Text 13988, 509 rader
Skriven 2005-10-02 11:46:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 13935 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
Hello Ray,

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

 MV>>>> Then nothing. No crime was committed.

 >>> How you figuring that one? does the fact that the act is legal
 >>> in one country and not in the other erase the illegality?

 MV>> There is nothing to erase as there was never an illegal act to begin
 MV>> with.

 > Wrong. What he did was illegal at this terminus of the
 > conversation, thats what we've been saying all along.

Yes, you have been saying that all along. And by doing so you only strengthen
my point that you *DO* impose your laws on othres. Menno Blom was in The
Netherlands when those conversations took place.

Declaring it illegal *IS* extending your law beyond the borders of your
country.

 > You can't erase that. You can ignore it, but you can't change it,

I am not ignoring it, I see it as proof of my claim that the US imposes its
laws on other countries.

 MV>> You are succesfull in your attempts to explain how the US legal system
 MV>> works. I can only conclude that it either DOES attempt to impose US
 MV>> law and morals on the residents of other countries or that in the US
 MV>> one can be convicted foratate of mind.

 > Only when the actions of those others enter into this country.
 > Yours does that too..

No, we do not. We do not apply Dutch law merely because the effect of his/her
actions, legal in the country where he/she resides, reach into our country.

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

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

 > Thor contention is equally wrong then. The crime was committed
 > on completion of the connection.

Only according to US law! And by applying that law you impose your laws beyond
US territory.

 MV>> No one can "shut down the InterNet. You can build fences around your
 MV>> section of it, like they do in China, but you can not "shut it down".

 > Bet me..

I stopped taking bets 30 years ago. I stopped smoking 9 years ago. Do not plan
to pick up either of them.

 >>> at the moment the EU is "demanding" that they share
 >>> in it's governace...

 MV>> "in it's governace"? Please explain, I do not understand.

 > Typo, sorry.. :)  BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union
 > insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must
 > share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet,

Sounds reasonable to me. It affects us all.

 > setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the
 > future of Internet governance.

Sounds reasonable to me too. The US does not own the InterNet. Why should they
be the only one to have a say in things/

 > A senior U.S. official reiterated Thursday that the country
 > wants to remain the Internet's ultimate authority,

Now why does that not surprise me? And you still want to maintain that the US
does not attempt to impose its laws and morals on others?

 > rejecting calls in a United Nations meeting in Geneva for a U.N.
 > body to take over.

That still does not tell me how the US can "shut down the InterNet". You can
close the servers on US territory or cut the links. That does not stop the
servers in the rest of the world from running.


 MV>> All we have are international agreements that settle how to deal with
 MV>> crimes that are considered crime in both countries involved.

 > Then they are international, right?

Ask Dale Shipp about the meaning of "international" <beg>

 MV>> Call it funny, it is a fact. What Menno Blom did was not a crime here
 MV>> and then. Chating about sex with a 14 yo is not against the law here.
 MV>> And allowing the messages to reach a country where those chats are not
 MV>> legal is not illegal here either. So no international crime.

 > You're still not seeing it.

No, YOU are the one still not seeing it.

 MV>> What I meant is there was no crime period. Whether his messages had
 MV>> stayed in The Netherlands or not.

 > Messages possibly but if he has his way with a underage child
 > he's not married to, that good for 8 years "Article 245 of the
 > Penal Code

That is a US law. Does not apply in The Netherlands. [sigh ]

 >     '1. A person who, out of wedlock, with a person who has
 > reached the age of twelve (12) but not yet sixteen (16),
 > performs indecent acts comprising or including sexual
 > penetration of the body is liable to a term of imprisonment
 > of not more than eight years or a fine of the fifth category.'

 > MIght be a stretch, but sening her those photos might be
 > construed as an "Indecent act" Here it would be, but probably
 > not i your country...

I know of no case where someone was charged with a thing like that. I'd say it
is not illegal here.

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

 > The problem is that when the act comes into this country, and
 > the person that committed it, it's is our business.

Saying "it is our bussines" says it all....

 > And was taken care of. We don't impose our laws and customes
 > on what you do in oyour country,

But you do...

 > only when it impinges on ours. As does yours, I bet.

No, it does not.

 >>> Not at all. the problem occured when he communicated in an
 >>> illegal manner *here*...

 MV>> He was not "here" at the time.

 > But this is where the other end of the line is.. Jeeze.

So? Since when do "lines" commit crimes. Crimes can only be made by persons.
And the *person* of Menno Blom was not in the USA at the time.

 MV>> Then I can not but conclude that the US *is* extending their laws and
 MV>> morals outside their borders and into another country.

 > No, it had to be recieved here.. That's what I've been trying
 > to tell you.


I read you. And I say by taking the POV that "receiving the messages in the
USA" equates to "the crime being committed here" shows that you impose your
laws beyond the borders of your country.

 > If we were extending our laws (and forget morals, that too is
 > a digression)

You can not leave out the morals as laws are ultimately based on what is
considered moral.

What you did to Menno Blom is considered immoral here.

And there lies the basic problem. Not in me failing to understand US law. The
basic problem is that you consider it perfectly right what happened to Menno
Blom and we do NOT think it is all right as it amounts to entrapping and
imposing your laws on our citizens on our territory.

 > to other countries, we'd have either had him arrested there , or
 > gone and gotten him ourselves.. That would be extending..

Again: according to your POV. We see it different.

 MV>> It has been long standing tradition in international relations
 MV>> that to ascertain whether or not a crime has occured, the laws
 MV>> of the country where the accused resides at the time of the
 MV>> event is the determining factor.

 > Tradition, not law?

What law? As I argued before their is no generally accepted international law.

 MV>> By deviating from that principel, the US imposes their laws on
 MV>> others.

 > Nope, we kept our laws in our boundaries,

No you did not. How many times do I have to say that you are wrong? ;-)

 MV>> But menno Blom was not in the US when the evidence materialised.

 > So? The evidence was here.. That was a major part of his
 > problem..

No, the basic problem is that you think it perfectly all right to "do
something" about something that happens in another country.

 >>> We *are* imposng our laws on those that violate them when
 >>> they enter our jurisdictions,

 MV>> Menno Blom did NOT violate your laws when he entered your
 MV>> jursidiction. The chatting with the "girl" took place before that.

 > And those "chats" at this end, because of the nature of them,
 > were illegal.

And applying that law to someone residing in another country makes you guilty
of imposing your laws and morals outside your territory.

 >>> by whatever method, *just as you do*...

 MV>> No, we don't.

 > You adon't arrest criminals in your country?

If we can catch them, yes of course.

 > You don't cooperate with Interpol?. How odd.

What cooperation with InterPol? The county cook police acted on their own,
InterPol was never involved.

The point is that we do NOT arrest people for something that is legal in the
country were they were at the time of the incident but what is illegal here.

As a matter of fact we only arrest foreigners for what they have done in their
country of origin on specific request from the foreign authority. And we only
extradite them if it is covered by an extradition treaty.

Of course if what happened is not illegal in the country of origin, such a
request would not be made.

 > I would have thought otherwise..

You are not thinking clearly.

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

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

 >>> "Skip".. Happens all the time. If the signal is recieved in
 >>> the Netherlands, and no one answers, there's no crime

 MV>> Suppose we see it different....

 > How could you?

By simply adopting a law that makes it illegal even if no one answers.

 > How do you intend to clock radio communications? there's
 > treaties against that that you've signed..

AFAIK those treaties do not preclude adopting such a law.

 >>> as the operator at this end has no control where the signal goes

 MV>> But you have control over the signal. You can switch it off.

 > Sure, but If I'm not talking to the Netherlands, why should I?

To avoid being arrested for violating our laws of whenever you should come to
The Netherlands of course!

 > Equally, you can switch off your hypothetical reciever (which you
 > should not have as it's illegal?)

No, it is not illegal to have such a receiver and it is not illegal to use it
to receive your signal either.

 >>> AM CB is illegal in the Netherlands, and if I were /there/
 >>> with my rig, I'd be subject to arrest.

 MV>> No, just being in posession of the thing is not against the law. Using
 MV>> it is.

 > Sorry I implied use, and there /may/ be waivers for that, I
 > know there used to be in Eurpoe for US military that had CB radios.

There may be but they would involve a licence. That you do not have,

Don't make the error Menno Blom made: assuming the laws are the same all over.
AM CB is legal in Germany. It is not in The Netherlands.

  >>>> Also, if a Netherlander responded to my AM signal *he's*  subject
  >>> to arrest.

 MV>> Wrong again. It is not illegal here to /recieve/ an AM signal and
 MV>> respond to it. As long is as the response is made in a legal way:
 MV>> i.e. by FM.

 > That's silly.

Silly as it may sound to you that is how it is often done.

 > How would an AM station hear that?

By employing a receiver capable of FM reception of course. I trust those are
not illegal un the US?

Well, one can actually receive narrow band FM with an AM receiver. By slightly
detuning with the RIT control. It is called "slope detection".

 >>> No, no crime committed in this example as elements are missing.

 MV>> Again you are reasoning with US law in mind.

 MV>> But suppose Dutch law is different. Suppose Dutch law says it is
 MV>> illegal to transmit AM, specifically directed or not?

 > Then it would be extending it's laws across it's borders?

No more than what the US did in the Menno Blom case.

 >>> Further, it would be very hard to have evidence that the
 >>> signnal was directed *solely* to the Netherlands,

 MV>> Just as much as it would be very hard to prove that Menno Blom was
 MV>> *solely* looking for a 14 year old American girl. In fact I think he
 MV>> entered the chatroom with the object of finding *some* girl and that
 MV>> he ended up with a US "girl" was because the cop responded to him.

 > Solely was not the problem the problem lies in what he did

Then why is it an issue in "your' case? why is proof needed that he signal was
solely directed at The Netherlands. The hypothetical law I came up with says
nothing about that.

 MV>> Ok, suppose your AM CB call was answered (in AM) by a Dutch cop posing
 MV>> as a fellow CB'er. You have a nice chat and the two of you really get
 MV>> along. You have to be in Amsterdam for a congress on broadcasting
 MV>> techniques next week and your "friend" happens to be in the same line
 MV>> of bussiness amd he will also attend the congress. So he offers to
 MV>> pick you up from the airport and act as your host during your stay.
 MV>> You accept.

 MV>> When you step into his car, he locks the doors, shows a police ID and
 MV>> says you are under arrest for transmittin AM on the CB band.

 MV>> How about that?

 > That might fly.. That's a closer analogy that we had previously,.

Right. so would you feel you were treated rightly and fairly when you were
convicted and had to spend some time is Dutch jail?

 > You see flaws in it? Of course, you /do/ know that "working skip" is
 > also illegal here, right?

No, I did not know that. I am surprised. What a strange law. What is it
supposed to accomplish? And how can it be enforced?

Anyway, "skip" is not what you would be arrested for. That's not illegal here.
You would be arrested for transmitting in AM.

Ok, just to avoid the "skip" issue. let's assume your are not in the US, but
you are in Germany and use it there. AM CB is legal in Germany. As is "skip"
BTW.

Otherwise same scenario. You are of course unaware that AM CB is illegal in the
Netherlands, you had no need to know as you never planned to use the rig in The
Netherlands.

And of course the cop "forgets" to remind you just like the cop that framed
Menno Blom "forgot"  to remind him that chatting about sex with a 14 yo is
illegal in The US.

So you cross the Dutch/German border and are arrested.

Would you feel you were treated fairly?

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

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

 > If he had done nothing besides talking to her, yes.. otherwise..

There was no otherwise. End of story.

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

 > Probably not but they would prosecute for working skip, if
 > they could I've seen that happen.

Not the same. By doing skip you are violating a US law while you are residing
in the US.

 MV>>>> And did nothing there that was against US law.

 >>> You're positive of that? I'm not.

 MV>> I am fairly certain that it was not what he was convicted for.

 > Again and carefully; He was convicted for solicitation of a minor.

That did not happen *while he was on US territory*.

 > That he did not get to complete the crime, means he was
 > prosecuted for intent, which was based on his actions
 > that entered this country.

 > Michiel, this is about as simply as I can put it.

I read you loud and clear...

 MV>> A little more digging revealed that at first he was arrested and
 MV>> charged with "intent to have sex with a minor". For wich he could be
 MV>> jaied for a long time. 20 years IIRC. The charge was later changed
 MV>> into the lesser charge of "chatting about sex with a minor" after he
 MV>> confessed to that.

 > Interesting, and he's very lucky.. They could have probably
 > made the first charge stick, but changed it,

Maybe because they were unsure they could make it stick and preferred to go the
sure way of going for a lesser, but confessed, crime.

 > That happens, it's called a "plea bargain"

Yes I know. Also illegal here BTW.

 > and that he confessed to the lesser crime means that he did not
 > get charged with the more serious one. That indicates that he had
 > a /very/ good lawyer...

I don't know. I'd say that a *very* good lawyer would have gotten him off the
hook completely because he was the victim of entrapment.

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

 > Close, but not quite. again, a portion of the communiction was
 > here, the illegal portion..

Declaring that part an illegal act committed by someone not on US territory
amounts to imposing one's laws beyond US territory.

 >>> When they enter into this country by whatever means, yes, just
 >>> as you do.

 MV>> No, not as we do.

 > You might want to check up on that..

No need, I know that we do not arrest people for doing something that is legal
wherever they do it.

 > I don't think we're going to make much more headway with this,
 > Michiel,

Of course not.

 > your convinced in what you believe and I know what I know the law
 > states here, and the mechanics of it.,

I am not arguing that. What Isay is that that law by its very nature imposes
your laws and morals on others.

 > You're not willing to say "Oh so that's how it works" which is
 > all I was looking for,

By now I know very well how it works.

What I see is that it works in a way that results in the US imposing there ways
on others.

 > I was not trying to defend it I was trying to
 > explain it.

 > You might not like it, Hell, I'm not sure I do at this point,
 > but it is what it is. and that's a fact. Menno ran up against
 > it and couldn't get out of the situation he placed himself in,

That is not how we see it. As we see it, he was placed in the situation because
of the actions of the Cook county police.

Cheers, Michiel

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