Bans on Travel

[KJS]

This is a new post on a topic touched on below, because its too off-topic, IMO, to be discussed in the context of the case of the human sheild, where my original thoughts on travel bans occured.

In my post "What About Freedom of Movement?" I wrote "Do you think the government has the right to tell you where you can and cannot travel?"

Wake Up Call's response saying you can go, but there are consequences, prompted me post this.

In my reply to Boris, I was trying to get at the point "should I face consequences for travelling somewhere my government doesn't want me to." Perhaps I could have been more clear.

My question is: just because my government has a problem with some leader or policy, should I be limited in my personal freedom to go to that country? Is travel a privelege I should have to give up because my government deems some country a place they are opposed to?

Obviously the US hates Cuba. But, personally, I have nothing against them. In fact, I went there illegally and found it to be a wonderful place. I don't think I should have faced consequences for having done so. I would like to think that I am free to travel whereever I chose, not only those places my government chooses for me. I guess I am uncomfortable with the long arm of the law stretching across the world and telling me I can't go somewhere.

When I go to that place, I am now subject to their laws, not the US'. The US can't tell me I cannot go to Amsterdam and smoke weed, because weed is illegal in the US.

So why does the US have this odd jurisdiction whereby they can tell me I can't go to Cuba (or Libya, or N. Korea) and spend money (which is what you get busted for?

KJS

[brad]

i think its an interesting juxtaposition (10 points!) that the US policy is that the prisoners (concentration campers, whatever) at guantanamo bay have no rights or whatever because the base is not on US soil. (its leased not owned or something like that).

so -

if youre not on US soil the US can screw u cause US has no liability or whatever,

but -

if u leave US jurisdiction then

----

well whatever u know what i mean

[HDPM]

"When I go to that place, I am now subject to their laws, not the US'. The US can't tell me I cannot go to Amsterdam and smoke weed, because weed is illegal in the US."

You will really hate this. It is my understanding that if you smoke a Cuban cigar in London, not that any American citizen would ever even consider that /images/graemlins/wink.gif, that you are in violation of the Trading With The Enemy Act. I'm not sure, and such trivial violations are never pursued, but the law reaches American citizens on foreign soil. I do think governments have the power to prohibit citizens from travel to SOME enemy countries. I don't think any government can totally prohibit international travel (at least morally/justifiably) but it is logical to ban travel to enemies during war. Whether any particular ban is reasonable is another story entirely.

[Wake up CALL]

What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country? Do you think if you committed incest while in a country that allows such travesties to occur that when you came back to the US everything would be okey dokey? This is an extreme example and I am in no way suggesting you would commit such an act but I use it to demonstrate the fallacy in your thinking.


Where do you people come up with this sort of logic?

[MMMMMM]

Another example is men who travel to, say, Bangkok or Costa Rica, and think they can have sex with 13-year-old girls there since our laws against statutory rape or sexually molesting children do not apply to them while they are there. Well they're wrong in that assumption (from what I've read). The USA can prosecute them for such acts.

Also I'm a little surprised that the posters who are making an issue of "travel to Iraq and free speech" seem to be completely ignoring the fact that such travel has the potential to complicate and endanger our operations there. Hostages would be an unwelcome scenario, and just plain getting in the way of a construction project can be forbidden, not to mention getting in the way of military operations.

[MMMMMM]

"Obviously the US hates Cuba. But, personally, I have nothing against them. In fact, I went there illegally and found it to be a wonderful place."

Well I hope you found it in your heart to tell Castro what an evil bastard he is while you were there.

Since you're so against limits on free speech I hope you at least said SOMETHING to the Cuban government along the lines that they should not be imprisoning and shooting dissident professors and poets for merely expressing their views.

[Boris]

"Another example is men who travel to, say, Bangkok or Costa Rica, and think they can have sex with 13-year-old girls there since our laws against statutory rape or sexually molesting children do not apply to them while they are there. Well they're wrong in that assumption (from what I've read). The USA can prosecute them for such acts."

Thank you for illustrating my original point. The idea here is that there is some precedent for US laws applying to US citizens on foreign soil. If that's the case then clearly you would have to apply the same standards to the teacher's conduct. She would never be fined $10,000 or face a lengthy prison term if she was protesting in the US. The most she would have deal with is a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

[brad]

[ QUOTE ]
What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

well US says it can torture people on foreign soil but not on US soil (actually they say these people have no rights outside of US, something likke that)

[MMMMMM]

If there was even just a disaster area declared, where the National Guard was called in, I'll bet the penalties for deliberately going into restricted areas could be a lot more severe, and more especially so if the intent is disruptive.

More so, going into a restricted military theater is not like simply going into downtown Chicago carrying a protest sign. Interfering with military operations is and should be considered a much more serious matter. It's dangerous and illegal and can endanger others as well.

Even before the war officially started, we had Special Operations teams in Iraq. Forbidding citizens from going into theaters of military operations can be necessary and prudent.

Did you ever see the movie An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge? During the Civil War, civilians who were found trespassing near certain railroad tracks were subject to summary execution. Security in war areas and during wartime can be very important. Trespassing isn't always just trespassing under all conditions or in all locations.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

well US says it can torture people on foreign soil but not on US soil (actually they say these people have no rights outside of US, something likke that)

[/ QUOTE ]

brad do you have daydreams about this stuff? Your posts mostly seem imaginary and often ( like in this instance) totally unrelated to the topic.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?... Where do you people come up with this sort of logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Could it have come from their experiences driving on the right side of the road in Britain? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

Let's say she insisted on protesting during rush hour on a busy interstate highway somewhere in the USA. It would be dangerous to her AND TO OTHERS to be standing out there in the oncoming traffic holding up a sign. And I'll bet she would get more than a trespassing fine. "Reckless Endangerment" for starters.

[brad]

hey guabtanamu bay

,gov says non US souil makes dif.

look it up

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?... Where do you people come up with this sort of logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Could it have come from their experiences driving on the right side of the road in Britain? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor example Mr Feeney, I doubt there are any federal laws regarding which side of the road you drive on in Great Britain. Perhaps you could come up with a better comparison. However I did appreciate the humor. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
\

[John Feeney]

Well I'm not sure incest falls under federal law either. I could easily be wrong, but I know there are a lot of state laws about that sort of thing.

My point was just that if you were to name a slew of laws to which we're subject here, including federal laws, I'll bet we can find quite a few to which an American would clearly not be subject if travelling in a country with differing laws. Certainly if a U.S law and the law of another country conflict, you'd probably best follow the law of the other country while you're there. And I'm pretty sure it's okay to smoke weed or hash when in a hash bar in Amsterdam. Not that I personally... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

How about this one? The 65 mph speed limit is a federal law, right? See where I'm going... in my BMW? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[KJS]

What jurisdiction would the US have to prosecute crimes that are against its statutes but not the place where the act took place, such as what Wake Up Call described? I tend to agree with his analogy (partly because its so offensive I can't imagine someone getting away with it) but am curious how such a charge would be filed. Do you know?

KJS

[KJS]

My logic came from an understanding of jurisdiction. I thought that jurisdiction was rooted in an idea of territory. That is why we have city cops, county cops, highway patrol, FBI, ATF and city court, state court, federal court. It was my understanding that where you are physically--who's terriory you inhabit when you commit a crime--determines the jurisdiction, and in cases where you are under multiple jurisdictions (ie, a big enough drug bust to be a federal offense), the federal jurisdiction is supreme.

It seems quite logical to me that when I physically inhabit another country, I am subject to the laws governing the people in that territory. I know this much to be true, as someone living in a foreign country. I made the assumption that my citizenship did not mean that anywhere my person inhabits is under the jurisdiction of US criminal statues as well. I did not think that US territory, upon which the idea of jurisdiction is based, extended to anywhere that a citizen inhabits, whether inside the US or not. This assumption was based on knowledge that I could travel to foreign countries and do things that are illegal in my home country (ie. smoke weed in Amsterdam) without fear of prosecution. In the same regard, I could be caught doing things in a foreign country (ie. drinking alcohol in some Islamic countries) that is perfectly legal in the US, where I am a citizen. These facts reinforced in my mind that physical territory reigned supreme in cases of jurisdiction and the application of criminal laws.

Perhaps I am wrong about the above. I'll grant that, but I would like to see some proof and am looking for some. That said, I think my logic is clear and above ridicule.


KJS

[KJS]

I didn't address the Iraq scenario and started a new post because I was not talking about a wartime situation. So, I don't think I am "making an issue of Iraq and free speech" here.

KJS

[brad]

pre- p.a.t.r.i.o.t. era/ h.s., (now they have carte blanc of course) US citizens could be prosecuted for *planning* in the US to commit crimes abroad, under conspiracy charges.

[KJS]

Just one piece of evidence to show I'm not totally off in my assumptions. This is my answer to your question "What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?" These kinds of statements make me think that:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs

For Immediate Release
February 1997

{Excerpt}

"Once an American leaves United States soil, US laws and constitutional rights no longer apply."

For full text:

http://overseasdigest.com/drug_arr.htm

This is from a State Dep't directive for people who are travelling overseas to let them know they can be arrested and put through the local judicial system, even if they are American.

I am still looking for stuff on offenses which are not prosecuted locally, but can lead to charges in the US against US people for acts they committed while not on US soil. One area is child sex, although I have not found much legal text yet. I am seeing that they use the jurisdiction of "international commerce" to govern these situations, meaning you are prosecuted because of the commercial activity you conducted while abroad. Some sites obviously geared towards perverts who want to go screw young girls are claiming that they are immunce from US prosecution if the sex is consensual because there was not a commercial transaction.

I am starting to believe the truth lies somewhere between my assertion that you are not covered by US laws while overseas and your assertion that I am covered by US laws at all times because I am American. I know you did not say that, I am inferring it from your statement "What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?"

KJS

[adios]

Good points about jurisdiction. IMO "big government" tries to make it's jurisdiction as wide ranging as possible and is always trying to expand it. There's definitely a downside and risk to freedom in having "big government."

[MMMMMM]

Yes, and I don't think we should necessarily be prohibited from going to places like Cuba nor do I think it is really fair that Bobby Fischer faces charges for violating such a ban. However I do think there is a lot to be said for forbidding nonessential personnel from entering war zones. So...maybe we should bomb Cuba and then everything would make more sense!

[Wake up CALL]

Hi KJS perhaps I was not completely clear. I did not mean to infer that you were either exempt from prosecution of local laws when traveling abroad nor subject to US laws that only apply while you are physically located in the US, such as traffic violations and others.

You asked for some qualifying examples. As brad mentioned plotting a terrorist action against the US (poor example but could apply in some extreme circumstances) traveling across International boundries with the intent of participating in a sex act with a minor, and my favorite, US Income tax evasion. Since you live abroad you should be well aware of the 510 day rule and the maximum limit of income from which you are exempted before US tax applies. I am sure you will agree that even though you earn income in another country that as long as you are a US citizen you are subject to the applicable law. Using that as a known fact it is easy to assume that there are other laws which would apply as well.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just one piece of evidence to show I'm not totally off in my assumptions. This is my answer to your question "What on earth makes you think that you are not subject to the laws of the USA as long as you are still a citizen of this country?" These kinds of statements make me think that:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs

For Immediate Release
February 1997

{Excerpt}

"Once an American leaves United States soil, US laws and constitutional rights no longer apply."

For full text:

http://overseasdigest.com/drug_arr.htm

This is from a State Dep't directive for people who are travelling overseas to let them know they can be arrested and put through the local judicial system, even if they are American.

KJS



[/ QUOTE ]

I just thought that I should mention that the link you provided is not an official state department site nor that of any sanctioned US government agency so far as I could tell. They have additional links to the State Deptmernt website on their site but linking to the official State Department site says nothing about being exempt from US law while living abroad. I just wanted to clarify that point for anyone who just read your quotations out of context and might assume it was US policy.

[KJS]

Did you go to the link?

It has a report written by the (non-governmental) host of the site, but also contains the full text of the statement from the Bureau of Consular affairs directly after their report.

Just to be certain, here is a link to an official State Department site which contains an update of the same directive I excerpted in my post. Near the bottom it reiterates:

"Once you leave the United States, you are not covered by US laws and constitutional rights."

Full Text:

http://travel.state.gov/drug_warning.html

KJS

[KJS]

I am aware of the income tax law and will grant you that as a good example of laws that reach me no matter where I physically reside.

That does not, however, solve my philosophical problem I have with bans on spending money in Cuba, for instance.

The US government has laws against trade with Cubans which govern actions I am taking that relate to myself and the Cuban citizens with which I do business only, and are done within the laws of Cuba. To have my government bar me from acts which are legal in the territory where I am visiting/residing--making supreme their jurisdiction over me--makes me uncomfortable. This is a situation more analagous to the child sex laws we have both cited. As much as I hate to side with perverts, I would, to be fair, have to say I have a problem with those too, since I don't think the US should be telling its citizens what to do in foreign countries if their actions do not threaten the US government or US citizens (ie, plotting terrorist attacks against US targets).

My reason is based on a belief that I should have some method to remove myself from US jurisdiction to protest laws that I morally or ethically oppose. Moving to somewhere else is the best recourse I can think of.

For instance, if I was a gun owner and the US government changed the constitution to outlaw guns, I would like to think that I would be able to relocate to a country where I could have a gun, because gun ownership is a right I want to retain. If the US implemented a law saying that Americans were barred from purchasing or owning guns anywere in the world, I would take issue with such a statute because I would no longer retain the right to own a gun in a country that had no problem with gun ownership.

Thanks for a good debate.

KJS

[Cyrus]

I am no "know-it-all" as Wake up CALL calls me and I'm also not a lawyer but this what I know abt jurisdiction :

The law of every country applies for everyone that lives there, in any capacity (citizen, visitor, immigrant, etc). So if shaking hands is a crime in Doofunistan and you shake hands with someone, you will be prosecuted in a Doofunistan court -- unless there's a treaty between your country and Doofunistan that says otherwise.

I also know that you cannot invoke ignorance of the law which you broke, even if it's as silly as that one about shaking hands. (Ignorantia juris neminem excusat.)

In the same vein, if having sex with girls 11 years old and above in Trailerstan is perfectly legal, and an American citizen (or any non-Trailerstan citizen) has sex with a dozen 13-year olds while in Trailerstan, he is not supposed to be prosecuted when he gets back to the States. Not even if his actions are reported all over the American press. Which county's prosecutor would press charges? And on what case, since no complaint would've been filed?

(This applies to common law crimes and not crimes against humanity --- for which, for example, Ariel Sharon was nearly prosecuted in a ...Belgian court. Countries' jurisdiction for such crimes has recently been absurdly if not unilaterally extended.)

I would welcome any corrections to my assertionss above.

Now, about travel :

I don't think that that American lady broke any laws or violated an executive orders. Again, any input to the contrary would be most welcome (cite, please). But if there was a law in America that prohibits even the simple act of traveling to a certain country, say Cuba, then any American who would step onto Cuban soil would have committed a crime. Which would be prosecuted in the county where from he left America for Cuba, if I understand correctly.

Any lawyers around?

[Wake up CALL]

"My reason is based on a belief that I should have some method to remove myself from US jurisdiction to protest laws that I morally or ethically oppose. Moving to somewhere else is the best recourse I can think of."

This is not a "Love it or Leave it" post but you do have recourse. By renouncing your citizenship you are able to extricate your self from the freedom to travel restrictions you dislike so much. Now as to absolving yourself of tax liability by doing so is another matter altogether. Under many circumstances renouncing your US citizenship will not free you from the obligation of paying the IRS their due for up to ten more years.

[KJS]

"In the same vein, if having sex with girls 11 years old and above in Trailerstan is perfectly legal, and an American citizen (or any non-Trailerstan citizen) has sex with a dozen 13-year olds while in Trailerstan, he is not supposed to be prosecuted when he gets back to the States. Not even if his actions are reported all over the American press. Which county's prosecutor would press charges? And on what case, since no complaint would've been filed."

If you have paid for the sex it is a US crime and you are charged by federal authorities under some statutes related to international commerce. If you can stand poking around sites about age of consent in certain countries you can find out more about this.

KJS

[HUSKER'66]

I'm curious: if these "world travelers" went to one of the aforementioned countries and broke one of their laws, would their first call (if they were allowed one)be to the Us Consulate?

[Chris Alger]

Start with the two types of "jurisidiction" concerning individuasls, being (1) over the person and (2) concerning the subject matter of the crime or action. Personal jurisdiction concerns the court's ability to enter judgment against you, regardless of the reason. This is generally a matter of being in a state or within the state's (long) reach and has no inherent relationship with the subject of the dispute. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the nature of the crime or case, something you alluded to regarding Sharon in Belgium.

In the U.S., federal personal jurisdiction is a question of whether the individual has some "minimum contact" with the U.S. and receiving fair notice of the case. Residing, living, owning property or being in the U.S. could all provide the basis for a claim by the federal government against anyone. Of course, if they don't tell you about it, then you could later contest any judgment entered against you on grounds of insufficiency of due process.

Legislatures or central governments give courts their subject matter jurisdiction and they can pass laws over nearly any subject they please, subject to Constitutional limitations. Without this legislative (or constitutional) mandate, a court (especially a U.S. federal one) won't consider the case. Thus, comeone who violated Alabama law might not be subject to personnal jurisdiction in Alabama, but might be subject to personal jurisdiction in the U.S., meaning a federal court. But a federal court might not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce Alabama law.

But I don't know the exact answer to your question, and I think HDPM man below is right. The US can pass a law governing your conduct in a foreign country and assert jurisdiction over you to enforce it if you come back to the US, or maybe in absentia if you retain citizenship. There's another form of jurisidiction called in rem which gives the government power over property in the U.S. I understand that if you renounce your citizenship, flee to another country, but leave your house behind, the government could (after due process) seize and levy against your property if your conduct abroad broke some U.S. rule, all without having jurisdiction over you at all.

Regarding the "ban on travel," there is in fact an implied constitutional "right of travel" under United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and its progeny. This line of decisions has effectively prevented the U.S. from outright criminalizing vistis to Cuba (although not without trying). As a result, "travel" restrictions regarding Cuba are generally enforced by rules prohibiting spending U.S. money in Cuba. These rules can be strictly enforced, as the case of the Taylors reveals:

"When [Kip and Patrick Taylor] sailed to Cuba, they thought they had done everything right. Knowing that U.S. law prohibited spending funds in the country, they stocked their sailboat with enough provisions to last for the duration of their trip. It wasn’t until they left Cuba, in fact, that their troubles began.

Sailing from Cuba, their boat was struck by lightning that destroyed the mast. The Cuban Coast Guard rescued the Taylors, towing the boat back to port. But when they applied to the U.S. Representative for permission to repair it, they were told to abandon the boat - and their two dogs - and fly back to the U.S. After weeks of attempting to negotiate, unwilling to leave their dogs and befuddled by a decision that left assets in Cuba worth more than the costs of repairs, the Taylors had the boat fixed. For this - and for being honest upon their return - they were fined $2,000 each. For the next four and a half years, the Taylors - who are on a fixed income - requested a reconsideration. In April, 2001, Patrick Taylor’s tax refund, needed to pay for urgent medical expenses, was frozen and applied to the $3,200 they now owe."

The Taylors are being represented by the very excellent Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/cuba/cubaArticle.asp?ObjID=3eNf6RMO4d&Content=47), from which the above passage is taken.

[Cyrus]