Should the world be subject to US law?

[russ_watters]

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, I think that points to one of the key issues people here are having. This crime is one where the trigger was pulled in one country and the damage done in another and that's not something we see every day. What people don't seem to be recognizing is that the [primary] crime scene is where the damage happens, not where the the shot was fired from.

Consider a Canadian shooting a gun across the US/Canada border. No one gets hit. He's likely committed crimes in both countries for illegal use of a weapon/reckless endangerment. but if someone gets hit and killed in the US, it's also murder -- but only in the US because no one died on Canadian soil.

I don't think it should be very difficult to see how this hypothetical covers information crimes such as espionage, copyright/patent infringement, fraud, hacking, theft, etc. that can be committed remotely, by computer.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Wow, I've been looking for such an example for weeks and somehow I missed it in the wiki for the espionage act! Thanks!

 

[russ_watters]

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 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.

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

Situation 2 is the most applicable, but the weaseling comes in where what you said sounds like it matches the reality of the situation, but actually doesn't: What you didn't include is this specification by you that law in country X should have to explicitly state that it covers crimes committed in other countries in order for country Y to be awarded extradition of someone in country X who committed the crime in/against country Y. It's a preposterous requirement* that doesn't exist because it is preposterous...not to mention, made redundant/irrelevant by the extradition treaty that says it doesn't have to work that way.

*What you suggest leads to the requirement that they write provisions in every law that deal with extradition to different countries and then update them as politics change. It's cumbersome to the point of being unworkable. In practice, the way it is done is the way it has to be done: the extradition treaty itself is what dictates the terms of the extradition.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't see why the US constitution has anything to do with national/state regional land boundaries or extradition unless geography is explicitly named. Otherwise, principles of the constitution can be applied by any willing party. For example, a person committing a crime somewhere outside of N America could appeal to the US constitutional right to trial by a jury of one's peers. Then it must be decided what constitutes that person's "peers." Ultimately, it is a question of (non)cooperation between local and distant authorities. If a national-state government does not wish to extradite someone, they can either choose to treat the suspect as an innocent citizen or exercise justice on behalf of a "foreign" plaintiff on the terms of their own governmental guidelines. If a US citizen sues or pursues a violation of local law with another US citizen or citizen of some other national government in a non-US jurisdiction, the authorities within that jurisdiction would have to mitigate the dispute according to local laws, no? If these local laws allow for the application of non-local laws by remote application, then "foreign justice" can be pursued "domestically," no?

The issue is what protections are offered against what types of "justice" for what reasons by local law. The US constitution, for example. protects against unlawful search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment. So why would a US court extradite a defendant to stand trial in a court that allows for unlawful search and seizure and/or cruel and unusual punishment? Likewise, if some other justice system had provisions against extradition, why would they make an exception when called upon on the basis of political appeasement? Since the US constitution contains provisions for regulating interstate criminality, these provisions should be extendable to international criminality; why not?

 

[Fra]

Neo, how would the world survive if I could commit a crime in one country against another and simply get away with it? By these standards, if the UK made biological weapons legal and the I personally deployed them against another country, there would be absolutely nothing that country could do to prosecute me.

To answer this one need to understand that laws are dynamical and subject to negotiation.

Within countries, as well and globally when it comes to international laws and agreements. In theory committing a crime in the eyes of anothre country may be legal in anothre country.

So how can the world survive such a thing? What happens and how it survives is simple. What will take place is a renegotiation between countries that will harmonize the laws. But these systems have inertia and this is a process that takes time, but the generalized outcome is eithre harmonization or escalated tension between countries until a war appears that destructs the conflicting structures, and (temporarily) resets tension.

This is of course what all OBVIOUS things such as robbing banks, murder, etc are illegial in all countries. But there are other laws, that are in fact not that obvious. Here it becomes a matter of tradition, politics etc.

But even here time will work towards harmonization but some of these not so fatal differences doesn't lead to descructive wars, so differences are preserved, and changes take longer time as the drive is less.

In particular things like freedom of press, speech, journalism protecting sources etc, there are as we know differences between countries. And this is partly polictical. But as citizens our task is NOT just to play by the rules that happen to exist atm, but we are ALL actually taking part in negotiations and development of the rules. The rules are always in motion, that's how I think we will survive, in despite instant inconsistencies. A democracy also mean we have a responsibility to question and improve any laws that are wrong or imperfect. It's the disagreements that drive development.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

By these standards, if the UK made biological weapons legal and the I personally deployed them against another country, there would be absolutely nothing that country could do to prosecute me.

The response would be that either UK would change the laws, or UK would face a conflict with the rest of the world. Then it would be up to UK to decide, which is the wisest move. To harmonize laws or to goto war. Of course the rest of the world has the same choice :) So the situation is symmetrical, except that in size. One country vs the rest of the world.

/Fredrik

 

[Vanadium 50]

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!

Unfortunately, people are jumping straight to #2. Which tends to add a great deal of...um...#2...to this thread.

There are two different ideas people are mixing up - extraterritorial jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. As an example of the former, it is a crime under French law to murder a French citizen, even by a non-French national outside of France or its territories. Several countries (Spain is another example) have this in some form or another, and as you might expect, espionage is often one of the crimes in question: spy against India outside India, and you have committed a crime under Indian law.

The other is universal jurisdiction. For example, from 1993-2003 Belgium claimed the right to try in Belgian courts any crime under Belgian law, no matter where or by whom it was committed. In principle, a mugging on the streets of Baltimore could be prosecuted in Brussels.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see why the US constitution has anything to do with national/state regional land boundaries or extradition unless geography is explicitly named.

"We the People of the United States..."

 

[russ_watters]

universal jurisdiction.

The other is universal jurisdiction. For example, from 1993-2003 Belgium claimed the right to try in Belgian courts any crime under Belgian law, no matter where or by whom it was committed. In principle, a mugging on the streets of Baltimore could be prosecuted in Brussels.

[googles] I was not aware such a thing existed.

 

[JaredJames]

The response would be that either UK would change the laws, or UK would face a conflict with the rest of the world. Then it would be up to UK to decide, which is the wisest move. To harmonize laws or to goto war. Of course the rest of the world has the same choice :) So the situation is symmetrical, except that in size. One country vs the rest of the world.

/Fredrik

But that doesn't answer the question. What the UK does in regards to laws isn't what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that according to Neo's view, if the UK says bio weapons are legal and I use them on another country, that other country cannot do anything about it so far as prosecuting me goes. I have broken no UK law, therefore even though I've broken the law in that country, in an attack on that country, they cannot prosecute me. It doesn't make sense to me. The key to my post is that you are attacking the other country, not simply doing something in the UK that has no impact on the other country but they have as illegal.

Me deploying said weapons within the UK has broke no laws, the other country can do nothing to me.
Me deploying said weapons at a country outside the UK, whilst within the UK, I have attacked another country and therefore am subject to prosecution by them.

 

[brainstorm]

The response would be that either UK would change the laws, or UK would face a conflict with the rest of the world. Then it would be up to UK to decide, which is the wisest move. To harmonize laws or to goto war. Of course the rest of the world has the same choice :) So the situation is symmetrical, except that in size. One country vs the rest of the world.

I wouldn't assume harmonization and/or war is only the product of majoritarian consensus. Sometimes the few or the one can convince the mass with other authority than common traditions. Rational authority is often obfuscated but it CAN prevail.

"We the People of the United States..."

I suppose those words imply some necessary interpretation to you that aren't explicitly stated. No matter, all I was saying is that there are certain ideas described in the constitution, such as trial by jury of peers and freedom from unlawful search and seizure, quartering of troops, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. that could in theory be claimed and/or respected by any powerful entity globally, regardless of nationality. This doesn't mean that anyone with US citizenship will necessarily swoop into backup the claimant's right to invoke constitutional amendments, just that there is a certain universal logic in them that is possible to recognize and understand for anyone globally, the same way it was possible for MLKjr to recognize and understand the ideas of M Ghandi without being Hindu/Indian.

 

[zomgwtf]

I only got through this to about the 4th page and I must say there are many people on this forums, posting in this thraed, that have no idea what Extradition means and how it occurs.

I suggest these people, instead of making up bogus hypotheticals actually do some personal research into the topic. Perhaps then they can come back with some hypotheticals which would make more sense.

 

[NeoDevin]

Situation 2 is the most applicable, but the weaseling comes in where what you said sounds like it matches the reality of the situation, but actually doesn't: What you didn't include is this specification by you that law in country X should have to explicitly state that it covers crimes committed in other countries in order for country Y to be awarded extradition of someone in country X who committed the crime in/against country Y. It's a preposterous requirement* that doesn't exist because it is preposterous...not to mention, made redundant/irrelevant by the extradition treaty that says it doesn't have to work that way.

No, the requirement is (for Canada, "should be" for everywhere IMO) simply that the action, had it been performed within either country, would have been a crime. That is the requirement of dual-criminality. Not that the action is a crime in the US, despite having been performed in Canada.

 

[Fra]

I wouldn't assume harmonization and/or war is only the product of majoritarian consensus.

Yes you're right, I was charicaturizing this when I said war vs harmonization.

With "war" I just meant to continue business with conflicting opinion/law. Actual war is of course just the extreme.

/Fredrik

 

[brainstorm]

I only got through this to about the 4th page and I must say there are many people on this forums, posting in this thraed, that have no idea what Extradition means and how it occurs.

I suggest these people, instead of making up bogus hypotheticals actually do some personal research into the topic. Perhaps then they can come back with some hypotheticals which would make more sense.

Maybe they're interested in discussing the matter democratically to arrive at their own reasonable standards instead of taking a technocratic-authoritarian approach that involves mindless submission to external institutions on the basis of arbitrary authority.

 

[zomgwtf]

Maybe they're interested in discussing the matter democratically to arrive at their own reasonable standards instead of taking a technocratic-authoritarian approach that involves mindless submission to external institutions on the basis of arbitrary authority.

Maybe you should read more into how extradition works too.

 

[BobG]

I don't think there are any hard and fast protocols for dealing with a person physically located in one country committing a crime in a completely different second country that harms yet a third county. It's one of the new situations created by a global internet.

For precedence, just look at how other similar jurisdictional situations are resolved.

If a company in New York is selling wine online to someone from Idaho, who should get the sales tax from that transaction - New York or Idaho? If it's Idaho and the company doesn't collect the sales tax, who should be charged for failure to pay sales tax - the New York wine company or the individual in Idaho?

I think in the case of the sales tax, it's the location of the individual that determines where the transaction took place, but only the buyer is under the state's jurisdiction (how to actually collect that sales tax is a completely different problem). Using that same logic, I don't think a remote hacker is under the jurisdiction of the country where the damage occurred. (Which is a problem that the international community needs to figure out how to deal with, most likely in a similar manner as they do with international maritime law.)

Likewise, if a company in Nigeria runs a legal online gambling operation (at least in their country), the US can't prosecute the company just because US citizens use the company's website for online gambling (which is illegal in the US). If anyone were prosecuted for the gambling, it would be the US citizens, not the online gambling company.

 

[Evo]

Extraterritorial Application of American
Criminal Law

Although American courts that try aliens for overseas violations of American law must operate within the confines of due process,19 the Supreme Court has observed that the Constitution’s due process commands do not protect aliens who lack any “significant voluntary connection with the United States.”20

“The global view . . . of the Constitution is also contrary to this Court’s decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not every constitutional provision applies to governmental activity even where the United States has sovereign power. . . . t is not open to us in light of the Insular Cases to endorse the view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the United States Government exercises its power. Indeed, we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States.” United States v. Verdugo-

Although American courts that try aliens for overseas violations of American law must operate within the confines of due process,19 the Supreme Court has observed that the Constitution’s due process commands do not protect aliens who lack any “significant voluntary connection with the United States.”20

If the territorial principle is more expansive than its caption might imply, the protective principle is less so. It is confined to crimes committed outside a nation’s territory against its “security, territorial integrity or political independence.”46 As construed by the courts, however, it is
understood to permit the application abroad of statutes which protect the federal government and its functions.47 And so, it covers the overseas murder or attempted murder of federal officers or those thought to be federal officers;48 acts of terrorism calculated to influence American foreign policy;49 conduct which Congress has characterized as a threat to U.S. national security;50 or false statements or forgery designed to frustrate the administration of U.S.our immigration laws.51

Even by international standards, however, the territorial principle applies more widely than its title might suggest. It covers conduct within a nation’s geographical borders. Yet, it also encompasses laws governing conduct on its territorial waters, conduct on its vessels on the high
seas, conduct committed only in part within its geographical boundaries, and conduct elsewhere that has an impact within its territory.42

These are just a few snippets, but you can see that the US can hold an alien on foreign land accountable for criminal acts against the US or breeches of National Security, even if that person has never set foot on US soil or commited the crime on US soil.

The document is lengthy and goes into all aspects of the laws.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf

 

[NeoDevin]

These are just a few snippets, but you can see that the US can hold an alien on foreign land accountable for criminal acts against the US or breeches of National Security, even if that person has never set foot on US soil or commited the crime on US soil.

The document is lengthy and goes into all aspects of the laws.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf

So your argument basically amounts to: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

And you expect the rest of the world to go along with this?

 

[Evo]

So your argument basically amounts to: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

And you expect the rest of the world to go along with this?

That's a ridiculous statement, and not what was posted. Can no one actually make an educated response based on the actual information? I doubt it's any different from how other countries try crimes against them.

What the US can do, as has been posted previously, is dependent on if the person of interest enters the US or is extradited to the US.

 

[NeoDevin]

It is confined to crimes committed outside a nation’s territory against its “security, territorial integrity or political independence.”46 As construed by the courts, however, it is understood to permit the application abroad of statutes which protect the federal government and its functions.47 And so, it covers the overseas murder or attempted murder of federal officers or those thought to be federal officers;48 acts of terrorism calculated to influence American foreign policy;49 conduct which Congress has characterized as a threat to U.S. national security;50 or false statements or forgery designed to frustrate the administration of U.S. our immigration laws. [emphasis mine]

Each of the bolded sections above suggest that it is basically up to the American government what laws they expect to enforce abroad. Hence, my characterization of your argument as: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

What the US can do, as has been posted previously, is dependent on if the person of interest enters the US or is extradited to the US.

And I'm arguing for sensible extradition policies for other nations, rather than capitulating to US political and economic pressures. My point all along has been that the US cannot (should not) simply be allowed to arbitrarily enforce its laws on other nations.

 

[NeoDevin]

To everyone arguing against me:

Hypothetically, if the US asks for extradition of Assange (from either UK or Sweden) and after all the local extradition hearings are carried out, along with all appeals, and it is determined that they cannot/will not extradite Assange to the US, for whatever reasons, what do you think the US response should be?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Should the world be subject to US law? Yes, as long as the US has the money and guns to push its weight around. When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law.

 

[NeoDevin]

Should the world be subject to US law? Yes, as long as the US has the money and guns to push its weight around. When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law.

So if/when China takes over as the leading superpower, we should all just submit?

 

[nismaratwork]

So your argument basically amounts to: "The US can decide to punish anyone anywhere in the world, for anything the US doesn't like."

And you expect the rest of the world to go along with this?

Actually, the key here is: DECIDE to punish. That doesn't mean we'll GET to them, but yeah, just like a person can decide to kill a random person a nation can decide to attempt diplomatic channels to get that person. Naturally the system is more likely to produce a successful result ig the reasons are better than, "this is some random dick", and more along the lines of a negotiation.

Look at Iran, they're holding people for espionage (read: hiking).

So... you're conflating the issues of how a nation decides to extradite, and what it is that gets others to go along with it, or not.

Remember, the country you're trying to get Assange from today may be the country that wants an Assange from you tomorrow. That IS how international politics works you know... no one claimed this was some terribly fair process.

 

[nismaratwork]

So if/when China takes over as the leading superpower, we should all just submit?

Has China submitted to us? Hardly. I wouldn't expect the opposite to the be the case either... don't make absurd straw men.

 

[NeoDevin]

Has China submitted to us? Hardly. I wouldn't expect the opposite to the be the case either... don't make absurd straw men.

By "we" I meant those of us Mathnomalous currently expects to submit to the current superiority of money and guns of the US.

 

[nismaratwork]

By "we" I meant those of us Mathnomalous currently expects to submit to the current superiority of money and guns of the US.

...And inasmuch as the world does submit to the USA as a result of "money and guns" (a little more complex), yeah, just as Mathnomolous said in his original post: we're up for now, but someone else will be next. Did you miss that?

Edit... it was last page... Mathnom said: "When that ceases to be the case, the world will be subject to the next powerful country's law."

Um... he seems to have already answered your question before you asked it.

 

[NeoDevin]

Actually, the key here is: DECIDE to punish. That doesn't mean we'll GET to them, but yeah, just like a person can decide to kill a random person a nation can decide to attempt diplomatic channels to get that person. Naturally the system is more likely to produce a successful result ig the reasons are better than, "this is some random dick", and more along the lines of a negotiation.

Look at Iran, they're holding people for espionage (read: hiking).

So... you're conflating the issues of how a nation decides to extradite, and what it is that gets others to go along with it, or not.

From the OP:

This thread is to avoid further derailing the Assange thread. Claims have been made there regarding the possibility that a non-US citizen not living in the US is (1) subject to US law, and (2) can be extradited for violations of same, when their actions are not violations of local law.

I've been focusing mostly on point (2). While everyone else here seems to be stuck on point (1). Since point (2) is the one that determines who can actually be physically punished, it seemed like the more worthwhile topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

From the OP:



I've been focusing mostly on point (2). While everyone else here seems to be stuck on point (1). Since point (2) is the one that determines who can actually be physically punished, it seemed like the more worthwhile topic.

International extradition of high-value individuals isn't that simple... it's a negotiation. If the USA wants him from Sweden, then Sweden would be mad to agree without demanding promises in return. It may be that pleasing their populace would be more important that political gain, or they right refuse extradition, but also refuse residency.

Ignoring Assange, the USA and other countries don't have an INTEREST in enforcing their laws outside of their borders. Trying to do that, is a fancy way of describing a declaration of war. What is said, what is exchanged through mutual consent regardless of law... that's fine... that's not SUBJECT to anything. You're subject to a people or law when their laws dictate how you live your life.

 

[nismaratwork]

Reframed... The UK grants Assange bail, but Sweden objects, and Assange remains in jail. The USA isn't involved, and Sweden is hardly holding a knife to Great Britain's throat. I'm not sure that part 2 as defined by NeoDevin relates whatsoever to the premise articulated in the title of this thread.

Oh yes, the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/14/uk.assange.hearing/index.html

 

[Evo]

Reframed... The UK grants Assange bail, but Sweden objects, and Assange remains in jail. The USA isn't involved, and Sweden is hardly holding a knife to Great Britain's throat. I'm not sure that part 2 as defined by NeoDevin relates whatsoever to the premise articulated in the title of this thread.

Oh yes, the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/14/uk.assange.hearing/index.html

Love how the UK caves so quickly to pressure. "oh no, they might hack into our computers, got to set him free". Just like they caved to pressure to release the Lockerbie bomber.

Aha, I see this morning's articles where it was cited that the UK felt compelled to release Assange due to fears of a risk from hackers to UK National Security have been edited out.

Here we go

UK warns over threat of cyber attacks by pro-WikiLeaks hackers against government websites

LONDON - Britain's national security adviser has warned that government websites are at risk of cyber attack from pro-WikiLeaks hackers, prime minister David Cameron's office said Monday.

Ministries have been told they could be targeted by online "hacktivists," following attacks on companies including MasterCard Inc., Visa Inc. and PayPal Inc., which cut ties to the WikiLeaks site.

Cameron's office said security adviser Peter Ricketts has raised his concerns before an extradition hearing scheduled for Tuesday, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will appear at a London court.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-warns-pro-wikileaks-attacks-government-websites-20101213-054151-243.html

Another headline erased

Dec 14, 2010 ... Britain's national security adviser said Monday that U.K. government websites could be attacked in retribution if Assange is not released

 

[JaredJames]

Love how the UK caves so quickly to pressure. "oh no, they might hack into our computers, got to set him free". Just like they caved to pressure to release the Lockerbie bomber.

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

 

[Evo]

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

The US has tons of things wrong with it, but at least our Navy isn't part of a time share.

 

[nismaratwork]

The UK is a joke.

We used to be the world super power and now look at us, sharing our navy fleet with France.

Ouch... Well in a year or a century or more... the USA will be joining you. Want to practice our mandarin?