N.J. Businessman Will Be Tried In Sex Tourism Case

WCBSTV.COM ^ | 15 JULY 2007 | AP

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

OK if this is posted in News/Activism? It does deal with Constitutional questions, after all.

[Recon Dad]

Every day I pray for the return of Paul Kersey.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Mark Geragos, the high-profile lawyer representing Bianchi,

Thats enough evidence for me, Bianchi is guilty!

[lepton]

This is an interesting aspect of law. I have no sympathy for these folks - and likely many of them should be made dead - but in what way does this law have authority? The best I can see for it is that if we have evidence, that we turn these folks over to the country where the offenses occur. Problem there, is that these Crimes aren’t always enforced even when clearly known, or even illegal in the countries in question.

[Tall_Texan]

It’s an alternative lifestyle. Why would you want to punish a man who just wants to express his love? < /major sarc>

[mgstarr]

The majority in the 9th Circuit case found the law to be an appropriate extension of the Constitution's Foreign Commerce Clause, since money changed hands.

I'm sure there was some interesting logic used here.

[Recovering Hermit]

The translator, Ion Gusin, is serving a 20-year sentence in Moldova on related charges, and won't be available to testify in person in Philadelphia.

Now on the receiving end for the next 20 years.

I hope it hurts...a lot.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[Seven years ago, Russian courts convicted a wealthy American motel owner of molesting children and sent him to prison, but later decided to just expel him.]

I can only $peculate a$ to how thi$ deci$ion came to pa$$.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“It is a very unusual theory to say that you can prosecute an American citizen in this country for actions taken completely in another country,” said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department official who is now a University of California law professor. “This is not a crime against America, although it’s a crime against universal morality.”

The people who do this stuff are scumbags...

...but I have to agree with the judge.

I don’t see how the prosecutors have standing.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

Thought you’d find the legal stuff interesting in this thread.

[Scotsman will be Free]

The man is a scumbag and should be tried in the country whose laws he violated. Using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to try Americans violating the law in other parts of the world is a crock.

[RedStateRocker]

I worry that the Ninth Circus has ulterior motives here. Worry- hell, I’m sure of it.

[Jeff Chandler]

Democrats Gone Wild!

[isom35]

http://img.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_037184736/lg

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

"The statement you're making when you don't do that is that the governments are so corrupt they can't do it. To me, that's sort of paternalistic."

Uhhhh, that objection is a non-starter. Many of those countries are so corrupt they can't do it...

[nyyankeefan]

N.J. Businessman Will Be Tried In Sex Tourism Case...

business as usual in the peoples’ republic of nj...

fawhgettaboutit!!!!

[Lorianne]

I would rather he were tried in the country or countries of the offenses. And I don’t think the the USA should protect him from prosecution in other countries.

When you travel, it is incumbent on you to abide by the laws of the country you visit.

I’d rather he rot in a Moldovian prison.

[rabscuttle385]

Democrats Gone Wild!

I think that they may have been wild to begin with.

[SauronOfMordor]

The man is a scumbag and should be tried in the country whose laws he violated. Using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to try Americans violating the law in other parts of the world is a crock.

The "PROTECT" Act makes it a criminal offense for a resident of the US to travel to a foreign country and engage in sex with someone under 18 EVEN IF THE ACT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE COUNTRY WHERE IT OCCURRED

The PROTECT law states:

‘‘(b) TRAVEL WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT.—A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

‘‘(e) ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY.—Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.

‘‘(f) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term ‘illicit sexual conduct’ means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

So if you traveled to country X, where age of consent was, for example, 17, and had sex with a 17 year old hooker, and this act was completely legal in country X, then regardless of that you would be subject to 30 years in prison

If you bought a plane ticket to Country X, and sent an email saying you were going there to "party with the young ladies", you might find yourself arrested.