I googled “violates US law” and got over 500 links.
Why is the US so high & mighty that a circumstance around the globe violates US Law? I thought we had borders that kept our laws inside.
Is there a single place that all these laws are kept or at least available for people to see what laws they’re breaking.
I’m not sure I understand your question. It is not possible for a non-US citizen not living in the US to violate a US law outside of US borders. We can say that the individual in question would have violated US law had the act been committed on US soil, but otherwise, it’s meaningless.
Generally speaking, US laws and regulations apply to US citizens. In some cases those laws apply world-wide.
US laws - US Code - See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
US regulations - CFR - See http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/
Don’t other countries also have laws which apply to their citizens even when those citizens are out of their country? So, I’ll venture to say that the US is no more “high and mighty” than any other country.
Did the 500 hits refer to matters outside of our borders? It seems to me you’d often get that phrase used for domestic matters.
However, we invaded Panama and ripped off the chief honcho, and he’s sitting in a US prison right this minute. But I guess the conviction was for moving dope across the US border.
And we blew up Saddam, but I didn’t hear a reference to any law. Other reasons were given.
Absent any clarification by the OP, perhaps he was referring to how, if I were to start a thread asking how to obtain and drink Absinthe, that thread would be locked because it violates US law, even if I didn’t live in a country where Absinthe is illegal? The answer is that because the SDMB is located in the US, it IS subject to US law, and thus discussion of illegal topics cannot be allowed. I’m sure a more legal-minded doper can chime in on the legal issues related to running an international message board and dealing with the laws of many countries, I just wanted to throw out this possible interpretation of the OP.
Indeed. Belgian law allows Belgian courts to try anyone for human rights abuses anywhere in the world: charges were brought against Ariel Sharon (not a Belgian citizen) for crimes in Lebanon. However, they are now considering reforming this legislation, possibly because no foreign statesman dares to visit Belgium.
Actually, such a thing is very possible. Manuel Noriega is currently serving a 40 sentence in a U.S. federal prison for drug smuggling, racketeering, and money laundering he did as dictator of Panama, all without setting foot in the United States. And re: the OP, this doesn’t make the U.S. “high and mighty”, or even unusual. As others have poited out, pretty much every nation in the world practices extraterritorial enforcement of its laws to some degree.
Sorry my OP wasn’t clear with a question - but answers have narrowed my thoughts to: What gives a country the right to impose its laws on someone outside the US?
The Noriega scenario is a prime example.
Are Germans violating US law for exceeding the 70 mph on the autobahn simply because the NHTB sez so?
Am I violating US law by smoking a joint in Brazil or Amsterdam?
So what happens when the US violates their own law - quickly rewrite it to exclude what they just did?
We just did this in GD: Enforcing U.S. laws abroad. Feel free to ignore the slightly cranky tone that sets in my final posts. 
Well, the Noriega example is a fairly easy one. He was head of a cartel that was smuggling significant amounts of drugs into the United States, and was head of a criminal organization that conducted signifigant operations in the United States. This is sort of analogous to A hiring B to go kill his wife in another state. The fact that A never set foot in that other state is immaterial; he’s liable for murder there. To use another more direct example, if A stnds in one state and shoots and kills someone in another state, the fact that he never set foot in the other state won’t prevent him for being criminally liable for the killing there. Most extraterritorial law enforcement is like this; the conduct of someone outside of the U.S. is directed at and affects the U.S., and breaks it’s laws. Another kind is the protective jurisdiction we extend to of our citizens in another country.
Urk. That should be
“Another kind is the protective jurisdiction we extend to our citizens by criminalizing conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals in another country.”
The NHTB has no authority to set speed limits. Individual states set speed limits and are limited by state boundaries. The only exceptions are Federally-owned territories, and even then these are explicitly limited by the territorial boundaries.
Likewise, US law does not prohibit a foreign national in a foreign country from smoking marijuana. Go re-read the actual legislation in question before you keep making a total fool of yourself.
Dear Anusface aka Dogface,
Thank you for your enlightening answers to my foolish questions.
I know that with proper guidance from the likes of you, we shall all be more enlightened to all knowledge that is graspable to simpletons such as myself. I sleep at knight knowing that there are others like me who only know a miniscule amount compared to the vaste storehouse of knowledge in your brain that is ready to be disbursed at a moments notice and that we may call upon you for direct guidance and the proper answers to our foolish questions.
tcdaniel, I should advice you beforehand not to use such language to Dogface, even if you feel he provoked you. It’s against board policy, and can quickly lead to sidetracking of the arugment which is no use to anyone. (Hope you don’t mind my commenting on that).
Getting back to your question:
The answer to both is no, simply because US law does not prohibit these actions. US law only prohibits these actions when done in the U.S..
A further question might be: could the U.S. Congress pass a law that would make those actions outside the U.S. a criminal offense? Short answer: yes, they could, and it would in principle not be illegal. But there would not be any sense in doing that. For one thing, the U.S. would have a hell of a time to prosecute such offenses. They would get in all sorts of political and diplomatic hassles with other countries, who would consider such a law an infringment on their sovereignty. Furthermore, the U.S. would not have any interest in prosecuting speed violations in Germany. So why bother?
So-called universal jurisdiction is very rarely used, mostly when there is a direct state interest in prosecuting the action, or where crimes against humanity are involved. This would allow countries to prosecute dictators from other countries.
Hope this answers your question.
[slight hijack]
Didn’t Australia prosecute and lock up some guy who had gone to Thailand or Vietnam or somesuch place and had sex with underage prostitutes there? He didn’t have sex with the kids in Australia, where it would clearly be illegal. But they got him on “leaving the country for the purposes of having sex with underage children” or something like that, IIRC.
[/slight hijack]