Printable View
This is not a troll here. I.ve read it on the other sex forum. The guy posted 2 guys have been aressted going to Colombia for the sex, taking pictures of naked women. The reports states men going to COLOMBIA FOR SEX will be arrested. Any truth to this? Somthing to do w/ U.N crackdown on sex tourism. I'll leave my camara behind then. I'm leaving in 2 weeks . Help me out guys on this.
How could they possible enforce that? Especially with a digital camera with all the pictures stored on a small card that could fit into your wallet?
Travel for the purpose of having sex with someone under 18, if you are a US citizen, is illegal. Nude photos of someone under 18 cannot be brought into the US. Very graphic hard-core photos may also present a problem. Tasteful nude photos are no problem.
My question is how would they ever find a small card in your wallet? In my years of travelling to many different countries, my wallet has never, not even once been looked in.
Also, is that the exact wording of the law 'for the purpose of sex with someone under 18' - if so, what if it's not the 'purpose', but happens anyway?? You know 'I swear judge the purpose was business, the girl was a bonus!'
And, this doesn't make alot of sense to me anyway, not saying that it's not true though because many US laws make little to no sense to me.
The age of consent in different states varies greatly, many if not most are actually under 18 (16 or 17). So what about that? Is the 'federal' law 18? If so what's the precident for that?
Doesn't matter a whole lot to me though, for one I stick to 18+, and my videos are tucked away neetly in my wallet.
That is the exact wording. As you correctly point out, some States have ages under 18. The Feds cannot make it illegal to have sex with someone under 18 when State law says different. They can and do, however, make it illegal to cross State or National borders "for the purpose of." Thus if you cross from one 16 State to another 16 State for the express purpose of having sex with a 17 YO, you have violated Federal law. If you cross said State line to buy a car and happen to have sex with the 17 YO office girl, you have violated no law as long as 17 is legal in the State where the event took place.
Essentially the Feds are targeting, among others, tour operators who would organise trips to have sex with under 18's.
Things are heating up as this is first time FARC has tied to acquire and HOLD territory (hit & run is their usual MO) since Uribe's election. Most the actrivity has been either in Northeast, near Cucuta and VZ border, or in South near Cali. Antoiquia (Medellin area) has been relatively calm and Cartagena is not affected.
See article below.
Tom: Under the Supremacy clause, Federal law takes precedence over inconsistent state laws. While they have not YET mandated a federal standard of 18 as age of consent, with Dubya (and his new AG Alberto Gonzales who called the Geneva Convention's prohibition of torture of prisoners "quanit" arguing it should not apply to detainees at Guantanamo), NOTHING is safe from Federal meddling. Look at Terri Schiavo's case or medical marijuana in civilized states like California. Many lawyers knowledgable about the Constitution, another document Bush and his allies view as quaint and outdated, are STILL stunned at the ends to which the regime will go in enacting poutrageous legislation like the Patriot Act and USA Protect Act (which makes it criminal for US citizens to have sex with 17 YOs even if legal in the country where the act occurred.)
Posted on Mon, Apr. 25, 2005
Children affected by fighting in Colombia
DAN MOLINSKI
Associated Press
TORIBIO, Colombia - Thousands of children in southwest Colombia began a third week without school Monday amid the most intense fighting between government forces and leftist insurgents in years, including an attack that killed one student.
With classes suspended, hundreds of fearful civilians have sought shelter in the Cecidic school in Toribio, the main school in this part of the Andes with about 7,000 students. With dormitories for teachers and students who live far away, it serves a rugged region inhabited mostly by Indians who want no part in the conflict.
The fighting erupted on April 14 when the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, bombarded Toribio, 250 miles southwest of Bogota, killing Yorfan Armando Trochez, a 9-year-old at Cecidic. His classmates say school won't be the same without him.
"I'll be sad because Yorfan sat right next to me in class," said second-grader Dania Vanessa Isaza, her large, brown eyes welling with tears. "He would always lend me a pencil or give me a piece of candy."
Reinaldo Opocue, the school's headmaster, tried to reopen classes a few days later. But the clashes persisted, often encroaching on the school. Government reinforcements arrived by helicopter as an armored column unsuccessfully tried to reach the town by punching through rebel lines.
"We were unable to teach math while gunshots whizzed by," Opocue said. "And it wasn't difficult just for the students. The teachers were terrified as well."
The fighting has now spread along at least a 14-mile front, and every day, gunfire and explosions echo throughout the jungle-covered mountains. Homes, vehicles and even horses have been outfitted with white flags in hopes the warring sides will not shoot at them.
On Sunday Colombia's top military leaders toured the region and reported progress in regaining control of the area. But FARC said it was holding its ground. It is the first time in years that the FARC has fought pitched battles against government forces instead of simply carrying out hit-and-run attacks.
Instead of math, the children are learning about warfare. While 12-year-old Dina Lizet was speaking to a reporter in Toribio, a large explosion was heard.
Asked whether it was a mortar round, Dina responded matter-of-factly: "No, that was a gas cylinder bomb. A mortar round does not have as loud of a thud sound."
The fighting on the western face of the Central Cordillera of the Andes Mountains represents the rebels' boldest challenge since President Alvaro Uribe was elected three years ago on pledges he would crush the 40-year-old insurgency.
The FARC has long had a presence in the region, where Nasa Indians made up 98 percent of the population.
Markos Yule, regional education director, said FARC rebels have tried to enroll their own children in local schools, but the tribe - not wanting to associate with a warring faction - has kept them out.
The Indians used to reject schools because students were forced to speak Spanish rather than the indigenous language. Children were whipped for uttering even a word of the Nasa language.
But then a push was made to integrate the indigenous language, said Yule, wearing a traditional brown and beige vest called a kapisayo. Attendance jumped from 900 students in 1990 to 6,900 today.
Half the Indian students are now studying the native language, but it is still slowly passing out of use, Yule said. The students, who wear T-shirts, shorts and tennis shoes, say they prefer to speak Spanish and only take the language classes because their parents told them to.
The rebels said their assault on Toribio was a message to the government that they will not accept the presence of police or military forces in town centers. Two years ago, a large police bunker was built near Toribio's main square.
Colombia's army chief, Gen. Reinaldo Castellanos, who toured the zone with Ospina on Sunday, vowed to restore state authority. "We are ready ... to flush them (the FARC) out of here," he said.
Since the start of the rebel offensive, the military has reported a total of five soldiers and three police officers killed. The rebels have denied any deaths in their ranks.
The FARC, created with the aim of overthrowing the government and bringing greater justice and opportunity to the poor, has instead been widely condemned because of its involvement in the drug trade and extortion rackets, and its reliance on frequent kidnappings.
More than 3,000 people are killed each year in the conflict.
Just before we went to Medellin last week, my girl was in a bad mood. She only explained to me later exactly why.
It ended-up that her sister, which is the only family member that still lives on their land near guerilla infested Popayan's coutryside since their father and brother were executed by the guerilla, was really close to mortar rounds hitting the ground. On the spot, my girl sent her money so she can get the Hell out of there. My girl only got a smile back when she was able to talk to her sister safe in Cali. Her sister is now back on the finca, and says that everything is back to normal (I don't know if that is actually good news or bad news that everything is back to normal).
Freeze
Hate to have her living in FARC country, and doubly so near Popayan. Call me in next two days (going to Mexico on Thursday).
I am not familiar with the USA Protect Act. But I don't believe that it is possible to enforce US law extraterritorially. What is the Public Law number of the USA Patriot Act? I would like to read it.
If enacted, a Federal standard would superceed a State standard. However, there could be a constitutional challenge based on States' rights. I'm not very good at predicting the future (Hell, I have enough trouble trying to figure out where to go to dinner), but I don't think that the Feds would ever be anxious to abrogate the right of Mississippi to determine when its daughters are old enough to consent to having sex.
Hi guys,
I am now in Cali. Just a nice city with lovely girls...
But to catch some nice birds you have to be very patient because here the people is always late...
photos will come soon....
MR
[quote=tom 33]i am not familiar with the usa protect act. but i don't believe that it is possible to enforce us law extraterritorially. what is the public law number of the usa patriot act? i would like to read it.
if enacted, a federal standard would superceed a state standard. however, there could be a constitutional challenge based on states' rights. i'm not very good at predicting the future (hell, i have enough trouble trying to figure out where to go to dinner), but i don't think that the feds would ever be anxious to abrogate the right of mississippi to determine when its daughters are old enough to consent to having sex.[/quote]tom,
this law has been on the books for exactly 2 years (apr. 30, 2003) it’s the usa protect act (not to be confused with the usa patriot act).
if you click (or copy/paste) the link below you'll get an idea of the types of cases they are prosecuting. mostly homosexual ****s, although they did get one guy in mexico for having sex with girls 10 - 14.
as far as i know, they aren't looking at guys have sex with 17 (or 16 or 15) year-old girls, even though they could under this act, and even though those ages are within local consent statutes.
[url]http://www.usembassy.ro/wf/300/04-11-24/eur315.htm[/url]
I looked at the link. It says in part, "to arrest and prosecute travelers who intend to go to another country to engage in sexual activity with children." This makes it illegal to go to another country for ther purpose of engaging in sex with a minor. Read this carefully, the sex act itself is not illegal. As I read the release, this law DOES NOT make it illegal to have sex with a minor. Nor is it possible, to the best of my knowledge, to enforce US laws extraterritorially.
[QUOTE=Tom 33]I looked at the link. It says in part, "to arrest and prosecute travelers who intend to go to another country to engage in sexual activity with children." This makes it illegal to go to another country for ther purpose of engaging in sex with a minor. Read this carefully, the sex act itself is not illegal. As I read the release, this law DOES NOT make it illegal to have sex with a minor. Nor is it possible, to the best of my knowledge, to enforce US laws extraterritorially.[/QUOTE]
I’m no expert, but to me what ity comes down to is the government’s definition of what a child is. I’ve seen it stated as 17 years old, but haven’t read about anyone arrested for that.
Here’s the 13 page law:
[url]www.state.gov/documents/organization/28225.pdf[/url]
Here’s a recent indictment of the first Floridian to be charged under the law
[url]http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/Frank.html[/url]
And the first guy convicted under this statute had his constitution-based appeal based denied. 97 months in prison :
Michael Lewis Clark, 70 / Cambodia: On Sept. 24, 2003, a federal grand jury in Seattle charged Michael Lewis Clark with child sex tourism violations of the Protect Act. This case represents the first child sex tourism case in the nation brought under the Protect Act. Clark was arrested in Cambodia by Cambodian authorities in June 2003 for engaging in illegal sexual activity with two boys aged 10 and 13. The subsequent investigation by ICE and Cambodian authorities determined Clark may have molested as many as 50 children in Cambodia in recent years. Cambodian authorities removed Clark and had him flown to the United States. On March 19, 2004, Clark pleaded guilty to engaging in and attempting to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors in foreign places. The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, denied his attorney’s constitutional appeal of the child sex tourism provisions of the Protect Act. On June 25, 2004, Clark was sentenced to 97 months in jail.
The actual law itself is what I was looking for. I'm going to take some time to read it now.
I don't initially see any constitutional problems with the law. If it can be proven that someone went to another country for the purpose of sex with persons under the age of 18, that someone is fucked. And they should be.
My concern is with the guy who goes to Lower Slobbovia for a vacation and maybe a little sex with over 18 girls. If the guy fucks up and does a girl aged 17 years and 364 days, can he be prosecuted under this law? I think that the answer is no.
But just because they have not targewted the guy who screws a 17YO overaseas YET does NOT mean they cannot choose to do so. Prosecutorial discretion is VERY broad, and under the Gonzales regime (AG) who knows what is possible.