🚀 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

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
 
>These travel restrictions will surely seep into private transport as well.

Never fear. If you have already "documented" your private yacht (essentially
joining the Merchant Marine) to avoid paying taxes and to have the privilege
of clearing US customs at any port, vs the nearest port, you can probably
keep doing that, because people who own yachts are Good People :-)

Nick

On 2006-11-05 02:14:22 -0600, Abe <noone@nowhere.com> said:

> 
> 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.

Which cloak has been draped around despotism all along.

-- 
To email me, drop the pretenses.

God may not be a Democrat, but He's certainly no Republican.  Don't 
settle for corporate values misrepresented as Christian values any 
longer.  Join the Project For a New American Populist Movement.
http://www.populism.us/

Abe wrote:

> I carefully read the entire proposed rule at:
> http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801a110e&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.

1)  Good intentions aren't enough.  Laws are *guaranteed* to be abused 
at some point, so they have to be written defensively.  Otherwise we'd 
just annoint a king and say "use your best judgement."

2)  It's not worth it.  Just like I don't have bars over my windows, 
because it isn't worth it.

The current GOP government is the biggest, most massively powerful and
dangerous government in American history, after conning voters into thinking
they were voting for "limited government" and "smaller government".  Bush's
government and the rubberstamp Congress has given itself the power to arrest
people, hold them forever without trial, torture them forever -- and all of
this is perfectly legal.  Of course none of it is constitutional, but that no
longer matters because the GOP has been systematically destroying the checks
and balances of government set up by America's founding fathers.  The kind of
government behaviour that would have been unthinkable from 1792-2000 is now
barely even reported in the media.  The bigger picture is that the US is
currently drifting further and further towards a dysfunctional, corrupt 3rd
world type government.

Republican Party insiders like Tom Delay, Carl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, 
etc set up a vast money laundering system that would be the awe of drug lords 
and mafia kingpins.  This system for the most part still exists and its
purpose is to both reward themselves, their friends, and families with 
money and wealth, and perpetuate the GOP and this system in power forever.

Many people didn't realize it at first but it is becoming clear now that the
onslaught of corruption in government over the last decade is not just the
product of electing politicians with no ethics and too much power, it is a
natural political consequence of electing politicions with a contempt for
government.  The Republican Party created in the real world conditions
to match their propaganda depictions of a dysfunctional government.

There are of course groups in the world that have worse intentions than the
GOP, but the Republican Party is the one and only organization in the world
powerful enough to destory America, they seem to be doing a good job of it, and
that's why they scare me much more than anyone else does.  You wouldn't know 
this by turning on your TV but there are dozens of things statistically more
likely to kill Americans than terrorism -- among them is being struck by
lightning.


>
>> I carefully read the entire proposed rule at:
>>
>http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801a110e&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.
>
>1)  Good intentions aren't enough.  Laws are *guaranteed* to be abused 
>at some point, so they have to be written defensively.  Otherwise we'd 
>just annoint a king and say "use your best judgement."
>
>2)  It's not worth it.  Just like I don't have bars over my windows, 
>because it isn't worth it.

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
news:bearclaw-3C26CB.18503904112006@news.supernews.com...
> Well, are Americans to be prisoners in our own country now?
>
> From the Friends of Liberty article, which has been widely quoted:
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////
>
> International Politics October 26, 2006
>
> 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)
Departmant Von Hiemat (DVH)

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bearclaw-3C26CB.18503904112006@news.supernews.com...
> Well, are Americans to be prisoners in our own country now?
>
> From the Friends of Liberty article, which has been widely quoted:
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////
>
> International Politics October 26, 2006
>
> 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.
>
> 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 virtually
> unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you
> want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the
> agency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the
> request at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United
> States.
> [...more]
>
don't worry.   the dems will certainly nix this. 

but don't worry.   the dems will fix it now that they're in power.

<tr2267@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mru3h.2364$r12.203@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> The current GOP government is the biggest, most massively powerful and
> dangerous government in American history, after conning voters into 
> thinking
> they were voting for "limited government" and "smaller government". 
> Bush's
> government and the rubberstamp Congress has given itself the power to 
> arrest
> people, hold them forever without trial, torture them forever -- and all 
> of
> this is perfectly legal.  Of course none of it is constitutional, but that 
> no
> longer matters because the GOP has been systematically destroying the 
> checks
> and balances of government set up by America's founding fathers.  The kind 
> of
> government behaviour that would have been unthinkable from 1792-2000 is 
> now
> barely even reported in the media.  The bigger picture is that the US is
> currently drifting further and further towards a dysfunctional, corrupt 
> 3rd
> world type government.
>
> Republican Party insiders like Tom Delay, Carl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph 
> Reed,
> etc set up a vast money laundering system that would be the awe of drug 
> lords
> and mafia kingpins.  This system for the most part still exists and its
> purpose is to both reward themselves, their friends, and families with
> money and wealth, and perpetuate the GOP and this system in power forever.
>
> Many people didn't realize it at first but it is becoming clear now that 
> the
> onslaught of corruption in government over the last decade is not just the
> product of electing politicians with no ethics and too much power, it is a
> natural political consequence of electing politicions with a contempt for
> government.  The Republican Party created in the real world conditions
> to match their propaganda depictions of a dysfunctional government.
>
> There are of course groups in the world that have worse intentions than 
> the
> GOP, but the Republican Party is the one and only organization in the 
> world
> powerful enough to destory America, they seem to be doing a good job of 
> it, and
> that's why they scare me much more than anyone else does.  You wouldn't 
> know
> this by turning on your TV but there are dozens of things statistically 
> more
> likely to kill Americans than terrorism -- among them is being struck by
> lightning.
>
>
>>
>>> I carefully read the entire proposed rule at:
>>>
>>http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064801a110e&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.
>>
>>1)  Good intentions aren't enough.  Laws are *guaranteed* to be abused
>>at some point, so they have to be written defensively.  Otherwise we'd
>>just annoint a king and say "use your best judgement."
>>
>>2)  It's not worth it.  Just like I don't have bars over my windows,
>>because it isn't worth it.
>