Question about US vs Foreign law

[TexasRifleman]

My question came from reading this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195237,00.html

This is about a Florida man that was arrrested for arranging tours to Honduras to have sex with "under age" people.

I use quotes because from what I can find, this seems to be legal to do in Honduras (16 year old is of legal age there).

If that is true, and in the country in question the act was legal, what crime exactly was committed here?

If a tour operator advertises marijuana tours of Amsterdam, how is that a violation of US law?

If a tour operator advertises grenade throwing tours in Chechnya, how is that a violation of US law?

Now, what the guy did was sick, and his customers would have been twisted folks no question.

But, I am confused by how he broke American law.

Does anyone know what exactly someone in this case is charged with?

No it's not gun related but it certainly seems to have civil rights implications if you can be arrested for planning to do a legal thing in another country that just happens to be illegal here.

 

[DRZinn]

It might be just that he solicited for it here. I don't think they could prosecute him for doing something in a place where it's legal.

But it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[iapetus]

We covered something similar in a Law lecture at university (although in this case the issue was a foreign country convicting you for posting something on the internet, in your own country, that would be illegal in their own).

Apparently, a country technically has the right to criminalise acts anywhere in the world. What they are restrivted in is their ability to enforce their laws/convictions.

So, theoretically, if I put something on the internet that was considered to be illegal hard-core porn in Saudi Arabia (e.g. any picture of a man or woman with their arms or legs uncovered) and accessible by someone in Saudia Arabia, then the Saudi Morality Police (or whatever they are called) could charge me with distributing illegal porn. But unless I actually went there, there's nothing they could do about it.

However, in most cases, a country wouldn't criminalize actions that take place outside their borders, except for certain specific things.

(UK examples: assisted suicide is illegal, and people have been prosecuted for helping people to travel abroad for the purpose of getting assisted with suicide or euthanasia. The UK police will also arrest paedophiles who travel abroad to abuse children. It's also illegal to commit terrorist acts abroad, and there were plans to (I'm not sure if it has passed into law yet) to make it illegal to undergo terrorist training in another country).

 

[DKSuddeth]

I remember reading something like this a few years ago where the US was tipped to a man who had arranged his own trip to cambodia to engage in sex with underage boys (11, 12, and 13 year olds). The US DoJ picked him up as he got off the plane in cambodia, brought him back, and then charged, tried, and convicted him of attempted sexual assault of a minor and a host of other charges. I dont' know whether this has gone all the way to the supreme court or not.

 

[Cromlech]

The age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16 here in the U.K as well. Not that many people pay attention to that law, there is a pregnant 11 year old girl in the news at the moment.

This country is really going down the tubes.

 

[1 old 0311]

Tommy Chong spent 6 months in jail for selling a waterpipe on E-bay (legal) from his home in California (legal) to a guy in Kansas who lived in a town where it was illegal. Who was it that said "Lets start by getting rid of all the Lawyers."

Kevin

 

[WT]

Under a US federal law passed in 2003 law enforcement officers are allowed to prosecute Americans who travel abroad and sexually abuse minors, without having to prove prior intent to commit illicit crimes. If convicted, child sex tourists face up to 30 years imprisonment.

Ref:
US Code: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 117 > § 2423 (c) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places.—

It may not be a violation of law in the country where the offense occurred, but it is a violation of US law.

 

[carebear]

So it isn't just illegal to actively PLAN in this country (thus committing a crime within US borders) to go abroad to have sex with a minor (as defined by US law) but it's actually illegal to innocently go to <insert country of choice> and, heck, pick up a legal age (there) person in a disco in that country and have sex with them (even without actual knowledge of age).

You can be arrested on return if there's evidence? If someone mentions it within the hearing of an American LE?

I'm obviously not on the side of traveling pedophiles but shouldn't a crime completely committed outside of a jurisdiction require the LOCALS (who actually represent the wronged, ie it's their citizen, not ours) to bring the charges?

I'm aware there's Constitutional protections involved in my reducio ad absurdum to follow BUT there are, say, military members breaking Cali and NJ and any number of other state's gun laws in Alaska right this second. Should NJ or Cali LE be able to arrest them for illegal possession of restricted guns and/or ammo if they take pictures of the armory they left behind up here when they outprocess and go home?

Seems awfully strained to project US criminal jurisdiction overseas for crimes that in no way impacted within our borders.

 

[WT]

Americans who commit war crimes in another country can be tried in a US federal court.

Similarly, Americans who kill other Americans in a foreign country can also be tried in a US federal court.

 

[carebear]

WT, not trying to just be contrary, just trying to be precise, this is a kinda interesting topic (though the root thread subject is something I think "horsewhipping down Main Street and then something involving fire ants" should be the statute punishment for).

A war crime (typically) involves an employee of the Federal government, not a private citizen and, in addition is part of int. treaty law as well (which handles the mercs and such). Which pedophilia / statuatory rape is not.

An American murdering an American overseas is a case where the crime is committed by a US citizen against another US citizen and the act (murder) is probably illegal in the foreign country as well. In the cases we're referring to the "victim" is usually not a US citizen and the "crime" may not actually be a crime in that country.

I don't think either case uses the same legal reasoning.

 

[WT]

I am not saying that the legal reasoning is the same. What I am saying is that the US federal government has determined that certain acts by US citizens are illegal, regardless of where they take place or the laws of the particular nation.

 

[Spiphel Rike]

IMO, the US DOJ should stay within its own borders for stuff like the above story.

 

[carebear]

Oh I agree they have WT. I can also see the "why".

What I'm trying to figure out is the legal "how".

I'm kinda betting the legal basis comes down to "because we can" as opposed to good, black-letter law.

 

[jethro75]

So why dont you ever hear any US citizen under the age of 21 getting arrested for going to Germany and getting Drunk. They should strip their Drivers Liscense as soon as they get off the plain when they get back.LOL

 

[another okie]

As I understand the law in question, it is not illegal for an American to do these things, just to leave the country to do them. In other words, if someone leaves the country with the intent to do something which would be illegal in America, Congress apparently has the power to make that a crime. I think something similar is in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which criminalizes bribing foreign officials, which is often legal in those countries.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If that is true, and in the country in question the act was legal, what crime exactly was committed here?

There are federal statutes in THIS country that prohibit much of that behavior.

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/trafficking.html

Those who profit from victimizing children and adults in the sex trade are only one half of the problem. The other half are those who patronize this exploitive industry. Federal statutes hold those who travel to do so, and those who benefit from arranging that travel, accountable. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) prohibits traveling across state lines or into the United States for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct (which includes any commercial sex act with a person under 18) and carries a 30 year maximum sentence, while 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) prohibits an American citizen or national engaging in illicit sexual conduct outside the United States and carries a 30 year maximum sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) does not require that the citizen have traveled outside the country with the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign country. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) prohibits arranging or facilitating, for financial gain, another person's travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct and carries a 30 year maximum sentence.

 

[carebear]

I can see if the intent can be proven to have occurred in-country, especially if a "sex tour" operator is used. That's a pretty solid case of criminal conspiracy.

Creepy criminal conspiracy, I saw these middle-aged saggy loser eurotrash strutting around Pattaya with their obviously underage boys and girls on their arms. Had to fight down the simultaneous urges to vomit and commit mayhem with a handy skewer of dried squid.

But the college kid who goes to Thailand to "find himself" and ends up finding a 15/16 year old bar girl doesn't fall in that category, as no intent was necessarily formed in the USA. Even if he takes pictures on his camera phone and brings them back there's no way to prove the age of the girl.

I can personally vouch that thousands of American servicemen should be in the dock on charges right now if the law can be applied that way. And a lot of them decided pre-float, in the US, to get a LBFM and they weren't planning on checking ID's.

It might be a little sick and is certainly nothing to be proud of, but I'm not sure there's a justifiable way to charge the college kid or the GI's with an actual crime without really stretching the concept of criminal jurisdiction beyond reason.

EDIT: Written while Bart was posting. That statute clears it up, I expect to see charges filed on half of the Pacific Fleet immediately. I wonder if it's been challenged yet?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, kind of ironic that you can sleep with the dependent of a serviceman who is 16 years old and not even be subject to the UCMJ; but if you sleep with a 17yr old hooker anywhere in the world, you are guilty of a federal crime and subject to 30 years imprisonment.

 

[shootinstudent]

carebear,

But the college kid who goes to Thailand to "find himself" and ends up finding a 15/16 year old bar girl doesn't fall in that category, as no intent was necessarily formed in the USA. Even if he takes pictures on his camera phone and brings them back there's no way to prove the age of the girl.

I can personally vouch that thousands of American servicemen should be in the dock on charges right now if the law can be applied that way. And a lot of them decided pre-float, in the US, to get a LBFM and they weren't planning on checking ID's.

This is another reason why this is a terrible law. It begs for selective enforcement, so that the unpopular/unlucky folks who manage to get investigated get extreme prison sentences and everyone else who wants to goes on sex-touring without a remote chance of a problem.

pattaya....would you believe I had to pass through there with my own girlfriend once? Talk about a city not meant for a young lady's eyes...

 

[Cosmoline]

Similarly, Americans who kill other Americans in a foreign country can also be tried in a US federal court.

No, this is incorrect. Murder isn't even a federal crime unless you kill a federal employee under certain circumstances. 18 USC 1114 You may be thinking of federal jurisidiction over the merchant marine or US servicemen abroad.

The war crimes provisions are generally applied to servicemen and could also be applied to contractors working for the military. In theory they could apply to a US citizen with no military connection, but then again such a person would have a hard time committing war crimes. 18 USC 2441

As a general matter, no great all-powerful entity prevents one nation from outlawing conduct in another. But notions of international comity and the principle of sovereignty itself serve to keep these impulses in check. We can see the cracks in this system all the time, however. When Spanish magistrates attempted to try the Chilean dictator for war crimes, for example, because he supposedly killed a Spanish citizen in Chile. Or when US Attorneys try to extend the reach of our own drug laws across the planet. The price to be paid for such overreaching is more political than legal. But any nation which slumbers on its sovereign rights will soon find them missing.

This is another reason why we must NEVER allow the ICC to take hold and assert jurisdiction over the US. Once a European court can assert legal power over US citizens for things done in third party nations, we might as well burn all the flags and tear up the Constitution. It cannot be allowed. It must not be allowed, even if it means using deadly force against anyone trying to enforce an order from the European court. Hell, it's the ultimate casus belli. We'd be in our rights to nuke Europe to stop it.

 

[carebear]

shootin',

I wasn't much on the bar girls except to tease them and lose a LOT of Connect-4. I spent my money on suits, (real) massages and Mekong Cokes by the gallon.

My libbo buddy kept trying to pimp me out to the bar girls. They'd be yelling "hey sexy man, you want to party?" as we walked by and he'd start telling them how much they had to pay him to take me home with them.

 

[shootinstudent]

carebear,

ah memories of those massages... I like your buddy's style, that's the way to bargain!


I wasn't much in to the scene either, but that didn't matter anyway because I was there (in pattaya anyway) it was with a legit girlfriend who was on vacation with me.

And I swear, before everyone who's been starts grabbing a beer and chiming in....yeah, I definitely agree, there are a WHOLE lot of crooks to be made if anyone wants to make a reasonable enforcement effort over this law.

 

[LAK]

For any U.S. court to try anyone for an alleged crime it must have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is territorial.

But the way the judiciary - with the complicity of the U.S. Congress - has been going in this country not much surprizes me anymore.

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Jurisdiction is not simply terrirtorial. Here is a quick breakdown of personal jurisdiction.

 

[carebear]

Not to get all libertarian (and Silvardo referencing) up in this place but it's probably time for our government in particular to choose the John Cleese-ian path of "Today, my jurisdiction ends here."

Ironically, if they don't, they may be forced to by the same means as in the movie.

End of poor, forced politico-movie analogy.