Text 13660, 104 rader
Skriven 2005-09-30 08:23:54 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 13518 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
Hello Ray,

 >>> See my note to David on that..

 >>> Physical also includes communication with what he believed to
 >>> be a minor before he flew to this country.

 MV>> Before he flew to the US country he was in The Netherlands. Are
 MV>> you nows saying that US law extends to Dutch Territory?

 > Not at all, but when it enters US Territory.... What then?

Then nothing. No crime was committed.

 > We had this discussion years ago as I recall, and I thought we
 > covered this well.

It was covered all right. That does not mean you convinced me.

 > Are you ssaying that if you commit a crime that transcends
 > International boundaries, that you cannot be charged?

Your starting point is wrong. There is no crime to begin with. If someone does
something that is not against the law of the country where he/she resides,
there is no crime and hence it can not transcend international borders. Of
course the results of these /legal/ actions can transcend international
borders. Well, tough luck. Close the borders if you do not want that. But
calling it a crime and prosecuting it, amounts to imposing your laws and your
moral standards on others.

 > I hardly think so as that's why we have Interpol.

No, that is not why we have interpol. It is international treaties that define
what border crossing activities are legal and which are not. Interpol is just
an assistant in law enforcement.

 > In this case he did not violate Netherlands law, and had his
 > comveration remaind in that country's boundary, then yes, no
 > crime would have been committed.

There was no crime, period.

 > In this case, thugh he participated in an action that was not
 > legal in the country of destination, the USA...
 > There lies the problem.

The problem lies in the USA not recognising that the term "legal in the USA"
does not apply to something that takes place outside US jurisdiction. The US
*IS* imposing its laws and moral standards on other countries.

Do you have a CB radio that can produce an AM modulated signal? I know that is
legal in the USA. So let us assume for the sake of argument that you do. Let us
also assume that your signal was received in The Netherlands. Very well
possible you know.

AM CB is illegal here, ony FM is allowed. So by your reasonimg you were
involved in a crime transcending international borders. Would you say it was
all right if your were arrested when you came to The Netherlands?

 > Now, if he had remaind in the Netherlands, he would probably
 > not have been arrested

Nothing "probable" about it. What he did was not illegal here, so no arrest.

 > (not knowing the extradition arrangements we may or may not have)

The Netherlands does not extradite its citizens for what happened here and what
is not a crime here. No country does that AFAIK. Even the USA. Would they
extradite you for transmitting AM on CB? Don't think so.

 > but he decised to venture into the US.

And did nothing there that was against US law.

 > Having done that, then we had the two necessary elements, the
 > crime, as it was committed here, and the person that committed it.

There was no crime to begin with. Seeing it otherwise amounts to imposing one's
law on the citizens of another country in that country.

 > That's what it took to take before the judge to show him they
 > had cause to secure a warrant. Something that we had not discussed
 > previously, but the Police have to convine a judge that a crime
 > was committed before thay can make an arrest, if the crime was
 > not committed in thier physical presence.

There was no crime. If the judge issuing the warrant thought so, then he/she
was imposing his/her laws on someone in another country.

 > That being the case, than that's what we have at the moment.
 > had there been any lack of evidence or flaws in the law, he would
 > not have issued the warrant and the arrest would not have taken place..

 > Follow that better now? I'd really hope so.

The issue of warrants is irrelevant. What is relevant is that no matter how you
twist it, The US is imposing its laws and morals outside US territory. And by
methods that are illegal in the target country to boot. To protest against that
was the main reason I wrote the article.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)