6 ms·

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it seems in general that we should want to allow extradition so that justice can be met. No?

nix23 6y ago
True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.
- detaro 6y ago
  Ban on the death penalty is quite possibly true here too (it would have been under EU treaties, I didn't find a quick statement how the situation is now exactly).
syshum 6y ago
The problem with your analogy is the extradition treaties extend far beyond the red herring of "surely you want a murder to get justice right" This is not far removed from "Think of the children" style rhetoric that is used in the US to pass all kinds of oppressive laws and regulations Everyone can generally agree that having a murderer stand trail is a good thing, but what about someone that illegal distributes a file to one nation thus committing a "crime" in that nation. What about other less extreme crimes, which is more often what extradition treaties are used for, not murder as your strawman desires it to be
- simonh 6y ago
  That was simply a reply to a specific question asked in the previous comment.
Buttons840 6y ago
Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US? This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Given the action (as I understand it [0]) involved communicating with Americans in America, the muder-analogy you replied to would be a person from country A, living in country B, firing a gun over a border and killing someone in country C, surely? [0] """conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030)""" was the actual phrase used
- Uberphallus 6y ago
  You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
    - nix23 6y ago
      True, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
    - tw04 6y ago
      We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books: https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-years-for-cybercrime/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y... There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted. Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
tomatocracy 6y ago
Some countries (France at least I think) have a constitutional bar on extradition of citizens from their own territory and instead allow citizens to be prosecuted domestically for crimes committed abroad (but according to the standards of domestic law). This is a logical alternative I think although it typically doesn't extend to a bar on the extradition of foreigners to either their home country or third countries so that system wouldn't have helped him here.
- toyg 6y ago
  This is not the case with the European Arrest Warrant anymore. France only retained the right for the accused to spend the eventual sentence in France.
  - widforss 6y ago
    Do you know what happens if a penalty doesn't exist in France? E.g. Sweden cannot sentence people to a 40 years prison sentence. Could a German court sentence me to something like that and send me home to Sweden for 40 years?
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      The European arrest warrant, as other extradition agreements have a clause that they only work in cases where the offence is a criminal act in both countries. A famous recent case is Carles Puigdemont who was arrested in Germany by request on the Spanish government for "rebellion" but a German court decided that what he did (fight for Catalan independence) isn't a criminal offence in Germany and that he only could be indighted for misuse of public funds. """On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein [Germany] confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds. Puigdemont's legal team said they would appeal any decision to extradite him. Ultimately, though, Spain dropped its European arrest warrant, ending the extradition attempt. Puigdemont was once again free to travel, and chose to return to Belgium.""" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont
qsort 6y ago
It depends on what type of crime you're talking about. For common criminals, then sure, but for example, most Western countries have laws or constitutional provisions against extradition for political offences.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  Espionage is 100% a political offence, yet... A lot of things are political in nature. But extraditions are mostly issues of diplomacy, not justice.
belorn 6y ago
There is a good rule when dealing with government enforcement of laws. Everyone must be equally treated under the law, it must be safe against misuse, and failure by the government must be punished harder than the offense itself. Extradition cases sadly fails all three of those. They are extremely selective enforced, there are few safeguards, and generally no punishment against officials that fails to uphold the few safeguards that exist. The whole ordeal is intertwined with diplomatic relations and politics of both national and international nature.
smichel17 6y ago
This is my first time thinking through this deeply, so I'm open to changing my mind. > If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Perhaps in certain circumstances. But in general, this is a dispute between A and B. C should let those two countries handle it. I.e., deport the citizen back to A, their home country. [edited: s/extradite/deport] Consider: in many countries, certain forms of speech are illegal. I shouldn't need to worry that I may have said something illegal in China in order to visit South Korea. It's hard enough to learn all the laws in the country I am visiting, let alone every country that directly or indirectly has an extraction treaty. The one scenario where I could see this being reasonable is within a bloc of countries that have free travel between and a somewhat unified set of laws, and only for breaking one of those bloc-level laws.
- checkyoursudo 6y ago
  I don't think your ideas are unreasonable, though this would have to be governed by any existing treaties, of course. In practice, however, I think that, to use your example, South Korea will act based on its relationship with China rather than your relationship with China. So, if KOR agrees with you that free speech is more important than how China might react to non-extradition, then KOR may not extradite you. However, if KOR thinks that they must turn you over to preserve their relationship, then they might. Again, all of this is of course hypothetical and in the real world should be defined by treaties. I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    Yes, I am totally agreed that the real world is often very messy. It's oh-so-easy to say how things should work when we can conveniently ignore all the other complexities of international diplomacy. All of this is hypothetical. Including, I am not trying to come to a conclusion on Assange in particular, just form opinions on how things ought to work — and from there, of course, there will be compromises. --- I am imagining a scenario like the UN countries all agreeing on a common standard for extradition. The guiding principle I'm working off of is that if B and C share the same law against X, then extradition is reasonable. The fuzzy line is where B and C both outlaw X, but each have their own laws against it. On one hand, it is reasonable. If B and C both outlaw murder, then C should extradite the murderer, because the citizen can't claim ignorance, nor can they claim that "murder isn't illegal here in C." On the other hand, I have trouble seeing how you'd write a consistent standard here. Sure, it's easy to equivocate premeditated murder across different laws, but what about even manslaughter? Then it requires both countries to have the same definition of negligence, etc. So basically, the only form of extradition treaty that doesn't seem to pose an unreasonable burden on tourists is, "Here is a set of laws that are enforced in both B and C. If you break these laws in B and then flee to C (or vice versa), you are still under jurisdiction of the law you broke, so you may be extradited." In practice, that might look like CHN and KOR signing a treaty that unifies their libel law. Then, if you commit libel against someone in CHN while in KOR, you may be extradited. This is quite reasonable, since a tourist would be expected to learn KOR libel law before travelling there. > I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right. Thanks, edited.
londons_explore 6y ago
It would seem more logical for the person to be extradited from C to A, and then A to B.

nix23 6y ago

True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.

detaro 6y ago
Ban on the death penalty is quite possibly true here too (it would have been under EU treaties, I didn't find a quick statement how the situation is now exactly).

syshum 6y ago

The problem with your analogy is the extradition treaties extend far beyond the red herring of "surely you want a murder to get justice right" This is not far removed from "Think of the children" style rhetoric that is used in the US to pass all kinds of oppressive laws and regulations Everyone can generally agree that having a murderer stand trail is a good thing, but what about someone that illegal distributes a file to one nation thus committing a "crime" in that nation. What about other less extreme crimes, which is more often what extradition treaties are used for, not murder as your strawman desires it to be

simonh 6y ago
That was simply a reply to a specific question asked in the previous comment.

Buttons840 6y ago

Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US? This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.

ben_w 6y ago
Given the action (as I understand it [0]) involved communicating with Americans in America, the muder-analogy you replied to would be a person from country A, living in country B, firing a gun over a border and killing someone in country C, surely? [0] """conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030)""" was the actual phrase used
Uberphallus 6y ago
You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
  - nix23 6y ago
    True, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
  - tw04 6y ago
    We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books: https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-years-for-cybercrime/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y... There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted. Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?

tomatocracy 6y ago

Some countries (France at least I think) have a constitutional bar on extradition of citizens from their own territory and instead allow citizens to be prosecuted domestically for crimes committed abroad (but according to the standards of domestic law). This is a logical alternative I think although it typically doesn't extend to a bar on the extradition of foreigners to either their home country or third countries so that system wouldn't have helped him here.

toyg 6y ago
This is not the case with the European Arrest Warrant anymore. France only retained the right for the accused to spend the eventual sentence in France.
- widforss 6y ago
  Do you know what happens if a penalty doesn't exist in France? E.g. Sweden cannot sentence people to a 40 years prison sentence. Could a German court sentence me to something like that and send me home to Sweden for 40 years?
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    The European arrest warrant, as other extradition agreements have a clause that they only work in cases where the offence is a criminal act in both countries. A famous recent case is Carles Puigdemont who was arrested in Germany by request on the Spanish government for "rebellion" but a German court decided that what he did (fight for Catalan independence) isn't a criminal offence in Germany and that he only could be indighted for misuse of public funds. """On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein [Germany] confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds. Puigdemont's legal team said they would appeal any decision to extradite him. Ultimately, though, Spain dropped its European arrest warrant, ending the extradition attempt. Puigdemont was once again free to travel, and chose to return to Belgium.""" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont

qsort 6y ago

It depends on what type of crime you're talking about. For common criminals, then sure, but for example, most Western countries have laws or constitutional provisions against extradition for political offences.

JAlexoid 6y ago
Espionage is 100% a political offence, yet... A lot of things are political in nature. But extraditions are mostly issues of diplomacy, not justice.

belorn 6y ago

There is a good rule when dealing with government enforcement of laws. Everyone must be equally treated under the law, it must be safe against misuse, and failure by the government must be punished harder than the offense itself. Extradition cases sadly fails all three of those. They are extremely selective enforced, there are few safeguards, and generally no punishment against officials that fails to uphold the few safeguards that exist. The whole ordeal is intertwined with diplomatic relations and politics of both national and international nature.

smichel17 6y ago

This is my first time thinking through this deeply, so I'm open to changing my mind. > If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Perhaps in certain circumstances. But in general, this is a dispute between A and B. C should let those two countries handle it. I.e., deport the citizen back to A, their home country. [edited: s/extradite/deport] Consider: in many countries, certain forms of speech are illegal. I shouldn't need to worry that I may have said something illegal in China in order to visit South Korea. It's hard enough to learn all the laws in the country I am visiting, let alone every country that directly or indirectly has an extraction treaty. The one scenario where I could see this being reasonable is within a bloc of countries that have free travel between and a somewhat unified set of laws, and only for breaking one of those bloc-level laws.

checkyoursudo 6y ago
I don't think your ideas are unreasonable, though this would have to be governed by any existing treaties, of course. In practice, however, I think that, to use your example, South Korea will act based on its relationship with China rather than your relationship with China. So, if KOR agrees with you that free speech is more important than how China might react to non-extradition, then KOR may not extradite you. However, if KOR thinks that they must turn you over to preserve their relationship, then they might. Again, all of this is of course hypothetical and in the real world should be defined by treaties. I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Yes, I am totally agreed that the real world is often very messy. It's oh-so-easy to say how things should work when we can conveniently ignore all the other complexities of international diplomacy. All of this is hypothetical. Including, I am not trying to come to a conclusion on Assange in particular, just form opinions on how things ought to work — and from there, of course, there will be compromises. --- I am imagining a scenario like the UN countries all agreeing on a common standard for extradition. The guiding principle I'm working off of is that if B and C share the same law against X, then extradition is reasonable. The fuzzy line is where B and C both outlaw X, but each have their own laws against it. On one hand, it is reasonable. If B and C both outlaw murder, then C should extradite the murderer, because the citizen can't claim ignorance, nor can they claim that "murder isn't illegal here in C." On the other hand, I have trouble seeing how you'd write a consistent standard here. Sure, it's easy to equivocate premeditated murder across different laws, but what about even manslaughter? Then it requires both countries to have the same definition of negligence, etc. So basically, the only form of extradition treaty that doesn't seem to pose an unreasonable burden on tourists is, "Here is a set of laws that are enforced in both B and C. If you break these laws in B and then flee to C (or vice versa), you are still under jurisdiction of the law you broke, so you may be extradited." In practice, that might look like CHN and KOR signing a treaty that unifies their libel law. Then, if you commit libel against someone in CHN while in KOR, you may be extradited. This is quite reasonable, since a tourist would be expected to learn KOR libel law before travelling there. > I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right. Thanks, edited.

londons_explore 6y ago

It would seem more logical for the person to be extradited from C to A, and then A to B.