Next time you are considering going for a spin in the Pacific Ocean, in International waters, in a semi-submersible that is not registered to any country, that is not going any where, better think twice. As it turns out, you can be prosecuted in the District Court, in Florida (which last time I checked was not even in the Pacific).
Turns out that the "High Seas Clause" of our Constitution allows almost universal jurisdiction if you are doing something that most nations would consider bad:
"Given Congress’s findings, the “protective principle” of international law provides an equally compelling reason to uphold the DTVIA. Under that principle, a nation may “assert jurisdiction over a person whose conduct outside the nation’s territory threatens the nation’s security or could potentially interfere with the operation of its governmental functions.” United States v. Gonzalez, 776F.2d 931, 938 (11th Cir. 1985). “The protective principle does not require thatthere be proof of an actual or intended effect inside the United States.” Id. at 939. Those who engage in conduct the DTVIA targets threaten our nation’s security by evading detection while using submersible vessels to smuggle illegal drugs or other contraband, such as illegal weapons, from one country to another, and often into the United States....
...
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Congress acted properly within its constitutional authority under the High Seas Clause in passing the DTVIA. The fact that defendants are challenging the constitutionality of a statute other than the MDLEA does not alter our conclusion about the scope of Congress’s power under the High Seas Clause. See Estupinan, 453 F.3d at 1338. We declined to embellish one statute passed under the High Seas Clause with a nexus requirement. We now decline defendants’ invitation to rewrite the Constitution to create one."
No comments:
Post a Comment