Posted on 01/04/2003 1:41:36 AM PST by kattracks
I simply disagree with you on the seriousness of this effort. It is annoying, but not the red flag, in my opinion, you perceive it to be.
The CIA is tracking terrorists overseas; who tracks them in the USA...that is NOT the CIA's job. The FBI is supposed to be doing this, but they are not up to speed. I personally think this effort won't help except as a deterrent, in which case those who wish to travel surreptitiously will be forced into roundabout routes, forged documents, etc. and perhaps may be easier to spot overseas rather than people like me, who simply say they are going to London to see landmarks, then go to London and see landmarks.
I am well aware of the slippery slope argument. I also am aware that rights are somewhat curtailed during time of war. I also am aware that we don't have a declaration of war as of yet, but for all practical purposes we do.
So, we will just simply have to agree to disagree on this issue. No point in wasting Jim's bandwidth, and I am sure you will have people who see things as you do. Be sure you make a public comment to the government.
Indeed we do, when we perceive a benefit in return for that disclosure.
This "rule" is quite different from those types of transactions: the USG is asking you (actually demanding) that you self-report on your innocent daily movements.
I cannot fathom that you would submit to voluntarily self-reporting to the USG anytime you drove across any state line within the USA. It would be an obvious intrusion into your privacy. Yet you think its OK that the USG demand the same for your foreign movements. I'd like you to explain how these scenarios are any different with respect to your fundamental rights of privacy.
And for the third or fourth time, I will tell you that it is the job of the CIA and the FBI to handle foreign intelligence in foreign countries, including the tracking of terrorists foreign and domestic. Making all citizens suspects ("Which country were you in on July 22nd") will not help them in detecting even one single terrorist.
It is quite clear from reading Bob Baer's "See No Evil" that both agencies have and are failing disastrously in that mission, and that this "rule" is a proxy (better stated, a cover) for their abysmal and hideous failures (e.g., they have atrocious human intelligence capabilities, so they target the easiest of "suspects", American citizens).
What this rule implies about our foreign intelligence agencies is actually much more frightening than the privacy infringements, if that's possible.
And now, I am going to take down my Christmas tree. Have a nice morning!
Bingo. This is to ask why you are going to, say, Luxembourg, and are you taking any money with you? This will have no positive effect on security from terorists.
If so, imagine that you come back on a flight from overseas and are asked where you were by an INS officer. You completely refuse. What are they going to do, throw you in jail? Prevent you from walking onto US soil?
Well, that's really the crux of the issue, and you're completely wrong about it.
With all due deference, I don't detect that you've done enough foreign travel - certainly not in third world countries - to understand how easy it would be for terrorists or criminals to mask their travels. Avoid credit cards and airlines (e.g., overland travel) and you're off the grid.
Innocent, law-abiding Americans will have their travels meticulously entered into a database, while the purported targets will simply lie (and if all else fails, do exactly what Richard Reid did and simply "lose" their incriminating passports and visa stamps).
The bottom line is that this "rule" won't even touch the purported targets.
Since you agree that it will only work as a deterrent, and I've shown you that even that is not the case, what remaining rationale could possibly exist for infringing on the privacy rights of American citizens?
No, I didn't say that. I posited that you would not do so.
And I asked, on the other hand, if you would willingly report on your foreign movements, and if so, why?
What's the difference between foreign travel and domestic travel with respect to your privacy?
You obviously perceive a differece, but I think you're evading the question about what that difference is.
Well, they'll certainly do something to make you miss your taxi ride home.
I once noted to a Customs officer that I was tired of bag searches every time I returned from Asia. That produced a introduction to several armed Customs officers, who were polite but wanted to know why I didn't want a bag check. In the end they simply opened the bag, peeked inside, and waved me through.
Once I stopped returning home in blue jeans and sandals, the bag searches stopped.
Duh.
Excellent reply.
Hi! My name is L4T and I'm a FReepaholic.
"Hi L4T!"
Yes, I have finally admitted that I am powerless in my continual quests to get more and more information from great sites such as FreeRepublic because I was tired of being spoon fed a bunch of crap by 'traditional' media outlets.
"Keep coming back!"
Well, it's illegal. They flattened both towers of the World Trade Center, but they wouldn't dare fill out those forms incorrectly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.