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

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: This is the same thing that the U.S. has with Cuba. AFAIK, Going to, or buying things from Cuba is against the law for U.S. citizens, hence no cuban cigars floating around and cubans fleeing their country in rowboats instead of just getting on a plane like a normal person. If this woman broke the law then she should have to pay the penaly for it , just like everyone else. She shouldnt get a off scott free just because we dont want to see a traitor "peace activist" in jail. The law applies to all of us. Just because you have a pet cause doesnt mean you can just ignore the law.

Oh my gosh! You mean all these years I have been legally purchasing Cuban cigars here in Europe, has really been against the law? Nay, you are mistaken! Americans can purchase and smoke Cuban cigars all they want. Just don't do it, bring it, or attempt to import them to the states!

What would your thoughts be if she would have been killed? If the government says don't go there, and the whole media world is talking about war, then there are only two things that come to mind, and both are illegal. She should be lucky to be alive, and should face her time in the brink if she fails to pay the fine!

Felix

[Skunk]

If there are two things that I *love* about the US they are:

1. The enshrinement of Freedom of Speech without sanctions
"The [51] freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty--and thus a good unto itself--but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 339 (1974)."
Supreme Court of the United States, 1988

2. The enshrinement of Freedom of Movement and Travel
"This Court has recognized that the right to travel abroad is "an important aspect of the citizen's `liberty'" guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127 . In Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 517 , we reaffirmed that "freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to rights of free speech and association." As nations have become politically and commercially more dependent upon one another and foreign policy decisions have come to have greater impact upon the lives of our citizens, the right to travel has become correspondingly more important. Through travel, by private citizens as well as by journalists and governmental officials, information necessary to the making of informed decisions can be obtained. And, under our constitutional system, [381 U.S. 1, 29] ultimate responsibility for the making of informed decisions rests in the hands of the people. As Professor Chafee has pointed out, "An American who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinions about our foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover, his views on domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways direct contact with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at home." Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, 195-196 (1956). "
Supreme Court of the United States, 1965

These *very important* rights are under assault in the post 9/11 world - and I very much hope that the US public comes to its senses and demands the repeal of the legislation (ie Patriot Act) which is threatening them.

What would your thoughts be if she would have been killed?

Then so be it - she knew the risks of traveling to Iraq and accepted them. That brave US youngster that faced down an Israeli bulldozer (and lost her life) in March of this year also knew and assumed the risks. I am very glad and heartened that the US can still produce such brave individuals who are willing to die for their beliefs - it is something that the US can be proud of.

[ 08-16-2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[John D Harris]

All of the freedom of speach and movement stuff ONLY applies to being on US soil, THAT is the only Place the USA can make laws for. The USA has the right to say you can not go to country "X" then come back to the USA, if you do so you will be punished. Now if you don't want to be punished you have 2 choices.
1)don't go to country "X"
2)go to country "X" but don't come back.

This lady is not being singled out the government is going after all that broke the law. In the Law there is writen the exception for reporters.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Americans can get visas to Cuba. My law school took a group there. Lots of Hollywood-ites venture there.

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.

[Chewbacca]

So journalists are exempt but humanitarians are not, keep in mind these people left Iraq when the former regime started telling them what sites they could and could not "protect". They aimed to be in places like hospitals, food warehouses, orphanges and the like. Too impose trade sanction fines on them with out even a hearing much less a trial is a travesty of justice that ought to be discredited.

[ 08-16-2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[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. Now as for the American human shields.....if you can't do the time or pay the fine, don't commit treason. And that's what it was, treason. They were aiding a country we were preparing to go to war with. We had the same problem with people like this during the Viet Nam war. The name Fonda comes to mind.

[ 08-16-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: khazadman ]

[WillowIX]

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?

[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.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: All of the freedom of speach and movement stuff ONLY applies to being on US soil, THAT is the only Place the USA can make laws for. The USA has the right to say you can not go to country "X" then come back to the USA, if you do so you will be punished. Now if you don't want to be punished you have 2 choices. 1)don't go to country "X" 2)go to country "X" but don't come back. This lady is not being singled out the government is going after all that broke the law. In the Law there is writen the exception for reporters.

Ummm... You are a bit misinformed.

The second quote that I made referred to the Supreme Court ruling on
Zemel v. Rusk, 1965.

The history of the case was:

"Prior to 1961 no passport was required for travel anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. On January 3 of that year, the United States broke diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba. On January 16 the Department of State eliminated Cuba from the area for which passports were not required, and declared all outstanding United States passports (except those held by persons already in Cuba) to be invalid for travel to or in Cuba "unless specifically endorsed for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State." A companion press release stated that the Department contemplated granting exceptions to "persons whose travel may be regarded as being in the best interests of the United States, such as newsmen or businessmen with previously established business interests."

The Supreme Court ruled that the government did not have the right to restrict an individual's right to travel abroad...

[ 08-16-2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Seraph]

2. The enshrinement of Freedom of Movement and Travel "This Court has recognized that the right to travel abroad is "an important aspect of the citizen's `liberty'" guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127 . In Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 517 , we reaffirmed that "freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to rights of free speech and association." As nations have become politically and commercially more dependent upon one another and foreign policy decisions have come to have greater impact upon the lives of our citizens, the right to travel has become correspondingly more important. Through travel, by private citizens as well as by journalists and governmental officials, information necessary to the making of informed decisions can be obtained. And, under our constitutional system, [381 U.S. 1, 29] ultimate responsibility for the making of informed decisions rests in the hands of the people. As Professor Chafee has pointed out, "An American who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinions about our foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover, his views on domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways direct contact with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at home." Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, 195-196 (1956). " Supreme Court of the United States, 1965 [------------------------------------------] These *very important* rights are under assault in the post 9/11 world - and I very much hope that the US public comes to its senses and demands the repeal of the legislation (ie Patriot Act) which is threatening them

Do you see how it says "MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting." above your little thing? That means that what Mr. Goldberg said did not agree with the majority of the court. So in other words, what your quoted can't be 'under assult' as it was not in place before september 11th to be assulted!

The Supreme Court ruled that the government did not have the right to restrict an individual's right to travel abroad...

I think you are actually the one who is misinformed. From your link:

Having concluded that the Secretary of State's refusal to validate appellant's passport for travel to Cuba is supported by the authority granted by Congress in the Passport Act of 1926, we must next consider whether that refusal abridges any constitutional right of appellant. ... However, the fact that a liberty cannot be inhibited without due process of law does not mean that it can under no circumstances be inhibited. ... But that freedom [to travel freely within the United States] does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with [381 U.S. 1, 16] the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole. So it is with international travel. That the restriction which is challenged in this case is supported by the weightiest considerations of national security is perhaps best pointed up by recalling that the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 preceded the filing of appellant's complaint by less than two months. ... We must agree that the Secretary's refusal to validate passports for Cuba renders less than wholly free the flow of information concerning that country. While we further agree that this is a factor to be considered in determining whether appellant has been denied due process of law, 17 we cannot accept the contention of appellant that it is a First Amendment right which is involved. For to the extent that the Secretary's refusal to validate passports for Cuba acts as an inhibition, it is an inhibition of action. There are few restrictions [381 U.S. 1, 17] on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow...The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information. ... Appellant's complaint sought not only an order compelling the Secretary of State to validate his passport for travel to Cuba, but also a declaration that appellant "is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States to travel to Cuba," and an order enjoining the Secretary and the Attorney General from interfering with such travel. ... The District Court therefore correctly dismissed the complaint, and its judgment is Affirmed.

Now, its possible I am misreading this, but to me it pretty clearly states that the the District Court (and the Supreme Court) dismissed the complaint that said that the Secretary of State did not have the right to restrict travel. In other words, the Government does in fact have the right to limit travel. Not only that, it specificly sites national security as a valid reason for denying travel to a country.

[ 08-17-2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Seraph ]