Man Convicted Under U.S. Sex Tourism Law

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-21 02:09pm

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - An 86-year-old man was found guilty Friday of attempting to travel to the Philippines to sexually molest girls, in violation of a new federal law aimed at fighting sex tourism.

A judge found John W. Seljan guilty of six counts, including attempting to travel for the purpose of having sex with minors and possession of child pornography.

Seljan faces a minimum term of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 270 years when he is sentenced in March.

The retired business owner is one of about a dozen men who have been arrested under the Protect Act, which was enacted last year. The law made it easier to prosecute those who molest children overseas and increased penalties.

Seljan was the first to go to trial on charges brought under the Protect Act, though at least two men have pleaded guilty.

His defense attorney, Allan Stokke, had argued that the government presented insufficient evidence that Seljan intended to have sex with two girls with whom he exchanged sexually explicit letters.

The lawyer said Friday he had not decided whether to appeal.

Seljan, who sat in a wheelchair during the non-jury trial, was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport, where he allegedly attempted to board a flight with child pornography, sexual aids and nearly 100 pounds of chocolate.

A federal agent testified that Seljan told investigators he had ``sexually educated'' young girls in the Philippines with their parents' consent since 1983, and that he believed it was legal and culturally accepted in that country.

Authorities said they began investigating Seljan after Customs investigators opened a letter with his name on it during a random inspection of packages destined for overseas. An agent testified that he noted the sexual nature of what appeared to be a letter to a child and notified a supervisor.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-21 02:14pm

Good.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-11-21 02:38pm

All phedophiles belong in jail!

Good riddance

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-11-21 02:49pm

Considering the majority of sex tourists by far are Americans, it's about time we started mucking out our own stable.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-21 02:50pm

The legality of it is IMHO questionable... but still, I think the bastard should be executed personally

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-21 02:52pm

Nevermind, arrestedon our soil

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-21 02:53pm

The guy's unquestionably sick, but I have to wonder just how constitutional this is. Honestly, "attempting to travel to another country to molest children"? That's pretty spurious.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-11-21 07:42pm

Wll at the end of the day the federal government does have the right to regulate US trade with foreign countries and I don't think it too much a stretch to use that authority to limit such actions. Even granted that each transaction is of a scale that the government would find negligible it still serves as a basis for stopping such actions.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-11-21 08:21pm

I'm actually going to look at this in a different way, and worry about the prospect of people getting arrested in the future for going to another country for their same-sex marriage.

After I do a happy dance about another scumfuck being in jail anyway.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-21 08:25pm

I'm actually going to look at this in a different way, and worry about the prospect of people getting arrested in the future for going to another country for their same-sex marriage.

Considering the government won't even let us go to Canada to get life preserving drugs... Fuck. It may just be possible.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-21 08:41pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Wll at the end of the day the federal government does have the right to regulate US trade with foreign countries and I don't think it too much a stretch to use that authority to limit such actions. Even granted that each transaction is of a scale that the government would find negligible it still serves as a basis for stopping such actions.

Then you get into the territory of arresting people who have not actually done anything wrong, much less done anything wrong on US soil. We have extradition treaties for this kind of thing. Wouldn't it be better to start modifying those?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-11-21 08:51pm

consequences wrote:I'm actually going to look at this in a different way, and worry about the prospect of people getting arrested in the future for going to another country for their same-sex marriage.

After I do a happy dance about another scumfuck being in jail anyway.

Isn't that kind of a slippery slope? I mean arresting a child rapist isn't anything like arresting two people for violating a marriage law, I'd think the most they'd do about that is deny them the benefits given to married men and women.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-11-21 09:16pm

consequences wrote:I'm actually going to look at this in a different way, and worry about the prospect of people getting arrested in the future for going to another country for their same-sex marriage.

There's no law against gay marriage. The marriage just wouldn't be legally recognized in the states.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-11-21 09:33pm

RedImperator wrote: There's no law against gay marriage.

Yet.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-22 02:08am

Durandal wrote:The guy's unquestionably sick, but I have to wonder just how constitutional this is. Honestly, "attempting to travel to another country to molest children"? That's pretty spurious.

It's not spurious at all. Sexual molestation of children is a crime. Trying to go to another country to perform the act counts as attempt to commit the crime (and there is quite enough evidence of premeditated intent and an actual attempt at carrying it out). Attempted sexual molestation, and the penalties associated with that. Good fucking riddance to the scumfuck.

Another point of cross-border application of statutes, a crime need not necessarily be committed on the soil of a particular country to be prosecutable there. I don't know the specifics of US laws, but Finnish laws on the subject are based on certain pretty basic principles of international law, and they work as follows: A crime committed elsewhere in the world is prosecutable in Finland when

its target is the Republic of Finland (e.g. attacks against embassies, spying on us etc)
its target is a citizen of Finland
it's committed by a citizen of Finland and the act is a crime according to Finnish law even if not criminalized there (no, they won't prosecute you for going to the Netherlands and buying pot and smoking it there, but going to Thailand for child sex tourism will land your arse in jail if the authorities find out about it). The reverse of this is that if something is a crime elsewhere but not here (e.g. certain laws in some Muslim countries), they are NOT punishable here and any extradition requests based on such acts will be rejected.
it's committed by a citizen of any other country against a citizen of any other country or against any other state, if there are other factors that may directly affect the Republic of Finland and its relations with other countries (rarely applicable, and it was a long time ago since I studied for the law school entry exams, but that was the gist of it)

I'm not sure if there were any other applicable conditions under which crimes committed abroad are prosecutable, but this list is based on very basic legal theory about sovereignty, citizenship and jurisdiction (citizens of a state are under its jurisdiction by default, even when not in residence, enforceability is another matter and typically requires cooperation from country of residence, and is not at all guaranteed nor necessarily lightly given for other than serious matters). Most of the statutes on that list also operate only if there are no repercussions from the primary jurisdiction (i.e. the country where the crime was committed in the first place), they are secondary in nature.

I would imagine the US has something similar somewhere in its laws. But the case in the OP article is open and shut, demonstrated intent to commit a crime and an actual attempt to carry it out that was stopped on US soil. Lock the fucker up.

Edi

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-22 02:17am

Another point of cross-border application of statutes, a crime need not necessarily be committed on the soil of a particular country to be prosecutable there.

Apparently it can go beyond what you listed, since I know of a thread on another board dedicated to whether Canada should arrest President Bush under it's war crimes act on his next state visit. The act is apparently worded in such a way that Canada can prosecute anyone of any nationality for war crimes anywhere in the world. (As for the idea of another country arresting the sitting President of the United States,

)

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-22 02:41am

Rogue 9 wrote:
Another point of cross-border application of statutes, a crime need not necessarily be committed on the soil of a particular country to be prosecutable there.
Apparently it can go beyond what you listed, since I know of a thread on another board dedicated to whether Canada should arrest President Bush under it's war crimes act on his next state visit. The act is apparently worded in such a way that Canada can prosecute anyone of any nationality for war crimes anywhere in the world. (As for the idea of another country arresting the sitting President of the United States, )

That's another issue. It's based on a specific law that was crafted for that purpose (making war crimes prosecutable regardless of who committed them and where), but it's not directly derived from the legal theory regarding sovereignty, citizenship and jurisdiction that touches on those.

Its origin would seem to be in another part of international law and principles, namely the Geneva conventions and several UN treaties and so forth which do have (or are supposed to have) the force of law in countries that ratify them. Whether it is wise to pass a law that broadly worded is another matter, and the capability of enforcing it in reality is yet another.

Like I said, it was a long time ago since I had occasion to read up on these things in detail, something like eight years or more, so my list probably does have something missing from it. I think there is a specific part about universally prosecutable things like crimes against humanity, but I don't recall the wording. And it was not relevant to the OP article.

Edi