4 ms·

Yes, this is the entire premise of extradition treaties. If you conspire to commit a crime in a different country, you are potentially able to be sent there to

Yes, this is the entire premise of extradition treaties. If you conspire to commit a crime in a different country, you are potentially able to be sent there to be put on trial. As to whether or not those laws are just is a separate issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Traster 7y ago
This is not a good understanding of Extradition. Extradition before the age of the internet involved identifying people who had in the past committed a crime in a certain jurisdiction and transporting them back there to face justice. So for example, I murder someone, I flee to the UK, the USA asks the UK to extradite me back. Or indeed JA (allegedly) rapes someone, flees to the UK, Sweden asks for extradition. What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea jurisdiction.
- christophclarke 7y ago
  Crimes committed against the United States are seen as crimes committed in the United States. This is an issue of sovereignty, as there is no (for most intents and purposes) higher, international court to pursue the case in. Therefore, the case is tried in the United States. It's similar to any other foreign national conspiring in crime in the United States. They don't have to physically be in a country to break a country's laws. The country that the individual was in when the crime was committed can certainly handle the issue and not extradite, however, generally these agreements avoid that. This existed before the internet as well.
  - pablodh 7y ago
    So by your logic if any country in the world approves some law that you are not even aware of, voted on a parliament (at best), that you have no voice nor vote on, then you are subject to whatever the f*ck they decided to do?. That's just plainly insane.
    - thedudemabry 7y ago
      That's the point of extradition agreements. If we're worried that Brazil's Senate has passed morally incompatible laws and wants to extradite folks from the US, then we won't agree. The State Department is (or tries to be) on top of any foreign legislation that would change our agreements.
      - pablodh 7y ago
        I'm not talking about morality but legitimacy, why are you bound to follow laws that were not voted for representatives you chose on a country you never been?
        sbov 7y ago
        They're legitimate because your representatives made extradition deals with said countries.
        pablodh 7y ago
        That's why I think there must be limits regarding what reasons a country can use to ask for an extradition, specially if you want to extradite a person that's not even an American for treason, espionage or stuff like that.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - lostmyoldone 7y ago
    If US acknowledged international courts, you could make that argument. But as of now, the US doesn't acknowledge some of the most important international courts, like the ICC. Thus the argument that there are no higher courts is entirely bogus, as it is so by choice.
- tssva 7y ago
  The idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction has existed for centuries with piracy laws being some of the earliest examples. Most countries have enshrined the idea into their laws in some manner especially when it concerns laws in which the victim is the nation itself. Many countries go way beyond what the US has. For instance France claims the right to prosecute anyone for any crime committed against a French national regardless of where the crime was committed.
lubesGordi 7y ago
The US has extradition treaties with most countries it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...

Traster 7y ago

This is not a good understanding of Extradition. Extradition before the age of the internet involved identifying people who had in the past committed a crime in a certain jurisdiction and transporting them back there to face justice. So for example, I murder someone, I flee to the UK, the USA asks the UK to extradite me back. Or indeed JA (allegedly) rapes someone, flees to the UK, Sweden asks for extradition. What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea jurisdiction.

christophclarke 7y ago
Crimes committed against the United States are seen as crimes committed in the United States. This is an issue of sovereignty, as there is no (for most intents and purposes) higher, international court to pursue the case in. Therefore, the case is tried in the United States. It's similar to any other foreign national conspiring in crime in the United States. They don't have to physically be in a country to break a country's laws. The country that the individual was in when the crime was committed can certainly handle the issue and not extradite, however, generally these agreements avoid that. This existed before the internet as well.
- pablodh 7y ago
  So by your logic if any country in the world approves some law that you are not even aware of, voted on a parliament (at best), that you have no voice nor vote on, then you are subject to whatever the f*ck they decided to do?. That's just plainly insane.
  - thedudemabry 7y ago
    That's the point of extradition agreements. If we're worried that Brazil's Senate has passed morally incompatible laws and wants to extradite folks from the US, then we won't agree. The State Department is (or tries to be) on top of any foreign legislation that would change our agreements.
    - pablodh 7y ago
      I'm not talking about morality but legitimacy, why are you bound to follow laws that were not voted for representatives you chose on a country you never been?
      - sbov 7y ago
        They're legitimate because your representatives made extradition deals with said countries.
        pablodh 7y ago
        That's why I think there must be limits regarding what reasons a country can use to ask for an extradition, specially if you want to extradite a person that's not even an American for treason, espionage or stuff like that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  If US acknowledged international courts, you could make that argument. But as of now, the US doesn't acknowledge some of the most important international courts, like the ICC. Thus the argument that there are no higher courts is entirely bogus, as it is so by choice.
tssva 7y ago
The idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction has existed for centuries with piracy laws being some of the earliest examples. Most countries have enshrined the idea into their laws in some manner especially when it concerns laws in which the victim is the nation itself. Many countries go way beyond what the US has. For instance France claims the right to prosecute anyone for any crime committed against a French national regardless of where the crime was committed.

lubesGordi 7y ago

The US has extradition treaties with most countries it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...