Text 33408, 204 rader
Skriven 2009-06-16 14:39:56 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Ross,
On Monday June 15 2009 20:31, you wrote to me:
MV>> It is very relevant as Blom's decision was influenced - I would
MV>> even say triggered - by the unethical acts of the US law
MV>> enforcement. Unethical acts that preceded Blom's decision.
RC> So the devil made him do it?
Your words. But if you want to equate US Law enforcement to the devil, I will
not argue.
MV>> It is not sick to have a properly functioning libido. Not having
MV>> one is a medical disorder. Another word for "sick".
RC> A properly functioning libido doesnt include having sex with children,
RC> especially those thousands of miles away.
It all depends on the definition of "child". Libido is subject to the rules of
mother nature, not the laws of moralists like mr. Cassel. Mother nature says
that when she has fully functional reproduction organs and expresses
willingness to mate, than she is no longer a child.
RC>>> Not when you know in your heart of hearts that one possible
RC>>> choice you could make is illegal.
MV>> How on earth am I to know that?
RC> Because sex with children is wrong and sending nude pics of yourself
RC> to a child is wrong...
Says who? Who says that a 14 yo is a child? You? Mother nature says different.
Who says sending nude pics to a 14yiu is wrong? You? Dutch law says different.
RC> You did forget that he also sent pics of himself didnt you?
Have you forgotten that that is not illegal in the country where he was when he
send those pictures? How can you hold it against him when it is not against the
law? Because YOU find it immoral?
MV>> If someone I have reason to trust, offers me a choice, how on
MV>> earth am I going to know it is illegal?
RC> Why would you trust a 14yo, nevermind, you answered that further down.
You did not answer my question. How am I going to know it is illegal?
MV>> This theory of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is fine in
MV>> theory, but in practise it is impossible to know all the laws of
MV>> one's own country, let alone for every country one visits.
RC> Yet is no excuse for breaking the law...
True. OTOH, a truly fair system would take into account that the normak
mechanism that stop people from getting in trouble with the law do not work
when applied across cultures and when someone is deliberately trying to make
one break the law.
RC> How far down the streets of any German City would a tourist get before
RC> being stopped by police if said tourist wore a t-shirt with a swaztika
RC> on it?
I have no idea. I happen to know that it may be illegal under certain
circumstances. I do not know the exact circumstances. I also do not know how
strict that law is enforced. Your guess is as good as mine. What I do know is
that German policeman do not hunt the internet to set up traps for people by
encouraging them to enter Germany wearing swastikas in public.
RC> Your kind is constantly bellyaching about how arrogant USA tourists
RC> think our laws apply to them when travelling abroad, yet Blom
RC> essentially held the same arrogant assumption.
Blom was the victim of a dirty trick.
MV>> Normally this is not a big problem, most people stay close enough to
MV>> the law to not get into trouble, but it fails when someone is
MV>> deliberately trying to make you break the law. That is probably why
MV>> it is considered unethical and illegal here. It is just too damned
MV>> easy to make someone break the law.
RC> No one made Blom do anything he wasnt wanting to do,
You can repeat that until you see blue in the face. I say he was the victom of
entrapment.
RC> up til his arrest, he was thinking 14yo girl, the thing you dont
RC> understand is, what if it was a 14yo girl?
The thing you don'understand is that it wasn't.
RC> He could have said to himself, "I know better than to try to have sex
RC> with a young girl in a foreign country"..
And the policman that set the trap could have said to himself: "this guy is not
in the USA, he is in The Netherlands where what I intent to charge him with
when he enters my trap is not illegal there. Better stay away from him and find
a victim that is within my own country.
RC> But noooooo, Michiel wants to employ the devil made me do it defense.
Oh no, Ross wants the "it was his own choice to walk into the trap defence.
MV>> Now why in this case is it enough to "think it was legal" and why
MV>> was that not in the case of Blom?
RC> Because in the analogy people invest and risk their money all the time
RC> in legal ventures,
How is that different from investing time and money in honouring the call of
nature? Happens all the time. In fact I would say a LOT more time and money is
spend in obtaining sexual gratification then in the pursuit of monetary greed.
RC> it stands to reason that these people get scammed, but the choices
RC> they were led to make in getting scammed did not involve themselves in
RC> breaking any laws..
Neither did Blom. Until he walked in the trap....
RC> Blom was presented with no less than 2 choices, to not go or to go,
He should never have been presented with that other choice, It is immoral to
lay traps for people.
RC> he had to know that one of those choices was/is illegal.
How?
RC> If he did not know what the age of consent was, it is his fault for
RC> not researching that,
Only someone with a moral attitude so low that he condones LEO's laying traps
for people would say that. A more honest and ethical person would realise that
it is not realistic to expect that a foreigner knows every law. A more honest
and ethical person would have informed the foreigner that he was about to break
the law instead of just waiting in ambush for it to happen and than say gotcha!
RC>>> Blom choice was to try to do something illegal,
MV>> No, he did not deliberately *choose* to do something illegal. He
MV>> did not get himself a list of things known to be illegal in the
MV>> USA and then pick something from that list. No, he choose to do
MV>> something that he later found out to be illegal. Big difference.
RC> Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Taking advantage of ignorance OTOH is immoral and unethical. And also against
the law in many countries.
MV>> Legally, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Morally it makes a
MV>> big difference.
RC> and it is morally wrong for an adult to seek sexual relations with
RC> minor children, cant have your cake and eat it too Michiel..
Not having the cake and eat it too goes both ways. May I remind you that it is
YOU who brought in the ethics angle?
MV>> When one is tricked into doing something illegal one is a victim
MV>> also.
RC> Not in this case...
Yes in this case. He spent two years in jail because US law enforcement pulled
a dirty trick on him. The hell he is a victim!
RC> In this case the proper choice made by Blom would have attended his
RC> friends wedding and returned home without incident, but the devil made
RC> him do it.
We can repeat this over and over again, you will not convince me. In my eyes
Blom was the victim of a dirty trick, The more you try to deny this, the firmer
my conviction that there is something wrong with the moral values that lay at
the base of the US legal system.
MV>> No, I would not seek it. And if offered without seeking, I would
MV>> decline. Not because I consider it unethical, but because I am
MV>> old and wise enough to know that what looks too good to be true
MV>> most likely is too good to be true.
MV>> A woman under 30 showing willingness to have sex with me wants
MV>> something else. My money, my car, my house, information, or
MV>> whatever. Something that I would not voluntarily give her.
RC> Then why didnt Blom possess your scrupples, perhaps he lacks ethics?
As I told you my reluctance has nothing to do with ethics, but everything with
suspicion. I am over 60, I have not lived my life without walking into a couple
of traps myself. I managed to stay out of jail, but I did get burned a couple
of times.
I have not always been old, experienced and suspicious. You asked me what I
would do. You have not asked me what I would have done when I was 20. Or even
30. The answer would be: I don't know. I might have walked into the trap too.
Or maybe not. I honestly can't say.
Blom walked into the trap that I would now walk around, because he is some 35
years younger than I am and less experienced .
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
|