Wednesday, November 15, 2006

We're All Prisoners, Now: US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA October 26, 2006Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives uspermission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that allairlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtainclearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of theUnited States.It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document"that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtuallyunqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time youwant. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if theagency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer therequest at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the UnitedStates.Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder onassignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about toexpire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait!You can't get on, because you don't have permission from the HSA.Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squaliddetention center, where you and others who are now effectively"stateless persons" are detained, potentially indefinitely, untiltheir immigration status is sorted out.Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the UnitedStates? No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would bean administrative determination made secretly, with no right ofappeal. Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant,without probable cause and without even any particular degree ofsuspicion. Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn't like you, you'rea prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether ornot you hold a U.S. passport.The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutionalright to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that theright to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." TheUnited States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom oftravel." So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect alengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.Think this can't happen? Think again. It's ALREADY happening. Earlierthis year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old anative-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibitionlasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago.Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent historythat didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States tothis list.For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

Article seen here.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Osama doesn't hate freedom as much as the United States does, apparently. Its a pretty sad thing to see that the principles and ideals that founded this nation are being trampled over under the guise of defending oneself. Its scary and that goes to show you that the government does not act on behalf of the people but because of them, and all of our ideals on freedom and liberty and courage, are all lies.

Susan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Susan said...

When I read that article, I thought to myself, "Why did I come home?" What good is a passport and citizenship to a free nation if there's a chance that the goverment might deem you a traitor, all the while offering no explanation as to why. I fear that hindsight will be 20/20 on this. Only once all the personal liberaties are gone, will people wake up. Then it will be too late.

And for those who say, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" I suppose it won't be long before the word 'wrong' is slowly redefined. When will anti-goverment speak be considered "wrong" in the eyes of HSA? Has it already?

Anonymous said...

Great point, because the Senate voted on and passed a bill that allows the president to determine what is torture, who an enemy combatant is, and how long they can hold this portion, and they passes and another bill to suspend Habeas Corpus for the accused. So its happening right now, as we speak and alot of people don't even know it.

Bill (S 3930) Military Commissions Act

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/508/

Sept. 29th, 2006.

Scary stuff indeed, my dear.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Non-citizens arrested as suspected illegal combatants do not have constitutional protection. Giving it to them is surrender.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Alpha, would you rather see Osama and company use our freedoms to destroy us?

I agree that we should not see a police state here, that is the liberal answer to the problem.

I prefer to discriminate against arabs and persian muslims. Too large of a % of them are willing to aid and abet terrorism to allow them in. If we have a choice between a police state, or keeping a very, very close eye on all muslims, I choose door number 2. But liberal asshat lawyers and judges think that for every muslim searched at an airport, 4 white grannies must be searched. Now THAT is a police state.

Anonymous said...

To Mr.SmarterThanYou, Thank you for your comments however, I have issues with some of the statements that you posted, unto which, I will respond to, accordingly.

"Non-citizens arrested as suspected illegal combatants do not have constitutional protection. Giving it to them is surrender."

They certainly do not under the constitution, but they do under the GENEVA CONVENTION that WE (the U.S.) signed. We complained that Sadaam tortured his own people in prisons, and we are now torturing his people FOR him, so who is morally better now?


excerpt from Geneva Convention, Article 3

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I suggest you read that webpage.

-So IF your advocating racial profiling of all muslims, then you are creating more terrorists by giving fanatics more ammunition, on why to hate America.

Because your creating a veneer of contradiction throughout the world, where the U.S. signs documents but does the exact opposite without hesitation nor consequence. People recognize this, and grow to turn against a nation that contradicts itself.

-OSAMA, was never against our freedoms, if he was, he would have bombed DENMARK instead. He was (is) against the U.S. occupation in Saudi Arabia in the form of a military base, and against the U.S. funding coups, and sending NATO airstrikes to eradicate citizens across the Middle East.

- The blind support of Israel, who bulldozes civilian homes and kills civilians effortlessly and without restraint.

- The world is bigger than the United States,and when you start to discriminate against others, you are actually doing a service to the terrorists, by being afraid of them.

Prejudice is very American, and its sad to see how your patriotism is clouding your humanity.

These muslims are thousands of miles away, and would have nothing to do with us, if we didn't kill them and occupy their countries since the 1920s for the OIL, and align ourselves with kills like the Shah of Iran, prime ministers of Israel and the Emirs of Saudi Arabia.

- Know your history, know your country. While you may speak on YOUR opinion, you have no facts to prove your argument.

Forsoothsayer said...

just another reason why canada rocks...freedom of mobility enshrined in the constitution!

er..its not in the american constitution, is it?

and smarter than you: note that suspending habeas corpus would apply to american citizens also, numbers of whom have been detained as enemy combatants without trial. the constitution of the u.s. moreover, is careful to extend rights to every person within the united states, not citizens. know your 14th amendment as well as your history!

Susan said...

That's correct, Sooth. No federal law guarantees mobility, though some state constitutions provide their citizens the ability to move from state to state without interference.

Basically, the US could prevent a citizen from acquiring a passport. And of course, even if you have a passport, there's the beloved 'no fly' list.