4 ms·

Fair point, but it doesn't really say the manner in which they planned to put him on a plane, so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agre

Fair point, but it doesn't really say the manner in which they planned to put him on a plane, so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. It's not like the death penalty would be sought (I think the last execution under the Espionage Act was the Rosenbergs) so they'd have no problem meeting the requirements of the extradition treaty. Edit: >> Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt? If it's a) legal, b) gets the job done, why on earth would you make an unforced error when you know everyone on the planet would be watching how you handled this? I'm not relying on the better angels of men here, I'm relying on self interest, path of least resistance, and government laziness. Each on their own has rarely failed me and never all three at once.

js8 11y ago
And was there an extradition agreement (I mean the actual specific paperwork or court decision for Snowden's case, not just the abstract international agreement)? Shouldn't the U.S. get that in order before they send an actual plane? I am not U.S. taxpayer, but it's at least a waste of money otherwise..
- ryanlol 11y ago
  yes
- rbanffy 11y ago
  Unless they did something else and used Snowden as a distraction.
  - js8 11y ago
    It's also possible that UK police really wanted to do something else at Ecuadorian embassy, and Assange was just an useful cover. I don't think secret services feel the need to justify their operations in this manner. On the other hand, people who pay for it..
BWStearns 11y ago
@js8: http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Ex... If my explicit reference to it was not enough to convince you then you can go read it.
ryanlol 11y ago
There's a very good chance the DK<->US extradition treaty could block the extradition of Edward Snowden. >Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: >6. In respect of a military offense.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  It's a civilian criminal offense. The fact that he was a defense contractor doesn't make it a military offense. That would have to be a charge under the UCMJ. @ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Maybe in the US. Scandinavian courts use common sense much more liberally (sometimes even too liberally) than US ones. >@ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better. You can hope, but as someone who has a plenty of experience with Scandinavian legal systems I'll have to assure you that's sadly not the case. Anyway, here I am sitting with a money laundering conviction for receiving a wire transfer of some 6000 euros from a Chinese bitcoin exchange. The prosecutor could never find _anything_ explaining the origin of the money, but as an unemployed person convicted of (not financially motivated) hacking crimes the judge figured it was "common sense" that the money had to be the proceeds of a crime.
rdtsc 11y ago
> so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt?

js8 11y ago

And was there an extradition agreement (I mean the actual specific paperwork or court decision for Snowden's case, not just the abstract international agreement)? Shouldn't the U.S. get that in order before they send an actual plane? I am not U.S. taxpayer, but it's at least a waste of money otherwise..

ryanlol 11y ago
yes
rbanffy 11y ago
Unless they did something else and used Snowden as a distraction.
- js8 11y ago
  It's also possible that UK police really wanted to do something else at Ecuadorian embassy, and Assange was just an useful cover. I don't think secret services feel the need to justify their operations in this manner. On the other hand, people who pay for it..

BWStearns 11y ago

@js8: http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Ex... If my explicit reference to it was not enough to convince you then you can go read it.

ryanlol 11y ago

There's a very good chance the DK<->US extradition treaty could block the extradition of Edward Snowden. >Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: >6. In respect of a military offense.

BWStearns 11y ago
It's a civilian criminal offense. The fact that he was a defense contractor doesn't make it a military offense. That would have to be a charge under the UCMJ. @ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Maybe in the US. Scandinavian courts use common sense much more liberally (sometimes even too liberally) than US ones. >@ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better. You can hope, but as someone who has a plenty of experience with Scandinavian legal systems I'll have to assure you that's sadly not the case. Anyway, here I am sitting with a money laundering conviction for receiving a wire transfer of some 6000 euros from a Chinese bitcoin exchange. The prosecutor could never find _anything_ explaining the origin of the money, but as an unemployed person convicted of (not financially motivated) hacking crimes the judge figured it was "common sense" that the money had to be the proceeds of a crime.

rdtsc 11y ago

> so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt?