Text 13721, 175 rader
Skriven 2005-09-30 12:51:11 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
     Kommentar till en text av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
 MV> 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?

 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? I hardly think so.

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

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

Wasn't really trying. my purpose os not to convince, just to explain..

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

So what you're saying is that we should shut off the Internet. We can do that
you  know, at the moment the EU is "demanding" that they share nin it's
governace...

Further, what you're saying is that International Crime does not exist..If
there's a disparity between one country's laws and another.  That's funny..

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

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

And what do International treaties say about disparate laws?  Being specific
would be very helpful..

 >> 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.

 MV> There was no crime, period.

As I set it up above, you're correct.

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

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

Not at all. the problem occured when he communicated in an illegal manner
*here*... That then was illegal to do so, and was, I expect the basis of the
evidence shown to the judge when the warrant was secured.. We *are* imposng
our laws on those that violate them when they enter our jurisdictions, by
whatever method, *just as you do*...

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

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

"Skip".. Happens all the time. If the signal is recieved in the Netherlands,
and no one answers, there's no crime as the operator at this end has no
control where the signal goes (beam antennas notwithstanding) AM CB is illegal
in the Netherlands, and if I were /there/ with my rig, I'd be subject to
arrest. Also, if a Netherlander responded to my AM signal *he's*  subject to
arrest. No, no crime committed in this example as elements are missing.
Further, it would be very hard to have evidence that the signnal was directed
*solely* to the Netherlands, given the nature of radio communications, where
it goes where it wants to.  Computers, as you well know, are a lot more direct
than that, and go to specific addresses, even when it's inside a chat room.
The fact of the file transfer, further nails that down as it's peer-to peer.

Feel free to try a better analogy, though, I'm listening..

 >> 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, so no
 MV> arrest.

Roy (I think) said you said something about the age of consent there that was
higher than 14? that was why I said probably...

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

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

As its legal for me to transmit on AM, of course not.

 >> but he decided to venture into the US.

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

You're positive of that? I'm not. Again we only have short accounts, lacking
detail. Further, by that time he had already participated in an activity that
was illegal here, in communicating. Which was AFAICT the basis for the
warrant, and one part of that communication took place in Chicago.

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

 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 country.

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

 >> 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.

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

There was no crime there, but there was here..

 >> 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.

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

The issuance of warrants is /very/ relevant. If a warrant is not issed, then
the officers can /not/ make an arrest unless the criminal does something
illegal in the officer's presence. In that this case has International
implications, I feel certain that a warrant would have been drawn. Otherwise,
Blom would have had to do something in the presence of the officers that we do
not know about. Calling the "teen" on the phone would have sufficed.. or
pre-arranging a meeting place inside the airport, that'd do it. Again, I have
no idea.

NO matter how you might dislike it, if a person in another country transcends
international borders and commits a crime, even if it's not a crime where he
is, and then enters the jurisdiction he will be arrested, if there's
evidence..

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)