phranque
msg:3224559 | 5:49 am on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
that was pre U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act.
Maher Arar's case made a lot of noise on September 18, 2006 when the report was released regarding his detention at jfk in transit from egypt to canada.
|
activeco
msg:3224609 | 8:32 am on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| I find that a bit hard to believe |
|
LOL
|
nzmatt
msg:3224777 | 1:17 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| It's also the reason why duty free shops can exist on that side of the barrier - it is not legally part of the country. |
|
Give us a break! Are you saying that JFK runway is not considered on US soil, or in US legal jurisdiction? I guess we can all go and set up online casinos there then...
|
walkman
msg:3224802 | 1:39 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
>> Are you saying that JFK runway is not considered on US soil, or in US legal jurisdiction? not sure how the airport works, but embassies do work somewhat similarly, even though they are in another country.
|
rj87uk
msg:3224813 | 1:51 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Are you saying that JFK runway is not considered on US soil, or in US legal jurisdiction? |
|
Have you never seen The Terminal? <Thoughts> - They are daft for going to the US.
- The US should be jailing everyone for using the service.
- Who ever said about posting bombs to the US, well that doesn't work here as its the US citizens that are breaking the law by using such services.
- Interesting subject. </thoughts, reads on> [edited by: rj87uk at 1:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 19, 2007]
|
nzmatt
msg:3224815 | 1:53 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
maybe to some extent, but they are still subject to the laws of their jurisdiction, which is the point at issue here...
|
Rugles
msg:3224891 | 2:49 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
vince, it happened, still happens it was part of the helms-burton act google it and canadian and you will find a few stories i am sure you will find it when an international flight lands in the US, believe me, its passport time
|
Manga
msg:3225128 | 5:41 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
There was a case a few years ago where a Royal Bank of Canada executive was pulled off a plane, detained and threatened with prosecution because the US wanted information on bank account holders at a Royal Bank offshore branch, and the executive refused to give the information. The executive had committed no crime whatsoever, yet he was still treated like a criminal. He was eventualy released, but that does not change what happened.
|
activeco
msg:3225174 | 6:16 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0) |
C'mon, it's becoming silly.
Someone already noted something in this line: "If you become allmighty, you make your own laws." We can all play the game of being decent and civilized, but it is apparently not the reality if you're alone at the top, where you make the rules. [edited by: minnapple at 1:57 am (utc) on Jan. 20, 2007]
[edit reason] removed link [/edit]
|
walkman
msg:3227140 | 1:51 am on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0) |
looks like Britain made a horrible decision with the extradition treaty: The "Natwest 3" will soon be forgotten by the "Gaming 300." The US prosecutors are out for blood, crippling gaming sites apparently isn't enough. [business.timesonline.co.uk...]
"Subpoenas have been issued by the Southern District Court of New York to at least 16 banks, including HSBC, Dresdner Kleinwort, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank. The official demands for e-mails, telephone records and other documents form part of a controversial push by the Department of Justice (DoJ) to build cases against individuals and companies who profited from online gaming in the US. " "Another banker said: “This is a massive, ongoing fishing trip. Everyone — the bankers, the lawyers — who was involved in the IPOs or had ongoing business with these companies is in the same boat.” "
|
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 2 [3] ) |
|
|
