[free-sklyarov] Dual Moralism

[Jei]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been determined to be legal for
FBI agent's to hack into foreign computers to get evidence? I.e. it is
now legal for them to break the laws of other countries to get results
and their work done. 

I believe some Russian hackers were lured to US, where their keystrokes
and passwords were logged, and used to break into Russian servers to get
the evidence against them. The FBI agents who committed the crime, are
still running free and unaccused.

And as Dmitry Sklyarov's case is showing, a foreigner is now being tried
for something he did in Russia and that was legal there, and now stands
arrested and accused for it in the USA. (Writing a decryption program for
some files and giving a speech about it.)

I am wondering how much more blatant do things need to go?

America is showing incredible disrespect for the laws of other
countries, as well as the basic civil and human rights of any
non-americans.

> <http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman103.html>
> 
> Gross Usurpation of Power
> 
> by David Dieteman
...

> The guarantee of due process of law is universal in its application 
> to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of a state or the 
> United States, without regard to any differences of race, color, or 
> nationality, when they have come within the territory of the United 
> States and have developed substantial connections with this country. 
> 16B Am. Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 928; U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 
> 494 U.S. 259, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1064 (1990).
> 
> As a matter of international law, it may be argued that, if the 
> foreign state consents to American exercise of such power overseas, 
> i.e., if Afghanistan consents to an American Star Chamber handing out 
> death sentences to Afghans, then such power is legitimately 
> exercised. This would be a matter of treaty, or other such 
> international agreement.
> 
> Such a new policy, however, would be contrary to what is arguably an 
> evolving norm of international law, i.e., utilizing international 
> tribunals to try war criminals. In the case of Nuremberg, Rwanda, and 
> the former Yugoslavia, international tribunals were established to 
> handle war crimes. These tribunals have been attacked as conducting 
> mere show trials, which is bad enough. The Bush administration 
> complains, however, that international tribunals do not administer 
> the death penalty.
> 
> This is disturbing, even if possibly allowed under international law. 
> Recall that last week, the Justice Department authorized the 
> wiretapping of conversations between prisoners and their attorneys. 
> So much for attorney-client privilege.
> 
> What's next: wiretaps in the confessional?
> 
> And another question: remember Senator Kerrey? So much for quick 
> justice when an American is accused. What if Vietnam were a 
> superpower seeking to impose a Star Chamber on a feeble and 
> impoverished United States? Does might make right? To some people, it 
> seems that it does.
> 
> Note: with respect to Senator Kerrey, and to the Afghan war, I 
> continue to have grave reservations about international criminal 
> tribunals. A military tribunal would be appropriate for Kerrey 
> because he is accused of crimes while a member of the armed forces; 
> that is within the jurisdiction of a military tribunal. In addition, 
> I would not object if those foreigners seized by the United States in 
> the war on terrorism were tried in U.S. civil courts; that is within 
> the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The problem with President 
> Bush's order is that it simply ignores the Constitutional limits on 
> executive power.
> 
> The due process of law is not given when the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth 
> Amendments are simply ignored. As Justice Davis wrote in Ex parte 
> Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866),
> 
> 
> Certainly no part of judicial power of the country was conferred on 
> them, because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme 
> court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time 
> ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission 
> was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify 
> on the mandate of the President, because he is controlled by law, and 
> has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, 
> the laws, and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort 
> can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
> 
> 
> To be blunt, President Bush has no authority under the U.S. 
> Constitution to make such an order. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
> 
> Albert Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, claimed that 
> there was precedent for the order. Indeed there is. It is bad 
> precedent.
...