|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 26, 2024 4:51:56 GMT -5
That he wasn't a US citizen or on US soil does not have to matter. Of course it matters. Someone who is not a US citizen and is not in the US is not under the jurisdiction of US laws, just like a theocracy can't execute a US citizen for posting blasphemy in the US. The only reason the US gets to claim jurisdiction is pure might makes right, the US is powerful and therefore anyone the US dislikes can be punished regardless of the legal situation. That isn't how laws work. We don't selectively decide the jurisdiction of a nation's legal system based on what someone thinks is right. Or do you want the theocracy to have the ability to decide it is morally necessary to punish US citizens for the crime of blasphemy? That depends. If the person who leaked the database is a North Korean hacker then it would be an absolute farce to insist that North Korea extradite them to the US for trial under US law. If the person who leaked the database is a US citizen working with the data as an employee of a US intelligence agency then of course they should be tried (and presumably convicted) under US law. If the person who leaked the database is not under US jurisdiction then if their actions are legal in the country whose jurisdiction they fall under too bad, no matter how angry the US is about the outcome it isn't a crime and they don't get to impose arbitrary punishments for it. We have laws for a reason, the argument that law is irrelevant as long as something bad has happened and someone needs to be punished is the last resort of tyrants. That is not an equivalent scenario. I asked about US citizens in the US, not US citizens who commit crimes while in another nation and subject to their laws. IOW, if, say, Afghanistan should be able to extradite a US citizen living in the US who publishes anti-religious material that is considered blasphemy under their laws. Should the US cooperate in extraditing their citizen to be executed for their supposed crime? How does strengthening laws help when, as in the Assange case, the state is operating by pure might makes right with zero regard for the rule of law?
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jun 26, 2024 5:08:05 GMT -5
Thing is? I don’t see Assange as a victim. At all. He published confidential government documents. Which he knew to be stolen. And he profited from doing so. He’s also shared other, less interesting documents. And profited from doing so. He is a victim because none of those things are crimes and yet the US convicted him in an absurd farce of a show trial after making an equally absurd claim to jurisdiction. He may not be a sympathetic victim but he is clearly the victim of US abuses of power.
And once again: Should North Korea be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible under North Korean law for sharing secrets North Korea wants to protect? Should a theocracy be allowed to hold US citizens legally responsible for violating its anti-blasphemy laws in the US? Or is the US the only country that gets to declare that its laws magically have global jurisdiction?
I asked mdg a variant of this several times on ETC about Saudi Arabia and homosexuality laws, also in a conversation about Assange. To everyone's amazement, he never touched that one either. Just recycled that 'he knew it was a crime!' nonsense ad nauseum instead. I for one am glad I didn't know him when I was having sex with my girlfriend when we were both 16 in Scotland. He might have called the cops on California. A close call.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 5:22:42 GMT -5
That he wasn't a US citizen or on US soil does not have to matter. Of course it matters. Someone who is not a US citizen and is not in the US is not under the jurisdiction of US laws, just like a theocracy can't execute a US citizen for posting blasphemy in the US. The only reason the US gets to claim jurisdiction is pure might makes right, the US is powerful and therefore anyone the US dislikes can be punished regardless of the legal situation. But this ignores modern day reality. Russian hackers target the US on a daily basis, just because they are doing so from Russia doesn't make it legal. The US has no jurisdiction in Russia, but could certainly request extradition. In the case of Assange, the US is convinced that he is an accessory in a crime, i.e. he gave the US citizen the tools and motivation to commit it. But we do that all the time? That is the process of an extradition request, which the country in question deems valid based on its own standards and laws. We decide not to honor extradition requests based on the possibility of an unfair trial or a potential death penalty. In essence intergovernmental law is always based on what is right by the country that the suspect is located in.But the farce is already happening. We already convict foreign nationals in absentia. We don't issue an extradition request to North Korea because we know it is pointless, but that request might happen once that person finds themselves in a third country. It has happened with multiple Russian hackers and the Huawei case for example. I think saying a hypothetical third party national is simply allowed to walk away with provable blood on their hands, due to negligence over their involvement of what is considered a crime in the country where it occured, is taking it too far. Is being punished for responsibility in the deaths of people really arbitrary? The supranational legal system is simply not yet able to deal with such cases. But those citizens haven't committed crimes, that's the point. Both China and Russia already detain foreign nationals on trumped up charges for national gain. The reason why they don't requests extraditions is simply because they are realistic. The 'might makes right' approach doesn't (yet) work for China, but if extraditing US citizens became a possible option, you could bet they would be filing requests. China is already abusing Interpol to try and catch dissidents. www.reuters.com/world/interpol-cant-do-much-more-stop-abuse-red-notices-chief-says-2023-11-28/Deciding which laws to follow based on what authoritarian states do is dangerous, because those states already exploit any framework to the best of their abilities. It also means that genuinely guilty people (not Assange) might simply walk away after destroying people's lives. The US has faced extradition requests, one that comes to mind is the wife of a diplomat that caused an accident in the UK in which someone was killed. A decision is simply made if the crime in question is worthy of extradition. So far I don't think there has ever been a request to extradite a US citizen from the US for a crime in a country they have never been in, but you can discuss the reason why this never occurred endlessly (probably because the US doesn't extradite). But is that rule of law or another example of 'might makes right'? Here it would help by strengthening UK law against such extradition requests. You can never fully get away from the 'might makes right' approach, but that shouldn't mean we shouldn't try. If we throw our hands up and point at 'might makes right', nothing will ever change. Yeah, it might be an overly idealistic approach, but we should try to inch forward and change certain mentalities. I'm not saying you're wrong to consider it wrong, I am saying, wrong or not, that this is already the reality in which we live, laws or no laws.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 26, 2024 5:39:42 GMT -5
But those citizens haven't committed crimes, that's the point. Of course they have committed crimes. Blasphemy is a crime in Afghanistan, punishable by death, and the definition of blasphemy is extremely broad. So why shouldn't Afghanistan have the jurisdiction to punish a US citizen living in the US who posts blasphemous content on the internet where someone in Afghanistan could read it? This is the root of the issue here: Assange did not violate the laws of the country he is a citizen of or the country he was in. Nor was he tried in that country under their laws. The US simply declared that he was subject to US law because might makes right and nobody wanted to pay the price of standing up to that abuse of power. Yes, that is exactly how it works. If their actions are not a crime in their country you don't get to arbitrarily declare that you have the right to step in and issue punishment just because their actions would be a crime in your country. Otherwise your counterpart in Afghanistan could make a very similar and equally valid argument: "It also means that genuinely guilty people might simply walk away after blaspheming against God."And how can you dispute that argument? Under their moral beliefs blasphemy is just as evil and harmful as anything Assange did so why should they have to watch the guilty party walk away without punishment after committing such a horrific crime?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 5:58:04 GMT -5
But those citizens haven't committed crimes, that's the point. Of course they have committed crimes. Blasphemy is a crime in Afghanistan, punishable by death, and the definition of blasphemy is extremely broad. So why shouldn't Afghanistan have the jurisdiction to punish a US citizen living in the US who posts blasphemous content on the internet where someone in Afghanistan could read it? This is the root of the issue here: Assange did not violate the laws of the country he is a citizen of or the country he was in. Nor was he tried in that country under their laws. The US simply declared that he was subject to US law because might makes right and nobody wanted to pay the price of standing up to that abuse of power. Because that is simply not how we decided to set up the legal framework? We extradite for murder or drug crimes (within reason), but not for 'crimes' like blasphemy or being part of the LGBTQ+ community. We already make 'arbitrary' decisions based on what country we're located in. That is why the extradition request matters, because the country in which the suspect is held needs to deem the charges valid/fair. That is not in essence wrong if the system works well, but detaining someone for years should not be done in the name of determening what is valid/fair. But then rule of law doesn't matter anyway, because in your 'might makes right' argument, the UK would still hand him over even if completely illegal. If might makes right is the only operating framework, it doesn't matter if what Assange did was legal or illegal under US law, the only thing that matters is that 'the government' wants him. But again, we can do this. We can convict people based on criminal actions under international law. If we wanted, we could put this hypothetical third party in front of the ICC. We don't, because we assume the intragovernmental framework will tackle it. I think to dispute that argument we have to get a lot more philosophical on laws and morality and where we find common ground, f.e. in extradition (as in somewhere between 'don't murder' and 'death to the LGBTQ+ community'). We could start pointing at supranational organizations like the UN to start arbitration, because there the consideration is freedom of thought and expression, which the idea of blasphemy does not overrule. I am certainly not opposed to pushing these issues to a supranational level, but I fear that might makes right will saw at the legs of any legal framework for the forseeable future. Edit: In essence, I am asking why US law and jurisdiction matters, if extradition is a matter of might makes right. Extradition would happen regardless, because the US is stronger and Afghanistan is too weak in that scenario.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 26, 2024 6:32:47 GMT -5
Ok doke.
Does your country have an extradition treaty with North Korea? Did the crime, whatever you think about the underlying law, occur in North Korea’s territorial jurisdiction? After all, if we’re using silly and not direct comparisons, if I, a UK citizen, murdered someone whilst visiting New York, I can still be charged, prosecuted and imprisoned by the US Justice System, under their laws.
Does the alleged criminal act involve North Korea?
On the blasphemy laws, what’s the wider context? Does it involve hacking the country with the blasphemy law’s government computer, and sending stuff which would breach said blasphemy law? And does this hypothetical country have an extradition treaty?
On NFE’s one, which I don’t remember at all? Quick answer.
No, no I wouldn’t, on account what two persons of the age of consent in Scotland do has fuck all to do with California. In terms of anti-homosexuality or age of consent laws, I don’t think those laws are just. But, there’s still a distinct difference between Saudi prosecuting or even arresting a known homosexual just for being homosexual, and arresting or seeking to prosecute people who broke a law, in Saudi, however much you, I or others disagree with the justness of said law.
Contextual answer? 16 may be the age of consent. But, there are still ancillary laws, such as the age gap. Casting no aspersion at all on nfe, if they’re older than their girlfriend, that itself isn’t a crime, unless nfe was their teacher, youth group leader etc, where there are laws which could see nfe prosecuted. Still fuck all to do with California though.
Of course, this is still “whataboutism” and has little to nothing to do with Assange, who let me remind you, published confidential government documents he knew to be stolen. Handling Stolen Goods is a crime - how serious a crime will depend on jurisdiction and I dare say the wider context of the theft and circumstances. And the involvement of the internet in the publishing and distribution really muddies the legal waters.
Example of context? Clean Hands in fraud. Something I’m pretty well versed in. Short version? Let’s say I decide to sell my PS5. I agree a sale online. Buyer pays on collection, doing so via PayPal. It later transpires they didn’t own that PayPal account, or used a stolen debit card to fund that PayPal transaction. In this scenario? I’ve done nothing wrong. I sold a genuine item, and in this specific scenario had no real reason to believe the money received was fraudulent in nature. It does get more complex of course, because context and risk and possible negligence (for instance, if I’m paid by bank transfer, and it’s from an account with a completely different name)
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jun 26, 2024 6:52:20 GMT -5
Ok doke. Does your country have an extradition treaty with North Korea? Did the crime, whatever you think about the underlying law, occur in North Korea’s territorial jurisdiction? After all, if we’re using silly and not direct comparisons, if I, a UK citizen, murdered someone whilst visiting New York, I can still be charged, prosecuted and imprisoned by the US Justice System, under their laws. Does the alleged criminal act involve North Korea? On the blasphemy laws, what’s the wider context? Does it involve hacking the country with the blasphemy law’s government computer, and sending stuff which would breach said blasphemy law? And does this hypothetical country have an extradition treaty? On NFE’s one, which I don’t remember at all? Quick answer. No, no I wouldn’t, on account what two persons of the age of consent in Scotland do has fuck all to do with California. In terms of anti-homosexuality or age of consent laws, I don’t think those laws are just. But, there’s still a distinct difference between Saudi prosecuting or even arresting a known homosexual just for being homosexual, and arresting or seeking to prosecute people who broke a law, in Saudi, however much you, I or others disagree with the justness of said law. Contextual answer? 16 may be the age of consent. But, there are still ancillary laws, such as the age gap. Casting no aspersion at all on nfe, if they’re older than their girlfriend, that itself isn’t a crime, unless nfe was their teacher, youth group leader etc, where there are laws which could see nfe prosecuted. Still fuck all to do with California though. Of course, this is still “whataboutism” and has little to nothing to do with Assange, who let me remind you, published confidential government documents he knew to be stolen. Handling Stolen Goods is a crime - how serious a crime will depend on jurisdiction and I dare say the wider context of the theft and circumstances. And the involvement of the internet in the publishing and distribution really muddies the legal waters. Example of context? Clean Hands in fraud. Something I’m pretty well versed in. Short version? Let’s say I decide to sell my PS5. I agree a sale online. Buyer pays on collection, doing so via PayPal. It later transpires they didn’t own that PayPal account, or used a stolen debit card to fund that PayPal transaction. In this scenario? I’ve done nothing wrong. I sold a genuine item, and in this specific scenario had no real reason to believe the money received was fraudulent in nature. It does get more complex of course, because context and risk and possible negligence (for instance, if I’m paid by bank transfer, and it’s from an account with a completely different name) But Assange was not in the US when he released classified US documents. Was it illegal to release classified US documents in the country he was in? Under this incredibly woolly "does it have something to do with country" definition, would you accept North Korea requesting extradition for the murder of a North Korean citizen who was murdered in France? Of course not, because extradition exists for the purposes of returning people to the jurisdiction where the accused crime took place. Where was Assange when he released classified US documents? Was he in the US? Again, you are inventing more crimes to justify your position. Assange hacked zero computers to gain access to the documents, and neither did the person who stole them in fact. Also, handling stolen goods is not applicable. Theft in that sense requires the deprivation of goods from the rightful owner. That's why video game companies don't charge everyone with pirated copies of their games with handling stolen goods, they charge them with IP infringement laws. The US never was deprived of the information Assange released. It was copied from their computers, they retained it after the "crime".
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 7:03:34 GMT -5
I think the Assange case obfuscates a real problem in modern times though. If we look at internet fraud or hacking, the authorities in countries where it is done from are (often) indifferent to those crimes (if it is even classed as one).
There is the recent case of a US teen comitting suicide over blackmail from Nigeria and the US is trying to extradite the two men it deems responsible.
Is that wrong because they're not on US soil? The US often seems to use it as a tool so as to prevent the suspect from evading prosecution in their country of origin.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jun 26, 2024 7:10:35 GMT -5
I think the Assange case obfuscates a real problem in modern times though. If we look at internet fraud or hacking, the authorities in countries where it is done from are (often) indifferent to those crimes. There is the recent case of a US teen comitting suicide over blackmail from Nigeria and the US is trying tk extradite the two men responsible. Is that wrong because they're not on US soil? Do you mean morally, or legally? And again, not a good comparison. They were directly engaging in fraud and blackmail, which are both crimes in and of themselves. That Nigeria is lax in enforcing them against it's own citizens who are engaging in these crimes via the internet is the issue here. Also, the US did successfully prosecute them www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigerian-brothers-sexually-exploit-ring-blamed-us-teen-suicide_n_66184d82e4b00830e916d1b5 and is currently in the process of going after the third. But then, that involved a crime committed against a US citizen who was in the US at the time. What crime did Assange commit against a US citizen who was in the US at the time? Assange did not remove the information from the US servers, so he didn't commit that crime. He received them, which was a crime that was, again, done by the person giving him the files. It is not illegal for someone to be given classified documents they do not have security clearance for, only to be the person giving them. Which makes total sense, otherwise you could get everyone in the US arrested by sending out an anonymous spam email containing classified information. Now, if he was in the US, he would have a legal duty to inform the government that he had received such files (though, again this is woolly as you can still use them for journalistic purposes in circumstances). But he was not in the US. So, did the country he was actually in have any laws against sharing the classified documents of a foreign nation?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 7:25:28 GMT -5
I don't think there is a direct comparison to make with Assange in recent years, due to the nature of the documents. I just mean that the US uses the same mechanisms on Assange that it employs on other cases with a more firm foundation.
I think the Assange situation is a red herring anyway, because even if there was a valid/actual crime,(theft/espionage/conspiring, which to clarify he was accused of egging on and providing the tools for) is doing so to reveal large scale illegal government activity worthy of being prosecuted? I don't think so, but within the current legal framework both Assange and the other cases fit into the 'crime' definition with which to try and force an extradition.
I'm just curious how everyone thinks about the extradition topic outside of the Assange case, as the US always seems to have high profile cases going on.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jun 26, 2024 7:25:57 GMT -5
Ok doke. Handling Stolen Goods is a crime Tell that to the British Museum...
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jun 26, 2024 7:30:37 GMT -5
. I'm just curious how everyone thinks about the extradition topic outside of the Assange case. I don't think any extraditions should occur to a country with capital punishment. Plus the US is the biggest prison state on the planet. I think extradition in a general sense should exist, particularly for crimes physically committed in a jurisdiction where the suspect then fled abroad. But not if the alleged crime doesn't have an analogue in the country they fled to- the person needs to be charged and held under charge with due process. Crimes committed via telecommunications obviously get more complicated and I don't have time to express a good take right now.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 7:30:45 GMT -5
Ok doke. Handling Stolen Goods is a crime Tell that to the British Museum... Circling right back to Peregrine's might makes right argument.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 26, 2024 7:32:44 GMT -5
. I'm just curious how everyone thinks about the extradition topic outside of the Assange case. I don't think any extraditions should occur to a country with capital punishment. Plus the US is the biggest prison state on the planet. I think even without the death sentence, US sentencing is seen as abnormally excessive and their prison system as quite inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by punishedmcbogus on Jun 26, 2024 8:19:36 GMT -5
I don't think any extraditions should occur to a country with capital punishment. Plus the US is the biggest prison state on the planet. I think even without the death sentence, US sentencing is seen as abnormally excessive and their prison system as quite inadequate. I think given what happened to David McBride, Assange would be better off facing trial in the US than Australia.
|
|