🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <iu6rk2h8gqfnnsqbnja7ndr4bl0gpa6a90@4ax.com>,
 Abe <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >Well, are Americans to be prisoners in our own country now?
> >
> >Forget 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 
> >us permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.
> >
> >The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all 
> >airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain 
> >clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the 
> >United States.

> I carefully read the entire proposed rule at: 
> http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648
>  01a110e& disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
> 
> and while the proposed rule 'could' be misused in an arbitrary 
> fashion, the goal of the rule is to catch terrorists at the last 
> moment. You have to weight that into the equation.

Of course that is the stated goal. That is beside the point.

"The key outcome sought in proposing this rule is to place CBP in a 
better position to fully vet traveler information with sufficient time 
to effectively secure an aircraft or vessel, to effectively identify 
high-risk travelers and contact domestic and foreign carriers and 
government personnel to prevent such travelers from boarding aircraft 
bound for or departing from the US, and to effectively identify 
high-risk travelers and make appropriate contacts to prevent the 
departure of vessels from the United States with a high-risk traveler 
onboard."

Where in that document is there any limitation of the new rules 
specific only to terrorists or suspected terrorists? Where is there any 
protection of the Constitutional rights of citizens to travel freely? 
Where is the criteria for discriminating between "high-risk" travelers 
and others?

There is none. There is no requirement for just cause. No requirement 
for warrant. No judicial oversight at all. No requirement even for 
suspicion of terrorist activity. There is no avenue of appeal. There is 
no recourse for unjust detention. 

The only real objective of this proposal is to criminalize *all* travel 
that has not been officially approved. It deliberately and baselessly 
creates an entirely new class of "terrorism" suspects who are then 
subject to the loss of other Constitutional guarantees, including 
habeas corpus.

This is undeniably the most blatant and dangerous political abrogation 
of liberty since the effective abolition of habeas corpus earlier this 
year.

These travel restrictions will surely seep into private transport as 
well. "Security" demands that we not be allowed to walk down the street 
without official approval. 

At that point, we will become prisoners in our own homes. And why not? 
We have already surrendered our Constitutionally-guaranteed presumption 
of innocence.

Does anyone feel more secure?

-- 
Wefare for the rich
combat for the poor