5 ms·

Doesn't international law/Danish law require an extradition process or is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime?

akerro 11y ago
> is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime If you do it, it's a crime and SWAT will hit your home, if government does it, it's ok, it's for your safety, you know... terrorists.
- pc86 11y ago
  I know what you're getting at, but there are things a government must do that a civilian must be legally prohibited from doing. As a matter of fact, that's most of the role of government.
  - _ak 11y ago
    The monopoly on power that the sovereign grants to the executive branch is still meant to be within the limits of that grant. This is obviously not the case anymore. The sovereign has lost oversight over the executive branch's actions. Effectively, governments and their organizations have become states within states, with no accountability anymore. That's where state theory completely implodes, as there aren't meant to be any "we're doing secret stuff with no oversight, you have to trust us we're not doing anything illegal" situations.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Surely there is a legitimate need for classified information and secrecy. Who beyond military, executive, congressional committee, and court officials should have that type of access?
mrweasel 11y ago
Danish politicians doesn't give a shit, sorry. If the US wants something, they get it, no questions asked. If it turns out to be illegal, oh well, mistakes happen. The only reason Denmark isn't puppet state of the US (to a larger extend than is case) is because the US doesn't care. Our politicians have absolutely zero spine when it comes to arguing against the US.
- Diederich 11y ago
  When will it get to the point where 'arguing with the US' will become a political boon, rather than a liability?
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence. It's just as stupid when politicians use "stick it to the man" as justification for their bullshit. See Maduro's endless struggle against the evil neoliberal conspiracy.
- plesner 11y ago
  I agree that Denmark tends to dance to the US's tune but not as spinelessly as you make it sound. If what you're saying was true wouldn't there be US missile on Greenland?
  - arethuza 11y ago
    The US did plan to put missiles in under-ice bases in Greenland, without telling Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm They didn't do it because it didn't work - the ice moves too much, rather than the Danes complaining about it.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    In 1961, the US asked if the Danish government wished to be brief about nuclear weapons stationed in Greenland. The answer "Not really" (paraphrasing of cause). The Thule scandal, about covering up a nuclear armed B-52 crashing in Greenland is fascinating too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash#Thulegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... But you're right, no missiles.
oneJob 11y ago
International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do. Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.
- rquantz 11y ago
  Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?
- germanier 11y ago
  Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.

akerro 11y ago

> is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime If you do it, it's a crime and SWAT will hit your home, if government does it, it's ok, it's for your safety, you know... terrorists.

pc86 11y ago
I know what you're getting at, but there are things a government must do that a civilian must be legally prohibited from doing. As a matter of fact, that's most of the role of government.
- _ak 11y ago
  The monopoly on power that the sovereign grants to the executive branch is still meant to be within the limits of that grant. This is obviously not the case anymore. The sovereign has lost oversight over the executive branch's actions. Effectively, governments and their organizations have become states within states, with no accountability anymore. That's where state theory completely implodes, as there aren't meant to be any "we're doing secret stuff with no oversight, you have to trust us we're not doing anything illegal" situations.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Surely there is a legitimate need for classified information and secrecy. Who beyond military, executive, congressional committee, and court officials should have that type of access?

mrweasel 11y ago

Danish politicians doesn't give a shit, sorry. If the US wants something, they get it, no questions asked. If it turns out to be illegal, oh well, mistakes happen. The only reason Denmark isn't puppet state of the US (to a larger extend than is case) is because the US doesn't care. Our politicians have absolutely zero spine when it comes to arguing against the US.

Diederich 11y ago
When will it get to the point where 'arguing with the US' will become a political boon, rather than a liability?
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence. It's just as stupid when politicians use "stick it to the man" as justification for their bullshit. See Maduro's endless struggle against the evil neoliberal conspiracy.
plesner 11y ago
I agree that Denmark tends to dance to the US's tune but not as spinelessly as you make it sound. If what you're saying was true wouldn't there be US missile on Greenland?
- arethuza 11y ago
  The US did plan to put missiles in under-ice bases in Greenland, without telling Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm They didn't do it because it didn't work - the ice moves too much, rather than the Danes complaining about it.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  In 1961, the US asked if the Danish government wished to be brief about nuclear weapons stationed in Greenland. The answer "Not really" (paraphrasing of cause). The Thule scandal, about covering up a nuclear armed B-52 crashing in Greenland is fascinating too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash#Thulegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... But you're right, no missiles.

oneJob 11y ago

International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do. Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.

rquantz 11y ago
Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.
- oneJob 11y ago
  is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?
germanier 11y ago
Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.