Doesn't seem right to me--either in terms of what is legally correct or in terms of what is ethical/moral/appropriate. But if Volokh says it's a fair cop on the law, then it's a fair cop on the law. That leaves intact the thought that it's wrong in other ways--for one, there's a weird double jeopardy here, in that a US citizen in another country must abide by the laws of that country (even if his own laws would allow his conduct) but also abide by the laws of his own country (even if the laws of the country in which he is travelling or residing would allow that conduct).
So do I have to obey US speed limits while driving in other countries? etc.?
In practical terms, this will have zero influence on me--I'll smoke Cubans if I'm in Canada or England or elsewhere. How are they going to catch me, given that the incriminating evidence disappears in the act of consuming it? That also seems an important point: insisting on trying to enforce a completely unenforceable law always seems to me to breed contempt for the very idea of law.
Agreed on all counts. I would guess that you only have to obey US laws that are explicitly written to govern conduct abroad: otherwise, the language "clarifying" the restriction would be redundant. Still, the potential for conflict isn't hard to see. Very strange.
Well, if you want real cuban cigars in Mexico, for instance, you're best off going to the Habanos shop. If you use your charge card there - whammo! It's all part of the drive to criminalize everything. For your safety, of course.
This falls into the category of supporting the regime economically, which US citizens are not permitted to do. If they can make it illegal to travel there, as they have outside of very limited circumstances, then it's no stretch to extend the boycott against Cuban products to US citizens abroad.
This may be a dumb question--but if the U.S. couldn't constrain citizens abroad, wouldn't it be legal to travel abroad and then sell state secrets? Which it had better not be.
This is not to defend this ruling in any way. I think the embargo stinks, and this application of it stinks worse.
I also think Timothy B is right about the unenforceability.
An easier example to accept: the U.S. laws against bribing foreign governments--the one that has Halliburton squirming because of some irregular transactions a few years ago in Nigeria. In three years' time we can substitute Iraq for Nigeria. Or Azerbaijan. Or wherever the lid slips off long enough to let the truth out.
News to me, as well.
Doesn't seem right to me--either in terms of what is legally correct or in terms of what is ethical/moral/appropriate. But if Volokh says it's a fair cop on the law, then it's a fair cop on the law. That leaves intact the thought that it's wrong in other ways--for one, there's a weird double jeopardy here, in that a US citizen in another country must abide by the laws of that country (even if his own laws would allow his conduct) but also abide by the laws of his own country (even if the laws of the country in which he is travelling or residing would allow that conduct).
So do I have to obey US speed limits while driving in other countries? etc.?
In practical terms, this will have zero influence on me--I'll smoke Cubans if I'm in Canada or England or elsewhere. How are they going to catch me, given that the incriminating evidence disappears in the act of consuming it? That also seems an important point: insisting on trying to enforce a completely unenforceable law always seems to me to breed contempt for the very idea of law.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 10-12-04 2:39 PM
Agreed on all counts. I would guess that you only have to obey US laws that are explicitly written to govern conduct abroad: otherwise, the language "clarifying" the restriction would be redundant. Still, the potential for conflict isn't hard to see. Very strange.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-12-04 2:48 PM
Well, if you want real cuban cigars in Mexico, for instance, you're best off going to the Habanos shop. If you use your charge card there - whammo! It's all part of the drive to criminalize everything. For your safety, of course.
Posted by LarryB | Link to this comment | 10-12-04 3:44 PM
This falls into the category of supporting the regime economically, which US citizens are not permitted to do. If they can make it illegal to travel there, as they have outside of very limited circumstances, then it's no stretch to extend the boycott against Cuban products to US citizens abroad.
Posted by Jonathan Dresner | Link to this comment | 10-12-04 4:31 PM
Uncle Sam: Hey Castro! Just look at how many Americans we'll imprison! How does that make you feel!?!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-12-04 10:12 PM
This may be a dumb question--but if the U.S. couldn't constrain citizens abroad, wouldn't it be legal to travel abroad and then sell state secrets? Which it had better not be.
This is not to defend this ruling in any way. I think the embargo stinks, and this application of it stinks worse.
I also think Timothy B is right about the unenforceability.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10-13-04 10:51 AM
I wonder if John Kerry will work on building a broad-based international coalition to help support our boycott of Cuba.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-14-04 1:51 AM
An easier example to accept: the U.S. laws against bribing foreign governments--the one that has Halliburton squirming because of some irregular transactions a few years ago in Nigeria. In three years' time we can substitute Iraq for Nigeria. Or Azerbaijan. Or wherever the lid slips off long enough to let the truth out.
Posted by Henry | Link to this comment | 10-16-04 1:27 AM