[freehunter]

The difference is intent. Kim was intentionally violating American law to defraud American businesses and help American citizens commit crimes.

While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the benefit of US citizens.

[hysan]

Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere? Because until I saw your response, intent didn't even cross my mind. Regardless of that, I still don't think intent changes my point of view when it comes to justice. Trying to take intent into account means treading into very very murky waters with regards to thought police and trying to determine what people think. And that is one very slippery slope. I for one would not want countries like China and North Korea claiming that I "intentionally" broke some censorship law in their country and asking for my extradition.

[freehunter]

>Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere?

You did not, which is why I brought it up. What you said was that people should not be responsible for breaking laws they were not aware of in countries they don't live in. Which is true and I agree with that, but Kim knew full well what he was doing. Intent is 90% of the law, and Kim knew exactly what he was doing. He fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations for the benefit of US citizens.

>[that's assuming non-citizens] know and understand the laws of every other country in the world

is exactly what you said. There's no assumption needed here. You don't have to assume Kim knew the laws of other countries. He knew. Intent is a very important factor here, which is why I brought it up. It was something missing from your argument.