Should the world be subject to US law?

[Gokul43201]

Hypothetical: If Liu Xiaobo, or Suu Kyi (from a year ago), or Tsvangirai (from 2 years ago) escaped to the US, but their host countries demanded extradition (for actions endangering national security), do you think the US should/would comply? The US does not have an extradition treaty with China, but it does with Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

 

[NeoDevin]

Again, they have committed no crime against the UK. Why can you not get this distinction?

Define "against". Not every nation in the world considers the publication of documents to be "against the US". (Note, I'm not interested in debating here the merits/drawbacks to Assange's actions and their impact on the US speaking more generally). In my hypotheticals the government has defined those actions to be crimes "against the country".

Basically you're suggesting that the US gets to define what is and isn't a "crime against the US" and enforce that definition worldwide.

 

[JaredJames]

We're not only talking about the documents here.

 

[Evo]

Hypothetical: If Liu Xiaobo, or Suu Kyi (from a year ago), or Tsvangirai (from 2 years ago) escaped to the US, but their host countries demanded extradition (for actions endangering national security), do you think the US should/would comply? The US does not have an extradition treaty with China, but it does with Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

We have an extradition treaty with France, but they refused to extradite a suspect to the US because of the death penalty, so a country can refuse based on ethics.

 

[NeoDevin]

We skipped-over the jurisdiction part of the issue: do you at least acknowledge that a country can have jurisdiction if it decides it wants to and then the only question is if it can get its hands on the defendant (by extradition or other means such as capturing on the open ocean)?

A country has jurisdiction as far as it can reasonably enforce it. While the US could, hypothetically, assassinate people they don't like the world over, the economic sanctions they would face for doing so would cripple them worse than whatever transgression they are trying to punish. In this sense, they have jurisdiction as far as another country allows them, which will be determined by the people of that country, through their elected officials and the treaties they sign.

 

[WhoWee]

Basically you're suggesting that the US gets to define what is and isn't a "crime against the US" and enforce that definition worldwide.

Yes, absolutely, you are correct - the US should decide what is a crime against the US - enforcement is more difficult.

 

[WhoWee]

A country has jurisdiction as far as it can reasonably enforce it. While the US could, hypothetically, assassinate people they don't like the world over, the economic sanctions they would face for doing so would cripple them worse than whatever transgression they are trying to punish. In this sense, they have jurisdiction as far as another country allows them, which will be determined by the people of that country, through their elected officials and the treaties they sign.

The same could be said of any country.

 

[russ_watters]

In that case the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the US, and I agree with you completely as per my previous posts.

So the difficulty you have is only with a crime that has a perpetrator in one country and a victim in another?

No I don't. But as I proposed in the other thread, I don't think that anything Assange has done has violated UK law. Had Assange hacked into the computer himself, he would be in violation of UK law, and then you would have a case.

Are you saying you don't think it is illegal in the UK for an unauthorized person to posess classified materials? Really?!?

 

[CRGreathouse]

We have an extradition treaty with France, but they refused to extradite a suspect to the US because of the death penalty, so a country can refuse based on how they would deal out punishment.

France almost never extradites its citizens, even for serious charges, even when the capital punishment is off the table. (To bring that home: I know a prosecutor who had the prime suspect in a major case flee to France.)

 

[talk2glenn]

Building (I think) and planting (I'm reasonably certain) the bomb are both illegal in NYC. Detonating the bomb is illegal in NYC, NJ, and Canada. In my mind you should be charged for the detonation/murder in Canada, and/or extradited to the US to face explosives making/planting charges there.

Your suggestion is that Canada charge me with blowing up a building in New York City? This is clearly absurd. What Canadian laws have I broken, pray tell? How does the Canadian government show jurisdiction over persons and property in New York?

The argument is pointless. In the real world, you can't steal furniture with a fishing line from the southern side of the mexican border and expect not to be charged with theft, and you can't steal classified American documents and expect not to be charged with espionage. Who you are and where you are don't matter.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you saying you don't think it is illegal in the UK for an unauthorized person to posess classified materials? Really?!?

Is it illegal in the UK to possesses materials deemed by the DPRK to be secret? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think it's in violation of UK law for a UK national to hold material classified by the US. Consider, for example, cases of the UK spying on the US (for various reasons), where it's done at government behest.

 

[NeoDevin]

So the difficulty you have is only with a crime that has a perpetrator in one country and a victim in another?

No. The difficulty I have is that the crime was not as crime as per the laws of the country of residence of the "perpetrator".

Are you saying you don't think it is illegal in the UK for an unauthorized person to posess classified materials? Really?!?

No. I think that the UK has no laws respecting documents deemed classified by the US. I think the UK has its own classification system, and laws respecting documents in that system.

Again go back to my earlier hypothetical. If the UK decided all bomb making instructions should be classified, and then a US national publishes some online, do you think that the UK should be able to extradite them?

 

[NeoDevin]

Your suggestion is that Canada charge me with blowing up a building in New York City? This is clearly absurd. What Canadian laws have I broken, pray tell? How does the Canadian government show jurisdiction over persons and property in New York?

It's been a while since I've checked, but I'm pretty sure that murder and arson are against the law in Canada irrespective of the nationality of the victim.

The argument is pointless. In the real world, you can't steal furniture with a fishing line from the southern side of the mexican border and expect not to be charged with theft, and you can't steal classified American documents and expect not to be charged with espionage. Who you are and where you are don't matter.

Theft is a crime in the US as well as in Mexico.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Again go back to my earlier hypothetical. If the UK decided all bomb making instructions should be classified, and then a US national publishes some online, do you think that the UK should be able to extradite them?

Or if, say, an Australian buys a copy of Mein Kampf, can Germany extradite her?

 

[Evo]

The US would definitely want to try him, the killings occurred on US soil. Germany can decide what they want. He has commited a crime against US citizens.

gokul deleted his post, so it didn't show up.

 

[JaredJames]

Again go back to my earlier hypothetical. If the UK decided all bomb making instructions should be classified, and then a US national publishes some online, do you think that the UK should be able to extradite them?

I answered that. You haven't committed a crime against the UK.

 

[NeoDevin]

I answered that. You haven't committed a crime against the UK.

And I asked you how you define "crime against the UK". If the UK decides that publishing bomb making instructions is a crime against the UK, then who are you to say otherwise?

 

[Evo]

Or if, say, an Australian buys a copy of Mein Kampf, can Germany extradite her?

If we are going to bring up ridiculous scenarios, I'll just lock the thread now. If you want to have a serious discussion, then stop the nonsense posts.

 

[russ_watters]

No. The difficulty I have is that the crime was not as crime as per the laws of the country of residence of the "perpetrator".

You're flipping back and forth - it sounds like you're intentionally weaseling. That's not what you just said:

In that case the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the US, and I agree with you completely as per my previous posts.

So for clairty: if an act is a crime in both countries, then your only concern is the fact that it was perpetrated in one but committed against an entity in another?

No. I think that the UK has no laws respecting documents deemed classified by the US. I think the UK has its own classification system, and laws respecting documents in that system.

You're weaseling. That's obviously not something that any country would ever do so you're setting up a rediculous hypothetical as your condition for accepting extradition. Or, rather, extradition treaties make that UK law cover American documents for the purpose of extradition.

Again go back to my earlier hypothetical. If the UK decided all bomb making instructions should be classified, and then a US national publishes some online, do you think that the UK should be able to extradite them?

You mean prosecute, but in any case, that's a rediculous hypothetical and I won't entertain it.

 

[Evo]

Who are you responding to?

gokul deleted his post while I was responding, so it didn't show up.

 

[russ_watters]

For such threads (and maybe it should be a sticky), I think it is important to recognize two issues for the purpose of clarity:
1. What is the reality?
2. What do you think the reality should be?

Then people will know which one we're arguing about!

NeoDevin, part of what is making this so difficult is you don't seem to recognize the realities. It is fine (within reason) to argue against them, but as a starting point you really need to recognize what the reality is and then justify why you think the reality should be different. Thus far, I can't tell if you understand what the reality is or why it exists, so you don't have a firmly grounded jumping-off point for your argument.

 

[turbo]

The person is Gary McKinnon, did you think it was Assange?

Assange is the public face of that movement. I don't think you thought that I was dumb, just having fun.

 

[talk2glenn]

1. What is the reality?

Here's a real life case I found in 5 minutes of google search that should at least put to rest the first question. Whether folks like it or not, Assange can be tried under the Espionage Act (and a number of related statutes), and it has been done succesfully in the past.

Alfred Zehe was arrested in Boston in 1983 after being caught in a government-run sting operation in which he had reviewed classified U.S. government documents in Mexico and East Germany. His attorneys contended without success that the indictment was invalid, arguing that the Espionage Act does not cover the activities of a foreign citizen outside the United States.[19][20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act#Enforcement

 

[NeoDevin]

You're flipping back and forth - it sounds like you're intentionally weaseling.

No, I'm remaining consistent in my views. Possibly I'm not communicating them very well, I'll try to be more clear.

In the following examples the "host country" is the one where the offender currently resides, the "victim country" is the country where the victim of the offense resides (or is the victim of the offense itself).

Situation 1: Act is a crime in both countries, and was committed within the victim country: The offender should be extradited to the victim country to be tried there.

Situation 2: Act is a crime in both countries, and was committed within the host country: The offender should be tried according to the laws of the host country. This is not always practical, as the evidence may not be available. In such a situation I would support the extradition.

Situation 3: Act is a crime in both countries, and was committed somewhere outside the two countries: This is a grey area, I'm not sure what should happen in this situation.

Situation 4: Act is a crime in the victim country only and was committed within the victim country: As long as prosecution for the act doesn't violate human rights as defined by the host country, the offender should be extradited to the victim country to stand trial.

Situation 5: Act is a crime in the victim country only and was committed within the host country: No prosecution.

Edit: Note, this is how I think it should work. I understand that this is not always the way it does work.

 

[NeoDevin]

NeoDevin, part of what is making this so difficult is you don't seem to recognize the realities. It is fine (within reason) to argue against them, but as a starting point you really need to recognize what the reality is and then justify why you think the reality should be different. Thus far, I can't tell if you understand what the reality is or why it exists, so you don't have a firmly grounded jumping-off point for your argument.

My "starting point" is the Canadian extradition policy (since I'm Canadian). I linked earlier in this thread to an article which explains how the Canadian policy requires both dual-criminality and that the offense have been committed within the jurisdiction of the requesting country.

 

[NeoDevin]

Here's a real life case I found in 5 minutes of google search that should at least put to rest the first question. Whether folks like it or not, Assange can be tried under the Espionage Act (and a number of related statutes), and it has been done succesfully in the past.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act#Enforcement

And if Assange is ever stupid enough to enter the US, then he will be prosecuted.

 

[Evo]

Assange is the public face of that movement. I don't think you thought that I was dumb, just having fun.

Not dumb, you haven't been forced to read as many articles as I've had to the last few days. I now know more about US & international law than I ever wanted to. I've read almost every article in the USC 18.

 

[Evo]

And if Assange is ever stupid enough to enter the US, then he will be prosecuted.

Or extradited.

 

[Gokul43201]

The US would definitely want to try him, the killings occurred on US soil. Germany can decide what they want. He has commited a crime against US citizens.

gokul deleted his post, so it didn't show up.

Yup, I deleted my post (which involved a hypothetical about killing US citizens by a missile launched from German soil) because it didn't accurately capture the situation I was hoping to propose. Nevertheless, let me ask about the statements above:

1. The US would definitely want to try him, the killings occurred on US soil.

2. He has committed a crime against US citizens.

It is my understanding that only the first of these two conditions is important. Am I mistaken? (i.e., if someone kills Germans who were in the US, I think the US gets jurisdiction over the crime, not Germany.)

 

[NeoDevin]

Just so you guys don't think I've abandoned the discussion: I'll be offline probably until tomorrow evening, when I'll catch up on everything posted in the meantime. I hope my last post clarifies my position somewhat and eliminates any confusion.

 

[turbo]

Answer to Post #10 would welcome. Any response to #17 would be welcome, as well. Rational and relatively polite would be nice...

 

[Newai]

Yup, I deleted my post (which involved a hypothetical about killing US citizens by a missile launched from German soil) because it didn't accurately capture the situation I was hoping to propose. Nevertheless, let me ask about the statements above:

1. The US would definitely want to try him, the killings occurred on US soil.

2. He has committed a crime against US citizens.

It is my understanding that only the first of these two conditions is important. Am I mistaken? (i.e., if someone kills Germans who were in the US, I think the US gets jurisdiction over the crime, not Germany.)

I don't know for sure, but the only law I can find to cover that is Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51, § 1116: Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons. I don't find jurisdiction for non-officials.

 

[Evo]

Yup, I deleted my post (which involved a hypothetical about killing US citizens by a missile launched from German soil) because it didn't accurately capture the situation I was hoping to propose. Nevertheless, let me ask about the statements above:

1. The US would definitely want to try him, the killings occurred on US soil.

2. He has committed a crime against US citizens.

It is my understanding that only the first of these two conditions is important. Am I mistaken? (i.e., if someone kills Germans who were in the US, I think the US gets jurisdiction over the crime, not Germany.)

Let's put those American citizens on a boat in international waters. I think even though they weren't killed on US soil, the US would still go after the guy. Intent to prosecute doesn't mean success in ever bringing the person to trial.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Or if, say, an Australian buys a copy of Mein Kampf, can Germany extradite her?

If we are going to bring up ridiculous scenarios, I'll just lock the thread now. If you want to have a serious discussion, then stop the nonsense posts.

Evo... I don't know what I've done wrong. I think this is a valid point that strikes to the heart of the matter: a law that has no analog in another country. I've brought up similar points in other threads: criticism of the King of Thailand, for example. (Is that an appropriate example?)

I thought this would be a good example, where one person might say that a German citizen in Australia could face extradition, but not a native Australian; one might say that neither could, but that an Australian possessing German secret documents could (and, hopefully, a clear line between those); another might say that neither could. Perhaps even some would say that both could face extradition. These are three or four apparently reasonable perspectives, and distinguishing between them, their legal bases, and the practical and moral implications.

But if the example is ridiculous, I suppose none of that can be asked here. I don't suppose my Thai example, or Korean example (illegal haircuts), or Chinese example (Dalai Lama's website) are any less ridiculous? If any of these are acceptable, I withdraw my former example and substitute that. If none are... I suppose I'm forced to stop this line of inquiry.

 

[russ_watters]

Answer to Post #10 would welcome. Any response to #17 would be welcome, as well. Rational and relatively polite would be nice...

Honestly, I thought #10 was too basic to bother with. But ok:

[#10] Should women accused of infidelity or adultery all around the world be subject to extradition and execution if Iran's government wants them to be executed by stoning? Are we that numb to the implications and the possible outcomes?

Even if they are not Iranians?

Obviously, that's why countries only have/honor extradition treaties with countries with similar laws. That's a fundamental aspect of the extradition concept, #1 in the list of exceptions in the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

And then...

[from #17]
He has also exposed the fact that Libya threatened retribution if the bomber was not repatriated. And that the British government was complicit in the negotiations. "Not negotiating with terrorists" sounds really tough and good. It plays well in the press.

That's a non sequitur that contains neither any questions nor any response to another person's question or point, so there isn't anything there to respond to.