5 ms·

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now,

by kitd 8y ago

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize the evidence they needed while the exec was on UK soil. FB have only themselves to blame.

wtfstatists 8y ago
You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.
- kitd 8y ago
  That's a ridiculous argument. If I refuse to appear in court, I can be arrested and charged with contempt of court. Is that normalising a "violent response to a nonviolent action"? Justice would be impotent in such a setup.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Violence is how the government enforces law, harmful acts don't necessarily have to have a component of physical violence to be extremely bad for society (white collar fraud, misuse of identity documents to get stuff like loans, counterfeiting of currency, etc).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > US can do that because FB is US company The US Congress can and has compelled appearance of non-US parties, and, while it may not have had occasion to resort to this for a non-US person (and hasn't used it's arrest power since 1935, relying instead on executive enforcement bodies and criminal statutes instead of it's recognized contempt and arrest powers), absolutely does have the legal power to send the Sergeants-at-Arms of each House to enforce such compulsory summons with force, to bring either materials or persons before the chamber.
- tankenmate 8y ago
  > Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse. Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy, USG sanctioned piracy. This sort of creative use of laws to acquire information and/or people by various governments world wide has been happening for a very very long time.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy No, arresting people who are not subject to any privilege against arrest in international law, who are on your territory, whether or not they have passed through customs, is not, in international law, in even the slightest way “akin to piracy.”
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  Putting somebody in jail for fraud is the same kind of infraction and response - it is normal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  The UK is a sovereign nation and absolutely can enforce its laws against anyone within its borders, regardless of citizenship. The only potential exception is diplomatic immunity, and that is only granted to the few people who are directly employed to represent a foreign nation. (And even then, such immunity is voluntarily granted by the UK government.)
- reaperducer 8y ago
  US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Didn't the U.S. arrest a Volkswagen exec wanted in connection with the emissions scandal, when he visited?
JJMcJ 8y ago
Contempt of Congress is a real thing in the USA, so refusing a Congressional subpoena can result in enforcement and criminal charges.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  And, while the usual modern method is resort to executive enforcement and criminal charges, Congress has and has used (though not used since 1935) inherent arrest and detention powers which have been confirmed as intrinsic to their Constitutional authority by the Supreme Court. So while it would be newsworthy for Congress to do this, what the Parliament did here is not something Congress could not legally do to a visiting exec in possession of information sealed by a foreign court.

by kitd 8y ago

wtfstatists 8y ago

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

kitd 8y ago
That's a ridiculous argument. If I refuse to appear in court, I can be arrested and charged with contempt of court. Is that normalising a "violent response to a nonviolent action"? Justice would be impotent in such a setup.
throwaway2048 8y ago
Violence is how the government enforces law, harmful acts don't necessarily have to have a component of physical violence to be extremely bad for society (white collar fraud, misuse of identity documents to get stuff like loans, counterfeiting of currency, etc).
dragonwriter 8y ago
> US can do that because FB is US company The US Congress can and has compelled appearance of non-US parties, and, while it may not have had occasion to resort to this for a non-US person (and hasn't used it's arrest power since 1935, relying instead on executive enforcement bodies and criminal statutes instead of it's recognized contempt and arrest powers), absolutely does have the legal power to send the Sergeants-at-Arms of each House to enforce such compulsory summons with force, to bring either materials or persons before the chamber.
tankenmate 8y ago
> Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse. Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy, USG sanctioned piracy. This sort of creative use of laws to acquire information and/or people by various governments world wide has been happening for a very very long time.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy No, arresting people who are not subject to any privilege against arrest in international law, who are on your territory, whether or not they have passed through customs, is not, in international law, in even the slightest way “akin to piracy.”
ahartmetz 8y ago
Putting somebody in jail for fraud is the same kind of infraction and response - it is normal.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 8y ago
The UK is a sovereign nation and absolutely can enforce its laws against anyone within its borders, regardless of citizenship. The only potential exception is diplomatic immunity, and that is only granted to the few people who are directly employed to represent a foreign nation. (And even then, such immunity is voluntarily granted by the UK government.)
reaperducer 8y ago
US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Didn't the U.S. arrest a Volkswagen exec wanted in connection with the emissions scandal, when he visited?

JJMcJ 8y ago

Contempt of Congress is a real thing in the USA, so refusing a Congressional subpoena can result in enforcement and criminal charges.

dragonwriter 8y ago
And, while the usual modern method is resort to executive enforcement and criminal charges, Congress has and has used (though not used since 1935) inherent arrest and detention powers which have been confirmed as intrinsic to their Constitutional authority by the Supreme Court. So while it would be newsworthy for Congress to do this, what the Parliament did here is not something Congress could not legally do to a visiting exec in possession of information sealed by a foreign court.