Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Chris H on 25 Jan 2010 04:10 In message <4b5b7c54$0$1677$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >>> Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>>> Savageduck >>> >>>>> Yeeeees, but all of this is still hypothetical, and there is still no >>>>> proof of intent to smuggle a weapon into Canada and possess it >>>>> illegally. >>>> >>>> They don't need to do that. >>>> You and your unlicensed firearm are in Canada. That is illegal. >>> >>> Technically no, it is not in Canada. People and goods are not in >>> Canada until they clear immigration and customs. >> >>Technically they are in Canada. > >Not according to the law. Airports set aside areas that are legally >outside of the host country. Having done counter terrorist work as a member of the military I can tell you that you are wrong. Those areas are "outside the country" for tax rules. Just as bonded warehouses are. It just simplifies the transit of goods though airports without needing to import and export. Thus saving a lot of paperwork, time and money. Passengers are accorded a similar sort of status in transit as well simply to make administration easier otherwise you would need visas for any airport you transited though. However these areas are absolutely part of the host country and subject to it's laws and LEA's. As any time the police and military can use whatever powers they have at any place in the airport. Actually as soon as the aircraft enters the countries airspace it, and it's passengers, are subject to local laws. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 25 Jan 2010 04:14 In message <2010012500530350073-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom >, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> writes >On 2010-01-24 02:57:14 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > >> They want to extradite him from another country (France or Switzerland?) >> to the USA. It has to be a crime in the country you want to extradite >> him *from*... > >Untrue. And it does not matter what the laws are anywhere else. It does for extradition >He broke the law in California. Yes. And the California law has no bearing anywhere else in the world. TO extradite the crime committed in California must also be a crime where you want to extradite him from. If for example it is illegal to paint a house green in London. I paint my house green and then go to the USA. The UK could not extradite me from the US to the UK because the USA would say "that is not a crime" That is how extradition works. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Savageduck on 25 Jan 2010 07:26 On 2010-01-25 03:18:21 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > In message <2010012502430844303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >> -------------------<Le Snip>---------------------------- >> Yes. And the California law has no bearing anywhere else in the >>> world. >>> TO extradite the crime committed in California must also be a crime >>> where you want to extradite him from. >>> If for example it is illegal to paint a house green in London. I >>> paint >>> my house green and then go to the USA. The UK could not extradite me >>> from the US to the UK because the USA would say "that is not a crime" >>> That is how extradition works. >> >> ...er no. > > Yes it is. Read your own law. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1 -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Chris H on 25 Jan 2010 09:35 In message <2010012504262217709-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >On 2010-01-25 03:18:21 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > >> In message <2010012502430844303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>> -------------------<Le Snip>---------------------------- > > >>> Yes. And the California law has no bearing anywhere else in the >>>> world. >>>> TO extradite the crime committed in California must also be a crime >>>> where you want to extradite him from. >>>> If for example it is illegal to paint a house green in London. I >>>> paint >>>> my house green and then go to the USA. The UK could not extradite me >>>> from the US to the UK because the USA would say "that is not a crime" >>>> That is how extradition works. >>> ...er no. >> Yes it is. > >Read your own law. > >http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1 Thanks... I thought I was right. :-) -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Savageduck on 25 Jan 2010 09:55
On 2010-01-25 06:15:06 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > In message <2010012504191033169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >> On 2010-01-25 03:18:21 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> There are several members of the CIA, US military and administration >>> that will have trouble travelling into Europe as they have been found >>> guilty by EU courts. There may be some interesting diplomatic >>> bargaining going on. >> >> Cite. > > Italy has issued warrants for 22 CIA staff. How come you did not know > this? > > Http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/07/cia_criminals_i.html > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/23/italy.warrants2/index.html So know we know. That wasn't difficult was it? You will note that none of the CIA staff have been identified, or appeared in any EU court to be found guilty. The reports were made in 2005 related to a 2003 kidnapping. It seems this warrant was depending on a former Bush administration CIA director to give up the identities and locations of the wanted individuals. This was back in 2005 when the Bush administration was not admitting to have done anything wrong, and I doubt that they have any intention to do so now. So, it seems until we are able to identify these "CIA agents" the warrants are more of a diplomatic protest that an actual effort to apprehend anybody. Any trial seems unlikely in the face of the Bush administration's refusal to admit U.S agent involvement. ....but I guess we shall see. -- Regards, Savageduck |