Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them with a crime? How is that possible?
> Files that demanded higher throughput, which meant that more users were accessing those files simultaneously, were stored on faster servers located in Washington, D.C. The preliminary analysis of the databases shows that the vast majority of files on these computers are infringing copies of copyrighted works.
Money talks. That's what's going on here.
That's how they were "able" to go after the corrupt FIFA officials.
"The country’s law enforcers claim the right to go after anyone using dollars, its banking system or its territory to plan or conduct an illegal act."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/ec...
If a law is universal to the point that you think charging non-citizens residing outside of your country is just, then I would expect that declaration to be recognized via a treaty or an agreement by the United Nations. No matter what you think of Kim Dotcom and others like him, the charges and approach by the US government to me do not seem like justice in any sense of the word.
While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the benefit of US citizens.
You did not, which is why I brought it up. What you said was that people should not be responsible for breaking laws they were not aware of in countries they don't live in. Which is true and I agree with that, but Kim knew full well what he was doing. Intent is 90% of the law, and Kim knew exactly what he was doing. He fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations for the benefit of US citizens.
>[that's assuming non-citizens] know and understand the laws of every other country in the world
is exactly what you said. There's no assumption needed here. You don't have to assume Kim knew the laws of other countries. He knew. Intent is a very important factor here, which is why I brought it up. It was something missing from your argument.
Thats exactly what the NSA said about spying. "Your Constitutional rights apply to you only on US soil. One step off US soil and the law doesn't apply anymore."
You mean the eyes of the US government. The citizens aren't out there killing foreign nationals. Saying US citizens are responsible for extra-judicial killings is like saying Muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks. It's wrong and it's offensive.
I'm willing to bet that no one voted for President Obama specifically because he wanted to use drones to kill suspected terrorists without attempting to arrest them first. He came up with that idea on his own. Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.
How's that defense working for an ISIS funder?
"Oh, I didn't send the money for bombs, I sent it for their work with children..."