> First, there is nothing about the rule of law that says you can't be prosecuted in a state you've never been to.
It's certainly strongly implied. "Rule of law" implies that governments have clear geographic borders. It's ludicrous to suggest that every person must obey every law that exists anywhere in the world or fear prosecution.
> ""Rule of law" implies that governments have clear geographic borders."
Governments also have treaties. If geographic locations A and B have an extradition agreement, living in A will not protect you from prosecution/conviction/incarceration if you conspire with criminals to commit a crime in B. If the government of A receives the proper request (with whatever degree of evidence that government requires for extradition), it will arrest you and ship you to B to face charges. It happens that Kansas and California have an extradition agreement.
If you read the details of the appeal (others have posted it in these threads) it's clear the guy in the article knew he was conspiring to traffic drugs; you don't describe the volume of a space in "kilos" unless you're referencing a substance which is packed in standard-sized one-kilo packages which other people would catch the reference to if you made it. Whether or not you agree with the drug war in general, don't make this into something it's not by feigning ignorance on the guy's behalf.
It's certainly strongly implied. "Rule of law" implies that governments have clear geographic borders. It's ludicrous to suggest that every person must obey every law that exists anywhere in the world or fear prosecution.