NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/12141

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:57:55 EST
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 106

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry Loen) writes:
> 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 :-).

It is against the law to smuggle material into the U.S., even if are do not set
foot in the U.S. because your crime is committed here.

>
> 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.

I'd like to see more about this case, and I'd be willing to bet it is under the
laws of admiralty. Sea law is funny. It is an accepted international doctrine
for centuries that all maritime courts have jurisdiction over matteres relating
to vessels on the sea, and salvage. Funny thing is, they follow each other's
precedent as well.

>
> 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.

Ha ha ha! I bet Sven would approve wholehartedly if some Iraqi court were to
pass sentence on an Iraqi that moved here, but had not yet legally become a
U.S. citizen. According to Sven, they would still be under Iraqi law for the
two years it takes to become a U.S. citizen.

Sven, what a joker!

>
> 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.

Well, without the USSR to contrast ourselves against...

Didn't Camelot fall under its own sloth because all of tis enemies were
vanquished?

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