4 ms·

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html http://www.washingto

by fname 16y ago

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

vaksel 16y ago
U.S. law does not apply to foreign citizens. It's the equivalent of you getting arrested for some vague Chinese law.
- kgo 16y ago
  http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view
- ryanwaggoner 16y ago
  Disappointing that you're being up voted, as this just isn't true. Foreign citizens in the US are held to the standards of US law, just as US citizens are held to the legal standards of the countries they visit. So your blanket statement is immediately proven false. And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. Not saying it's right, but if you think you can spy against the US (or many other countries) and face no consequences because you're not a US citizen, you might be in for a nasty surprise.
  - vaksel 16y ago
    yes in U.S. you follow U.S. law...but that's not the case here. And yes, the U.S. can kidnap him and bring him into U.S. so they can charge him with U.S. law...but they can't charge him in another country under U.S. law and expect him to get arrested...not unless they go through the whole extradition thing. But that's like saying, you fall under Chinese law, because they might send a hit squad to take you out for breaking their laws. Yes might generally equals right internationally, but for now they are trying to put up the pretense that U.S. cares about foreign relations.
  - rmc 16y ago
    And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. The people who abducted the suspect might be operating under USA law, and they might not be guilty when they go to the USA. However just because it's legal to do it in USA doesn't mean it's legal in the country they do it in. They would still be breaking the law in that country. Would you like if a person broke a USA law while in the USA and then said "But it's OK, it's legal under Irish law?"
- akamaka 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_inte... To the person who posted this and those who upvoted this: you have power over the quality of the conversations on this site. Please give some thought to how you use it.
- lucasjung 16y ago
  As my earlier post states, this is incorrect. It is generally true that the laws of any given country only apply to its citizens, and to non-citizens within its sovereign territory. However, many countries assert the right to prosecute people beyond those bounds for certain types of crimes. Espionage is especially high on the list of such crimes because (as wikiLeaks has so clearly demonstrated) an anti-espionage law that stops at the border is practically impotent. Usually, such crimes are tried in absentia because the prosecuting country has no way to get their hands on the defendant (e.g. Osama bin Laden), but sometimes countries will go to great lengths to seize a suspect, such as when U.S. Navy jets intercepted an airliner carrying Palestinian hijackers and forced it to land at NAS Sigonella. International law can be very quirky (IANAL, but my work sometimes requires me to deal very directly with particular specific aspects of international law). Much of it comes down to precedent: if you can enforce a claim consistently for a long enough time, it becomes accepted and legitimate international law, which is the reason for the U.S. military's Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. Conversely, if you allow others to regularly violate your national sovereignty in a particular manner without responding (even if only by formal diplomatic protest), then those particular rights may come to be accepted as no longer belonging to your nation. A meta-observation: I've noted that posts saying, "he can't be prosecuted by the U.S." are generally getting many upvotes, while posts explaining how and why he could (not that he SHOULD, just that it's possible) are getting few or none. I can't know what other people are thinking, but it seems to me that people are voting based on what they would like to be true, rather than on what actually is true.

by fname 16y ago

vaksel 16y ago

U.S. law does not apply to foreign citizens. It's the equivalent of you getting arrested for some vague Chinese law.

kgo 16y ago
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view
ryanwaggoner 16y ago
Disappointing that you're being up voted, as this just isn't true. Foreign citizens in the US are held to the standards of US law, just as US citizens are held to the legal standards of the countries they visit. So your blanket statement is immediately proven false. And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. Not saying it's right, but if you think you can spy against the US (or many other countries) and face no consequences because you're not a US citizen, you might be in for a nasty surprise.
- vaksel 16y ago
  yes in U.S. you follow U.S. law...but that's not the case here. And yes, the U.S. can kidnap him and bring him into U.S. so they can charge him with U.S. law...but they can't charge him in another country under U.S. law and expect him to get arrested...not unless they go through the whole extradition thing. But that's like saying, you fall under Chinese law, because they might send a hit squad to take you out for breaking their laws. Yes might generally equals right internationally, but for now they are trying to put up the pretense that U.S. cares about foreign relations.
- rmc 16y ago
  And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. The people who abducted the suspect might be operating under USA law, and they might not be guilty when they go to the USA. However just because it's legal to do it in USA doesn't mean it's legal in the country they do it in. They would still be breaking the law in that country. Would you like if a person broke a USA law while in the USA and then said "But it's OK, it's legal under Irish law?"
akamaka 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_inte... To the person who posted this and those who upvoted this: you have power over the quality of the conversations on this site. Please give some thought to how you use it.
lucasjung 16y ago
As my earlier post states, this is incorrect. It is generally true that the laws of any given country only apply to its citizens, and to non-citizens within its sovereign territory. However, many countries assert the right to prosecute people beyond those bounds for certain types of crimes. Espionage is especially high on the list of such crimes because (as wikiLeaks has so clearly demonstrated) an anti-espionage law that stops at the border is practically impotent. Usually, such crimes are tried in absentia because the prosecuting country has no way to get their hands on the defendant (e.g. Osama bin Laden), but sometimes countries will go to great lengths to seize a suspect, such as when U.S. Navy jets intercepted an airliner carrying Palestinian hijackers and forced it to land at NAS Sigonella. International law can be very quirky (IANAL, but my work sometimes requires me to deal very directly with particular specific aspects of international law). Much of it comes down to precedent: if you can enforce a claim consistently for a long enough time, it becomes accepted and legitimate international law, which is the reason for the U.S. military's Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. Conversely, if you allow others to regularly violate your national sovereignty in a particular manner without responding (even if only by formal diplomatic protest), then those particular rights may come to be accepted as no longer belonging to your nation. A meta-observation: I've noted that posts saying, "he can't be prosecuted by the U.S." are generally getting many upvotes, while posts explaining how and why he could (not that he SHOULD, just that it's possible) are getting few or none. I can't know what other people are thinking, but it seems to me that people are voting based on what they would like to be true, rather than on what actually is true.