On 12/14/01 5:46 AM, eaerme at newnorth.net thus spake:
>Okay, "if" Dmitry is permitted to return to Russia; what is preventing
>him from just ignoring the U.S. charges once he's on his home soil?
While I agree with you that my gvmt is arrogantly applying
extraterritoriality of it's (unconstitutional) law(s) to foreign
nationals, and that this is, using Bushie's newly discovered word,
"preposterous", I don't think the DOJ has much to worry about here. Very
simply, from what I've seen, Dimtry is an honorable man, and will appear
because he said he would. Unlike our elected officials, he is a man of
his word; if he says he'll be there, then come hell or high water he'll
be there. Perhaps the DOJ has realized this, or perhaps they simply want
to find a way out without looking any stupider than they already do.
Whichever the case may be, and I wouldn't lay bets on either one, is
irrelevant. Dimtry goes home, as does his family, and he is released from
these ridiculous accusations.
While this starts to veer off topic, I am concerned for Alex K. in
this situation. He too has a family in Moscow, and because he isn't as
high profile as Dimitry, and because he is allowed to leave the US if
desired, his family is unlikely to be granted a visa. So, if he can't
afford to fly back and forth at the whims of the DOJ, he and his family
lose out, and he becomes a de facto prisoner in this country. Again, a
wholly inappropriate entity to challenge the constitutionality of the
DMCA.
Peace,
Edmund A. Hintz **|** "You may say I'm a dreamer,
Mac Techie, Unix Geek, * | * But I'm not the only one...
Mac/Unix Consultant * /|\ * I hope someday you'll join us,
<ed at hintz.org> */ | \* And the world will live as one.
'78 Westy ***** Imagine."
http://www.hintz.org