Bush administration arrests former human shields.

[Ramo]

If it is an oppressive state, then you have every right to revolt, as it is undemocratic.

The point is that your idea of a free state is my idea of an oppressive state. If I disagree with the policies of a state (i.e. find it too authoritarian), I always have the recourse of escaping it in a democratic system.

[Ramo]

Ok then. So? Vote to make segregation illegal.

Once again, so you agree with the imprisonment of MLK when he did an act of civil disobedience against segregation?

[Edan]

Originally posted by oedo



in this case it would violate my freedom to travel to Iraq anytime I like or need.

How is that a fundamental human right?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, you can always claim asylum at an embassy and renounce US citizenship.

Referring back to the original point of contention, the sanctions keep you from bringing goods or money into Iraq because they are a "hostile" country. I think the law may actually be part of the UN sanctions on Iraq (I don't know, though). If you move there and become Iraqi, they wouldn't do anything (they really wouldn't care all that much).

[General Ludd]

Yeah, Iraq and Cuba are such hostile threats to america. Any minute, they could invade.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo


Once again, so you agree with the imprisonment of MLK when he did an act of civil disobedience against segregation?

Personally, *IMHO* the law was unconstitutional anyways, so yes it was wrong. However, if the law was constitutional, yes, he broke the law. I'm not saying he did a bad thing, but the law should apply equally and consistantly. He didn't have to break the law to protest it.

[Ramo]

How is that a fundamental human right?

It insures you can choose another state if you disagree with the laws, get a better life for yourself, get better education, get a better job, etc., etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld
Yeah, Iraq and Cuba are such hostile threats to america. Any minute, they could invade.

More like we were putting pressure on Saddam by embargoing him.

It isn't a real effective embargo if you let people trade with them is it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo


It insures you can choose another state if you disagree with the laws, get a better life for yourself, get better education, get a better job, etc., etc.

Again, just claim asylum at the embassy.

However, I don't think this is exactly a concern with Iraq (looking for a more democratic, prosperous country)

[Ramo]

Well, you can always claim asylum at an embassy and renounce US citizenship.

Why should I? And there aren't many countries that take in lots of asylum seekers, BTW. Just look at the Euros ***** and whine on this forum.

Referring back to the original point of contention, the sanctions keep you from bringing goods or money into Iraq because they are a "hostile" country.

That's idiotic.

I think the law may actually be part of the UN sanctions on Iraq (I don't know, though).

No it's not.

If you move there and become Iraqi, they wouldn't do anything (they really wouldn't care all that much).

Why should they have to do that?

Personally, *IMHO* the law was unconstitutional anyways, so yes it was wrong. However, if the law was constitutional, yes, he broke the law. I'm not saying he did a bad thing, but the law should apply equally and consistantly. He didn't have to break the law to protest it.

This is the sort of blind legalistic fanaticism that is far too prevalent in this country.

What about when Hitler decided to put 12 million people in concentration camps (i.e. taking away their freedom of movemtn)? Should the Jews, Roma, etc. worry about breaking the law? Since the right to movement isn't covered under freedom of expression or freedom of self government?

[Ramo]

Have you ever tried claiming asylum? Do you realize how hard it is to do that? Especially if you're poor or uneducated or have the wrong skin color? For instance, if you come from the wrong country, we automatically detain asylum seekers for months to years. Being locked up isn't very fun.

And the point isn't specific to Iraq. I'm talking about generalized freedoms here. And It's applicable to Iraq as well; there were jobs there, mind you.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo


It insures you can choose another state if you disagree with the laws, get a better life for yourself, get better education, get a better job, etc., etc.

Huh? Iraq ain't another state - it's another country. And people aren't allowed to move freely across borders. It's frequently illegal if they don't have the permission to do it. Or do you think illegal immigation is a basic human right?

Now, getting refugee status or asylum when you've been severly persecuted in your own country - that might be a basic human right.

[Ramo]

Iraq is another state (look up state in the dictionary ). And yes, I think immigration should be a basic human right.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Edan
How is that a fundamental human right?

how is moving free no fundamental right? the eastern block collapsed because the people revolted against reactionary restrictions like such one. the fall of the Berlin Wall was all about the freedom to travel and move free.

[Verto]

Funny how Bush gets blamed for this, when this kind of stuff has been going on for years.

[oedo]

depends. no one posted the law yet, so we don´t know.
maybe the law itself even has a point and was made to secure the UN embargo against Iraq and prevent trade activities just as investments in Iraq. it certainly was never intended to harass peace activists or travellers.

if so then the Bush admin is to blame for the excessive abuse of this law by defining that daily trades for one´s own living would be the same thing like commercial trade.

[Agathon]

Presumably this counts as a form of civil disobedience.

However, it's clear that this is malicious prosecution of one's political enemies rather than a serious attempt to crack down on evil criminals.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Verto
Funny how Bush gets blamed for this, when this kind of stuff has been going on for years.

When was the last time?

And, last I recall, Mr. Bush was allegedly in charge over there in DC? In the military, they have this little thing known as "command responsibility."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by oedo
depends. no one posted the law yet, so we don´t know.
maybe the law itself even has a point and was made to secure the UN embargo against Iraq and prevent trade activities just as investments in Iraq. it certainly was never intended to harass peace activists or travellers.

if so then the Bush admin is to blame for the excessive abuse of this law by defining that daily trades for one´s own living would be the same thing like commercial trade.

There's no single specific law by itself. The way it works is George Bush Sr. issued an executive order that claims authority from prior acts of Congress, and the EO authorizes different executive agencies to develop regulations for prohibited and permittable actions - since the point of sanctions acts are to prohibit commerce, most of that regulation is developed by the Dept. of the Treasury.

If prosecuted, the arrestees would be charged under one or more provisions of the original statutes that the EO claims as authority.

Anyway, here y'all go:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/eotffc/...l/eo/12722.pdf

[Elden]

It seems that justice and law get further apart day by day.

[oedo]

thanks MtG. reading the EO the goverment´s abuse of it becomes obvious. it was made in order to limit economic relations to a dictatorship and now it´s abused for a silly witchhunt on harmless travellers and hippies. this EO was never directed to theses people.
I hope the goverment will lose on this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Verto
Funny how Bush gets blamed for this, when this kind of stuff has been going on for years.

Acutally, no. The last time anyone was prosecuted was under the Reagan Administration, for going to Cuba and then shooting their mouth off about it. If you went to Cuba and didn't tell everyone you went, the Feds didn't care. Up until Bush II, no one cared if you went to Cuba, now they are making noises about prosecuting Americans who go there. All during the Clinton years, Voices in the Wilderness traveled to Iraq. Now people are being threatened with prison for standing up to their government.

I think they were terribly naive if they thought they could try and embaress this Administration and get away with it scott free. These people are like the Mob.