<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
The rules on passport revocation -- which I didn't know existed, but that's OK -- apply in rather obvious and quite limited circumstances, like when a passport was issued in error or the person is no longer a U.S. citizen. That's a very long way from what you were suggesting earlier: that the government can just come along and revoke passports whenever they feel that they have a good reason to do so. And restricting travel to Iraq -- until recently a hostile country under UN sanctions -- is another exceptional situation not generalizable to most international travel.
The bottom line is that U.S. citizens really do have a right to travel, both domestically and internationally, and that right can be restricted under only extremely unusual circumstances about which most of us have absolutely no need to worry. Do you agree?
Bruce</font>
No, I don't agree. That's because your assumptions of "rights" are factually incorrect. There are far more circumstances other than the 2 you described. The quote that Felix Unger provided should be clear.
You can read the original here
http://www.ilw.com/belluscio/pprev.HTM
In short, if you're doing something which upsets the state department, your passport can be revoked. Note that the passage says
"likely to". That means that even if you haven't done anything yet, the state department can still revoke your passport for what you might do.
And there is no legal right to travel internationally, by which I mean transit from one nation to another. The nation you are departing from must first consent to let you leave, and the nation you are going to must consent to let you in.
Neither are intrinsic rights. As a citizen, you have the right to travel domestically, and the gov't has no right to expel you unless a court strips you of citizenship. Nevertheless, once you are outside the country, there is no obligation to allow you back in.