[26666] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Netgate.net.nz/ORBS spam colusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek J. Balling)
Tue Jan 11 18:58:22 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000111155417.00ba52d0@mail.megacity.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:56:21 -0800
To: "Brett Frankenberger" <rbf@rbfnet.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
In-Reply-To: <06b201bf5c8b$e2741090$0a0a0a0a@omhq.uprr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 05:30 PM 1/11/00 -0600, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>A person is subject to the laws and regulations of any country with the
>power to make him subject to those laws and regulations. See, for
>exmaple, Manuel Noreiga from Panama. He was neither a citizen nor a
>resident of the USoA when the USoA decided to make him subject to its
>drug laws. Since the USoA had more military capability than him, he was
>arrested.
I would agree with that assessment (from a "realistic" standpoint, but
certainly not from a moral standpoint, if that was the case, we could make
China open to freedom simply by virtue of saying "If you don't, we'll nuke
you").
>On the other hand, if Germany decides to indict an American citizen
>living in the USoA for distributing neo-Nazi propoganda (and Germany did
>just that), the aforementioned citizen isn't really subject to that
>indictment, because the USoA won't extradite him (the first amendment,
>and probably also the terms of the extradition treary, prevents them)
>and Germany doesn't have the ability to come and get him.
>
>The USoA routinely indicts persons that are neither residents nor
>citizens of the USoA, although generally the indictment is for something
>they did in or to the USoA.
Correct. Indictments are easy to get. All that means is that the subject
may never travel to a country who is a lackey for^W^W^W^Whas US-favorable
extradition terms.
D
