> Todd wrote: > >>Suppose some American teenager comes to the Netherlands at the age of > >>17. Meets somebody over 18, they have sex. That would be punishable > >>under US Federal Law if I understand it correctly, so this somebody > >>would have to be arrested as soon as he/she enters the US. Yet we > >>explicitly chose to allow this in the Netherlands, for our own reasons. > >>Or an American citizen came here to work as prostitute (s)he would be > >>arrested when visiting relatives for Christmas. But prostitution is also > >>legal here, for reasons of our choosing. > >> > >>We choose which rules there are on our territory and if those rules > >>allow things to be done to or by US citizens that would not be allowed > >>in the US maybe the US should forbid its citizens to travel here, but it > >>should not impose its law on our territory. > > > > > > We wouldn't be imposing OUR laws on YOUR territory, we would be imposing OUR > > laws on OUR citizen. > > While they are on OUR territory.
Still doesn't matter .. they are OUR citizen. > How hard would it be to come up with a situation in which US Federal Law > says (not) do A and the law of country X says (not) to do B? I'm not sure what you mean? > Besides, I think you misread the first example. The somebody I am > refering to is not a US citizen, but somebody else. Yeah .. but the whole conversation started with the complaint that the U.S. was persecuting one of it's own citizens. That's what I'm arguing for. One of our citizens broke one of our laws. He found his way in to U.S. custody. He went to trial. I don't see the problem. >Yet he statutorially > raped the US citizen according to US Federal Law. (I now know it is bad > example, but use the euthanasia case or juggle with the ages and payment > if you want.) And from Jerry Johnson: A crime against a U.S. citizen by a non-us citizen is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with the Lindh case. > > By being a citizen of the U.S., a person promises to > > abide by the laws of this country. It doesn't matter where that person > > commits a crime. They are knowingly breaking a law that they promised to > > abide by. I fail to see how you think that this affects you or your > > territory in any way or how you think it even has anything to do with you. > Let's get a little bit closer to home. The DMCA is a Federal Law right? > If I invented some way to break the regio encoding on somebodies latest > DVD release while at home in order to make a backup copy for personal > use (a right that Dutch law explicitly grants me), I would commit a > crime AGAINST a US citizen. So if I ever came into the reach of the US > legal system, I could become prosecuted. > > Although purely hypothetical (I wouldn't actually know how to do that), > I don't like the idea of some other country revoking a right the country > that I am in has explicitly granted me. Well, don't do anything illegal against a country and then try to go to that country .. duh! :) Who was it that made the comment that if U.S. pilots were allowed to cary guns that they hoped the pilots would be arrested as soon as they arrived for breaking the law there? ;) Anyway .. again, that has nothing to do with with the original topic. Todd ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
