4 ms·

If I am in my country, I am only bound by the laws in my country. Sure I can piss off another country (violate their blasphemy laws for example) and then I bett

If I am in my country, I am only bound by the laws in my country. Sure I can piss off another country (violate their blasphemy laws for example) and then I better remember to not go there.

emodendroket 9y ago
Not if an extradition treaty applies.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Extradition for? Doing something that is legal in my country while in my country?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Yes, that is possible. I can't imagine the US is going to extradite anyone for violating the GDPR, but there is no principle barring it. Kim Dotcom's case is probably of interest here.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      In the case of the US, you are incorrect. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, having a extradition treaty changes nothing. Kim was not in the US, and "we" pulled strings to get to him in NZ. I'm not arguing that was right (it was not!) but that's a NZ problem. No US court is ever going to extradite a US citizen for _not_ breaking a US law. This goes directly to why we have the 2nd. If you claim otherwise, I would appreciate an example.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        What part of the Constitution would bar this?
        jakeogh 9y ago
        Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... Then move on to what juries are, and what peers are. In the US we have 3 boxes, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. It's a beautiful system. I realize it might be hard to understand that we are not chattel, and make our own laws, but that's the way it is. You are making an extraordinary claim, that a US citizen can be extradited for _not_ breaking a US law, the burden is on you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Notice_of_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_... If you think "the statue" in "words of the statute" means a foreign law I really cant help you since you gotta start redefining what "the" means at that point.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        OK, well, if your exegesis of the Constitution begins with citing the Declaration of Independence and includes rants about armed insurrection, I think it's safe to say it's not that well thought out.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        Armed insurrection is exactly why the US exists and is not subject to foreign law. Labeling discussion of that a rant does not distract from your failure to back up an unprecedented claim. /rant
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        emodendroket 9y ago
        There's nothing really "unprecedented" about it -- the whole premise of extradition is handing someone over for violating foreign laws, not violating US laws.
        9y ago

If I am in my country, I am only bound by the laws in my country. Sure I can piss off another country (violate their blasphemy laws for example) and then I better remember to not go there.

emodendroket 9y ago

Not if an extradition treaty applies.

jakeogh 9y ago
Extradition for? Doing something that is legal in my country while in my country?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Yes, that is possible. I can't imagine the US is going to extradite anyone for violating the GDPR, but there is no principle barring it. Kim Dotcom's case is probably of interest here.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    In the case of the US, you are incorrect. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, having a extradition treaty changes nothing. Kim was not in the US, and "we" pulled strings to get to him in NZ. I'm not arguing that was right (it was not!) but that's a NZ problem. No US court is ever going to extradite a US citizen for _not_ breaking a US law. This goes directly to why we have the 2nd. If you claim otherwise, I would appreciate an example.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      What part of the Constitution would bar this?
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... Then move on to what juries are, and what peers are. In the US we have 3 boxes, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. It's a beautiful system. I realize it might be hard to understand that we are not chattel, and make our own laws, but that's the way it is. You are making an extraordinary claim, that a US citizen can be extradited for _not_ breaking a US law, the burden is on you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Notice_of_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_... If you think "the statue" in "words of the statute" means a foreign law I really cant help you since you gotta start redefining what "the" means at that point.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        OK, well, if your exegesis of the Constitution begins with citing the Declaration of Independence and includes rants about armed insurrection, I think it's safe to say it's not that well thought out.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        Armed insurrection is exactly why the US exists and is not subject to foreign law. Labeling discussion of that a rant does not distract from your failure to back up an unprecedented claim. /rant
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        emodendroket 9y ago
        There's nothing really "unprecedented" about it -- the whole premise of extradition is handing someone over for violating foreign laws, not violating US laws.
        9y ago