Text 13935, 417 rader
Skriven 2005-10-01 17:04:40 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,

 >>>>>> 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.
 MV>>>>> Are 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?

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

 >>>> 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..

 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..

 >>>> 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.

 >> So what you're saying is that we should shut off the Internet.

 MV> Or at least cut the feeds of the offending chatrooms.

 >> We can do that you know,

 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..

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

A senior U.S. official reiterated Thursday that the country wants to remain
the Internet's ultimate authority, rejecting calls in a
United Nations meeting in Geneva for a U.N. body to take over.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=15306822&PAG
=461&rfi=9

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

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

"Poppycock"  There's all sorts of International Crime..
"Decisions endorsed by delegates were aimed at supporting member countries in
combating terrorism and other international crime and to provide a united
police response to major international incidents and natural disasters."

From Interpol's website.

 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?

Just like Fido traffic between countries is.. <g>

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

 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.

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

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

Yeah right.. that's not what they say.. "To be the world's pre-eminent police
organisation in support of all organisations, authorities and services whose
mission is preventing, detecting, and suppressing crime." They are police
officers, not clerks., But, we digress.

 >> And what do In ternational treaties say about disparate laws?

 MV> 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.

 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

    '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...


 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. And was taken care of. We don't impose our
laws and customes on what you do in oyour country, only when it impinges on
ours. As does yours, I bet.

 >> 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.

 >> That then was illegal to do so,

 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.

If we were extending our laws (and forget morals, that too is a digression) to
other countries, we'd have either had him arrested there , or gone and gotten
him ourselves.. That would be extending..

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

Tradition, not law?

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

Nope, we kept our laws in our boundaries, just like we're supposed to. That's
why he was arrested here, for what he did here. Even though we was physicall
"there", here is where it happened.

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

 MV> All according to US law....

Exactly, and the warrant was served when the accused was i our jurisdiction,
not before.

 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..

 >> 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.

There, no, here, yes.

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

 MV> No, we don't.

You adon't arrest criminals in your country? You don't cooperate with
Interpol?. How odd. I would have thought otherwise..

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

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

 >> 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.

 >> 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: i.e.
 MV> by FM.

That's silly. How would an AM station hear that?

 >> 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?

 >> 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> eneterd the chatroom with the object of findding *some* girl and that
 MV> he ended up wit a US "girl" was because the cop responded to him.

Solely was not the problem the problem lies in what he did that entered into
this country.. We don't have to prove what he was intending, Just what he did.
The word "Intent" seems to be escaping you, we're still prosecuting actions,
not thoughts.

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

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

 >>>> 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..

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

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

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

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

 MV> 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.

 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 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.

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

 >>>> 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
 MV>>> country.

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

 >> 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..

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

No he was imposing his laws on the person that was going to be brought before
him.. as he was then in this country (or was going to be).

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

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

Only when it reaches our borders,

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

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

In our jurisdiction of course, just as you do.

I don't think we're going to make much more headway with this, Michiel, your
convinced in what you believe and I know what I know the law states here, and
the mechanics of it.,

You're not willing to say "Oh so that's how it works" which is all I was
looking for, 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, and I expect no one else would, either.

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