5 ms·

Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them with a c

by rubyfan 10y ago

Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them with a crime? How is that possible?

type0 10y ago
Because, Team America World Police, that's how.
ikeboy 10y ago
http://www.kktg.net/Notes/hacking-jurisdiction/ http://www.kktg.net/Notes/hacking-jurisdiction/
oh_sigh 10y ago
Because NZ agreed to extradition terms with the US. If they hadn't done that, then the US could try him in absentia but good luck enforcing it.
csomar 10y ago
Planning a terrorist act that will happen in the US?
- megous 10y ago
  That does not create a jurisdiction to charge someone. Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    >Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away. You mean the eyes of the US government. The citizens aren't out there killing foreign nationals. Saying US citizens are responsible for extra-judicial killings is like saying Muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks. It's wrong and it's offensive.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      It may still be wrong and offensive, but at least in the case of the government it is a self policing body that in-principle answers to the US citizenry. There is no comparable (non-supernatural) relationship between all Muslims.
      - freehunter 10y ago
        It's far from that simple. You should realize that the US Government does not answer directly to its citizens. This is not a corruption of the design, this is part of the design itself. The US is not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. We have very little control over the daily actions of our politicians, only the broad ideas they stand for. I'm willing to bet that no one voted for President Obama specifically because he wanted to use drones to kill suspected terrorists without attempting to arrest them first. He came up with that idea on his own. Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        I didn't say that it was simple, just that there is a relationship there (however attenuated) that's lacking in the other case.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive. How's that defense working for an ISIS funder? "Oh, I didn't send the money for bombs, I sent it for their work with children..."
    - megous 10y ago
      I mean what I say. Majority of US citizens support drone attacks (in the polls) despite the risks. And the US is democracy, so...
deminature 10y ago
He made the mistake of hosting copyright-infringing files on US-based servers. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/23/us_department_of_justice_details_kim_dotcom_evidence/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/23/us_department_of_jus... > Files that demanded higher throughput, which meant that more users were accessing those files simultaneously, were stored on faster servers located in Washington, D.C. The preliminary analysis of the databases shows that the vast majority of files on these computers are infringing copies of copyrighted works.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  That's some major bullshit in law. If one hosts a server in Russia that someone uploads copyrighted content to, should they be extradited to Russia to be criminally charged? What the fuck. Money talks. That's what's going on here.
  - patrickk 10y ago
    The US government even goes after foreigners committing crimes outside US borders for simply using US dollars. That's how they were "able" to go after the corrupt FIFA officials. "The country’s law enforcers claim the right to go after anyone using dollars, its banking system or its territory to plan or conduct an illegal act." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/ec...
    - goodplay 10y ago
      Whatever their justification, I wouldn't call it law at this point.
Atropos 10y ago
That concept is actually not that unusual or nonsensical - imagine if we had the opposite: As long as you and your servers are outside the US, you can not be charged under US criminal law. This would basically mean that the US would need to rely exclusively on the goodwill of foreign prosecutors to shut down things like e.g. securities fraud exclusively targetting US citizens or hackers attacking US companies etc. Obviously, in many cases foreign prosecutors would not care too much. Does this seem like justice?
- hysan 10y ago
  I'm going to say yes. If they and their business are completely outside of the US, then unless they are breaking a treaty (ex: war crimes), I would say that it is justice. To think otherwise would be to place the expectation that every person in the world be held to the expectation that they know and understand the laws of every other country in the world. That to me sounds unreasonable. For example, how many non-US censorship laws do you think are broken by Americans on a daily basis? Do you think it is right and just that all of those Americans be charged with a crime by other countries? And that they be extradited on request? If a law is universal to the point that you think charging non-citizens residing outside of your country is just, then I would expect that declaration to be recognized via a treaty or an agreement by the United Nations. No matter what you think of Kim Dotcom and others like him, the charges and approach by the US government to me do not seem like justice in any sense of the word.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    The difference is intent. Kim was intentionally violating American law to defraud American businesses and help American citizens commit crimes. While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the benefit of US citizens.
    - hysan 10y ago
      Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere? Because until I saw your response, intent didn't even cross my mind. Regardless of that, I still don't think intent changes my point of view when it comes to justice. Trying to take intent into account means treading into very very murky waters with regards to thought police and trying to determine what people think. And that is one very slippery slope. I for one would not want countries like China and North Korea claiming that I "intentionally" broke some censorship law in their country and asking for my extradition.

by rubyfan 10y ago

Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them with a crime? How is that possible?

type0 10y ago

Because, Team America World Police, that's how.

ikeboy 10y ago

http://www.kktg.net/Notes/hacking-jurisdiction/ http://www.kktg.net/Notes/hacking-jurisdiction/

oh_sigh 10y ago

Because NZ agreed to extradition terms with the US. If they hadn't done that, then the US could try him in absentia but good luck enforcing it.

csomar 10y ago

Planning a terrorist act that will happen in the US?

megous 10y ago
That does not create a jurisdiction to charge someone. Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away.
- freehunter 10y ago
  >Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away. You mean the eyes of the US government. The citizens aren't out there killing foreign nationals. Saying US citizens are responsible for extra-judicial killings is like saying Muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks. It's wrong and it's offensive.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    It may still be wrong and offensive, but at least in the case of the government it is a self policing body that in-principle answers to the US citizenry. There is no comparable (non-supernatural) relationship between all Muslims.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      It's far from that simple. You should realize that the US Government does not answer directly to its citizens. This is not a corruption of the design, this is part of the design itself. The US is not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. We have very little control over the daily actions of our politicians, only the broad ideas they stand for. I'm willing to bet that no one voted for President Obama specifically because he wanted to use drones to kill suspected terrorists without attempting to arrest them first. He came up with that idea on his own. Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        I didn't say that it was simple, just that there is a relationship there (however attenuated) that's lacking in the other case.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive. How's that defense working for an ISIS funder? "Oh, I didn't send the money for bombs, I sent it for their work with children..."
  - megous 10y ago
    I mean what I say. Majority of US citizens support drone attacks (in the polls) despite the risks. And the US is democracy, so...

deminature 10y ago

He made the mistake of hosting copyright-infringing files on US-based servers. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/23/us_department_of_justice_details_kim_dotcom_evidence/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/23/us_department_of_jus... > Files that demanded higher throughput, which meant that more users were accessing those files simultaneously, were stored on faster servers located in Washington, D.C. The preliminary analysis of the databases shows that the vast majority of files on these computers are infringing copies of copyrighted works.

wallace_f 10y ago
That's some major bullshit in law. If one hosts a server in Russia that someone uploads copyrighted content to, should they be extradited to Russia to be criminally charged? What the fuck. Money talks. That's what's going on here.
- patrickk 10y ago
  The US government even goes after foreigners committing crimes outside US borders for simply using US dollars. That's how they were "able" to go after the corrupt FIFA officials. "The country’s law enforcers claim the right to go after anyone using dollars, its banking system or its territory to plan or conduct an illegal act." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/ec...
  - goodplay 10y ago
    Whatever their justification, I wouldn't call it law at this point.

Atropos 10y ago

That concept is actually not that unusual or nonsensical - imagine if we had the opposite: As long as you and your servers are outside the US, you can not be charged under US criminal law. This would basically mean that the US would need to rely exclusively on the goodwill of foreign prosecutors to shut down things like e.g. securities fraud exclusively targetting US citizens or hackers attacking US companies etc. Obviously, in many cases foreign prosecutors would not care too much. Does this seem like justice?

hysan 10y ago
I'm going to say yes. If they and their business are completely outside of the US, then unless they are breaking a treaty (ex: war crimes), I would say that it is justice. To think otherwise would be to place the expectation that every person in the world be held to the expectation that they know and understand the laws of every other country in the world. That to me sounds unreasonable. For example, how many non-US censorship laws do you think are broken by Americans on a daily basis? Do you think it is right and just that all of those Americans be charged with a crime by other countries? And that they be extradited on request? If a law is universal to the point that you think charging non-citizens residing outside of your country is just, then I would expect that declaration to be recognized via a treaty or an agreement by the United Nations. No matter what you think of Kim Dotcom and others like him, the charges and approach by the US government to me do not seem like justice in any sense of the word.
- freehunter 10y ago
  The difference is intent. Kim was intentionally violating American law to defraud American businesses and help American citizens commit crimes. While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the benefit of US citizens.
  - hysan 10y ago
    Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere? Because until I saw your response, intent didn't even cross my mind. Regardless of that, I still don't think intent changes my point of view when it comes to justice. Trying to take intent into account means treading into very very murky waters with regards to thought police and trying to determine what people think. And that is one very slippery slope. I for one would not want countries like China and North Korea claiming that I "intentionally" broke some censorship law in their country and asking for my extradition.