Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 150
In article <4471@cvbnetPrime.COM>, fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
> In article <1992Dec19.165648.569@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.ed|> So what you are saying is that by being a citizen of the US, you are
> |> are basically its property and must abide by its whims even in areas where
> |> it has no jurisdiction whatsoever??? You believe that simply by having lived
> |> in the US you are subject to ALL of the wishes of a few political leaders
> |> even when you leave the borders and fly to another country?
> |>
>
> I believe no one has indicated Bobby Fischer is the property of the US
> goverment.
Then how do they exercise jurisdiction over him when he is NOT within US
borders? What claim do they have to control his actions?
If he was within the US, sure.
If he had some kind of extra relationship (worked for the CIA prsuant to a
contract) with the US, no problem.
If he was owned by the US, well, the master can dictate edict to the servant.
Barring that, by what right does the US attempt to exercise jurisdiction?
>
> |> Can you honestly say you believe that the authority of the US government
> |> to exercise its powers extends to the entire WORLD???
> |>
> |> If you go to a free park in Holland (Denmark) and smoke pot, should the US
> |> have the right to jail you upon your return because you violated its
> |> zero-tolerance edict? (Sure, swill the beer in Germany, or Vodka in the UUSR,
> |> but no grass in Holland!)
> |>
> |> If you are in Peru on Vacation, and buy a Havanna cigar and smoke it, should
> |> you be jailed for aiding Fidel Castro upon your return?
> |>
> |> If you are in Australia, where at 16 you are legally allowed to make porn
> |> films, and you watch New Wave Hookers on the hotel cable, should you be
> |> prosecuted for violating the American child-pornography laws??? (New Wave
> |> Hookers had the delicious Ms. Lords in it, when she was 16.)
> |>
> |> And, if perchance you should happen to be in Bali, and get lucky and screw some
> |> wild and willing 17 year old, should you be prosecuted for stutory rape upon
> |> your return to the U.S.
> |>
> |> Lawn Jarts can not be sold in the US anymore. If you buy a set while in
> |> England, and give them to a friend, should the US reserve a place in Federal
> |> prison for you upon your return?
> |>
> |> Dude, just because it is on the books does NOT mean it is valid. Wake up and
> |> smell the coffee...
> |>
> |> DMC
>
> In the counterexamples above, I seriously doubt that the laws as written,
> attempt to make it illegal, for a US citizen, to commit those acts in other
> countries. So as couterexamples they do not wash.
And you fail to address the issues contained within those examples. One year
ago for Fischer to travel to Yugoland and play chess would have been
peachy-keen. Today, by the whim of the US government, it is illegal.
One year from now, when all of those counterexamples are illegal, how will you
feel about it. Will you think that the US is playing Big Brother too much?
And if you would, what is the difference here?
Christ man, if all you can ever look at is the way things are today, the harsh
reality of tomorrow is going be a real fun time. You must extrapolate and
compare BEYOND the current to similar events. Analogy is the only way to ever
understand anything.
Except, of course, for the techniques of snap decisions and blind faith.
However trade laws are
> written to govern actions and behaviors of individuals, corporations, etc. with
> and in foreign contries.
Corporations are still in the US! They are a creature of the state, and
provided one officer, office, or representative is within a territory, that
corporation is within the territory. Go study your corporate law and civil
procedure (International Shoe is a good starting case.)
Does not the US constitution give the Federal gover-
> ment the mandate to regulate such commerce?
Within the U.S. and its territories, yes.
Last time I checked, the U.S. constitution did NOT extend to Yugoslavia,
but maybe I have been studying the abridged version.
Are the reasons for this because
> commerce with foreign countries affect us all, in small ways and sometimes
> great and grave? Do we regulate commerce with foreign countries as not to
> aid and abet.
Yes, but, Bobby FIscher is not a corporation, and, we are not at war with
Yugoslavia. (Of course, maybe Congress snuck in a declaration of war in their
last minute sessions...)
>
> Over the course of months Fischer began to negotiate a contract, finalized the
> contract, fullfilled the contract.
According to contract law, the contract was fulfilled when Fischer played his
tournament.
He was in Yugoslavia then.
If Fischer began the negotiations in the
> US, which apparently he did, was he violating the spirit of the Presidental
> order?
Probably. So? The only laws which you can get nailed for violating the 'spirit
of' are IRS regulations, and even then provided that is all they get you for,
it is a civil fine of amount owed plus interest.
>
> Commerce with the Serbian goverment and its peoples are being reviewed and
> acted on for a reason, one that has been highly visible and much debated in
> the US.
Having reason to do something does not equal having the right to do it. I have
a reason to steal. However, I do not have the right to steal. A Government can
not force its citizens to give up their rights based soley on 'having a
reason'.
The resultant actions by the US goverment( and the UN) is not
> merely the whim and the wishs of a "few political leaders".
Last time I checked, the presidential order which the US claims Fischer
violated was signed by one man--President Busch. Had he not wanted it, it could
not have been enacted.
That means he violated a law which was the result of one man.
There
> has been a process, however flawed, to deal with the problems in former
> Yugoslavia.
And, they've done a pretty good job. Might want to impund all letters
coming out of there and burn them to ostricize the country even more.
