3 ms·

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

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.

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.