Ok couple of questions. I have read the Walker Indictment and have a question of US DOJ Jurisdiction on one of the charges. He is charged in the tenth count of possesion of a firearm and destructive device during an act of violance. All the other charges directly affect the US (specifically Sept 11) but how does the US have jurisdiction on an act that has zero effect on US and was commited on foreign soil? On the same token the US will Be prosecuting the guy who broke into the cockpit of a jetliner in Argentine Airspace? Can the US prosecute under federal law an act that is in violation of it anywhere in the world even if it is on foreign soil and does not directly effect the US? This is not an excuse for walkers actions I think he should be hung as a traitor but just questioning the jurisdiction of this specific charge.

We own the world.........thus jurisdiction.

The United States has really impressed me with how it applies some laws to persons living abroad. Case in point. If you emmigrate to another country and acquire citizenship THERE, you are liable to pay the taxes that country requires, but the IRS requires you to continue to pay tax on that money earned abroad, HERE in the USA for 4 years after you leave.

In Walkers case I think he will be executed. It will be interesting to read the death warrant, (if we are allowed)but yes, its a deal not entirely based on laws that have been already written.

The Argentine Airspace question is an easy one. Crimes committed aboard an American flagged aircraft are considered to have occurred on American soil. Same as American flagged ships.

As for the others, all I know is that congress has specifically made many crimes committed against Americans anywhere in the world, as being under American court jurisdiction.

The Supreme court has ruled that it doesn’t matter how the government captures a suspect overseas. All they have to do is present him to a valid American court.

I read in the NYT last week that if a crime is committed overseas, then the federal court for the place the defendant first enters the US has jurisdiction. That is why the military jet carrying Walker landed at civilian Dulles airport in Va., rather than the more customary military airport in the DC area, Andrews AFB in Md.  

Maybe one of the attorneys here will chime in. I’d like to know the answer myself.

Mike

Well, since he was attacking US Forces, I believe that makes the difference. But that is treason, not violating any other law, like possesion of a DD.
This is Constitutionally speaking, btw. As we all know, the gov't doesn't give a hoot about the COnstitution.

Do your homework libby.  He was fighting Northern Alliance troops when captured.  You also regularly misinterpret the Constitution to fit your arguments of the moment.  

The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law.  Your proclamations to the contrary are meaningless drivel.  

I still don't understand how Walker can be charged with firearms violations that allegedly took place [b]outside[/b] American territory.  It's bizarre.

Jurisdiction is just another name for power.  If you have the power, you have jurisdiction.

Some U.S. laws explicitly apply everywhere, and would be enforceable on Mars if we could get a Marshall there.  Where in the constitution is jurisdiction limited to U.S. shores?

Where is the Interstate/Foreign Commerce Nexus ? The Destructive Device never entered the United States...so, it never entered US Commerce. Therefore, the US doesn't have juristdiction.

The purpose of law is to keep disputes from being settled purely on the basis of power.  


Such as...?


It isn't a matter of constitutional law, it's a matter of international law.  

If American gun laws are going to applied to Afghanistan, does that mean that the Japanese can apply their gun laws here?  

Items do not have to travel in interstate/foreign commerce to be regulated.  They only have to [b]effect[/b] interstate/foreign commerce.  The effect can be minimal and is looked at cumulatively.  If I grow a potato in my backyard to feed to my family, I am engaging in interstate commerce because this will cause me to buy one less potato at the grocery store, which will cause one less potato to be imported to my state from Idaho.  And thousands of other people are growing potatoes in their back yards.  So Congress can regulate my growing a potato, even though that potato will never cross state lines or enter commerce.  As Congress can regulate interstate/foreign commerce, it is "necessary and proper" to regulate those things which effect interstate/foreign commerce.

So what is outside interstate/foreign commerce?  Basically nothing.  The Supreme Court is carving out a few exceptions where there are issues of state sovereignty, but there is no reason to apply that doctrine to foreign sovereignty.  I am not saying all of this is right, but it is the law as currently interpreted.

There may be other grounds for jurisdiction too.

I am not sure where that quote you cited came from.  That is not part of the constitution; it might be part of the statute in question, which may limit the law's applicability, but it is not a restriction on Congress' power.

The quote is Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921, Subsection (a), Paragraph (2) of the US Code.

Chapter 44 of Title 18 is the Chapter governing Firearms. Chapter 53 or Title 26 govverns the transfer and possession of NFA Firearms...but, the rules regarding acts of violence with NFA firearms are found in 18 USC 44 Sec. 930. Their grounds for jusristdiction is most likely that they somehow claim juristdiction over the Masar-E-Sharif Prison where he took part in the uprising. But, the prsion was on Afghan Soil, being owned and operated by Afghans to house Afghan POWS.

No, the SC's interpretation is valid for that case only. It can be used as precedent, but it really only applies in that specific instance. It is not law, only a decision.
And let me ask you this: if the SC ruled that there is no right to keep and bear arms absent serving in the NG or the Military, and that confiscation is constitutional, even from former military personal, you would follow that? I sure as hell won't. Then it is time to lock and load, because tyranny would be right behind that decision.
"Meaningless drivel"? Great argument there Dave. Way to be intelligent.

More sophomoric, meaningless drivel...

When you consider the fact that this potentially has consequences for anyone here, it is most certainly not drivel.

Scenario:  While on vacation overseas, a friend invites you to play with his toys--full auto weapons that are not restricted in his country.  Happily, you head out and spend a day at the range.

On returning home, you are arrested at the airport, for violation of 18USC 922(o) aka "Possession of an unregistered machinegun."

I'm not saying it's [B]LIKELY[/B] that this would be done to anyone, but if that charge against walker stands, and is upheld on appeal, it is [B]POSSIBLE[/B].  Think about it.

Unfortunately, those who despise freedom will sometimes tack on a ridiculous charge that goes well beyond the limits of law. They are hoping that they can get a conviction and therfore have an actual case when they arrest the next  guy to back up their opinion.

Once again Dave you have taken yourself a little too seriously. Let your guard down a little, and just let your personality flow out. The rest of the group is willing to hear your issues without condemnation. Please stop hiding behind that steel badge or I'll see to it that the staff increases your meds. No one is a cop here.

Well, if you'd just quit posting it. . . .