It’s not clear from the Wikipedia article that Lauck hadn’t distributed the pamphlets in Germany - i.e. he may have been in Germany when he distributed the pamphlets that were the subject of the charge.
Depends on the terms of the extradition treaty between A and B but, in general, no. A “standard” extradition treaty will provide that country A will only extradite you to face a charge in country B if the elements of the charge would also constitute an offence in country A.
Lauck wasn’t in Germany, he was very well aware that he would be nailed there for his activities. Lauck was surprised and shocked that he got arrested in Denmark and was subsequently extradited to Germany.
I’ve read about several cases in which German prosecutors wanted to go after individuals based in the United States who distribute Nazi propaganda on the internet (and thus can be accessed in Germany where it is illegal). US authorities routinely refuse to cooperate since that’s covered by free speech according to US law.
What makes you think that the word “federal” in the announcement refers to the United States federal government? Germany is also a federal republic, so it would make sense that a flight departing from Frankfurt would be subject to German federal laws on smoking.
My guess would be that the announcement is “One size fits all.” If you were making an announcement specifically for Germany to the Netherlands, it would say “German law …” or “German federal law …”. When I hear a similar announcement on a flight between the U.S. and Australia, I’d know they are talking about US federal law, and not Australian federal law, because in an Australian context they are far more likely to refer to “Australian law” or “Commonwealth law” (though in an international context “Commonwealth” might be avoided, since foreigners might think it refers to law of the Commonwealth of Nations, and not to law of the Commonwealth of Australia).
But I don’t think age of consent can be trivially applied like that because you’d get a lot of awkward cases (e.g. needing to arrest someone for statutory rape who’s legally married to his “victim”), and/or needing to treat american-born citizens differently, and more harshly, than naturalized citizens or visitors etc.
I’m not saying the US doesn’t prosecute child sex tourists, of course it does, I’m saying that as a practical matter, I suspect sex with someone over age of consent where the act took place would have to be ignored.
Quite prepared to have my ignorance fought though…
For a long time, it was illegal for a US citizen to enter certain countries, and I believe it still can be. Progressive clones of laws with the same intent kept getting overturned by the Supreme Court, and new laws enacted to replace them with the same effect. For example, the US tried but failed to prosecute a person for going across the border from Greece to Albania, but could prosecute for taking a US passport along, since the passport was US property. Repeated failures turned the law over to the Department of Commerce, in which it became illegal to use US currency to buy so much as a postage stamp that was of Rhodesian origin. It was called “US assets control”, with the government criminalizing the use of American currency for illicit purposes, even if it was first changed into euros. An American can still be arrested and prosecuted for simply going to Cuba, on a flight from Canada or Mexico, without first arranging permission from the American government to do so.
During the Viet-Nam war, people who were drafted could cross into Canada. Because Canada has no draft, they couldn’t extradite these “draft-dodgers”, as it was not illegal in Canada to refuse military service. Of course upon return to the USA, they would have been prosecuted except for the general amnesty they received.
Presumably you were on an American carrier.
Has such a case ever occurred?
Yep. And the penalties can be much greater if you do more than just visit without filling out a form.
Sorry, but most of this is not true. If you are on leave, then the drinking age of wherever you may be is the rule you need to follow.
The drinking age is not 21 for the entire US military everywhere at anytime. Most bases overseas defer to the local drinking age.
Drinking IS permitted on those bases you mentioned, except for Iran (pretty sure no base there). The drinking rules depended on many factors, including what unit you were with, what orders you were under, etc.
Bahrain has no “2 beer limit” so most people tried to get R & R there. I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, and we had a full-fledged bar on base with no limitations.
In the first article he wasn’t punished for travelling to Cuba, he was punished for spending his money there without license from the US government and lying about it too. The second link is a Canadian national who was conducting business with Cuba through a US based company. He got in trouble when he moved to the US.
He was punished for raveling to Cuba without filing the required form, yes.
All bases. The drinking age for bases on foreign soil (other than Canada and Mexico) is 18 unless the host country’s laws specify a higher age.
Right, he was punished for not having the forms and lying. Not for the travelling.
Per the state department themselves (and this relates to the pre-Obama changes to the rules):
“Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. Regulation does not limit travel of U.S. citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba, under most circumstances.”
I think you missed the last part if the original claim:
[my bolding]
You haven’t shown that someone was punished simply for travelling to Cuba.
In the sense that it is theoretically possible to visit a country without spending any money in it, sure.
Sorry, not to be nit picky, but I hate when people use ALL. As stated above, I was stationed on a base in Saudi Arabia, and the drinking age was 21. And the host country didn’t specify a higher age.