NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/12126

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.7 KB | 95 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!wo0z!lwloen
From: [e-mail] (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:41:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: wo0z.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 80

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ABHAY) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
|> >(sven  hauptfeld) says:
|> >
|> >>This is really idiotic. Do you think that government having jurisdiction over
|> >>its people mean that those people are its property? And do you think that a US
|> >>citizen who kills somebody in another country would be immune of a trial by a
|> >>US court?
|> >
|> >YES! If the person killed is not an american, then he can't be tried in
|> >U.S. He can be tried in that foreign country, if he is caught there or if
|> >  he is convicted and that country has extradiction treaty with U.S.!!!
|> >( U.S. doesn't have Extradiction treaty with Yugo.)
|> >
|> >>You must be either kidding or totally ignorant.
|> >I don't think so Sven!
|> >>        Sven
|> >Abhay
|>
|> Why would I take your word at face value? Can you give references (specific
|> laws or court precedents)?
|>
|> I would really be surprised if the US works the way you say. I certainly know
|> that a Danish truck driver who causes an accident in which people get killed on
|> a Yugoslav road CAN be tried in Denmark - I know of such a case, where Denmark
|> demanded extradiction but Yugoslavia refused (he would be a lot better off
|> under Danish law - but he would stand trial).
|>
|> But than, the US are on another planet in many respects, so maybe you are
|> right. But you'd have to give me some substantial evidence.
|>
|>     Sven
|>

The United States has tended, in recent years, to apply its laws outside
of its borders.

1)  Noreiga comes to mind.  Here he was, a leader of a country, for
  heaven's sake.  As far as I know, he never, except incidentally, set
  foot on US soil.  He was convicted of drug trafficing and currently
  sits in prison.  If he was convicted for anything he did _in the
  United States_ I sure missed it.  If I accept that he did what he
  was accused of, he undoubtedly did things that are illegal for people
  on US soil to do.  However, it was probable that what he did
  was legal under Panamanian law since he basically got to make them
  up or, at least, pardon himself for doing it :-).

2)  Sci.crypt and other newsgroups I don't follow just got done wasting
  a lot of bandwidth on a case where some citizen was seized on the
  high seas for carrying cocaine.  The ship was in international waters
  and was (officially, at least) not headed for the United States.  It
  was headed for Canada.  I don't know the legal fate, but the scuttlebut
  was the person was being convicted.  Keep in mind that not all countries
  treat cocaine possession the same way.  For instance, the UK's solution
  for the drug problem is to selectively prescribe the drugs to
  "certified" addicts.  The exact case was not cited, but the lawyer who
  started the ball rolling sure seemed to be a principal in the case.  As
  I recall, the person(s) involved were not US citizens.

This is not altogether a saluatory trend.  If everyone agreed on what
was criminal behavior, that would be one thing.  But, there is no such
agreement and we (in the US) are increasingly at risk that our own
citizens will be whisked away by kidnappers (oops- cops) from other
countries for breaking (for hypothetical example) Islamic law.

Note that these people are not US citizens and are not on US soil when
acting.  Fischer's case is comparatively straightforward.

I don't know what to do about Bobby Fischer.  Certainly, the US has
some right to regulate the behavior of its own citizens abroad.  But,
I don't know how far it should and does proceed, constitutionally.  I
do know that commercial dealings don't get much constitutional protection.
His "crime" seems a very political one; the US is getting in the habit
of having a lot of political crimes lately and that is the only part of
the affair that bothers me.

--
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer