4 ms·

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... Then move o

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.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      You seem to be attempting to change the subject. I said: "Extradition for? Doing something that is legal in my country while in my country?" You said: "Yes, that is possible." Please provide some precedent for your assertion. To extradite someone, you must first arrest them. In the United States, to arrest someone, you must have probable cause that that person violated a US law[0]. In every case you are going to be able to find, the person wanted by the dest country was either: a. In that country when they broke the law (which is a different subject with plenty of caveats). b. Violated US law and the foreign law while in the US (also a different subject). [0] 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_...
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        The ongoing talks about extraditing Fethullah Gulen to Turkey for his supposed role in the Turkish coup while he was in Pennsylvania seems like a counter-example to me. There is a lot of political back-and-forth over whether that should be done, but I don't see anyone claiming it would violate the Sixth Amendment to extradite him.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        First, that has not happened. Second, would it really be so hard to support your claims with sources? If the guy gets extradited, he's going to first get charged with a US crime.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        That's not how extradition actually works. If you want to read about Gulen you can type "Gulen" into a search engine as easily as I can.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        Don't you find it a bit odd that you keep making claims that you can not or will not support? Is a (non) reference to something that has not happened all you are willing to provide? To extradite someone from the US, you must: 1. Have probable cause to arrest them. 2. Arrest them. 3. Convict them. 4. Extradite them. Why don't you just say "how extradition actually works"?

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.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    You seem to be attempting to change the subject. I said: "Extradition for? Doing something that is legal in my country while in my country?" You said: "Yes, that is possible." Please provide some precedent for your assertion. To extradite someone, you must first arrest them. In the United States, to arrest someone, you must have probable cause that that person violated a US law[0]. In every case you are going to be able to find, the person wanted by the dest country was either: a. In that country when they broke the law (which is a different subject with plenty of caveats). b. Violated US law and the foreign law while in the US (also a different subject). [0] 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_...
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      The ongoing talks about extraditing Fethullah Gulen to Turkey for his supposed role in the Turkish coup while he was in Pennsylvania seems like a counter-example to me. There is a lot of political back-and-forth over whether that should be done, but I don't see anyone claiming it would violate the Sixth Amendment to extradite him.
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        First, that has not happened. Second, would it really be so hard to support your claims with sources? If the guy gets extradited, he's going to first get charged with a US crime.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        That's not how extradition actually works. If you want to read about Gulen you can type "Gulen" into a search engine as easily as I can.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        Don't you find it a bit odd that you keep making claims that you can not or will not support? Is a (non) reference to something that has not happened all you are willing to provide? To extradite someone from the US, you must: 1. Have probable cause to arrest them. 2. Arrest them. 3. Convict them. 4. Extradite them. Why don't you just say "how extradition actually works"?