I'm starting to wonder just how much jurisdiction a nation has in enforcing its laws abroad. How much jurisdiction *should* a nation have in ensuring that its laws are followed?

Consider a few cases:
-Easy: The United States chases down and catches people in southern asia who are 'sex tourists' and pedophiles. The perpetrators are generally adults victimizing children. Is this out of US jurisdiction? Should it be? Do you have a problem with US going after sex tourist pedophiles in foreign countries?
-Medium: The United States would love to get its hands on Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. I guess it's against US law to diviluge US secrets. Julian Assange and his organization have broken US laws by releasing secret military and diplomatic documents. What Mr. Assange did is illegal in America, but he wasn't in America. Does the US have the right to build a case, chase him down and prosecute him for breaking US laws?
-Hard: Pakistan has "Blasphemy laws" where it's illegal to say anything negative about Islam or Prophet Muhammad. If someone abroad breaks their blasphemy law, does Pakistan have the right to build a case, extradite and prosecute the blasphemer?
-Hard: Iran recently hung a couple Iranian website developers for creating and hosting porn sites in Iran. Would Iran have jurisdiction if the porno sites were developed and hosted abroad but accessible in Iran? What if they were hosted in Iran but developed abroad? Or, developed in Iran but hosted abroad? Should an American porn site admin worry about Iran (granted, US and Iran don't share extradition rights)?

I'm a bit troubled. I have no trouble with US agents going abroad to catch pedophiles in Southeast Asia, but that's because I find the act morally reprehensible. I can imagine an Islamic double of myself feeling the same way in Pakistan in regards to blasphemy of the Prophet Muhammad. But I don't think I ought to be extradited and prosecuted in Pakistan for breaking their blasphemy law, so it seems that there'd be a double standard if I support the US chasing pedophiles in southeast asia.

Should I have cause to worry about breaking the laws of foreign countries? The Internet confuses this even more: Suppose I post a deeply offensive caricature of the Prophet Muhammad which would put the Danish cartoon caricature to shame. If I post the picture to a server hosted in Pakistan but live in America, maybe I'm in legal trouble? (aside from the obvious death threats and foreign vigilantes)

What do you think?

Should I have cause to worry about breaking the laws of foreign countries?[/quote]
Sure. In practice, breaking laws of a country you are not physically in is hard. You cannot hit and run someone in a far away country if you are not there.

It actually reminds me of an advice given for driving in Indonesia. If a tourist is involved in a traffic accident, it's their fault. Why? If they weren't there, the accident wouldn't occur. And it kinda makes sense.

The Internet confuses this even more:[/quote]Not really. Host country sets the laws and companies operating telecommunication services are subject to those where they are registered. In addition, owners of facilities that physically host such equipment are subject to telecommunication regulations. It's all very clear, just a lot of it, and almost every country has their own rules.

If I post the picture to a server hosted in Pakistan but live in America, maybe I'm in legal trouble?[/quote]Yes. The servers are subject to laws of country they are located in.

For actual details see Extradition. As noted, there are many more agreements going well beyond country laws. Citizens of first world countries are generally not extradited by their own countries or at least for some types of crimes.

This is one of reasons why companies have reservations towards cloud computing. They can never be entirely sure on where their data will be physically located and it may inadvertently breach local laws. That can be any law, from county, state, province, region, international treaty, .... It's also one of reasons why companies dislike their employees posting without control on the internet. it can go wrong in many ways, but violating various laws is probably one of reasons as well.

I have no trouble with US agents going abroad[/quote]Actually, you should.

I deliberately didn't quote alleged crime, but every agency has only jurisdiction over their own country. Unless there is a treaty in place allowing such actions between two countries, actions like this can, technically at least, be classified as act of war or espionage.

Think about it - how would you feel if (CountryX) special forces (not police) suddenly barged into your home, arrested you and flew you away?

At most, such arrests are made by local police and people arrested are then handed off at airport or at some other suitable location.

-Easy: The United States chases down and catches people in southern asia who are 'sex tourists' and pedophiles. The perpetrators are generally adults victimizing children. Is this out of US jurisdiction? Should it be? Do you have a problem with US going after sex tourist pedophiles in foreign countries?

That is a rather simplified version of what is actually happening.
1. The USA agents work with the local law enforcement agencies and local NGOs (such as Action Pour Les Enfants, in Cambodia) to gather information on US citizens suspected of criminal activity who are then arrested by the local law enforcement. Once arrested the locals can choose to prosecute or deport. In these cases they choose to deport knowing that these individuals will be prosecuted in the US and will receive a much more severe punishment than they would within the local criminal prosecution system.
2. Jurisdiction - You are subject to a countries jurisdiction if you are within its territory or if you are a citizen of that country. In this case the US passed specific laws (the Protect Act of 2003) which makes it illegal for a US citizen to engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad. This means that these individuals have broken not just local laws but a specific US law which they are subject to.

-Medium: The United States would love to get its hands on Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. I guess it's against US law to diviluge US secrets. Julian Assange and his organization have broken US laws by releasing secret military and diplomatic documents. What Mr. Assange did is illegal in America, but he wasn't in America. Does the US have the right to build a case, chase him down and prosecute him for breaking US laws?[/quote]
Again an oversimplification.
It is only against US law if you are subject to US law meaning that you are within US territory or are a US citizen when you commit the act. Julian Assange is/was neither and therefore hasn't committed a crime under US law (or at least none that anyone in the US can actually point to). Nor has he broken any local laws in relation to Wikileaks (that anyone has been able to point out) so local law enforcement can't arrest him either. The US soldier who leaked the information is a different matter. As a US citizen and serving soldier he is subject to US jurisdiction and will likely be prosecuted and probably trip and fall down a staircase or two.

-Hard: Pakistan has "Blasphemy laws" where it's illegal to say anything negative about Islam or Prophet Muhammad. If someone abroad breaks their blasphemy law, does Pakistan have the right to build a case, extradite and prosecute the blasphemer?[/quote]
Why is this hard when the Julian Assange case is Medium? They are exactly the same and the same answer applies. A Pakistani citizen would be subject to their jurisdiction (unless Pakistani law specifically differs in that regard) while a non-citizen outside their territory would not. If they were seeking to repatriate a Pakistani citizen to face trial it would be no different that what the US is doing above.

In both cases it would be a breach of international law for either state to remove the individuals from another country except via an existing extradition process which would require them to show that a law was broken and that they have jurisdiction in the matter.

-Hard: Iran recently hung a couple Iranian website developers for creating and hosting porn sites in Iran. Would Iran have jurisdiction if the porno sites were developed and hosted abroad but accessible in Iran? What if they were hosted in Iran but developed abroad? Or, developed in Iran but hosted abroad? Should an American porn site admin worry about Iran (granted, US and Iran don't share extradition rights)?[/quote]
While I am certainly no expert on Iranian law the answers are most likely, yes, yes and no for exactly the same reasons as above.
In many countries it is illegal to import or distribute pornography. That is what you do when you allow people from a country to access your servers. An Iranian citizen would almost certainly be subject to prosecution. Likewise a foreign national could be found guilty under Iranian law but would be unlikely to travel to Iran where they would face arrest and possible punishment.

Online gambling companies face the same issues when dealing with international customers. I can access an online Poker site from the UK where it is legal but it is illegal to access the same site from Hong Kong. For this reason the company bars access for people in Hong Kong (more specifically I can access the site and play non-money games but can't play for-money games). The case of the UK company Betonsports is a good example. (See http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/5187520.stm and http://en.wikipedia....iki/BetonSports). They were an overseas business but they were allowing US citizens to access their site from the US. That was a breach of US law and one of the directors was arrested when he travelled through the US on route to the Costa Rica. They also extradited other directors of the company (which would require that they show some evidence that indicated that US law had been breached) and prosecuted them.

I'm a bit troubled. I have no trouble with US agents going abroad to catch pedophiles in Southeast Asia, but that's because I find the act morally reprehensible. I can imagine an Islamic double of myself feeling the same way in Pakistan in regards to blasphemy of the Prophet Muhammad. But I don't think I ought to be extradited and prosecuted in Pakistan for breaking their blasphemy law, so it seems that there'd be a double standard if I support the US chasing pedophiles in southeast asia. [/quote]
But that is because you don't share Muslim morals. To a Muslim blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad is also a morally reprehensible act. Maybe not as bad as paedophilia but still morally wrong. Would you still be troubled if Pakistan was seeking to punish Pakistani citizens for travelling abroad to have sex with minors? A more difficult mental jump to make - If you were a paedophile who believed that what you were doing is morally OK would you still be as unconcerned by the US actions in Asia? Morals are relative.

Hmm, what an insightful post. I guess that answers all of my questions and all I can say in response is "Thanks!".

-Medium: The United States would love to get its hands on Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. I guess it's against US law to diviluge US secrets. Julian Assange and his organization have broken US laws by releasing secret military and diplomatic documents. What Mr. Assange did is illegal in America, but he wasn't in America. Does the US have the right to build a case, chase him down and prosecute him for breaking US laws?

Not to be overly pedantic, but I do feel that this is an important point. I'm not so sure anybody connected to Wikileaks could be found guilty under US laws even if they were US citizens and had acted while in US territories. Whistleblower laws are a tricky subject, but when you really take a hard look at the facts, Wikileaks is no different than any other media, e.g. the various newspapers affiliated with the release, that reported on the military and diplomatic documents.

What would probably happen is that the government would do their best trying to build a case and go to court. After a long and very, very expensive legal battle, there would ultimately be no convinction - provided that whoever is the target of the court could afford to pay sufficiently good lawyers.

For the person who actually did the leaking, the situation is obviously different.

Exactly. Wikileaks is a perfect example of the new media that the internet allows for. People able to publish without being part of Megaglobal Corp newsgroup. Apart from the sheer bulk of information there is no difference between them and a newspaper revealing similar information that a government might not want revealed.

What Julian [color="#1C2837"]Assange did was to release classified US documents. This is an act of espionage. If the country he was located in either did not have espionage laws or didn't have an extradition treaty with the US, then he is safe. However, he DID break US laws as well as the laws of the country he was operating in and there are [color="#1C2837"]extradition treaties in place. As such, he can be extradited to the US to face trial. [color="#333333"][font="Arial, sans-serif"]Bradley Manning[/font] is a [color="#1C2837"]co-conspirator. He and Julian could face the same charges, but it is easier with Manning since he is a US citizen, on US soil in US custody.
[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]If I post a picture of a rock and call it [color="#1C2837"]Muhammad, there are two things that need to happen for me to be extradited to any Muslim country for trial. First, the US would have to repeal the first amendment. Second, we would have to have an extradition treaty with the country requesting extradition. In this case, I would be safe even if point #2 exists because of point #1. However, if I did this in a Muslim country, then I am bound by the laws of the country I am in and all the US can do is request that I be released or ask for leniency.

[color="#1C2837"]It gets murky when the "crime" was committed by a citizen of a foreign country on US soil. In a citizen of a Muslim country in the US were to post a picture of a rock and call it [color="#1C2837"]Muhammad, that person *COULD* be extradited (assuming there is a treaty in place) to their home country to face trial. However, application of the US Constitution to foreign nationals is complex and murky. Technically, there is nothing in the US Constitution that specifically allows for the application of the protections within to be applied to anyone other than US citizens, but we would have a hard time sending someone to their guaranteed death for a right we enjoy and protect with our lives.

[color="#1C2837"]International law is a nightmare!

[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1296857046' post='4769736']
-Medium: The United States would love to get its hands on Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. I guess it's against US law to diviluge US secrets. Julian Assange and his organization have broken US laws by releasing secret military and diplomatic documents. What Mr. Assange did is illegal in America, but he wasn't in America. Does the US have the right to build a case, chase him down and prosecute him for breaking US laws?

Not to be overly pedantic, but I do feel that this is an important point. I'm not so sure anybody connected to Wikileaks could be found guilty under US laws even if they were US citizens and had acted while in US territories. Whistleblower laws are a tricky subject, but when you really take a hard look at the facts, Wikileaks is no different than any other media, e.g. the various newspapers affiliated with the release, that reported on the military and diplomatic documents.

What would probably happen is that the government would do their best trying to build a case and go to court. After a long and very, very expensive legal battle, there would ultimately be no convinction - provided that whoever is the target of the court could afford to pay sufficiently good lawyers.

For the person who actually did the leaking, the situation is obviously different.
[/quote]

I have to say that Wikileaks is very different from a news media channel. A newspaper or similar has its goal of providing news. Wikileaks has its goal of providing access to illegally obtained classified information. I'm sure some people would come back with the argument that it is merely focused on a single sector of news, but we're not talking about a magazine about model railroads, we are talking about something with the sole purpose of existing being to aid a series of illegal acts.