4 ms·

AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. I think there are one or two other possible charg

AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. I think there are one or two other possible charges but both are also unlikely to succeed. As long as they can make his life a living hell though (long trial, loss of freedoms until found innocent) that would hopefully (from the USG perspective) discourage other leakers.

josteink 9y ago
> AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? If we should comply with this for the US, surely we should do so too for Iran, China and Russia, just to mention a few. Is that a direction which anyone have any illusions about ever ending well?
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  This is nothing new. We comply with the US because it's politically good and vice versa for those other nations. However the UK does have a decent record denying extraditions to the US from what I've seen (Gary McKinnon for example).
- exidy 9y ago
  Have you not heard of Kim Dotcom? He's battling extradition to the USA despite never having set foot in the country nor registered a business there.
  - ddalex 9y ago
    Yes, but he deprived MPAA and RIAA of revenue, so that's fair game.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? The US certainly has laws which criminalize behavior outside of the US by non-US citizens; and certainly has attempted extradition (and simple forcible seizure, even in the presence of an extradition treaty with the country where the target was located) based on those laws. > Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? That depends on the specifics of the particular case.

josteink 9y ago

> AFAIK they could try and charge him under the Espionage Act but it would be difficult and unlikely to succeed. So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? If we should comply with this for the US, surely we should do so too for Iran, China and Russia, just to mention a few. Is that a direction which anyone have any illusions about ever ending well?

k-mcgrady 9y ago
This is nothing new. We comply with the US because it's politically good and vice versa for those other nations. However the UK does have a decent record denying extraditions to the US from what I've seen (Gary McKinnon for example).
exidy 9y ago
Have you not heard of Kim Dotcom? He's battling extradition to the USA despite never having set foot in the country nor registered a business there.
- ddalex 9y ago
  Yes, but he deprived MPAA and RIAA of revenue, so that's fair game.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> So you are saying the US has laws which within US jurisdiction says that it's OK to file for extradition of non-US citizens anywhere in the world, if the US doesn't like what they do? The US certainly has laws which criminalize behavior outside of the US by non-US citizens; and certainly has attempted extradition (and simple forcible seizure, even in the presence of an extradition treaty with the country where the target was located) based on those laws. > Good for them, I guess, but why should the rest of the world comply? That depends on the specifics of the particular case.