| ▲ | morkalork 2 days ago |
| The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way. |
|
| ▲ | tremon a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| You are saying that when US citizens engage in illegal gambling in other parts of the world, the US sues and threatens the foreign gambling venues? That South Korea sues marihuana dispensaries in the US when they sell to visiting Koreans? |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The equivalent is the US threatening to arrest the operators of those venues when they set foot on US soil. But in any case, this is different, as the US has only declared these activities as illegal in the US. They haven't enacted laws saying you cannot gamble outside the US. When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent [-] | | > When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty. Moreover, the US government can have you seized and brought to the US without a treaty (or even in violation of a treaty), which may become a diplomatic and/or international legal issue between the US and the state where you were seized, and may subject the agents doung the seizing to personal legal difficulty in that state, but has no bearing on the validity of the criminal process brought against you once they haul you back to the US. See, e.g., U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | As we have recently seen, the US may send the military to sink your boat and kill you if they think you might be planning to break a US law. Whether this is legal or not is another matter. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wannadingo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think he is saying that once US citizens return to the US, then they will be arrested. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The US has seized non-US citizens, abroad, for acts committed abroad, over which the US asserts (and exerts) extraterritorial jurisdiction, not just US citizens, and not just waiting until they enter the US on their own. | |
| ▲ | tremon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they were talking about the US arresting US citizens, then the equivalent would be Ofcom sending a fine to the UK visitors of 4chan. That's clearly not what they're doing. |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The USA has gone after gambling site operators in other countries, yes | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | pessimizer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung will pay 3,000,000 won. > The fines were dependent on how much money each person bet. Andy spent 44,000,000 won, Boom 33,000,000 won, and Yang Se Hyung 26,000,000 won. > The three are all currently pulled out of all schedules and self-reflecting on their actions. > Meanwhile, Lee Su Geun, Tak Jae Hoon, and Tony An are waiting for their first trial to take place on December 6. They bet more than several hundred million won. https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.inte... |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, hypothetically though, and going back to the smoking in Paris law, if the UK banned smoking in Paris, and a French citizen proven to have smoked in Paris vacations in the UK, the only thing stopping the UK from prosecuting them is that it would be kinda "act-of-war-ish" to start imprisoning French citizens. Technically they could under their own law, they just wouldn't dare since they don't want to start a major diplomatic incident or war. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Once you're in another country's jurisdiction, all bets are off. You're subject to those laws, unless there's a treaty or similar saying that you're not. In another post, I mentioned writing nasty blog posts about Kim Jong-un. If you do that, it's probably a very bad idea to visit North Korea. In this case, the operator of 4Chan is free to blow off the UK's law. They may wish to account for that in future travel plans, though. | | |
| ▲ | hunterpayne a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is one of those technically true but defacto false things. Its legal under UK law, but if they want the variety of benefits they get from the US then it isn't. If the UK government starts arresting vacationing Americans for things that aren't a violation of US law, its all a matter of if the US governments wants to make an issue of it. Maybe you get lucky and nothing happens, or maybe you lose your military protection and 25% of your GDP. Plus your tourism businesses take a hit. You really want to take that risk? But given the behavior of the UK government lately, doing something suicidally stupid seems on brand for them. | |
| ▲ | jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is why we are not travailing the US right now. | | |
| ▲ | hunterpayne a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore. Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that, you will be fine. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | As someone who has travelled a fair bit across the border between Canada and US, CBP agents have always tended to be dicks drunk on their power. I've seen plenty of blatant abuse at the border. So really the only thing that needs to happen for CBP to ruin your day is for an agent to have a bad day for their own. The only difference between then and now is that they're given more tools to do so and actively encouraged to use them. |
| |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is also why a lot of people refuse to travel to the UK now. | |
| ▲ | kstrauser a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's reasonable. |
|
| |
| ▲ | msh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US have done this a lot, luring “hackers” and other criminals to the US and then arresting them. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser a day ago | parent [-] | | I declare categorically that UK law does not apply to me, here in California. However, if I'm going to break one of their laws that they feel very strongly about, I'm probably not going to travel to the UK. That's just begging for something bad to happen. Why risk it? So in this case, if you know the US is looking for you, why, oh why, would you travel to the US? |
|
| |
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are a few cases of claiming universal jurisdiction criminalizing what citizens of other countries do even outside the country, but that's generally things like crimes against humanity. | |
| ▲ | throwaway48476 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Boats are considered the territory of the flag state. | |
| ▲ | umanwizard a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist. Sure it will. Citizenship is irrelevant. If you travel abroad to have sex with underage people and then come to the US, you can be prosecuted regardless of your nationality. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jandrese a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Sure, but those laws apply to US Citizens, and typically aren't enforced until the person returns to US soil. Sovereignty is a big thing in international politics. Countries as a whole are loath to meddle in other countries domestic affairs, even in extreme cases like genocide/ethnic cleansing. Violating weird online protection laws are not the sort of thing a country is going to risk an international incident over. Sure you can find some examples of countries that violate those norms, but they are the exception not the rule. |
