posted 10-31- 12:03 PM               

Research a little deeper. There must be some reason for this besides evil ones.

posted 10-31- 02:50 PM               

Both countries have raised security in airports?

And yeah it could be an airline thing not a country thing.

I don't even know what to punch into google to look for more info about this.

I'm sure there is some reason, but its probly stupid, or like I said based on money.

posted 10-31- 03:12 PM               

Where did you hear about this Snickers?

Maybe we can do a search on the website?

If it was on TV the news places sometimes have online pages with more info.

Who are they being asked to share the lists with? FCC? US airlines? US athuroties?

The only things I can think of is maybe they don't want to violate passenger privacy.

I'm not saying I agree if thats the reason, just brainstorming.

posted 10-31- 05:15 PM               

It still doesn't seem to point out why countries or airlines are refusing to do it.

About Air Canada, I'm not sure anymore, I thought they were privite but I also thought I heard something about the Canadian goverment buying them out to save them or something wacky?

There is also Canada 2000, and I'm not sure what the deal is with them.

It seems to be an airline thing not a country thing, if we can belive that wording of the article at face value. (not saying they would be twisting, Its just I'm reading into the way it was written)

"Most airlines voluntarily share their passenger lists with federal officials. But some international carriers -- including airlines from Canada, the Bahamas, Ireland, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan -- refuse to give their passenger lists to the U.S. Customs Department before flying to the United States "

I repete "But some international carriers -- including airlines from Canada,"

SOME... , that makes me think its a not a nation thing but an airline choice.

Its too bad the article doesn't also mention WHY. Wacky stuff, I guess they tried to ask the airlines but like the article said:

"Calls to other airlines were not immediately returned."

One part that I find a little wacky.

"This isn't about profiling passengers," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota. "This is about getting IDs of all passengers coming here to this country and trying to profile who might be known or suspected terrorists and keeping them out."

So when is profiling NOT profiling?

That whole paragraph just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not arguing for or against profiling. It just seems to be like he is saying thats not what then are doing in the first sentence and then admiting thats what they want to do in the second.

posted 10-31- 06:10 PM               

But since most international carriers are state owned or quasi-government agencies it does become a state thing. Look at the list, mostly middle eastern countries (what would they have to hide I wonder?),and the Bahamas (world center for money laundering and phoney corporations). Canada and Ireland....????.....ask them. Are they state airlines? Ireland, I'm pretty sure, is.

Edit: He probably meant is wasn't "racial" profiling to keep people out because of their race, but "identity" profiling.

posted 10-31- 07:38 PM               

I could see privacy being a reason.

posted 11-02- 10:28 AM               

Also since when do goverments or businesses make any sense?

posted 11-02- 04:55 PM               

So you telling me jgro, that If I have a passport I can't just get on a flight to Australia and go through customs?

How long in advance do I have to apply and how crazy is this background check? Sounds like it would be very bad for tourism. I know I would twice before going through all that stuff.

I hav't flown into another country from Canada before.

But I always thought you could do that for international flights?

posted 11-02- 06:17 PM               

ACLU takes things to the extreme.... The very extreme... (But, this is the topic for another flame war... )