NationStates Jolt Archive

I think extra territorial laws violate other countries soverignty.
I'm talking about those laws which the government says applies to you even if you are in a different country. In other words, you go to Mexico or Austria and do something that is illegal in your country but perfectly legal in those two countries, the government claims the right to go to those countries and arrest you for breaking its laws.

I think if an act occurs in a nation, only that nation has the right to decide wether said act is illegal and hence only the host nation has the right to decide whether someone should be arrested for doing something.

I think American's use of extra territoriality to extend their laws to other nations is a violation of other nation's soverignty rights.

That's why I think the Mexican police were right to arrest the American police officers who tried to arrest people in Mexico a couple years ago.

I think extra territorial laws violate other countries soverignty.
I'm talking about those laws which the government says applies to you even if you are in a different country. In other words, you go to Mexico or Austria and do something that is illegal in your country but perfectly legal in those two countries, the government claims the right to go to those countries and arrest you for breaking its laws.

I think if an act occurs in a nation, only that nation has the right to decide wether said act is illegal and hence only the host nation has the right to decide whether someone should be arrested for doing something.

I think American's use of extra territoriality to extend their laws to other nations is a violation of other nation's soverignty rights.

That's why I think the Mexican police were right to arrest the American police officers who tried to arrest people in Mexico a couple years ago.

I agree. Extraterritoriality (sp?) is wrong. It violates national sovereignty and really tells something about the government exercising it.

You can never escape the laws of America! Mwahahahahaha!


On a more serious note, this is the first I've heard of extraterritoriality, and I don't like it.

Note to self: Go to foreign country and do the most heinous act that's legal there but not here.

I think extra territorial laws violate other countries soverignty.
I'm talking about those laws which the government says applies to you even if you are in a different country. In other words, you go to Mexico or Austria and do something that is illegal in your country but perfectly legal in those two countries, the government claims the right to go to those countries and arrest you for breaking its laws.

I think if an act occurs in a nation, only that nation has the right to decide wether said act is illegal and hence only the host nation has the right to decide whether someone should be arrested for doing something.

I think American's use of extra territoriality to extend their laws to other nations is a violation of other nation's soverignty rights.

That's why I think the Mexican police were right to arrest the American police officers who tried to arrest people in Mexico a couple years ago.

I don't think they arrested them for trying to arrest people in Mexico, I think they did it just because they are American. They treat Americans REALLY poor over there I hear.

It sucks even worse for people like me who have dual-citizenship. I have to abide by two countries' laws. Three if I'm in one I'm not a citizen of.

I don't think they arrested them for trying to arrest people in Mexico, I think they did it just because they are American. They treat Americans REALLY poor over there I hear.

It was that bounty hunter guy. In the US bounty hunters are considered similar to the police. The Mexican police put him in jail because he arrested a guy accused of violating American laws and didn't have the Mexican government's permission to do so. He just assumed that because he had arrest powers in the US he had them everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial

I'm referring to the third type.

You really do not know the story about that do you?

The bounty hunter was "Dog" whatever his last name is, who has a tv show on A&E. Anyway, he went to Mexico, had a previously set up deal with the Mexican police and government, and after arresting (with Mexican police there) a convicted billionaire sex offender (96 rape convictions), he was then arrested for overstepping his boundaries.

That has nothing to do with extraterritorial laws. It was just cheap entrapment on the part of the Mexican police, who I am sure were bribed (pretty easy over there).

now I know it makes me sounds silly but I think U.N laws should apply everywhere, of course this is just talking of human rights and such

I think your referring to a particular nation deciding what its citizens can't do in another nations borders which reeks of totalitarianism if you ask me

Do I get this right: US police tried to arrest someone who committed a crime in Mexico that was only a crime in the US but not in Mexico?

Normally only official representatives of a country (including envoys, ambassadors, military, any officials) can be held accountable for their actions abroad, right?

he was then arrested for overstepping his boundaries.

thus he is an idiot for not understanding the law on which he arrests people (why can't I be a surgeon without understanding human biology honestly:rolleyes:)

That has nothing to do with extraterritorial laws. It was just cheap entrapment on the part of the Mexican police, who I am sure were bribed (pretty easy over there).

yeah alright then...

now I know it makes me sounds silly but I think U.N laws should apply everywhere, of course this is just talking of human rights and such

I think your referring to a particular nation deciding what its citizens can't do in another nations borders which reeks of totalitarianism if you ask me

Well international laws should apply internationally. But national ones shouldn't.

Well international laws should apply internationally. But national ones shouldn't.

What is logic doing here?!

Read the entire story before you judge it. He was following the laws in Mexico. Which was he tracked down Andrew Luster in Guadalajara, showed up with Mexican police who arrested Luster and extradited him back to the US. It was a mutual understanding between local police/government and Dog. A few weeks later, US Marshals arrested Dog for breaking the law in Mexico. And thats where the story starts back up.

Watch the interview between Dog and Larry King, then you might understand what happened.

And no, legally speaking a bounty hunter is not a police officer, nor do they have any rights and priveleges of being a police officer. When arresting someone in contempt of court (what bounty hunters do, they arent vigilantes), a police officer/marshall etc have to be present to arrest the person. What Dog does is, track down people in contempt of court, or people who have bought jail bonds from his company and who have failed to show up for a hearing. There is nothing about him investigating, arresting etc. Dog then convinces them to turn themselves in to face a lesser sentence, or in other cases (like in Mexico), gets local police support for what he is doing.

At no point was Dog exempt from the laws in Mexico. He tracked down a convicted criminal, who was then extradited. Weeks afterwards, Mexican police issued a warrant...because Dog recieved the bounty on Luster, thus breaking their laws (No bounty hunting).

At no point was he able to say that what he did was legal, thus he is currently facing charges in Mexico. I really fail to see how this has anything to do with Extraterritorial laws, which primarily are used by Diplomats as an extention of diplomatic immunity. It is not as if the US didn't arrest Duane Chapman (Dog) and extradite him.

What is logic doing here?!

Illegally immigrating. Don't worry, we'll deport it soon.

Well international laws should apply internationally. But national ones shouldn't.Otherwise Saudi Arabian laws would apply globally, and we really would not want that.

now I know it makes me sounds silly but I think U.N laws should apply everywhere, of course this is just talking of human rights and such

I think your referring to a particular nation deciding what its citizens can't do in another nations borders which reeks of totalitarianism if you ask me

yes that is what I am reffering to. The bounty hunter thing was just a side note.

Do I get this right: US police tried to arrest someone who committed a crime in Mexico that was only a crime in the US but not in Mexico?

Normally only official representatives of a country (including envoys, ambassadors, military, any officials) can be held accountable for their actions abroad, right?

that's the way it is supposed to be. But now they are trying to hold private citizens accountable for breaking US laws while they are out of country.

Read the entire story before you judge it. He was following the laws in Mexico. Which was he tracked down Andrew Luster in Guadalajara, showed up with Mexican police who arrested Luster and extradited him back to the US. It was a mutual understanding between local police/government and Dog. A few weeks later, US Marshals arrested Dog for breaking the law in Mexico. And thats where the story starts back up.

Watch the interview between Dog and Larry King, then you might understand what happened.

And no, legally speaking a bounty hunter is not a police officer, nor do they have any rights and priveleges of being a police officer. When arresting someone in contempt of court (what bounty hunters do, they arent vigilantes), a police officer/marshall etc have to be present to arrest the person. What Dog does is, track down people in contempt of court, or people who have bought jail bonds from his company and who have failed to show up for a hearing. There is nothing about him investigating, arresting etc. Dog then convinces them to turn themselves in to face a lesser sentence, or in other cases (like in Mexico), gets local police support for what he is doing.

At no point was Dog exempt from the laws in Mexico. He tracked down a convicted criminal, who was then extradited. Weeks afterwards, Mexican police issued a warrant...because Dog recieved the bounty on Luster, thus breaking their laws (No bounty hunting).

At no point was he able to say that what he did was legal, thus he is currently facing charges in Mexico. I really fail to see how this has anything to do with Extraterritorial laws, which primarily are used by Diplomats as an extention of diplomatic immunity. It is not as if the US didn't arrest Duane Chapman (Dog) and extradite him.

No. That is not the type of extra territorially we are talking about. The US has laws that it tries to enforce on its people even when they are in other countries, in direct violation of the host country's soverignty.

Yeah, but the example you have used was Dog the Bounty Hunter...which has nothing to do with extraterritorial laws.

Extraterritorial laws include diplomatic immunity, foreign sovereign's rights in a different country, things of that nature. There are no extraterritorial laws passed in one country that take precedent in another, that just doesnt make sense. Nor would any country listen to such a law.

You can never escape the laws of America! Mwahahahahaha!


On a more serious note, this is the first I've heard of extraterritoriality, and I don't like it.

me too, although i'm really not surprised by it.

Yeah, but the example you have used was Dog the Bounty Hunter...which has nothing to do with extraterritorial laws.

Extraterritorial laws include diplomatic immunity, foreign sovereign's rights in a different country, things of that nature. There are no extraterritorial laws passed in one country that take precedent in another, that just doesnt make sense. Nor would any country listen to such a law.

California and the US federal government have such laws.

For example the drinking laws vary from nation to nation.

In Armenia and Portugal for example there is no minimum age you have to be to drink. But US law says if you are American under 21 and you drink while in Portugal, you can prosecuted according to US law and if your parents let you drink they can be prosecuted too.

For example the drinking laws vary from nation to nation.

In Armenia and Portugal for example there is no minimum age you have to be to drink. But US law says if you are American under 21 and you drink while in Portugal, you can prosecuted according to US law and if your parents let you drink they can be prosecuted too.

So do not tell customs you got drunk in europe when you return to the States. Anyone mentioning breaking US law while overseas gets exactly what they deserve, not punishment for whatever they did, but for being stupid enough to admit it.

So do not tell customs you got drunk in europe when you return to the States. Anyone mentioning breaking US law while overseas gets exactly what they deserve, not punishment for whatever they did, but for being stupid enough to admit it.

True true. Also if you have a myspace or email do not use it to tell your freinds what you are doing in Europe or Latin America or whereever. Cause the feds are monitoring Myspace.

True true. Also if you have a myspace or email do not use it to tell your freinds what you are doing in Europe or Latin America or whereever. Cause the feds are monitoring Myspace.

I am sure they are monitoring this site as well.

I am sure they are monitoring this site as well.

Nah, it's a Brit site. They can't do that. It's not their sovereignty. Oh, wait...

Actually, the US arely tries to impose it's laws on other countries. Most of what you hear regarding such is actually the use of the Conspiracy statutes.

If you enter into a conspiracy to commit a crime you are considered to have violated the law in the jurisdiction of the criminal act. For instance, General Manuel Noriega was convicted of conspiracy to import drugs into the United States. Many countries (pretty much all of those based on English or Scottish Common Law) hold to that interpretation.

Oh, and by the way, the UN cannot pass laws. They can only make binding or non-binding resolutions. How close to laws those are depends upon how your nation responds.

Do I get this right: US police tried to arrest someone who committed a crime in Mexico that was only a crime in the US but not in Mexico?

Normally only official representatives of a country (including envoys, ambassadors, military, any officials) can be held accountable for their actions abroad, right?

Not entirely true, that's not the case. While most laws are rarely enforced extraterritorially, there are several that have a tradition of being done so. Piracy on the seas, as well as high treason are the classic examples of laws whose extraterritorial implications cannot be denied.

True true. Also if you have a myspace or email do not use it to tell your freinds what you are doing in Europe or Latin America or whereever. Cause the feds are monitoring Myspace.

Oh, come on. The federal government doesn't have nearly the capacity to monitor Myspace, Facebook or the countless other social networking sites out there. There exists an information bottleneck within the USIC and only the most high-priority targets are collected and analyzed.

No one is out there looking at your crappy photos of that weekend you went off to somewhere with your friends to do something subversive, like underage drinking *ooooooohhhh! Horrifying*.

:rolleyes:

Nah, it's a Brit site. They can't do that. It's not their sovereignty. Oh, wait...

Well, ECHELON is the long-term SIGINT/COMINT Program that the US and UK have been running for years upon years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

It's hurt several major state-owned companies that were engaged in illicit activities, and thus has powerful opponents.

Well, ECHELON is the long-term SIGINT/COMINT Program that the US and UK have been running for years upon years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

It's hurt several major state-owned companies that were engaged in illicit activities, and thus has powerful opponents.

:( I thought my joke was correct... (BTW see white text)

For example the drinking laws vary from nation to nation.

In Armenia and Portugal for example there is no minimum age you have to be to drink. But US law says if you are American under 21 and you drink while in Portugal, you can prosecuted according to US law and if your parents let you drink they can be prosecuted too.

No. No it doesn't.

The "drinking age" is set by a series of state laws, not federal laws.

Now, it is mandated by the federal government that states enforce a drinking age of 21 or higher, but that's in the form of threats to restrict highway funding. It has nothing to do with extraterritoriality.

Yay.

This means I can kill someone while flying (or in a boat) on international waters if its my boat!

[/sarcasm]

If you want to break the law and you go somewhere else to do it, then why the hell should you even be a citizen of the US anyway?

No. No it doesn't.

The "drinking age" is set by a series of state laws, not federal laws.

Now, it is mandated by the federal government that states enforce a drinking age of 21 or higher, but that's in the form of threats to restrict highway funding. It has nothing to do with extraterritoriality.

The states have laws and statutes that say their laws apply to you regardless of what country you are in. Case in point: California

If you cross the border with the intent to drink and you are under 21, you are guilty of violating California law.
If you are 25 and your girlfriend is 17 and you go to Guatemala and have sex or some such, you are guilty of violating the laws of California and get prosecuted for it when you return to California.

Actually, the US arely tries to impose it's laws on other countries. Most of what you hear regarding such is actually the use of the Conspiracy statutes.

If you enter into a conspiracy to commit a crime you are considered to have violated the law in the jurisdiction of the criminal act. For instance, General Manuel Noriega was convicted of conspiracy to import drugs into the United States. Many countries (pretty much all of those based on English or Scottish Common Law) hold to that interpretation.

Oh, and by the way, the UN cannot pass laws. They can only make binding or non-binding resolutions. How close to laws those are depends upon how your nation responds.

Those conspiracy laws often end up violating other nation's soverignty. Its not for the US or its states to decide what illegal in other countries. Those other countries have their own governments who have a rightful monopoly over deciding if something out to be legal or illegal.
Someone wanting to do something that is illegal in the US but legal in the host country is not committing a crime when they go to the host country and do it.
The whole conspiracy laws thing smacks of an attempt at thought control. Which I feel is always an evil thing. Who wants the government prosecuting them for their thoughts.

Yay.

This means I can kill someone while flying (or in a boat) on international waters if its my boat!

[/sarcasm]

If you want to break the law and you go somewhere else to do it, then why the hell should you even be a citizen of the US anyway?

It depends on where you. I think if you go to another country, you ought to be subject to their laws, not America's. It is pretty arrogant for the American states to insist their laws apply on foriegn soil.
If you go somewhere where drinking is not illegal, then its obviously not a crime.
The US is supposed to be about freedom but this proves that US freedom is farce. US is run by bunch of religious psychopath prude wackos.

If three astronauts go to Mars, and one of them goes crazy while on the surface of Mars and kills the other two, can he be charged with a crime?

If three astronauts go to Mars, and one of them goes crazy while on the surface of Mars and kills the other two, can he be charged with a crime?

You're talking about them going someplace where there is no government. If there is no government, then home laws automatically apply. I'm talking about a place where there is already a government in place.
And I don't see how you equate drinking with murder.

Those conspiracy laws often end up violating other nation's soverignty. Its not for the US or its states to decide what illegal in other countries. Those other countries have their own governments who have a rightful monopoly over deciding if something out to be legal or illegal.
Someone wanting to do something that is illegal in the US but legal in the host country is not committing a crime when they go to the host country and do it.
The whole conspiracy laws thing smacks of an attempt at thought control. Which I feel is always an evil thing. Who wants the government prosecuting them for their thoughts.

Conspiracy has nothing to do with thoughts; it has to do with words and deeds.

For instance, without conspiracy laws Osama bin Laden would not be prosecutable in the US. He could tell his men "Go Nuke Washington", have them do it, and then brag about it on al-Jazeera, and the US wouldn't be able to act against him.

Drug Kingpins could sit in air-conditioned offices in Costa Rica and direct the drug trade from Colombia to the US and never have to worry about being prosecuted by anyone, since they haven't broken Costa Rican Law.

Instead, we say, if you conspired with others to break our law you're just as guilty as they are.

Conspiracy has nothing to do with thoughts; it has to do with words and deeds.

For instance, without conspiracy laws Osama bin Laden would not be prosecutable in the US. He could tell his men "Go Nuke Washington", have them do it, and then brag about it on al-Jazeera, and the US wouldn't be able to act against him.

Drug Kingpins could sit in air-conditioned offices in Costa Rica and direct the drug trade from Colombia to the US and never have to worry about being prosecuted by anyone, since they haven't broken Costa Rican Law.

Instead, we say, if you conspired with others to break our law you're just as guilty as they are.

you are talking about people entering or planning to enter the US to do something they know is a violation of US laws.
I am speaking of people leaving the US to go to countries to do things that are not illegal in that nation but are illegal in the US.

Example:
Brian and his friends planning to go to Mexico for a drinking party even though they are only 16, because the drinking age in Mexico is 16 (it's not in rl but this is just an example). According to you, because they talked about it and planned it, they can be prosecuted in the US under states' anti drinking laws.

Or how about Hector, age 24, and Elizabeth, age let's say 16, go down to Mexico (using same hypothetical age as for drinking even though AOC in Mexico is 18). They party it up and ended up getting it on. They both knew there was a chance that such a thing could happen and brought condoms with them. Under this hypothetical scenario they did not committ a crime in Mexico. But because having sex with a 16 year old is illegal in California, Hector gets prosecuted and branded as sex criminal for the rest of his life and he has to register everywhere he goes for something that was not a crime in the place where it happened.

I could also use fireworks as an example.

*sings "what happens in Mexico, stays in Mexico"*

Yay.

This means I can kill someone while flying (or in a boat) on international waters if its my boat!

[/sarcasm]

If you want to break the law and you go somewhere else to do it, then why the hell should you even be a citizen of the US anyway?

Because some US laws are retarded.

Say you go to Canada. There you buy a cigar. Then you realize it's from Cuba.

You've just broken US law.

Because some US laws are retarded.

Say you go to Canada. There you buy a cigar. Then you realize it's from Cuba.

You've just broken US law.

And You get to pay a buttload of cash for a rather shitty cigar as well.

*sings "what happens in Mexico, stays in Mexico"*

Whats happens in bizzaro world stay in bizzaro world.

I really don't see a problem with this - part of the deal of being a citizen of a particular country is you abide by its laws. If you travel abroad you a bound by the laws of the country you are in as well as the country you are a citizen of.

you are talking about people entering or planning to enter the US to do something they know is a violation of US laws.
I am speaking of people leaving the US to go to countries to do things that are not illegal in that nation but are illegal in the US.

Example:
Brian and his friends planning to go to Mexico for a drinking party even though they are only 16, because the drinking age in Mexico is 16 (it's not in rl but this is just an example). According to you, because they talked about it and planned it, they can be prosecuted in the US under states' anti drinking laws.

Or how about Hector, age 24, and Elizabeth, age let's say 16, go down to Mexico (using same hypothetical age as for drinking even though AOC in Mexico is 18). They party it up and ended up getting it on. They both knew there was a chance that such a thing could happen and brought condoms with them. Under this hypothetical scenario they did not committ a crime in Mexico. But because having sex with a 16 year old is illegal in California, Hector gets prosecuted and branded as sex criminal for the rest of his life and he has to register everywhere he goes for something that was not a crime in the place where it happened.

I could also use fireworks as an example.

Now, there you have a point. The US has no right to force it's citizens to obey it's laws when not in the US. The laws of the US can apply outside the US in certain circumstances (Conspiracy, corporate laws) but generally jurisdiction rules should apply.