3 ms·

That's when we'll know he's really gone off the rails. I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that

That's when we'll know he's really gone off the rails. I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that he committed any crimes." Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. A reasonable Turkish leader wouldn't call that bluff, but Ergodan seems to be slipping deeper and deeper into paranoia and autocratic madness.

Zak 10y ago
this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.
jsmthrowaway 10y ago
> Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around. We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.) I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  I don't think it's a bluff, that was a poor choice of words. I meant something along the lines of "taking up the challenge".

Zak 10y ago

this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

> Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around. We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.) I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.

onetwotree 10y ago
I don't think it's a bluff, that was a poor choice of words. I meant something along the lines of "taking up the challenge".