What happens to somebody returning from ISIS, who did not commit crimes inside ISIS? Individual people from American or European countries have joined ISIS over time. Such a person may decide to returns home. If it was never recognized that the person had the intention to join ISIS, he/she is basically just a person returning from traveling. If the person is known to be an ISIS fighter, he will be detained at arrival and probably indicted for some felony. If it is known the person was member of ISIS, but nothing else is known, and there is no indication that he was an active fighter: What happens in this case? There is a good example for the third case happening in Germany. A teenage girl without any relation to Islam was in a state of searching for meaning of live as part of normal being a teenager. She was around 15 years old, and somehow, more or less randomly, came in contact with radical Islam culture. She then decided to travel to join ISIS in some region where it was active. She basically became housewife, in a relationship with an active ISIS fighter. After some time, she realized that it all was not a good idea. Around 2 years after joining ISIS, she decided to return to her family. She began to search for somebody to smuggle her home, and succeeded after multiple attempts. There were no reasons to think she had any relations to ISIS - only her father and the smuggler helping her knew about it. I'm wondering how a member of ISIS returning from any relation with ISIS would be treated when it becomes known, and it is plausible he/she did not engage in any kind of illegal activity during the time. She was still teenager when returning home, but that is not central to my question, except that it probably helped to reduce suspicions. A documentary about the example case in Germany, in English language: My Daughter and the Caliphate | DW Documentary
They committed the crime of providing material support for terrorism Specifically, 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B. "Material support" is defined so broadly that it captures maintaining the household of an Islamic State fighter. Most countries have similar laws and they are all equally problematical as to their legitimacy. Basically, such people are a giant pain in the ass to their governments and so, their governments are generally content to let them rot in Syrian refugee camps so they don't have to deal with them.
Desuetude is the wrong concept. Desuetude relates to laws as a whole falling out of use; it doesn’t relate to individual cases. There is no question that the UK actively enforces their bail laws so they are not falling out of use. There is a statute of limitations that applies to non-major crimes within which the state must initiate prosecution. However, in this case the prosecution for bail violation has been initiated and Mr Assange is “on the run” so this is not relevant. Neither is the fact that the original charges that led to his arrest has been dropped- he is wanted for escaping lawful custody under English law for which the penalty is pretty stiff. I will also venture an opinion that the case against him is as open and shut as it comes. TL;DR When he dies.
The general answer is "yes." Who ever said that only one set of laws applied? Jurisdiction isn't a matter of "one country's laws matter here, let's find out which one it is." All jurisdiction means is that your laws apply to the conduct, not that no one else's can as well. Broadly, there are a few sources of jurisdiction that are generally considered legitimate (to at least some degree) in international law: Territoriality: You have jurisdiction over actions performed in your territory. You also have jurisdiction over crimes where just one part of the crime happens in your jurisdiction (e.g. standing in country A and shooting someone in country B), or even if it just has a significant effect in your territory. Nationality: You have jurisdiction over crimes committed by your citizens anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not they were breaking the law of wherever they were. Passive personality: You have jurisdiction over crimes committed against your citizens anywhere in the world. Protective: You have jurisdiction over crimes directly harming core state interests, like counterfeiting your passports or sabotaging your warship. Universal: A handful of crimes (like piracy or genocide) are so serious that every country in the world can exercise jurisdiction. If you catch a pirate, you can punish them. These are accepted to different degrees. Passive personality and protective jurisdiction tend to be iffier; territorial jurisdiction is unquestioned (although if it's just based on effects in your territory, it becomes a bit iffier as well). But any of them can be a basis for jurisdiction. If multiple countries have jurisdiction, whoever actually has the offender decides who will try them (jurisdiction to make an arrest is limited to the country in which the arrest is made). So: If you're located in a country, you have to comply with their laws, and they can regulate just about whatever they want, including what you're doing to foreign computers. The foreign country can also generally regulate what you're doing, because part of what you're doing is happening on their territory. Even if both you and the computer are in a foreign country, you may have to answer to the courts of your country of citizenship. Depending on what exactly you're doing, the protective principle may come into play. For instance, if you hack into a computer on a foreign military base, the foreign country could prosecute you for endangering their security. If you're coordinating a genocide, universality applies and anyone can prosecute you. If you hack the computer of a foreigner, passive personality may apply, although this tends to be controversial.
The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a diplomat or any other kind of alien, regardless of immigration status or lack thereof. If the person is a diplomat, however, the officer is also liable to be prosecuted under federal law, namely 18 USC 1116, which makes it a crime to kill, among others, a "foreign official"; the definition of that term includes any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee. The characterization of the response "just been revoked" as "clearly legal" is inaccurate; a police officer has no power to revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact, only the diplomat's own country can waive this immunity. The United States cannot do so; it can only expel the diplomat.
The Justice Department prosecutes all crimes prosecuted by the U.S. federal government regardless of which agency has jurisdiction over that kind of regulatory activity. The Canadian government could prosecute for passport fraud or forgery. The offshore account country could prosecute for bank fraud or forgery. The U.S. federal government, the Canadian government, and the offshore jurisdiction could probably all prosecute for attempted money laundering or attempted tax evasion (or worse, such as attempted material support of terrorism). Realistically, none of this is terribly likely to happen if there is no harm, and even if there was an arrest and a conviction, the sentence would probably be mild for such a victimless white collar crime (probably probation and a fine or a few months in jail at most unless there were larger aggravating factors). But, harm is not required for a criminal prosecution. Or, more precisely, the violation of the criminal law per se is the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 1543 states: Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters any passport or instrument purporting to be a passport, with intent that the same may be used; or Whoever willfully and knowingly uses, or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any such false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered passport or instrument purporting to be a passport, or any passport validly issued which has become void by the occurrence of any condition therein prescribed invalidating the same— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. This statute clearly applies to both U.S. and non-U.S. passports. But, it isn't obvious that the crime would apply in this case, because the crime may have taken place outside the U.S. and with a target outside the U.S., one or the other must be true for the U.S. to enforce its criminal laws - U.S. citizenship isn't sufficient. The offense in this particular statute is making with the intent that some use it, using or attempting to use a passport. The crime was directed at the offshore location. But, it wouldn't be such a stretch to assume that if the fake passport was made or used by the defendant in a U.S. living room that it was used there even if only to send it over the Internet to a foreign country. On the other hand, if the fake passport were made or used in a hotel room in Montreal by a U.S. citizen and was directed at the Cayman Islands, the U.S. might lack criminal jurisdiction over the case. The maximum offense would be 10 years and a fine for a first or second offense, but the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would very likely call for a much milder recommended sentence, and any excess punishment over this recommendation would have to be justified by the judge.
As I said in my comments, "It was your choice to ask for a refund because you chose to assess the events as a safety risk to yourself and the airline." The airline did not assess a risk and as a result cancel the flight and issue refunds. The airline did not disregard advisories or laws pertaining to the terrorist acts that took place and result in legal triggers that mandated the airline cancel the flight and give refunds. If a city or country is classified as a war zone - by that country itself or some international body, or by the US State Department - then there are triggers that either suggest or mandate flight closures, through a myriad of laws and jurisdictions. It is solely your perception of the risk to yourself and the airline that you are using as a reason to ask for a refund. You have made a decision on your own and simply don't have a case for a refund. http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-int/travel-information/legal-notice/terms-amp-conditions/cancellation-refund
Community Service Announcement A person going missing is serious. Many thousands of people disappear every year. In most cases they return or make contact with friends or family after a short while, however, a significant number are never heard from again. It is a MYTH that you need to wait 24 hours before telling the police of a missing person. Alert the police as soon as possible. The quicker the authorities start to look for them the more likely there will be a happy outcome. Presumed death All jurisdictions have rules on when a person can be presumed dead, that is, a death certificate is issued notwithstanding the absence of remains. In the united-states this is a matter for state law unless there is a reason for the Federal government to be involved (e.g. military personnel missing in combat). In most, a court or the registrar can decide that a person is probably dead and issue a death certificate/grant probate. People who are known to have been in the area where a tragedy occurred may be declared dead shortly after that tragedy even though no remains are found. For example, people on the Titanic who were not rescued by the Carpathia, people in the 9-11 attacks, the people on MH17 were all issued death certificates shortly after the respective tragedies. Alternatively, at common law (codified by statute in some jurisdictions) a missing person may be declared dead if: The person has been missing for an extended period, most commonly seven years Their absence must have been continuous and inexplicable (e.g. the person did not say they had found a new job and were moving far away) There must have been no communication from the party with those people most likely to hear from them during the period the person has been missing There must have been a diligent but unsuccessful search for the person and/or diligent but unsuccessful inquiry into their whereabouts. Coming back There are interesting legal implications of a person who has been declared dead coming back but they are outside the scope of this question. Please ask another question if you're interested.
US law generally doesn't permit trials in absentia (see Can a country put a foreign criminal on trial, without catching them?), so Sheppard would have to be physically brought to the US before a trial could begin, let alone any sort of testimony or sentencing. This could happen if he voluntarily travels to the US, or if he is extradited from the UK via their legal processes for doing so. He could be represented by a lawyer at trial if he chooses, just like any other criminal defendant. If convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, he would presumably serve the sentence in a US prison just like anyone else, unless the US government decides on some other arrangement.