Supreme Ct: Foreign Crimes Now Punishable Under US Law

[leveymg]

Think about the implications of today's ruling for other crimes involving international communications. Take various foreign political crimes that might now be punishable under US conspiracy statutes. How long until the bright lights at Gonzales' Justice Dept. apply this one in a broad way against Americans who communicate with foreign activists? There's no obvious reason why "illegal" topics in internet communications might be exempt. Anyone posting on political subjects should consider the following:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-04-26T152435Z_01_N05487318_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-COURT-LIQUOR-DC.XML

US Top Court: Fraud Law Covers Smuggling Scheme
Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:24 AM ET

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Americans can be prosecuted under U.S. wire fraud law for scheming to evade foreign taxes, ruling on a case about large quantities of liquor smuggled from the United States into Canada.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against three convicted defendants, brothers David and Carl Pasquantino and accomplice Arthur Hilts, who argued that such prosecutions exceed the reach of the federal wire fraud law.

In the opinion for the court majority, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violated the federal wire fraud law, based on phone calls made.

<SNIP>

Meaning: If you talk to foreign friends about matters that might be illegal over there, you might just be prosecuted by the Feds if there's a law against it here.

Violations of foreign law will be punished under US law if there is a similar US statute and the acts occurred in the US and international telecommunications were used.

Possible applications: various foreign sedition statutes, related conspiracies to violate public order (illegal protests, direct action, other political crimes.)

Illustration: If you have a Canadian friend who's planning to travel to Davos, Switzerland to protest, and you discuss tactics on the phone (or on-line) for direct action that involve illegal means (anything from trespassing on up), you might find the FBI at your door.

This ruling appears unconstitutional on its face, and seems to invite abusive and broad interpretation. But, it's here. Anyone have a different take on this?

(Reuters report previously posted on main board under original story title. Title does not convey the underlying importance of the story, and might have been overlooked by many)

[Dr.Phool]

1. Funny, but didn't they also just rule yesterday

That someone convicted of a felony in another country, didn't lose their right to own firearms in this country?

[unblock]

2. ginsberg, breyer, souter, and SCALIA dissented

not the usual 5-4 majority, and a rare scalia-thomas disagreement.

personally, i think i'd have been in the minority based on vagueness of the law. that is, if congress meant for it to apply to foreign law as well as domestic, it should have, could have, and would have specified this.

i'm not sure i yet have an opinion on the hard question, which is, well, what if congress had explicitly said the law applies to forign laws?

[leveymg]

3. There is a distinction made in the Foreign Intel Surveil. Act (FISA)

between "US persons" and "foreign persons" in the applicability of FISA warrants to terrorism and espionage. Communications between US persons, even internationally, require Title III (criminal) warrants and much higher standard of proof to obtain a warrant.

This ruling however seems to apply to all other federal laws where such a distinction is not made. That includes all other criminal conspiracies that I'm aware of, including those that might be of a political nature.

Anyone out there see it otherwise?

[unblock]

5. we're back from commercial and justice unblock has rendered his opinion

the law cannot constitutionally apply to conspiracy to commit a violation of foreign law.

first, it is turns standard international practice on its head by placing the american conspiracy act in front of the underlying foreign crime. that is, extradition to the foreign country to face charges on the foreign crime would seem to be the first thing.

second, as a practical matter, american courts would then be in the difficult position of needing to interpret the legality of actions in all foreign countries. this is not what our courts were set up to do.

[leveymg]

6. That's exactly the defense argument that was offered in this case.

Very good legal reasoning about limited applicability of US law abroad, but the Justices didn't go for it. Foreign law was violated here, but it was the corresponding US statute that was applied to convict, even though the harm was to an entity abroad. Note the blurring of the lines between US and foreign crimes.

[htuttle]

4. Does this cover foreign war crimes?

Seems odd that they'd go to such trouble to stay away from the ICC for fear of prosecution over war crimes, and then turn around and allow Americans to be charged with war crimes committed overseas in US courts.

For example, there are members of the current administration that have been charged with war crimes in Latin America from their activities during the Reagan/Bush years. Kissinger is another example. He can't travel to many countries for fear of arrest over his Cambodian adventures -- does this mean the FBI will be arresting him soon?

I'm sure they will exempt war crimes from this somehow (on the face of it, I don't see how, though).

[leveymg]

7. Under current law and treaty obligations, they should be prosecuted

in the US courts, as well. That particularly applies to violations of the Int'l treaties against torture and genocide, which explicitly call for each signatory state to arrest and prosecute offenders where the courts of any state in which the offense occurred are unwilling or unable to take appropriate action.

[unblock]

8. i'll bet the defendant didn't contribute enough to the republicans

had he paid his dues, then his legal arguments would have sounded more convincing to the supreme court....

[leveymg]

9. If he'd paid his dues to RNC, they'd have made him Ambassador

despite a conviction for bootlegging! Kinda like old Joe Kennedy -- (Shhh! He was a Democrat)