Former U.S. human shield fined $10,000

[Skunk]

The fact that there was dissent within the Supreme Court judges is not unusual, nor important - since the majority vote makes the ruling.

Also, I'm afraid that you were reading it wrong. You were correct in stating that the district courts rejected the complaint - but incorrect in your assertion that the Supreme rejected it too - in fact, it upheld the complaint:
"Since I conclude that the Executive does not possess inherent power to impose area restrictions in peacetime, and that Congress has not considered the issue and granted such authority to the Executive. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court."

It is not for nothing that the US did not prevent Fippinger from traveling to Iraq and are not charging her for traveling to Iraq - the US government was powerless to prevent her travel and prosecute her for it. Consequently, they are 'misusing' the sanctions law to 'punish' her for her dissenting views and actions.

[ 08-17-2003, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: It is my understanding that they all flew into another country and then caravaned in busses into Iraq. There wasnt any law against going to where ever it was that she flew into.

But if American laws only are valid on American soil, how can they prevent her from entering Iraq from another country? Surely she must be stopped on the US-Iraqi border and that must mean the airport. Unless my geography is sadly lacking.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: The travel laws to Cuba have changed in the last couple of years, alowing USA citizens to go there now for certain reasons, "Cultural exchange (whatever the heck that is) and a couple of other reasons I can't recall off the top of my pointed head.

Yes God forbid the regular Joes should support the Commies. Who knows what could happen. A Cuban armada sailing up the Potomac? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

On topic then.
A) Since the law was (is?) in place there's no one else to blame than herself. Pay the fine and get over it. Or go to court to lower the fines.
B) The law is obviously ridicolous. It is one thing to warn citizens to travel to hostile countries but totally another to forbid them to travel. But shouldn't she have been stopped on US soil? I mean the US can't stop her from entering Iraq since the US can't make laws on non-US soil. So basically they should have been forced to stop her from leaving the country. Or? [/QUOTE]\
Willow in your reason "B" she had not traveled to the other country yet so there was no crime. She is charged and fined ONLY after she has traveled to the other country AND RETURNED to the USA (on US soil) You can't stop her from traveling brfore she travels unless you are Psyhic and as far as I know being psyhic doesn't hold up in court. She knew that if she left went to Iraq and returned she would be lible for breaking the law. Anyone can go to Iraq, Cuba, or BFE it is the returning to US soil afterwards that brings you into the jurisdiction of the USA. So the Correct "B" should be: Don't return to the USA until the law is changed or the Statute of limitations is up.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

But if American laws only are valid on American soil, how can they prevent her from entering Iraq from another country? Surely she must be stopped on the US-Iraqi border and that must mean the airport. Unless my geography is sadly lacking.

Nope, your geography is right. Let me try to explain it again.I think that the protestors all flew into Jordan, which is perfectly legal to fly into. Then they all go onto busses and drove accross the border into Iraq. The government had no reason to stop her because her original destination was an unrestricted country.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by khazadman: A brave US youngster? Skunk, you seem to be confusing bravery with sheer stupidity. Only an idiot would try to stand in front of a bulldozer in a war zone and not expect to get hurt.

Well it may be stupid to enter a war zone without expecting the possibility to get hurt. But up to now I was convinced that if I, a civilized human being, stood clearly visible in front of a Dozer steered by another civilized human being, who is neither drunk nor otherwise out of control, I could expect not to be run over.

A: Out of my way or I'll shoot!
B: And if I don't?
BAM!
C: He shot her! What a jerk!
D: Yeah! How can anybody possibly be so stupid and stay in this situation.

[Donut]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: It is my understanding that they all flew into another country and then caravaned in busses into Iraq. There wasnt any law against going to where ever it was that she flew into.

But if American laws only are valid on American soil, how can they prevent her from entering Iraq from another country? Surely she must be stopped on the US-Iraqi border and that must mean the airport. Unless my geography is sadly lacking. [/QUOTE]It isn't true that American laws are only valid in America. A Canadian in Canada who does business with a company in Cuba can be prosecuted in the US. Of course he only gets arrested if he enters the US.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Skunk: The fact that there was dissent within the Supreme Court judges is not unusual, nor important - since the majority vote makes the ruling.[qb]

True, but you keep quoteing from the minority

Originally posted by Skunk:[qb] Also, I'm afraid that you were reading it wrong. You were correct in stating that the district courts rejected the complaint - but incorrect in your assertion that the Supreme rejected it too - in fact, it upheld the complaint: "Since I conclude that the Executive does not possess inherent power to impose area restrictions in peacetime, and that Congress has not considered the issue and granted such authority to the Executive. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court."

Again, your quoteing from Justice Goldberg who was in the minority. When it says "MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting." and then lists a block of text, that block of test is Mr. Goldbergs dissenting oppinion. Not everything on the page website you point to is the majority ruleing of the court.

The section that lists the ruleing of the court is the section that starts "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court." (You note the key words "the opinion of the court") and ends "The District Court therefore correctly dismissed the complaint, and its judgment is Affirmed."

The other justices (Goldberg, Black, and Douglas) then didn't agree with the court, so they wrote dissenting opinions. However, the opinion of these three justices has no effect on the courts ruleing as they are in the minority.

Originally posted by Faceman Well it may be stupid to enter a war zone without expecting the possibility to get hurt. But up to now I was convinced that if I, a civilized human being, stood clearly visible in front of a Dozer steered by another civilized human being, who is neither drunk nor otherwise out of control, I could expect not to be run over.

Rachel Corrie didn't "stand clearly visible" in front of the bulldozer she attemped to climb a pile of dirt, fell off (being hidden from view by the dirt) and was burried by the dirt when the bulldozer started to move it and then was hit by the bulldozers blade at it lifted its blade. As a general rule someone who is 23 years old should be expected to take a little bit of personal responsibility in decideing their actions.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Seraph: Rachel Corrie didn't "stand clearly visible" in front of the bulldozer she attemped to climb a pile of dirt, fell off (being hidden from view by the dirt) and was burried by the dirt when the bulldozer started to move it and then was hit by the bulldozers blade at it lifted its blade. As a general rule someone who is 23 years old should be expected to take a little bit of personal responsibility in decideing their actions.

I'd like to know your source because I have read quite different statements of eye-witnesses.

[Timber Loftis]

Just to be clear on the allowable constitutional travel restrictions as indicated by the case Skunk is misinterpreting, here is the HOLDING:
__________________________________________________ ________
After this country had broken diplomatic relations with Cuba and the Department of State had eliminated Cuba from the area for which passports were not required, appellant applied to have his passport validated for travel to Cuba "to satisfy [his] curiosity . . . and to make [him] a better informed citizen." His request was denied, and he filed suit in federal district court seeking a judgment declaring that he was entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States to travel to Cuba and to have his passport validated for that purpose, that the Secretary of State's travel restrictions were invalid, and that the Passport Act of 1926 and 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were unconstitutional. In addition, he prayed that the Secretary and the Attorney General be enjoined from interfering with such travel. A three-judge court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action against the Attorney General. Held:


1. Since the complaint launched a substantial constitutional attack upon two federal statutes and prayed that their operation be enjoined, the three-judge court was properly convened. Pp. 5-7.

2. The Passport Act of 1926 grants authority to the Executive to refuse validation of passports for Cuban travel. Pp. 7-13.

(a) The consistent interpretation by the Department of State of its authority to impose area restrictions, both before and after [381 U.S. 1, 2] the 1926 enactment, must be given weight by the courts in construing the statute. Pp. 8-11.

(b) In 1952 Congress enacted legislation relating to passports, but despite the many executive impositions of area restrictions it left untouched the broad rule-making authority granted in the Passport Act of 1926. P. 12.

(c) This case, where the Secretary's refusal is based on foreign policy considerations affecting all citizens, is distinguished from Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 , where the passport denial was based on the applicant's political beliefs or associations. Pp. 12-13.

3. The restriction on travel to Cuba does not abridge appellant's constitutional rights. Pp. 13-18.

(a) The fact that a liberty cannot be inhibited without due process of law does not mean that it can under no circumstances be inhibited. P. 14.

(b) The restriction here is justified by the weightiest considerations of national security. Pp. 14-15.

(c) The failure to validate appellant's passport results in an inhibition of action and not a restriction of a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information. Pp. 16-17.

(d) The Passport Act of 1926 contains sufficiently definite standards for action, especially since the area is that of foreign affairs where the Executive has broad authority. P. 17.

(e) The Passport Act of 1926 does not grant the Executive completely unrestricted freedom of action, as it authorizes only those passport restrictions which it could fairly be argued were adopted by Congress in light of prior administrative practice. Pp. 17-18.

4. Adjudication of the reach and constitutionality of 215 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as applied to travel in violation of an area restriction must await a concrete factual situation. Pp. 18-20.

228 F. Supp. 65, affirmed.
________________________________________________
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, all of your countries can choose to do the same thing and occassionally do -- especially during wartime.

As for Cuba, I think it's deplorable that any of your countries maintain relations with that Despot. He got into power on the lie of freedom and then enslaved everyone. He's driven a once-great island nation to poverty -- a cabbie or a hooker catering to your Euro and Canuck tourists makes more in one night than a Cuban doctor makes in a month. Meat is rationed -- 2 lbs for an adult per week last time I checked. Those crowds cheering for that dirty loser do so at gunpoint (real or implied).

My in-laws had everything they owned nationalized and barely escaped with their lives. They had been industrious immigrants from Spain and were comfortably wealthy -- now they get to live out their final days in a crappy Haileia high-rise dodging bullets. Spend some time among the American Cubans in Florida to find out the truth about Castro. I know a guy who traversed the 90 miles of shark-infested waters on a TIRE -- you don't do that if the places is just a "little" bad.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As for Cuba, I think it's deplorable that any of your countries maintain relations with that Despot. He got into power on the lie of freedom and then enslaved everyone. He's driven a once-great island nation to poverty -- a cabbie or a hooker catering to your Euro and Canuck tourists makes more in one night than a Cuban doctor makes in a month. Meat is rationed -- 2 lbs for an adult per week last time I checked. Those crowds cheering for that dirty loser do so at gunpoint (real or implied). My in-laws had everything they owned nationalized and barely escaped with their lives. They had been industrious immigrants from Spain and were comfortably wealthy -- now they get to live out their final days in a crappy Haileia high-rise dodging bullets. Spend some time among the American Cubans in Florida to find out the truth about Castro. I know a guy who traversed the 90 miles of shark-infested waters on a TIRE -- you don't do that if the places is just a "little" bad.

Cuba may have done 'slightly' better if the world's largest economy had not imposed swingeing sanctions against them and used it's economic and political muscle to 'encourage' the rest of the world to do likewise.