3 ms·
idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the en
by leetcrew 2y ago
idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request.
whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.
- ComputerGuru 2y agoWhy stop there and not take it to the next step? Surely company A killing whistleblowers or rabble rousers overseas lets it outperform company B that isn’t doin that state-side? Doesn’t that encourage company B to do the same on red, white, and blue soil?
- leetcrew 2y agoare A and B both operating in the US in your example? if yes, then USG has a legitimate interest in removing that perverse incentive. if not, then the US criminal justice system seems like the wrong place to solve the problem. my point is that the jurisdiction of the US criminal justice system should be limited to the US. if people do things in another country that demonstrably harm US residents, that's fair game. otherwise, it seems like an overreach for the US to enforce laws that might not even exist in other countries. just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
- shiroiushi 2y ago>it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. This would make it very easy for Americans to be mercenaries and assassins for foreign governments.
- jazzyjackson 2y agoaren't they? :p