Slashdot Log In
US Citizens To Require ''Clearance'' To Leave?
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:08 AM
from the hotel-americana dept.
from the hotel-americana dept.
jo7hs2 writes "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a system which will in essence make it mandatory for you to have permission before leaving or entering the country, effectively putting everyone on a no-fly list unless the government says otherwise. Interestingly, the proposal does not seem to cover personal travel, only that on some sort of carrier like an airline or cruise vessel. While this certainly is concerning, it isn't exactly new, as a passport is already required for circumstances covered under the proposal."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
nothing to hide, no reason to worry? (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you US gov't. Wanna just light that annoying "Bill of Rights" on fire? Seems more direct.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
Re:nothing to hide, no reason to worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently came across this quote about exploiting nationalism, and it disturbed me for two reasons. First, it is a very accurate description of the post 9/11 political situation, which has resulted in the loss of civil liberties, the disastrous occupation of Iraq, secret prisons, torture, and the dismantling of the government's system of checks and balances. Second, the author is Hermann Goering.
Godwin's Law, I know, but there are some eerie parallels, and that's scary as hell. I am truly afraid for my country's future. These are dark times; it's the worst I've ever seen the United States of America. We've got the monkeys running the zoo... these are small, foolish, and dangerous little men- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. And they are tearing the country apart. They've got the left hating the right and the right hating the left. They've got us caught up in an eternal war against terror (as if you can wage war on a military tactic, that's as nonsensical as a "war against flanking maneuvers"). In their war, in order to save our freedoms from the terrorists, they've got to take our freedoms away. Meanwhile, our executive branch is obsessed with using torture to the point that it starts to seem creepily sadistic, running secret prisons and shipping people off to be tortured in foreign countries. Finally, we've got to keep fighting endlessly in Iraq as it spirals into civil war, and I still haven't heard something that even vaguely resembles a strategy for success, or a convincing explanation of why we even went in, and killed thousands of our own men and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
I've always criticized America, not because I hate her, but because I love her and want her to be better. I thought there was a lot wrong with the country, but I believed it was basically a good country, and that other nations had a lot to learn from us. But now, when I travel through foreign countries, I am ashamed to show my American passport. I actually tell people I'm "coming from Canada" (misleading but true, because that's where I study). Living abroad, I now realize that deep down, I still do love America. But not the America of George Bush. That America is an America of constant fear, divisive hate, endless war, domestic spying, and torture. And we can do better than George Bush's America.
Parent
What are you guys doing Tuesday? (Score:3, Informative)
(credit to Jim Schutze for phrasing)
Re:What are you guys doing Tuesday? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
wait, what? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, america has peaked...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
just wait (Score:2)
Last I checked (Score:2)
I didn't need a passport to go on a cruise, and I didn't need a passport to fly to Cozumel, Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you did, isn't it the *destination* country that looks at your passport when you leave?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Last I checked (Score:4, Informative)
i work in film as a risk assessment consultant. i was detained for 6 hours upon return from filming in st. lucia. this was on a large film that exhibited this past year. a full background check was performed and I was interrogated by marshals at JFK under the watch of two national guardsmen with m-16s at the ready. i was told that as an "unemployed single multi-ethnic male under 30 without documents" that I essentially triggered all of their flags. I clearly wasn't unemployed - and a significant part of my time was spent explaining "consultant" to them. I was interrogated (pardon my ignorance in this) using a technique whereby I was asked the same question several times - basic questions like my date of birth and the names of my parents and the schools i went to, etc. They also asked questions like: "So how long did you spend in Brazil?" when it had already been established that I'd gone to st. lucia. many other questions were asked in this manner in rapid succession with several men staring intently at me, with another comparing my answers to something onscreen. Their voices were raised and stern; weapons were casually brandished. my frustration at being asked the same thing over and over without recourse was considered an act of "aggression" which according to them justified the brandishing of weapons.
My laptop and pda were turned on and I presume given a thorough looking over. my cell phone was turned on and call lists were duplicated. apparently, they confirmed my information to grade school, apologized for the intrusion and sent me on my way, at which point the airline said they didn't know where my luggage was. another hour later, my luggage was "found" - with my bags clearly rifled through.
There are some legal proceedings under way in regards to this action. the funny thing about this incident is that one of the international sales agents on this film was actually illegal here in the US at the time and he shares the last name of a famous currently incarcerated former mid-east leader. he expressed having a strong case of nerves whenever reentering, and was less than cool about it when we hit the arrival gates. we both hit the gates at the same time - i was stopped, and he breezed through without a second look. So in this instance, while I was apparently profiled in some way, the most obvious guy to profile in this situation was not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I call BS on jo7hs2.
Re: (Score:2)
Starting January 1st, you will need a passport for (Score:2)
Passport Passport Requirements If you are planning travel for 2007 or beyond, please take a minute to review the passport policy below. If you don't already have a valid passport, be sure to avoid the rush and give yourself plenty of time to apply for one. Once you've got a passport in hand, the whole world is yours to explore.
U.S. Citizen Passport Requirement
Air Travel
Effective January 8, 2007, passports will be required for all U.S. citizens flying to or f
Re: (Score:2)
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml [state.gov]
(scroll down a bit)
Hmm, I wonder if this story is a misinterpretation of that policy change? The dates are in January...
Godwin invoked! (Score:3, Funny)
that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission."
"Friends of Liberty" loses!
Re: (Score:2)
I guess (Score:2)
North Korea (Score:2)
They left out North Korea.
Re: North Korea (Score:2)
> They left out North Korea.
Ba'athist Iraq?
Occupy an embassy? (Score:2)
In Soviet States... (Score:3, Insightful)
How can these laws pass at all? So, is it a matter of time before they pass a law against some religion, and invade alternative of Poland?
Oh wait, the invasion happened already. Nevermind...
Not sure how religion came into this (Score:3)
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
Not quite the same as passport screening (Score:2)
Foreign Schools (Score:2, Insightful)
And what about standby travel? (Score:2)
Polish passports... (Score:5, Interesting)
Military tribunals and secret decision-making like this are horrible ideas because there's no accountability involved. But what about hard-core terrorists like Osama, those responsible for WTC I and WTC II among other things? If anything, this applies more. I want to see the bastards on trial in a New York courtroom, in public, accountable to the very populace whom they injured and whose families they murdered. Then, since New York has no death penalty, a nice long term in Sing Sing in the same cellblock with the Aryan Brotherhood. Justice doesn't have to be meted out by military courts to be tough or fair.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stock market.html [pbs.org]
People don't do things for no reason at all. They have a reason, even if its made up or wrongly borrowed.
But there is no organization of terrorist or any other type that can build such a suicidal distructive following
without some real base line to use as a enlistment and motivational sales tool.
9/11 happened for real reasons, even if borrowed by lunitic extreamist.
Winners of the Trillion dollar bet shared with the dot com and cau
I'm skeptical (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the PDF please, and here's a link to the dckt (Score:3, Informative)
I'm afraid I don't take these "Friends of Liberty" folks at face value. Their assertions are backed up by a volume of evidence found in similar conspiracy theories. NONE WHATSOEVER.
Read the PDF [hasbrouck.org] listed at the bottom of the press release. The very first paragraph explains the source of their concerns:
The Identity Project submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048 (July 14, 2006), docket number USCBP-2005-0003-0003, and th
It's not "like a passport" that we already use... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing like the fact that we already are required to use a passport for a number of these same reasons.
A passport is documentation to foreign countries that you are a documented U.S. citizen.
Being required to "check out" of the country with DHS, despite all the calls of "Godwin rule" invocations, is exactly like Soviet Russia, Communist Cuba and China, and Nazi Germany, in recent history.
Seriously, if you people don't get out and vote these facists out of office, you're going to be just like the guy from WWII who wrote the poem about how, when there was no one else left, they came for him, and there was no one left to stop them. Enough with the "But I don't have anything to hide". When are you going to realize it's not about, and never has been about, "hunting the terrorists" and "making us safe", it's about "controlling the people", through fear, and travel restrictions, and spying? The more people say "But I dont have anything to hide, let them go ahead", the more they win.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was a kid (Score:2)
This was one of the selling features of living in the US vs USSR. We were free to come and go, in the USSR travel was very restricted.
Personally, I'm disgusted.
Hunt for Red October Ob Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.
Economic effects (Score:4, Informative)
Over here in Europe I am increasingly hearing people who say they don't want to travel to the USA at the moment, whether for tourism or business. The effect of this kind of thing on tourism would be fairly easy to measure, however the effect on business generally - if businessmen outside of the USA don't want to travel there - is impossible to know.
I thought the Republicans were supposed to be "pro-business" - surely they can understand the potential negative consequences of this kind of thing? Having said that, they don't seem to be worried about the negative effects of their neanderthal foreign policies, so perhaps not.
Re:Economic effects (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also supposed to be in favor of balanced budgets, realistic foreign policy and strong defense. Not long ago they were all of the above. Today, they are not the party for people who used to support Republicans.
This is a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, not from me:
Parent
Pre-election FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Could it possibly be that this regulation would not have the effect that the far left claims that it would have?
If you read the regulation proposal, what this regulation change would actually do is require manifests to be transmitted to US Customs before the aircraft pushes back from the gate, rather than 15 minutes after takeoff (which is the current regulation), so that DHS can have do-not-fly list passengers removed from the flight before it takes off rather than causing a possible situation in the air.
This attempt at political chicanery on Slashdot's part is so transparent it's laughable.
Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at this "news site's" front page [sianews.com], you'll see a lot of the traditional conspiracy rantings and, when you look particularly at the traditional Kennedy [sianews.com] conspiracy [sianews.com] nonsense so typical of sites that have completely fallen off their rocker.
This isn't a news site. There's no good sourcing (yes, I followed the URL at the end, see below). The reference stated to this document [regulations.gov] mentions no such restrictions as those found in the Slashdot summary or the article.
There are certainly privacy issues at stake, but nothing near what this ridiculous article or the Slashdot summary make it out to be.
This is just piss poor. I know Slashdot isn't a news site, so I don't expect it to research things as thoroughly as a journalist would (granted, I expect little of journalists as well).
The most pertinent part of the executive summary of the regulation proposal in question reads as follows:
The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to prevent passengers that have been
identified as high-risk on government watchlists from boarding aircraft bound for or
departing from the United States and to prevent passengers and crew so identified
from departing on vessels leaving the Unites States. On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published requirements for the transmission of
passenger and crew manifests for aircraft and vessels arriving from foreign
destinations or departing to foreign destinations (70 FR 17820). Implementation of the
"2005 APIS Rule" (named for the Advance Passenger Information System, the CBP
electronic system used to obtain electronic manifest information from carriers)
required that information on passengers and crew to be transmitted: no later than 15
minutes after departure for arriving aircraft passengers; no later than 15 minutes prior
to departure for departing aircraft passengers; at least 60 minutes prior to departure
for arriving and departing aircraft crew; at least 24 hours and as much as 96 hours
prior to a vessel's entry at a US port for arriving passengers and crew, depending on
the length of the voyage; and 15 minutes prior to departure for departing vessel
passengers and crew.
Are there privacy issues here? You betcha. And they've been discussed here at length. Do they approach what the article and its summary here state they approach? Not at all. Read the rest of the proposed regulation.
Come on, slashdot. Treat us like adults. Give us primary source materials and avoid the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.
I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As you wish. The article cites one on PassportsPlease.org, a direct link from that article is to the World Privacy Forum's submitted objection to the change:
"The Identity Project submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048 (July 14, 2006), docket number
USCBP20050003-0003, and the associated Regulatory Assessment published July 18, 2006 on the
Web site at and docketed as USCBP-2005-0003-00
identified as high-risk on government watchlists (Score:3, Interesting)
identified as high-risk on government watchlists from boarding aircraft bound for or
departing from the United States
I think the problem is that getting onto one of these "watchlists" is not particularly hard. Who decides who gets on the list? If you are on such a list, would you know it? Would you have any opportunity to challenge your presence on the list? How hard would it be to declare someone on such a list to be an "unlawf
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. Airlines check your passport before you depart. They can be fined for delivering passengers that don't have the required documentation to enter the country of their destination. They check when you get your boarding pass and they check again as you board the plane.
Re:Lobbying power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans have no idea what communism or socialism is... or if they do they do not use this knowledge when exhorting the evils of these systems. Nor do they have an tangible idea about what police states or totalitarian states are.
The failure of unions is that they are abused by those people who profit by people being in them, if everyone was in a union of some sort (or none at all) this would not be possible or at least more difficult to pull off.
The US dollar sucks.
The US by many metrics isn't the best place in the world to live. A notable exception is making buckets of cash.
US Foreign policy is nothing short of evil.
Racism is more of a problem in America than people want to admit.
Xenophobia is a significant problem in America.
The American system of government is broken and given the behavior of Americans it appears altogether beyond their capacity to fix it.
You can not live in a "nice" society without paying for it... via taxes.
It's in all of our interests to do what we can to raise everyone we can to a certain level (I mean a level above Henry Ford's auto assemblers and Ray Kroc's fast food workers). This means public schooling, accessible health care, &tc...
You cannot create a better society by legislating morality but you sure as hell can make it worse.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are those of us who would leave, too, were it not for family and friends. Those connections keep people in even far more repellent places.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't. There aren't enough Libertarians on the ballots to
make that happen, even if they all won; which won't happen
either.
I just hope you aren't counting on either branch of the
Demopublican Party to end this madness... if you are, you're
going to be sadly disappointed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as voting Libertarian, if everyone feels that way about a less-known but optimal candidate or party, then we're bound to get stuck with suboptimal representatives! Ultimately, the solution to this problem is election reform. Give each voter more than one vote in a given election, allow them to rank candidates in order of preference, or go with approval v
Re:Tuesday (Score:5, Informative)
No, not really.
Your party has historically been for many things, but "small government" was never really one of them. It was just a way to say they were "anti-socialist" or "anti-welfare" without being negative. The party you describe would be against drug laws or outlawing abortion as much as it's against gun control.
The left/right divide comes down to the division of Right and Proper -- the Right-wing desires the government to do that which is morally correct, while the left desires the government do that which is legally proper. there are, of course, other metrics you might use to divide the two, but "big government / small government" isn't one of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it takes a turning event to make significant change.
I doubt voting will be the solution. I'm still hopeful, but......
Fortunately, the armed forces are made up of humans (for now), and those humans have family and friends in the civilian sector. When they're ordered to turn on American civilians, it won't be the revolutionaries against the military, it will be the revolutionaries AND a good portion of the military against the remainder of the gove