Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law

[ryukyuboi]

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf

Even if you don't read the entire report, it is quite clear that the US government, and in some instances, US states, can enforce US law overseas with respect to US citizens, and in some instances, non US citizens. Given this fact, one could safely and correctly assume that the usual rights afforded anyone accused of a crime within the US would also apply to anyone the US decides to apprehend from abroad and prosecute in the US - provided that the foreign government had an extraterritorial agreement with the US.

I do know of a case where a Federal Marshal actually went to Korea and arrested a DoD civilian for embezzlement.

Given that US criminal law can legally be enforced outside the US, I do wonder to what extent US civil law can be legally enforced/upheld - especially for US citizens living overseas and connected with the US government in some way. US government officials should not be in the business of denying US citizens any civil rights no matter where the US citizen may reside.

[Mad Hatter]

Which overrides what?

SOFA or U.S. Law

[ryukyuboi]

I am not a lawyer, but this is my take on your question.

SOFA is not a law. It is an agreement between nations, but not a treaty. The agreement spells out many issues that arise when a foreign military (and accompanying civilians) occupy land within a nation. The agreement may address tax issues, jurisdiction in criminal allegation cases, and so forth. In my view, and in a very simple way, it would be very similar to a rental agreement between the landlord and the renter. Various rights and responsibilities are spelled out and mutually agreed to.

Federal law would always supercede an agreement. However, since SOFA is contructed by the Feds, I doubt a SOFA would contain anything that would violate Federal law.