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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], 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.