Text 13884, 259 rader
Skriven 2005-10-01 15:17:10 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 13721 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
Hello Ray,

 >>>>> 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?

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

 >>> 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..

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

 >>> 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.

Or at least cut the feeds of the offending chatrooms.

 > We can do that you know,

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

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

"nin it's governace"? Please explain, I do not understand.

 > Further, what you're saying is that International Crime does
 > not exist..

Actually, as there is no globally recognises international law and no globally
recognised court of law, there is no such thing as international crime. The ICC
was a fair attempt at creating international law, but the US scuttled that.

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

 > If there's a disparity between one country's laws and another.
 > That's funny..

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

 >>> 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 In ternational treaties say about disparate laws?

Nothing as far as I know.

 >>> 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.

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

 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*...

He was not "here" at the time.

 > That then was illegal to do so,

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

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

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

 > and was, I expect the basis of the evidence shown to the judge
 > when the warrant was secured..

All according to US law....

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

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

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

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

No, we don't.

 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 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

Suppose we see it different....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again you are reasoning with US law in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about that?

 >>> 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.

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

I do not recall, but it is irrelevant. There is no age of consent for *talking
about sex*, only for actually doing it. And since no sex took place...

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

 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.

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

And so *of course not* would the Netherlands extradite Menno Blom.

 >>> 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.

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

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

 >>> 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.

No, not as we do.

 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..

if you see it that waym then I can not but conclude thet you *do* impsoe your
laws and morals on others.


 > NO matter how you might dislike it, if a person in another
 > country transcends international borders and commits a crime,

There was no crime. The crime existed only in the eyes of the US legal system
and by acting on that vision, they show that they impose their laws and morals
on others.

Cheers, Michiel

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