In my post of the 21st I basically explained how the U.S. House VIOLATED its own rules of procedure when passing International Megan's Law act (HR-4573). I find it very disturbing that lawmakers expect the nation to follow rules while they violate them with impunity, but I guess that is some kind of a lawmaker's code.
What I didn't do in that post was show what changes the U.S. House made to the INTRODUCED version of International Megan's law (IML) bill HR-4573. Today, the 22nd of May, I am happy to report they HAVE posted the Amended Version (Note it finally shows 2 TEXT versions); I wonder what prompted them to do that?
OK, back on the 12th of May I showed how I felt the introduced version of IML violated rights of sex offenders it would be applied to (Rights violated shown in the pink area). I based that belief on The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; several ICCPR Articles would be violated by the introduced version.
It is amazing that most of the violations pointed out have been rectified in the Amended version of IML. In fact, they have made other changes to the Angel Watch Center procedures to INCLUDE trying to notify the RSO involved BEFORE s/he leaves the USA. Thank heavens, that may save the RSO money which would have been lost before, and relations with anyone the RSO may have been vacationing with or on a business trip with.However, with that said, I still have concerns:
Everything with respect to passports has been eliminated from the amended version of IML. There is no doubt that ICCPR played a part in that change, especially Article 12: 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
The entire Angel Watch Center process of generating an Advisory (ex parte), takes place behind closed doors without any input from, or notice to RSO that it is taking place, who expects to travel. Does Congress have a special definition of due process? I always thought it was "Notice and opportunity to defend oneself."There is no doubt this is an improved version, but I still do not support passage of this IML bill. The bill is in the U.S. Senate now, so, it is time for everyone to contact their Senators, and explain how this is harmful to registrants and their families, and is not good for the nation.
Additionally, the Angel Watch Center is to "Establish a system to maintain and archive all relevant information, including the response of destination countries to notifications under subsection (e) where available, and decisions not to transmit notification abroad." Due process should permit the RSO access to this, or any other, information used to generate an Advisory, but none is provided.
As long as there are laws forcing former sex offenders to later follow laws generated with every new lawmaker thought over time, the registrant must have access to everything that is used to keep him/her under the umbrella of these laws.
Finally, whether or not this makes it into law, something needs to be done about the way the U.S. House violates its own rules.
Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
Thanks for this - the linked version is much "tighter" than the one I was reading. Also agree on your calling out the House (bill passed by voice). Finally, I don't find "reasonable efforts to provide constructive notice" to the traveling Registered Citizen very comforting - it is too vague, offers little and promises nothing - and sounds too much like "...and for any other purpose". It may interest your readers to know that travel notification requirements are one of the main reasons the UK courts have determined that the UK SOR is not compatible with the right to privacy contained in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
ReplyDeleteGlad to at least see the passport part removed. Stopping anyone from traveling outside the country amounts to imprisoning them again. They can't claim the registry is only a civil tool and then imprison them in one location no matter how large that location is.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain reservations as usual.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that registrants may not even be aware they will be restricted from a country until AFTER they actually travel to that country. There is no way a registrant can actually determine if they will be restricted until they attempt enter the country once they land (or disembark) in their country. With the SORNA requirements that registration offices notify the countries of an impending RSO's visit (by states who are compliant with SORNA), we find that most of the time, a registrant is denied entry, even if they are off paper, where any other felon would be allowed to enter.
This is really insidious, as it means that the US is not actually preventing travel, but with their overwhelming notification details they give to host countries, they scare the host country enough that they will deny entry.
I would suggest that you have a repository for registrants to get back to you to let you know of their experiences post-passage of this bill.