[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