[Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

[Razer]

On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:

>
> 	...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
> 	would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
> 	american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
> 	subjection has little to do with which point in space the
> 	subjects might be accidentaly occupying.


I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least)
are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US
government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where
they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in
the US.

Rr

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside
>> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly
>> says so.
> 
> 
>>  The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
> 
> 	A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has
> 	no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in
> 	territories 'belonging' to other mafias. 
> 
> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction    I am
>> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these
>> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign
>> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the
>> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the
>> law.  
> 
> 
> 	...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
> 	would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
> 	american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
> 	subjection has little to do with which point in space the
> 	subjects might be accidentaly occupying. 
> 
> 
> 	If an american subject says something the government doesn't
> 	like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be
> 	considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask
> 	snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US
> 	mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something
> 	the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy
> 	combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon. 
> 
> 	Oh, look here...
> 
> 
> 	"Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" 
> 
> 
> 	https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf
> 
> 	http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combatants/
> 	
> 	"Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the
>> relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of
>> such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law
>> anticipated this.  (In part, because American law doesn't usually
>> pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the
>> freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell
>> this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced
>> attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the
>> information LEGALLY, possibly outside America.        Jim Bell
>>
>> From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding
>> fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have
>> jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case,
>> Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the
>> "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this
>> judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries.
>> American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the
>> years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows
>> foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal
>> courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of
>> nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for
>> many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow
>> foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in
>> foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v.
>> National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in
>> interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality"
>> is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says
>> otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free
>> encyclopedia"
>>
>>
>>   
>> |  
>> |   
>> |   
>> |   |    |
>>
>>    |
>>
>>   |
>> |  
>> |   |  
>> Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>    |   |
>>
>>   |
>>
>>   |
>>
>>  ×   
>>
>>    
>