Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

United States law does not apply outside of the United States. Just as Russian or Chinese law has no bearig here.

it does apply to the actions of the United States because by definition the actor is located within the jurisdiction of the United States

and if it was a rogue soldier then obviously military law applies (i'm not familiar with that though)

but yeah, if you've got a private actor like a business (not under contract to a government) or an individual who strapped an AK to a commercial drone or whatever, then yes, US law doesn't matter

What about international law coming into play?

That's a matter for the Hague, not our courts.

[Bauglir]

international law is often tried in the courts of nations involved with the case

choice of venue is actually a really important thing

seriously, i can't stress this enough - study some law, please

[Bohandas]

... US law explicitly applies to US citizens (and US based businesses, for what that's worth) regardless of where they are. This is why you can bring up people on charges for accepting bribes in some other country, imprison people for sex tourism,

Ok, the first example is partly invalid because they generally act on the bribe here. The second is just a legal travesty.

[Bohandas]

international law is often tried in the courts of nations involved with the case

choice of venue is actually a really important thing

seriously, i can't stress this enough - study some law, please

Maybe you could cite some

[Bauglir]

Ok, the first example is partly invalid because they generally act on the bribe here. The second is just a legal travesty.

nope, an ambassador can still be tried for accepting bribes that they act on in their host nation, even if they do so entirely off the premises of the embassy (not that the horseshit about embassies being considered national soil is actually true, mind)

[martinuzz]

The drone strokes may violate international law, but that's a matter for the Hague, not our judicial system.

Er... you as an American have no right referring it to the Hague. the USA does not recognize the Hague, at least not for it's own citizens. You fuckers even passed a bill to invade the Netherlands if ever an American is to be held prisoner by the ICC.

[Shadowlord]

I guess that's good news for Trump.

[Frumple]

Ok, the first example is partly invalid because they generally act on the bribe here. The second is just a legal travesty.

It was an example, boh, not anything else. Seriously, US citizens and US based businesses are explicitly liable for violations of US law outside of US jurisdiction. If a US citizen violates US law outside of our borders, bloody anywhere, they are legally liable for that violation in US courts. An american citizen or US based business violating stateside law while outside the country is not (only, anyway) a matter of international law, it is a matter of US law and they can be charged, prosecuted, and punished under US legal code. It's one of the reasons extradition bloody exists.

The statement that legal violations outside the borders by US citizens (/US businesses, organizations, etc.) is not a matter of US law is explicitly false.

[Bauglir]

Maybe you could cite some

i guess the obvious example would be that of the Achille Lauro (a cruise ship), in which an American court issued an arrest warrant for a non-citizen (who led a group that killed an American citizen in international waters, thereby creating an argument to allow jurisdiction), and then got into a fight with Italy over extradition that wound up going nowhere (which is why I don't have a case name for you)

point is, nobody questioned the American court's right to issue such a warrant

i'm too lazy to search up a better example, but I can recommend Von Glahn and Taulbee's Law Among Nations for getting into the subject

edit: i guess part of it is that piracy can be prosecuted by any nation, regardless of whether they were victims or related in any way, but eh

[Bohandas]

I've found it! Legal or not, under the 6th amendment (which supercedes Article 3 of the constitution e=where the two are in conflict) it can't be prosecuted (unless we happen to have an embassy or consulate in the area where the assassination occurred housing at least 12 inappropriately indifferent staff members) because the jury must be selected from the "district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

EDIT:
http://constitutionus.com/
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/jury-duty-for-non---us-citizen---1852568.html

[Shadowlord]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

There's one problem. Trump isn't an alien. 

[Bauglir]

I've found it! Legal or not, under the 6th amendment (which supercedes Article 3 of the constitution e=where the two are in conflict) it can't be prosecuted (unless we happen to have an embassy or consulate in the area where the assassination occurred housing at least 12 inappropriately indifferent staff members) because the jury must be selected from the "district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

good news, governments don't get tried by juries and are not themselves citizens, so the united states can't get away on that technicality

edit: of course, you're also moving those goalposts

[Bohandas]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

There's one problem. Trump isn't an alien. 

Not in the sense of a foreigner at any rate

[wobbly]

Would you really want to be taking Trump to court in the 1st place? He'd have way to much fun, waste every bodies time & money, Bog, slowdown, drag out the whole process etc. etc. You'd basically be fighting him on his own territory. You'd have more chance of making him look good then achieving anything.

[nenjin]

Would you really want to be taking Trump to court in the 1st place? He'd have way to much fun, waste every bodies time & money, Bog, slowdown, drag out the whole process etc. etc. You'd basically be fighting him on his own territory. You'd have more chance of making him look good then achieving anything.

Depends on the judge. It doesn't take very much to get a contempt of court charged leveled at you for grandstanding and wasting people's time. Then again, Donald strikes me as a chicken shit who talks loud when he knows there's no real consequences for it. He'd probably sit quietly in his chair and let his lawyer do all the talking.