This I 100% agree with. Does anyone know of past evacuations of Americans that they were forced to pay to being evacuated? I still think they chose to live there. However, they are American citizens and should be treated as such when they are finally ‘saved’.
One could think that people are a bunch of whineybritches for complaining, but government policies or laws don’t prohibit people from complaining. To the contrary, Americans generally have every right to complain about anything they feel like, subject to whatever local laws may apply in a foreign country. You could argue your case in Great Debates, but there’s nothing in law that would prohibit an American overseas from criticizing his government.
I just can’t see Teddy Roosevelt pulling American citizens away from the howling natives onto his horse “Bully! Bully!” and charging them for it. 
The US is not alone in this. Australia has a huge Lebanese population, and we have thousands of citizens still in Lebanon. The last few days has had complaining about slow evacuation plastered all over the front pages. I’m sure other countries would be experiencing the same thing.
So ditto Americans in Lebanon. Ditto New Orleans. Ditto Queensland, Australia when the cyclone hit recently. People complain - that’s all there is to it. In a situation like this, they are scared, and expect to be evacuated business class, with military escort, and for it to happen YESTERDAY. Also, they are Westerners, and used to a suburban life where in the unlikely event that something nasty happens, they can dial 911 and a grown-up will be along within minutes to fix things up. So they’re going to get antsy in a war zone and a foreign one at that, and they might take a bit of convincing that the US government can’t just be there right away to kiss it better.
There were bodies rotting in the streets of New Orleans, a majot American city, so the government track record isn’t all that great.
Legally, I don’t know. Morally, given the fact that the U.S. supplies Israel with weapons and is tacitly approving the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure and hundreds of its citizens (thus far), I think everyone has a right to complain.
Which has established this administration’s “You were obviously living in the wrong place” doctrine toward disaster management.
This one just can’t seem to stay focused as a General Question, so off to Great Debates.
Before I go, here is a link that gives info on the “reimbursement” requirement for evacuating the US citizens.
Anyone who wants an alternative view, you can try Googling the American Enterprise Institutes rebuttal. I tried for half an hour to get it to load. Couldn’t.
samclem GQ moderator
Speaking as an American in Beirut, I can’t say I have any complaints. After all, there were several thousand Americans to be evacuated, and it’s not as though there are dozens of cruise ships idling empty around Cyprus, just waiting to be hired by some Western government. I think US sent its military ships from the Red Sea pretty early in the conflict to get them here as soon as possible. And even if the US government had decided to charge us for the evacuation, I don’t think complaining would have been justified–even though other governments seem not to charge their citizens for evacuation, we Americans abroad receive a sizable tax exemption (larger, in fact, than my modest academic salary), so I can’t complain if the US gov’t expects me to pay for government services on a pay-as-you-go basis.
And frankly, one reason the US gov’t might be dragging their feet is that it is really not terribly dangerous in most places in Lebanon. If you live down in one of the southern suburbs of Beirut where Hezbollah has a large presence, you are in trouble (some neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble), but in central Beirut, where most westerners seem to live, there has been little bombing. In fact, I haven’t heard reports of a single US citizen being killed or injured by Israeli action. If Israel were carpet bombing the city, I’m sure the US gov’t would have acted with a bit more alacrity.
[hijack]I was actually going to start an “I’m being evacuated” thread, but I thought our departure was imminent, so I didn’t bother, since I wouldn’t be able to follow up on the thread. But every day, we are told “Tomorrow’s the day,” only to be greeted the next day by another postponement. But again, I can’t complain too much. The fact that I still have e-mail access is a sure sign that we aren’t in enormously dire straits.[hijack]
During the First Gulf War US Cits. had to pay to leave Saudi. I don’t have a cite, I lived in Saudi just after GW I and the Americans did nothing but complain how they had to pay to get out.
From the above linked article:
What strikes me the most in this thread about the “evacuation fee” is how low it is.
I read this thread the first time just after having seen on TV a footage about one of the french ships involved in the evacuation. It’s a large ship, whose normal pupose is to land an armored regiment. Given the incredibly huge cost of operating military equipment nowadays, I’m pretty sure that having evacuees paying $ 300 / head wouldn’t even pay for the fuel used betwen Lebanon and Cyprus. So, my reaction reading the comments here was mostly “why even bother to ask for such a pittance that won’t remotely cover the expenses?” (but in all likehood will anger many people). Seems quite nonsentical to me.
If a Federal law requires payment by those who have been evacuated in such situations, then the State Department and military personnel who are conducting the evacuation must ask for such payment. If a political decision is later made to waive the fee or forgive the debt, so much the better - but IIRC, it was U.S. Grant who said the surest cure for a bad law is its rigorous enforcement. And I think it’s a bad law.
Expatriate Americans have every right to complain, if they like. They didn’t give up their First Amendment rights when they went overseas, nor did they deprive themselves of the protection that U.S. diplomatic and military power may provide. If I were overseas when the fertilizer hit the air circulator and, through no fault of my own (i.e. purposefully going into a war zone to take holiday snaps) found myself in danger, I’d want my government to do everything reasonably possible to get me out of there.
Why should an inordinate amount of tax dollars go to ‘rescue’ folks who, by their own will, are vacationing in an a dangerous area that is listed as a significant travel risk by their own government?
If you warn your brother that there’s a hornets nest in an apple tree, an he still goes to pick an apple, then proceeds to get stung, do you rush in to help him out, rewarding him for his stupidity, or stay back and laugh at him for a second and turn the hose on him to get the hornets off?
Related item: Ivy Leaguers were evacuated first from Lebanon
Apparently, all the “complainers” just weren’t rich enough to get better service…
There’s some nifty class-baiting yellow journalism in that link (no offense intended to you, rjung – I know that you’re just linking, not judging). It draws heavily on The Blotter at ABC News:
When one actually reads the article, it transpires that some “study-abroad” programs (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are mentioned) contract with private insurance companies (International SOS And Medex) to evacuate the students if the program directors deem it necessary. This is a private pre-planned insurance program; it’s not as though a Brown or Dartmouth student in Beirut could show his student ID card, do the “secret Ivy League handshake”, and be whisked out of trouble. Nor is there any indication that Ivy Leaguers are in any way at an advantage as regards evacuation of US students or other citizens by any agency of the US Government.
I’d be willing to bet that any university – not just Ivy League – could sign up with these companies, if they’re prepared to pay the premium (and, presumably, provide a large enough body of insurable students to make it financially worthwhile).
Wealthy people tend to be much better insured than poorer people, but they pay for the privilege. I see nothing wrong with them having precontracted with a private party for expedited evacuation; it’s only if they are given favorable treatment when it comes to public resources that I see a problem.
Example: People who live in gated communities with private security forces will have much faster response to a break-in than I will, and they pay handsomely to make that so. I can, however, complain if they get noticeably better treatment than me from the local Police Department (yes, I know it happens, but most PDs try not to be too blatant about it).
Right, why can’t these communists realise that being able to flee a locked-down, war-torn, dangerous country with a destroyed airport and mostly destroyed highways in a timely fashion is a privilege, not a right, and the ability to leave before being incinerated by a bomb during a war you have nothing to do with should be subjected to the constraints of the free market just like everything else. Weren’t lucky enough to have parents who could afford to send you to Harvard? Well then, crawl back into your destroyed hotel room and try not to die or piss yourself too badly before the US Embassy gets back to you in a few days.
So, I can’t help but wonder, do you also see a problem if public resources are sold off to private companies so that the public can “pay for the privilege” to drink water, send their children to grammar school, go to the hospital, and so on? If so, it’s an interesting distinction you make. If you don’t see a problem, I wonder what you consider to be the point of having public resources at all.
Here’s a quick fantasy that flashed through my head: evacuate the poor students over there and all the citizens who are being killed for no reason, and leave the rich students there to sweat it out for awhile in the battle zones. Just Hezbollah, Israel, and a few dozen Skull and Bones members. Forget their university studies–it’ll be the most socially valuable learning experience of their lives.
Did the United States not invade Grenada to rescue some students who couldn’t afford or didn’t have the GPA to attend “real” medical schools?
I remember that morning being awakened by the radio and wondering why we had invaded a province of Spain. 
I’m confused by your post. Are you suggesting that governments should provide such a high level of service that private enterprise can’t possibly provide better? Or should we just forbid those that can afford better private services from doing so if government-supplied services are available?