No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.
Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?
Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.
No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.
Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?
Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.