They couldn’t charge him with theft if he complied with the order to return the property. Whether he whacks off Aldrin on his way back to the LM is irrelevant. Anyway, even if he were somehow charged with theft, that’s pretty minor compared to being charged with murder.
Seems like the US is essentially asserting is jurisdiction over the known universe, except for those portions of the Earth outside US territory, provided the vehicle used to reach that location is registered in the US.
It may seem like overreaching now, but we’ll be thanking them when the space pirates attack.
No … The US is asserting jurisdiction over a US-registered spacecraft wherever in the universe it might be.
Hmmm…
No, Canada is in charge of the Space Invader Early Warning Program. It was on the news a week or so back. 
Ah, you almost got it, Poly. The actual program title is Space Protection Early Warning Canadian Hightech Universal Navigational Killer Satellites, or SPEW CHUNKS for short.
Armstrong would probably last at most a day before he ran out of air. He certainly would be out of food by that point. In theory, he could hack into the propellant tanks, find the one that held the oxygen, and hook it up, but then he’d starve to death, rather than die by slow carbon dioxide poisoning. As for Collins? Well, he trained to take the ship back home by himself, so it wouldn’t be much of a problem, but he certainly wouldn’t be happy about it.
Armstrong could just say Éamon de Valera got him.
I hereby sentence the two of you to be locked in a small, windowless room with nothing but two NERF bats. One of you will be released when the other is dead.
On a more relevant note, a recent article in Radar Magazine, regarding the alarmingly large number of unexplained disappearances that take pleace on cruise ships, stated that technically, a ship is bound by laws of its country of registration.
Both the Eagle (the lander) and the Columbia (the command and service module where the astronauts would have spent the period of time mentioned in the OP) were United States vessels, so I would have to assume that, since the law of the sea is the only comparable precedent to , IMO, a court would have to give the US government jurisdiction.
This conclusion is only enhanced by the the fact that all three men were government employees on a government mission at the time the murder would have occurred.
Well I would think if he was murdered today on the moon and not in the spacecraft he may be under some tough jurisdiction. If it was on a piece of land owned by someone from the Lunar Registry it would fall under the laws of this organization. They seem to be a very well organized and respected group of individuals so they may come down hard on him and break out the old wooden spoon.
A different strategy might be for Armstrong just to claim a piece of land, call himself King, and then pass a shoot to kill (ray-gun of course)trespassing law and take out Aldrin. It might be legal. Outerspace is the wild west and the people on the Earth might willingly agree that our laws here just dont fit the mold for the final frontier. Of course the U.S. would then need to decide if it wants to continue to offer transportation services back to the U.S. with a leader of a country who murders its inhabitants. I guess that would depend on if it was in America’s economic interest (possibly if Armstrong discovered oil during his few hours tour) or if there was a possiblity of a leak that CIA originally trained Armstrong to dispatch Aldrin if the @#$@ were ever to hit the fan.
No it isn’t. The law claims jurisdiction over in-flight US spacecraft, but then defines “in flight” as “the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth”. Therefore US jurisdiction applies everywhere the craft travels, including extravehicular activity in space or on celestial bodies. US jurisdiction does not possibly cease until a door is opened on Earth. (And even then it probably doesn’t cease, since the door will probably be opened on US territory.)
Where do you see this definition in the treaty? Here is the (similar) definition that I found in the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft:
But by its own terms, this definition only applies to the chapter on “POWERS OF THE AIRCRAFT COMMANDER.” The general definition, found in Chapter 1, Article 1, is:
As I indicated above, the US claims jurisdiction over crimes by or against it’s own citizens on terra nullius (land over which no country has sovereignty). The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies says:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4074
And certainly during the time-frame in question, no country could have laid claim to it.
Similarly, the material I quoted in my previous post, from the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, specifically requires the US to retain jurisdiction over any personnel.
By the way, the notion that a country retains criminal jurisdiction over its nationals even when they are not in that country’s territory is known as the active personality principle http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior530032001?OpenDocument. The notion that a country asserts jurisdiction over those who commit crimes against its nationals is known as the passive personality principle. *Id. * Neither concept is especially controversial, especially when limited to terra nullius. India’s criminal law applies to its nationals even with respect to crimes commited in the territory of other sovereigns. indialawinfo.com - This website is for sale! - indialawinfo Resources and Information.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm (Part VII).
There are treaties and statutes on point. But they support the same result.
I remember The New Yorker once had a cartoon showing a rocket parked on the Moon. Nearby, a judge, jury, lawyers and defendant were all in spacesuits, sitting at tables on the lunar surface.
The judge was saying, “Not another motion for change of venue, counselor?”
Never mind. I figured out that you were talking about 18 U.S.C. § 7(6). You are correct.
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
Ah. I didn’t realize the treaty on space was in effect before the first moon landing. Sounds like you’ve answsered it, Gfactor.
As noted above, Armstrong had very little food on the Eagle and might have had air for a day or so. In later missions the LEM was equipped with food and air to last days, but not more than that. There’s no way NASA could have gotten a mission up and running in that amount of time – people freaked out when NASA would change a mission profile four or five months out because they didn’t think it wa enough time to retrain the crew and the controllers, rewrite the procedures, test everything, etc. Spaceflight is really dangerous, so NASA protocol at the time was to check everything a million times before making a change. Plus, I doubt the equipment even existed; the contractors who built the various modules had target dates for their craft, but those weren’t so far in advance that they had extra craft sitting around under tarps somewhere.
Finally, there’d be no way to capture a rogue astronaut. You can’t wrestle on the moon; even if your suit doesn’t tear, just tripping is a real danger. You could knock a belt connection loose, or bend a hose, and with all that bulk around you it’s not easy to get up. And if they managed to catch him somehow, how are they going to bring him back? There’s not room for three in the LM, there’s not room for four in the capsule – especially during reentry, when everyone has to be strapped in to the couches.
–Cliffy