If you could travel to another country where killing other people is legal, and several Americans went to this country to kill people (a kind of “killing safari”)
Would the U.S. government have anything to say about this? What about the state in which you live? Would the let you back in? Or would they be checking passports to see who went to that country and taking some action against these people?
Or, is it the case that because something is legal in a country, if you commit it in that country the U.S. and state governments don’t care?
It is illegal to spend US currency in Cuba due to the embargo under US law. However, in Cuba, it is legal to spend US currency under Cuban law. If the US governnment founds out that someone went to Cuba illegally they will prosecute.
I imagine that is the position the US government would take if you went to a place in which murder was legal.
Well, I know that if you have sex with a minor in another country, even if it is legal there, you can be prosecuted for it in the States. This law is there to discourage child prostitution and sex tourism…so unless you were going to some preschool bordello in Indonesia I don’t know how they could easily catch you boffing some 14 year old foreigner. Not that I would try that or anything :eek:
There is no country where you can just kill people willy-nilly. Now, there are countries where you could, in theory, participate in a legally sanctioned killing. There are many such countries, including the United States. IIRC, we put hundreds of prisoners to death every year, and someone has to do the dirty deed. I don’t know of any cases where a foreign national has served in this capacity, or where an American has served in this capacity in another country, but if there were such a case I can assure you neither the U.S. nor the foreign country in question is going to do anything, since, by definition (and by the rules of your OP), the killing was quite legal.
Perhaps you mean to say, what happens when an American does something in another country that is perfectly legal there, but is illegal in the US?
Again, nothing happens. For example, it is perfectly legal to smoke marijuana in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. American tourists go there all the time and many partake in smoking pot. The US government does not and cannot do anything about it, as this involes the laws of a foreign country.
I believe it’s a general legal principle that a thing has to be illegal in the country where it’s done to be prosecutable. Female genital mutilation is illegal in Denmark and is has created some debate that the parents merely went for a vacation in Somalia or some such place where it was legal and had the operation done, and the Danish state has been unable to do anything to prevent that.
I think the issue you’re asking about is jurisdictional in nature. As a general rule, the federal courts have territorial jurisdiction, meaning that crimes occurring in the United States can be prosecuted by the feds. However, it is possible for the United States to prosecute it’s citizens for crimes committed outside of it’s territory. Congress has the power to create jurisdiction for the criminal courts. The basis of the use of this power to criminalize conduct occurring in other countries is found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that Congress has the power to: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and to “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” These sections may empower Congress to legislate criminal activities that take place in foreign countries.
Now, to answer more specifically, I know of no federal regulation that makes it illegal to kill somebody in another country. Absent an Act of Congress, there is no jurisdiction for the courts to hear the case.
However, as Incubus pointed out, Congress has acted in the area of protecting child victims of the sex trade. Originally, Congress made it illegal to travel to foreign counties with the intent to engage in sexual conduct with a minor. This was to try and stop the number of people who go to Asia or Central America to have sex with young boys and girls. That kind of jurisdiction is still based on the actions (travelling with intent) taken place in the United States. More recently, however, Congress enacted the Protect Act, a little blurb here, which makes it a crime to: "(c) Engag[e] in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. – Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. I have yet to find a case challenging this in court.
So, at this point, it appears you can be prosecuted in the United States for going to a foreign country and having sex with a child, but not for going to a foreign country and killing them.
Tsk, tsk. Back to civics 101. You may note that ordinary murder is not a federal crime but a state one. I’m pretty sure that Arizona doesn’t have shit to say about what I do outside the US.
I’m not familiar with the statute but I’d suspsect that those who go on child-sex safaris are prosecuted for something like travelling for the purpose of committing that act. I’d doubt if the actual sex act can be prosecuted just from the practal standpoint of bringing witnesses to the US let alone the jurisdiction issue.
vinniepaz, as I suspect the act itself does not consitute the crime as the travelling element is required. I have my doubts about the term “illicit” but by most legal definitions a minor cannot give consent to a sex act.
If you read my entire post, you would have seen where I pointed out that prior to the enactment of the Protect Act, you would be right. However, the Protect Act specifically made it a federal crime to have sex with a child in another country. Although there are practical considerations concerning witnesses and such, that did not stop the government from indicting and convicting Michael Clark for having sex with two Cambodian boys. When he appealled, the Court held that the statute was a proper use of Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause, that it did not violate international law and that it was reasonable. They also held that it was not a violation of Clark’s due process rights.
Reading is a skill. It’s the Protect Act, not the Patriot Act, and it makes it illegal to have illicit sexual contact with a minor. Although the statute says nothing about the laws of the country where the act occurred, I would note that Cambodia, and many other countries, the acts Clark took would be illegal there too. They just don’t do much of anything about it.
Both the travelling and the act are elements of the crime. If a United States citizen does not travel in foreign commerce to commit the act, he would not be covered by the statute.
The US cannot do anything to citizens who have smoked pot in the US either. It is not a crime to have smoked pot. It is a crime to possess pot. If that wasn;t the case they could have arrested Bill Clinton admitting to having smoked it. In reality I think the laws are written that way to encourage people to seek treatment for addicitons. No one owuld ever show up at a rehab center to kick a heroin addiction if it amounted to an “arrest anyone who shows up here” center. As a result blowing a doobie in Amsterdam is not an issue for US police unless you decide to bring a few blunts back to the US with you.
One possibly “legal” way to kill in another country is to go there as a mercenary. Not sure what the US says about soldiers of fortune but going with Hamlet’s post I suppose you could say the merc was leaving the US with foreknowledge of going to kill someone.
The United States has long had the ability to legislate criminal actions that take place in other countries. The law school example is, if I were standing in Canada, and you were in the United States, and I shot and killed you, the United States has the authority to charge and convict me for murder. Although I was standing on Canadian soil, my actions had direct consequences in the United States. This theory of extra-territorial jurisdiction allows the United States to charge and convict people who had taken no actions in the United States. It was used before Noriega, and since, mostly in the realm of drug trafficking.
Noriega himself was charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and numerous other drug related charges for importing vast amounts of cocaine into the United States. Since the effects of his actions, which all took place in Panama, took place in the United States, jurisdiction was allowed. The court also looked at the specific statutes and stated:
The court found that Congress’ legislation regarding the illicit drug trade clearly were meant to apply extra-territorially. Hence his conviction.
Until Hamlet returns, let me try a more global approach.
There are basically 5 types of jurisdiction over criminal conduct that a State can take, although most States do not recognize all 5.
[ol]Territorial – the State can regulate all conduct within its borders. (This one’s easy.)
[li]Nationality (sometimes called Active or Active Personality) – the State can regulate the actions of its nationals wherever they roam. (What we’re talking about.)[/li]
[li]Passive Personality (sometimes just Personality) – The State can regulate foreign conduct engaged in by foreign nationals that harms or otherwise effects the nationals of the State (wherever they are). (Kidnapping, price fixing, etc.; most countries don’t use this, or at least no outside violent crimes. It’s a constant source of tension b/w the U.S. and its European allies.)[/li]
[li]Public (a/k/a Pussiance Publique) – The State can regulate conduct that impinges on or attacks the power of the State or its stability regardless of where and by whom. (Fomenting revolution, etc. – rarely invoked.)[/li]
[li]Universal – The State can regulate conduct which is injurious to the relations between nations. (Piracy is the classic example because it made dialgoue and trade between nations dangerous.)[/ol][/li]
Under this analysis, I disagree with Ponder that the U.S. couldn’t criminalize hemp tourism. It just chooses not to because it ain’t a big deal and the costs don’t justify it.
As to the OP, I think Hamlet is correct in practice, although if I were calling the shots I wouldn’t require statutory authorization to invoke a principle of jurisdiction that the U.S. recognizes so long as the prosecution were otherwise appropriate.
Note, however, that the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (PDF) specifically authorizes U.S. courts to take jurisdiction of criminal conduct committed by a civilian involved in military operations (e.g., defense contractors and military dependants).