Marathon bombings are an excellent example. Who would have thought a couple of central Asian students would blow up marathon runners? Hind-sight is 20/20. If this guy goes on to commit an attack, Americans will demand that their politicians and law enforcement personnel be held to account for letting him pass into the US. The public will excoriate officials and all will fade into obscurity with the knowledge that they failed to protect the people they were assigned to protect. You can't tell me now that this guy won't commit an attack in the future. No one can predict these kinds of things. Therefore, the US government walks a fine line every time it detains a "conservative muslim". With most suicide bombers, you don't know they're a suicide bomber until after the bombs have gone off. That isn't an acceptable excuse to most Americans.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Unkomoncents

[apalink_thailand]

Hmm according to his FB site, he publicly espouses the supposed 911 conspiracy/lie and he is a major supporter of medical marijuana. Two strikes right there as far as the authorities are concerned. Never mind the beard.

[I Like Thai]

Geriatrickid

How do you know the man was not an "immediate danger" to the flight? Until all the facts are established and made public, you can not claim he was harmless, anymore than one can claim he was about to launch a terror attack. The fact is that the gentleman refused to answer the questions asked by Thai immigration. He also refused to answer the questions of US officials. Without the gentleman's cooperation there wasn't much anyone could do for him. If the questions were inappropriate or "illegal" he will have the opportunity to seek redress in a US court. He was detained by Thai immigration in accordance with the existing regulations. On any given day there are several detainees that are in BKK's holding room because they do not meet the legal requirements for entry into the Kingdom. The US government did not accuse him of any crime, nor did it treat him as a criminal. the gentleman made the decision not to cooperate thereby delaying his return to the USA because the US officials had to verify information.

The chap fits the pattern for similar domestic terrorists; Interest in contraband drugs, exposure to radical Islamist groups, travel to a region where the radical groups are active, an interest in ultimate fight/physical combat and outspoken in his views that muslims are being targeted by the west. This was all plain to see on his facebook page. All these characteristics are similar to the characteristics of the Boston bombers. This is no wacko. He is an intelligent sentient person and knew what he was doing.

If he had been an immediate danger to the flight, he would have been taken into custody and not allowed to wander around the concourse in BKK.

Any person who wants to return to their country should be allowed to do so unhindered, except for identification purposes or if they are a danger to the flight. . I have read nothing to suggest that his identification was in doubt or that he was a danger to the flight.

Again, if he is wanted in relation to any crimes he may have committed, then he should be arrested in his home country once he returns on the flight, charged and go through court proceedings. If not, then let him on his way. The system in use will only ever create more terrorists. It will never succeed in reducing their numbers.

Try not to see this as Anti American, if anything it is trying to observe flaws in the system. A system controls society and not the other way around. The system is run by processes. In the main processes are good and work effectively. The main problem with processes, is that nobody makes decisions, nobody says no. It is not wise to go outside a process in case an error, maybe years down the line can be attributed to someone who went outside a process. It conditions people to adhere to it strictly. Problem is, not every situation has an effective process to handle it. This is when the system starts to fail. No effective process to handle it and no one to make a decision.

[I Like Thai]

The problem with that line of thinking is that of the Muslim extremists who carried out attacks on US soil in the past, most had not committed any crimes prior to the attacks. The Boston Marathon bombings are an excellent example. Who would have thought a couple of central Asian students would blow up marathon runners? Hind-sight is 20/20. If this guy goes on to commit an attack, Americans will demand that their politicians and law enforcement personnel be held to account for letting him pass into the US. The public will excoriate officials and all will fade into obscurity with the knowledge that they failed to protect the people they were assigned to protect. You can't tell me now that this guy won't commit an attack in the future. No one can predict these kinds of things. Therefore, the US government walks a fine line every time it detains a "conservative muslim". With most suicide bombers, you don't know they're a suicide bomber until after the bombs have gone off. That isn't an acceptable excuse to most Americans.

Yes, real terrorists (trained) will blend in as best they can to their surroundings. They will not cause scenes and will comply with everything required to gain entry. They learn the system and play it to their advantage. Regular people who are fed up with always being picked out for special treatment are rarely the people the system is trying to catch, this causes ill feeling which ultimately can result in further tensions between the communities.

Terrorists are not always tied to a central command and can work individually or as a small group. They may have absolutely no contact whatsoever with any known militant group. They can form opinions based on things that happen and the way their society is functioning. None of us here are ever going to succeed in fixing what is broken between the two cultures. The best we can hope for is that we can live our own life without conflict in spite of it. Try to find a way to get along for yourself.

[geriatrickid]

Geriatrickid

How do you know the man was not an "immediate danger" to the flight? Until all the facts are established and made public, you can not claim he was harmless, anymore than one can claim he was about to launch a terror attack. The fact is that the gentleman refused to answer the questions asked by Thai immigration. He also refused to answer the questions of US officials. Without the gentleman's cooperation there wasn't much anyone could do for him. If the questions were inappropriate or "illegal" he will have the opportunity to seek redress in a US court. He was detained by Thai immigration in accordance with the existing regulations. On any given day there are several detainees that are in BKK's holding room because they do not meet the legal requirements for entry into the Kingdom. The US government did not accuse him of any crime, nor did it treat him as a criminal. the gentleman made the decision not to cooperate thereby delaying his return to the USA because the US officials had to verify information.

The chap fits the pattern for similar domestic terrorists; Interest in contraband drugs, exposure to radical Islamist groups, travel to a region where the radical groups are active, an interest in ultimate fight/physical combat and outspoken in his views that muslims are being targeted by the west. This was all plain to see on his facebook page. All these characteristics are similar to the characteristics of the Boston bombers. This is no wacko. He is an intelligent sentient person and knew what he was doing.

If he had been an immediate danger to the flight, he would have been taken into custody and not allowed to wander around the concourse in BKK.

Any person who wants to return to their country should be allowed to do so unhindered, except for identification purposes or if they are a danger to the flight. . I have read nothing to suggest that his identification was in doubt or that he was a danger to the flight.

Again, if he is wanted in relation to any crimes he may have committed, then he should be arrested in his home country once he returns on the flight, charged and go through court proceedings. If not, then let him on his way. The system in use will only ever create more terrorists. It will never succeed in reducing their numbers.

Try not to see this as Anti American, if anything it is trying to observe flaws in the system. A system controls society and not the other way around. The system is run by processes. In the main processes are good and work effectively. The main problem with processes, is that nobody makes decisions, nobody says no. It is not wise to go outside a process in case an error, maybe years down the line can be attributed to someone who went outside a process. It conditions people to adhere to it strictly. Problem is, not every situation has an effective process to handle it. This is when the system starts to fail. No effective process to handle it and no one to make a decision.

According to Mr. Motiwala, " he was tossed into a detention centre in Suvarnabhumi Airport".

If he was in detention, then he wasn't wandering about the concourse was he?