And you guys all called me a doomsayer when I predicted JUST THIS THING over a year ago.

Read the full article here:

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/8891/

"Humanitarian groups and six members of Congress are attempting to stop international sex trade and human trafficking by supporting legislation that would clarify the law to allow prosecutors to bring charges against those who visit prostitutes abroad and sex tour travel agencies."

"One way to decrease demand is to prosecute Americans who travel abroad to purchase sex, particularly with minors, said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., at a recent House subcommittee hearing."

"We need to do more to focus on the demand side of the equation," Maloney said. "The buyers of sex and the pimps are the perpetrators."

"However, no action has been taken in Louisiana against G&F Tours. But the proposed sex tourism legislation would allow U.S. attorneys to prosecute tour company owners and travelers. Convicting one of the big companies might discourage tourists across the country from signing up for trips, Franzblau said."

Here is my favorite quote:

"A disclaimer at the bottom of G&F Tours' Web page warns against men looking for sex with minors, but Jessica Neuwirth, Equality Now president, said even traveling abroad for the purpose of adult sex should be stopped because it helps fuel the larger sex trade and trafficking."

"We actually know that there are children involved, but we can't prove it," Neuwirth said.

I love this. They can't prove it, but it better be stopped anyway and Congress better act.

Does G&F Tours have a website? I can't find it using google.

I don't think we can point the guilty finger at the Republicans for this one.

The Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who brought civil charges against owners of a "sex" tour company in his state, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney are both New York Democrats.

Do you really think things will get better in 08 with Hillary?

RG.

Next step - the Patriot ("oh, but it'll only be used for catching terrorists") Act is used to force Hombre to hand over all our names and addresses (without him being able to tell us about them demanding the info) so our travels can be scrutinized and we can be singled out for persecution, err, prosecution.

And they quote statistics like "89% of sex workers want out of the business". Hell - 89% of office workers would like to be able to quit work too.

The sad thing is the people supporting these sorts of laws can't see how fine the line really is between them and people like the Taliban. They're all religious zealots trying to force their morals on others - the Taliban are just less polite in their methods.

Impossible to enforce, i wouldn`t worry to much.

It`s not prositution untill money changes hands, how could anyone ever prove money changes hands, impossible unless it`s a sting.

Then we need to post a big disclaimer on this site that any stories related here are fictional and for entertainment purposes only !

Ya. I actually have never left the country... I just got a good imagination... honest...

This seems like a few overzealous congressmen (with too much time on their hands) who think they can attempt to change the Mann Act. Lots of proposals in Congress but few actually get consummated into the real deal. I keep wondering, why they don't more aggressively go after the Catholic hierarchy or terrorists and stop trying to divert precious tax dollars and resources on something so kooky as this.

I agree with fooledagain also. Even if this amendment miraculously passes, it sounds good on paper, but impractical and difficult to enforce, especially against the small fish, solitary "johns" (possibily worthwhile against a big tour operator for publicity/deterrent effect, i.e. more bang for the buck).

It'll be impractical to set up a sting against a lonely "john" in the places where we travel--- and way too cumbersome and costly-- imagine: they'd have to hire a local gal(s) as bait, fly her (them) out to testify (assuming they can get her (them) a visa to testify here), and will the local gal speak english? etc. Imagine the redtape, time and costs associated with this. Imagine the field day your atty will have cross-examining the credibility of your "accuser".
The standard of proof for crim cases is still proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we're still entitled to all our Due Process rights, we still get to hire attys, etc.

Even with all those travelling criminals and the harsh laws against them that have been around for seveal years now, very few of them are getting nailed except for the stupid ones (Social Darwinism) that go on CNBC and admit it on national TV or the ones that perpetrate their idiotic behavior stateside in their clergy collars where there is ample evidence and witnesses.

I read somewhere (wish I remembered where) that most Americans are ok with 2 consenting adults doing their thing, and these like-minded Americans will presumeably be "the jury of peers"; better yet, I bet any jury would have some monger or wanna be monger member(s), I'd bet that there are judges who are/were mongers.

Merlin

I read somewhere (wish I remembered where) that most Americans are ok with 2 consenting adults doing their thing, and these like-minded Americans will presumeably be "the jury of peers"; better yet, I bet any jury would have some monger or wanna be monger member(s), I'd bet that there are judges who are/were mongers.

The problem is that those people right now are silent and accepting what the fundamentalist Born Agains are forcing down the throat's of America. I just hope they wake up in time to change the makeup of Congress before the next election.
As someone who is faced with the threat of a court case in every decision I make all day I can say the fact you will be exonerated ultimately is of little consolence when you know by the time you are found innocent or not liable - you may have lost everything due to costs involved or reputation ruined. This is a far bigger threat than you realize. It can be used indiscriminately if passed into law.

Buddha forbid if it happens to be you they choose to go after because they read your trip reports here.

IMHO, silliest thing I`ve ever heard, I can not think of a possible senerio on how they can enforce it.

With half a brain there`s virurally no way they can get you. They have a very difficult time getting someone in the US, letalone in a forgien country, unless they hear the deal being made or see the act with money changing hands what evidence do they have ?

Just more political nonsense to apease certain groups.

How could it happen, Fooledagain? Surely you've heard stories of foriegners getting caught with drugs in their posession? I'm talkin' about guys who never use drugs or sell them who, when searched by a cop, suddenly have a bag of something illegal.

If I were a minion of evil attached to the current administration, I'd make certain arrangements with foriegn governments and put bounties on Americans caught with their pants down. I'd tie it to economic and military aid.

Sure, it'd be difficult to bring to court, I suppose, but that's not stopped anyone lately. (Remember, this is a government that can detain you as long as they please and due process be damned.)

Would this mean the end of this site as we know it? IMO, this site would have to close, because some nitwit prosecuter could file charges against someone here. What scary times we live in.

Merlin you make good points, unless they write the law so conspiracy is the point, so merely traveling with intent of paid sex becomes the crime. And, they could put in something like with the Rico laws so they don't need any real proof, that they can convict on mere testimonies.

And idiotic Americans think we still haver certain rights... we starting giving up those years ago and the acceleration now is really scary.

Wombatt - Yes, I`ve heard those kind of stories, it`s possible it would create more scams by local authories to set up Americans, but the purpose of those scams are to get kick backs from the American, not likely they would report you to the US authorities after you pay your kick-back.

The official act is called the "End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005"

You will recall that back in 2003, I predicted that they would frame the eventual law and argument to make adult sex travel illegal by saying that all sex travelers are either child sex travelers or that they all purchase sex from trafficked women. So in their mind all adult sex travel should be illegal.

Here is the original thread:

-Off-Topic-: -Politics: Bush's United Nations Speech About Prostitution

To specifically address Roadglide's comments. The official sponsor of the bill is Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a Republican. Another sponsor is Katherine Harris, of Florida. We all remember her, don't we? On the Democratic side, Carolyn Maloney of New York, and Lynn Woolsey of California support it. Kay Granger of Texas (R), Thelma Drake (R), and Robert Scott (D) all support it. I guess if we are keeping score, it is 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats, which probably means it has support from both sides of the aisle along with Presidential support. The Senate version is sponsored by John Cornyn and Arlen Specter, both Republicans.

I would imagine since this is being shaped as a Trafficking of Women law, it would enjoy broad support from both parties. I would still venture an educated guess that it is the religious right and groups like Equity Now, etc that are pushing the "let's make all adult sex travel illegal for US citizens in foreign countries." You saw the quote above that referenced this.

It will be interesting to see when the final numbers come in, which party supported it more.

According to this article:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1335260.html

"Supporters of the legislation are optimistic about its chances of passage, since the issue is one that is of high priority and crucial importance to the White House."

The President threw down the gauntlet on this issue two years ago the UN. He talked about three things. Iraq, Terrorism and “Trafficking of Women and Child Prostitution.”

Now, all agreements between consenting adults must go because it might involve children or trafficked women.

Here is the House Bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2012.IH:

Here is the Senate Bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.937.IS:


(Message edited by xenono on July 10, 2005)

Well the links to the bill won't work unless you manually add a colon : to the end of them.

Here is a current list of co-sponsors for the House version and their party affiliation:

Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 6/24/2005 (R)
Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 6/24/2005 (R)
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 6/24/2005 (R)
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 5/24/2005 (D)
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 4/28/2005 (R)
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 5/16/2005 (R)
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 6/7/2005 (R)
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 5/24/2005 (R)
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 4/28/2005 (R)
Rep Harris, Katherine [FL-13] - 4/28/2005 (R)
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/28/2005 (D)
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 6/24/2005 (R)
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 6/16/2005 (D)
Rep Scott, Robert C. [VA-3] - 4/28/2005 (D)
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 6/20/2005 (D)
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 5/24/2005 (D)

So again, if we are keeping score at home. That makes 10 Republicans and 6 Democrats.

The Senate Bill just has one co-sponsor, Arlen Specter, a Republican.

Wow when both parties are behind something that can never be good for personal freedoms. I want to thank Xenono and others who take time out from the pursuit of happiness to research and then educate us about these types of legislations that infringe upon our rights and particularly our particular pursuits of happiness.

I guess there are going to more and more folks like me who will end up becoming expats.

Good research Xeno, glad yer on our side, pal.

Fooledagain, you're right that the purpose of those scams is to get kick backs from the American, but now take it to the next level. If the boss's bosses set up quotos, you can bet your boots the local minions will hop to it. If the police cheif can catch so many "perverts" for the US government, he gets a shiny new SUV to help fight crime in his precinct (or to conduct research a.k.a. cruizin' the strip).

It kills me that these bastards are smarter than us.

The issue here is not whether the Bush Administration itself is proposing the bill, but rather that the Bush Administration has created an environment where enactment of such a bill is possible.

You Republicans who voted for Bush and who one day may be arrested for this kind of stuff, well, that's karma for you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

" even traveling abroad for the purpose of adult sex should be stopped because it helps fuel the larger sex trade and trafficking."

I guess this means that the airlines who fly passengers to Asia should be stopped because they help fuel the sex trade.


(Message edited by explorer8939 on July 10, 2005)

KM, we trip reporters should start getting "hazard pay" :-)

Your concerns are very valid and, to a certain extent, I can sympathize with you as each day I also make decisions that may, or may not, subject me to liablity. My only thought is that suing civilly vs. criminal prosecution involves a world of different considerations. For instance, I could file a civil suit against our gov't civilly today just because I want to, but that would certainly not get me far. Compare, criminal prosecution has an incredible high threshhold standard of proof where they need mounds of evidence to take a case to trial (i.e. Michael Jackson, Scrushy recently got off). It's obviously a decision only a prosecutor can make. A prosecutor wouldn't last too long if they repeatedly waste valuable resources to take loser cases to trial, instead of going after the high profile case which equals promotion. I think an attempt to prosecute a lonely "john" whose only potential "culpability" is "victimless" p4p act in a far away foreign land would qualify as a difficult case to prove up. Since most of us here are U.S. citizens or legal residents, the gov't cannot give us the "Gitmo" treatment.

However, I definitely agree with you that the stigma of simply being named a defendant in a criminal prosecution is a bigger problem, especially if you're a public figure. However, every one of us face a whole litanty of being potential defendants under a variety of other laws affecting our lives -- i.e. vehicular, IRS, etc. I recall that Wen Ho Lee (scientist) who was falsely accused of spying, or that other scientist falsely accused of being the Atlanta bomber -- those guys are suing the hell out of every body responsible now and the gov't got much more than egg on their faces for too zealously prosecuting cases they shouldn't have. Civilly, if someone sues you w/o probable cause, you could file a malicious prosecution case.

For hombres who have posted trip reports and pics, check out the definition of "ex post facto" laws taken from http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=ex+post+facto&type=1

"ex post facto
adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted."
Text

Therefore, if the amendment passes, we will only have very old trip reports and pics on this site and all future trips reports will be travelogues.

Also, the lady from Equality Now said something interesting: "A disclaimer at the bottom of G&F Tours' Web page warns against men looking for sex with minors, but Jessica Neuwirth, Equality Now president, said even traveling abroad for the purpose of adult sex should be stopped because it helps fuel the larger sex trade and trafficking." Text

The key word by even Neuwirth is the concession that a future amendment would likely be an "intent" crime when she says "traveling for the purpose of adult sex" and not a strict liability (mere act) crime. Even if it's not an intent crime (i.e. traveling to Cuba), how many tourists to Cuba have the gov't prosecuted when it would be so easy to prove a mere act?

dont' fret-- if they target us, I have a wonderful excuse to make my trip to LoS/SEA a one way flight without worrying about the trip back. Don't sound too shabby to moi

IMHO, Silliest damn thing I`ve ever heard, impossible to enforce.

Will the US send Agents to all the venues all over the world, will they count on the local authorites, if I`m at LA Cafe and leave with a honey and the local authorities stop me , first how do they know it`s not my girlfriend, even if they pressure the girl to admit I was paying her how does that officer and girl show up in court in the US ? All these officers and girls from all over the world will be coming here to appear in court, impossible to enforce.

For a simple traffic ticket if the officer doesn`t appear in court the case is dropped.

My friend has a uncle who about 6 months ago was arrestted for travel to forgien countries for underage girls, do you know how much time and effort they had put in to get the evidence to arrest him ? Why didn`t they contact the local authorities in the country involved ? They knew where he was going and could catch him in the act. Not likely they have the man power or money to do it for the average joe who runs under the radar.

If the law passes they can now say, see we did something about the problem, we care, are you people happy now ?

Maybe Blazers could weigh in with his thoughts.

I swear, I thought she just REALLY liked me allot, she seemed SO friendly, and I had NO idea what taxis cost here and I wanted her to get home safe so I gave her about the same amount for her taxi as I would have to pay for a taxi ride home in America.

Guys,

Consider that oral sex is illegal in most states and that in Washington DC, if you volunteer to be deputized in an emergancy you are entitled to two bags of oats per day for your horse, and that marraige between whites and not-whites is still illegal in a lot of states........there are a ton of usually old laws still on the books, in every municipality in the country. There are new laws all the time that are created for publicity purposes and are then never heard from again. This is one of them.

This is a non-event. I would not worry about it for 20 seconds. As far as Hombre goes, there are no problems and if there were ever to be, then every porn server on the planet will simply be hosted offshore, the same as gambling sites. All it will do is reduce jobs and businesses in the US since data hosting centers are pretty fat earners for localities. High taxable equipment numbers but no need to "human" infrastructure, i.e. roads, parking, new restaurants, etc. Then again, when have the Bushies ever really cared about anyone having a job or earning a living, except for themselves and their supporters?

My point is, this kind of stuff is completely unenforceable, and if they start fucking with the porn industry, which is a huge profit earner and tax payer, then you simply host the servers that hold the content in Canada or Costa Rica or the Caribbean or wherever. The administration can still be here, the marketing/billing/support servers can still be here, but the actual hard point serving up "illicit" content can be sitting on the moon. As long as that small piece of the puzzle is not in the US, you're fine.

Hehe IAS, or the great line from the movies, I paid the gal to get her to leave, not for the sex.

Intoxication Defense: I was temporarily rendered insane by the cheap local liquor combined with the extreme lack of sleep.

Altruistic Defense: I have a special fondness for sick buffaloes. ...

If I were Hombre, I would at least be casually looking at offshore hosting options as well as offshore corporation ownership options. I know some of the offshore casinos are operated as Vanuatu corporations. There are other countries with lax incorporation laws as well.

Oh and for those who think it is only the religious right who is threatening you, don't believe for a second you would have any more rights under a democrat administration. For those who are hoping Hillary will come out on top in 2008............

Meet your enemy.
http://www.equalitynow.org/english/campaigns/sextourism-trafficking/sextourism-trafficking_en.html

Me thinks Hillary would step right in line with this crowd.

The left is just as quick and aggressive to try to take away your rights and enforce there own version of morality on you as the right.

I may however give up on the US political system altogether and simply work around whatever comes out of Washington. No law in the history of mankind has ever ended the worlds oldest profession.

Cat's correct. This is just some politicians (Left and Right) pandering to various constituency groups who hate sex in all its forms. This legislation is going nowhere. It was introduced as a favor so some fanatics could raise money for their cause, and is so clearly unconstitutional that it wouldn't survive a minute even if it went forward.

Not worth wasting one's breath over, except for the fact that it's telling that we have legislators willing to attach their names to such garbage.

PS, on the Hillary "thing": Think of her what you will, but she's way too smart to get involved in a losing issue such as this. She's far more pragmatic than many give her credit for. Liberal, yes. Stupid and kooky, no. But there are certainly Dems (such as Joe Lieberman)who would love this issue.

Bill Clinton, who never turned down a piece of ass in his life, would never sign a bill like this into law!

I recall reading an article about this one guy in the Arizona prison system when his sentence was up refused to leave until he was given his $20 gold piece and horse as it was written into the penal code. Don't know the final result or whether they changed the law or not but thought it was pretty funny.

I guess this legislation means that all travel to NEVADA USA must be banned too because we all know that the only reason people go there is the legal brothels!

The best thing these MORAL MORONS could do to reduce sex travel is to legalize and regulate prostitution in the USA so the pimps are cut out and mongers can get exotic treats from willing women in our own home towns.

Please send a few bucks to whoever runs against the jerks behind this bill unless the opponent is an even bigger jerk.

Had a very interesting conversation with my lawyer friend last night, he says, he never heard of such a thing but will check into it and get back to me.

He says, you are subject to US law only when you are within the borders of the US, when you step outside US borders you are no longer subject to US laws. You must commit the crime in the US.

A US agent has no jurisdiction to arrest you in a forgien country for sex with a prostitute in a forgien country or for anything else you do in a forgien country.

According to the best he knows, you can not break a US law outside the borders of the US.

This possible explains my other friends uncle`s situation who was arrested for underage girls. The FBI monitered his internet activity, not sure why or how they chose him, then set up bogus web sites and offered him underaged girls, he ordered 2, then booked his flight, left on his trip and was arrested when changing planes in the city he was to exit the US.

When explaining this story to my lawyer friend he says that`s pretty weak evidence, it`s much better to catch the person in the act. But because he was traveling outside the US, the US has no jurisdiction so had to arrest him in US. He commited the crime in the US by ordering 2 underage girls off the internet, then was arrested in the US.

If the law reads INTENT to travel abroad for purpose of sex with a minor, he`s doomed, it`s clear he had intent,if the law reads, having sex with a minor, he was never caught in the act and could of changed his mind.

I`ll try and get a update on the situation.

>A US agent has no jurisdiction to arrest you in a forgien country for sex with a prostitute in a
>forgien country or for anything else you do in a forgien country.

Well, he certainly got that part right. Although Bush and crew don't seem to care, as witnessed by the recent abduction of a terrorist in Italy - currently causing a significant international incident. Terrorist or no, the Italians are mad as hell about us carrying out a kidnapping in their country. (And for any reading this the wrong way - my personal opinion is we should take out terrorists wherever we find them - but nice and quiet like.) I don't really see them going to this extreme over anything short of terrorism, although it wouldn't surprise me to see them do something like this involving some drug kingpin being protected by the local authorities.

>He says, you are subject to US law only when you are within the borders of the US, when you
>step outside US borders you are no longer subject to US laws. You must commit the crime in
>the US.
>According to the best he knows, you can not break a US law outside the borders of the US.

Well, he may be the lawyer, but I would argue he is ill-informed, or more likely hasn't thought this one through. Committing treason is against the law regardless of where you are in the world. I don't have a problem with that. But this law would extend the reach of something so petty and ridiculous as a concensual crime around the world. That is without precedent, and about as close to "big brother" as you can get.

I do agree with those who say it'll be almost impossible to enforce - today. Except for the ignorant schlep who's foolish enough to admit his activities when asked what he believes to be an innocent question by the border patrol guys.

But be aware that PET (Positron Emission Tomography) can already be used as a lie detector. Telling a lie activates completely different areas of the brain than does telling the truth. Now show me a law enforcement agent who wouldn't want a lie detector you cannot beat. If they ever prove that technique is reliable, and should it become simple, affordable, and acceptable as legal evidence, the enforcement of "intent" laws would become very easy.

I agree that one of the only ways, possibly the only practical way, they can get someone on this type of "crime" is to use coercive measures to obtain a "confession" or admission. One time at secondary inspection, I had my digital camera (just tourist pics) and an inspector is staring at all the LOS stamps and the camera. Then he points to a computer nearby and says, "that computer can just about scan any type of storage device", then he looks me squarely in the eyes and says, "you want to tell me what's on all your storage devices before I scan them". My response was, "just tourist pictures of me and friends." The inspector stares for a few more seconds, and then waives me through w/o scanning anything. Very coercive.

The whole criminal system is geared so that the prosectuors must prove up their case on their own--ergo, the privilege against self-incrimination while testifying, the right to remain silent and ask for an attorney when in "custody", etc.

Bunch of bitches who are pissed off cause we don't want to fuck them. Combine that with the religious zealots and this is what happens.