I suspect many people would.
Did you not read the thread? See post #43 for my reference to Felix Bloch, one of the more notorious examples of trading secrets for illicit sex. Here, I’ll link to an article for you. I was involved in the electronic search of the entire executive suite at the Vienna embassy after this traitor was identified.
Yeah, the threat isn’t so much of, “If you don’t do what we say your wife will find out!”
It’s more like, “You have a choice: you have fooled around with these women and lied about it. If someone finds out, your wife will leave you and you will get fired, and probably go to jail. You will never get a decent job again and you will be financially ruined. No more nice house in the suburbs and a good office job, you will be lucky to live in a studio apartment alone and find a job making $12 a hour because nobody wants to hire a disgraced liar. Or, we can continue to cooperate. You can continue to fool around with your mistress, we’ll pay you a nice amount of money every now and then, so you can finally take your wife and kids on that Hawaiian vacation you’ve always wanted… And nobody will ever find out. So which do you choose, a life in tatters, or continue to work with us and everything will be the way it was, only better?”
It’s not just about “blackmail”. There are other psychological “levers” one can pull in order to get someone to do something. Someone who is addicted to drugs or alchohol or sex will often do illegal or immoral things to feed their addiction. They can also demonstrate poor judgement while under the influence. People act in desperation due to debt or other financial circumstances. A person can be manipulated with sex. We’ve all seen the classic “honey pot” scenario in the movies where a female operative seduces an unknowing asset.
The US has laws against ‘sex tourism’ (basically, visiting a foreign country to engage in sex that would be illegal here). They seem to be mostly applied in cases involving underage sex partners, though. But the actual law is much more general:
Could this Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2423) apply to this case? I suppose the agents could claim that they didn’t travel to Colombia for this purpose, but were traveling to there for the purpose of preparing for the Presidential trip; the illicit sex was just incidental to their trip. Not sure how a jury would take that argument.
What does “travels in foreign commerce” mean? I’m unfamiliar with that phrase.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:86, topic:619040”]
What does “travels in foreign commerce” mean? I’m unfamiliar with that phrase.
[/QUOTE]
It is the jurisdictional hook that constitutionalizes the exercise of the federal police power. It basically means that the law is being promulgated pursuant to the Commerce Clause, and the activity at issue must be one that has involved interstate or foreign commerce or made use of the channels or instrumentalities of the same or having a substantial relation to those things. (Taking a common carrier to a foreign destination plainly involves at least the channels or instrumentalities of foreign commerce, so too would driving on an interstate highway to Canada or Mexico.)
On the other hand, subsection (f) defines “illicit sexual conduct” as:
(Emphasis added.)
This is why the law has been “mostly applied in cases involving underage sex partners.”
So, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, traveling outside of North America will always be “traveling in foreign commerce” (exceptions being travelers who have their own boat or plane capable of intercontinental travel)?
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:88, topic:619040”]
So, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, traveling outside of North America will always be “traveling in foreign commerce” (exceptions being travelers who have their own boat or plane capable of intercontinental travel)?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. And this makes sense, I think. The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate the usage of international/interstate seaports and airport and the interstate highway system. This extends to the commercial and private entities that make use of those ports and highways. Congress can regulate that these channels and instrumentalities should not be clogged up by unsavory sex tourists.
Border control is also an inherent power of the federal government and the government can regulate re-entry into the United States by those who have left to go abroad and engage in activities injurious to the public health (namely STDs) and morals (namely the pursuit of sexual activities with minors). This law is not a border control regulation per se, but the regulation does serve as a disincentive to sojourn abroad to engage in activities that ultimately have potentially deleterious effects within the United States.
So were the prostitutes in this case younger than 18? (That is not uncommon in prostitutes here in the US; even more common in 3rd-world countries.)
Note that this law applies the US age of 18 to foreign countries, despite whatever age they have in their own laws. (And even though several US states have a lower age.) And it mentions nothing about consent. Presumably the prostitutes consented to do this – or would have, if they had been paid the agreed price.