Charging to evacuate citizens from danger: A Republican Law?

[cantstandbush]

Just heard Sununnu say on CNN that this law was passed in 2003 to dissuade people from traveling to places they shouldn't be going (as determined by the US gov't). I bet anything it was to help stem the tide of travel to Cuba. But no matter, we now know it was what the US Republican controlled Congress wanted. I am going to do a little research on this to find out for myself the REAL reasons for this.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. It could be.

My CNN breaking news alert read like this:

-- Evacuation fees for Americans being helped to leave Lebanon will be waived, two Republican senators tell CNN.

Now who cares if it was said by two REPUBLICAN senators?

[Minnesota Libra]

3. The fact that the fee will be waived is great - I'm glad - BUT............

.....the fact remains some neocon/fundie Senator/s Reps/s was so callous as to come up with this idea in the first place.

OK, I could see trying to discourage people from traveling to areas where it might be dangerous to rescue them. If that was the original idea then why wasn't there a list of place - to be changed as needed - attached to the bill.

Example: If Americans travel to these places.............and need rescuing you will be charged for the effort.

That I could understand but to make an across the board rule like this is just plain wrong.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Sunnunu was spinning as fast as he can

It seems pretty clear that he must have
gotten the smack down from the Reich
cause he was brown-nosing like you wouldn't believe.
( a suspiciously big turn-around from his condemnations yesterday)

The US response in Lebanon is nothing less than shameful...
Sunnunu should KNOW that more than anyone...
yet these creeps make themselves look even worse by
painting a happy republican face on it,
It's ugly and pathetic.

[DanCa]

4. Good luck let us know what you find out

Congrats on doing your own research. Too many people - self included - relay on second hand information. You get a heart felt kudos for doing your own homework. My thoughts is that this sounds more like a Hannity - Limbaugh talking point than rather a law. That's just my gut feeling though.

[Robbien]

5. There is a line item in the 2003 budget for evacuations!

So far what I could find is that in the:

President Submits $74.7 Billion Supplemental Appropriations Request for Funding War on Terrorism

there is this item:

$66 million for Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service. These funds would be used to
evacuate U.S. government employees and private citizens and to provide additional services to
American citizens should the need arise. Funds would be returned to the Treasury if unused by year’s
end

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2003-06.pdf

[TreasonousBastard]

6. It kinda makes sense that if you go to a place with a State...

Department advisory saying you shouldn't go here, and we may not even have an embassy any more, we shouldn't pick up the tab to get you out if you get your ass in a jam. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I can see the logic there.

And, there'sa always the kid who runs out of maoney and "loses" his return plane ticket. After a week of severe hassling,. the consulate might give him a ticket, and a bill for it.

But, although they've been issuing advisories all year for Lebanon, Israel and Gaza, they involved getting caught up in a demonstration or random bomb attack. This is an all-out shooting war that just started and caught everyone by surprise.

No way we can afford 300 billion for a war to "keep us safe" and yet not pick up the tab to get our people out of harm's way.

They've been lucky to inherit a military who can do the job they've been ordered to do-- anything else, it's Katrina all over again. Just more proof that neocons should NEVER, EVER be trusted to actually run things.

[jwirr]

7. Now we know why NO citizens were not evacuated - they did not

have the money to pay the boat fare.