15 ms·
America shouldn't be allowed to extradite and prosecute people who have not committed crimes in America. They'd never allow it in reverse. Also the justice syst
by stormdennis 5y ago
America shouldn't be allowed to extradite and prosecute people who have not committed crimes in America. They'd never allow it in reverse. Also the justice system there doesn't inspire confidence.
- sjaak 5y agoYou’re right of course. But as always. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
- adventured 5y agoOh yes, those poor weak British. History has been so unkind to them, torturing them so in their forever weakness. If only they were, just once, in a great position of power.
- sjaak 5y agoMy point was more general. The US exercises their power and that is not surprising: it is a fact of life. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- acover 5y agoEdit: ignore me, I didn't know what I was talking about. Irrelevant information: The us has extradition treaties with many countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_Unite...
- capableweb 5y ago> You are wrong What do you mean "wrong"? They expressed an opinion, not a fact. That you shouldn't be able to be extradited to a country you have nothing to do with, is something I agree with as well, but I wouldn't say it's "true". What is true today is that many countries have treaties to allow them to basically kidnap citizens of other countries. If you think that's good/bad, you should argue for one of those viewpoints, not necessarily if it's true/false.
- mjw1007 5y agoIt does, but the question is whether the US would extradite one of its citizens for crimes they'd allegedly committed _while in the US_. I don't see anything on that Wikipedia page that says it would. The more usual case for extradition is for returning fugitives who have left the country where they allegedly committed the crime.
- acover 5y agoSorry, I misunderstood. > The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to demand extradition of British citizens and other nationals for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required to extradite from the UK to the US versus from the US to the UK.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_...
- Lendal 5y agoThe article makes it sound like the victim was HP, an American company, based in America. Did I misinterpret something?
- trasz 5y agoIt shouldn’t matter: jurisdiction depends on where the crime was committed, not on alleged victim’s nationality. This only happens one way, with extradition to the US, thanks to worldwide bullying.
- throwawaycuriou 5y agoAs a US resident, if I rolled a large boulder downhill and fatally crushed a small child across the Mexican or Canadian border, would I be liable to extradition?
- trasz 5y agoI’m guessing not, as the general rule is that US doesn’t extradite it’s citizens.
- relativ575 5y agoThe US does extradite its citizens: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972784817/2-americans-extradited-to-japan-on-accusation-of-aiding-carlos-ghosn-escape https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972784817/2-americans-extradi...
- pkaye 5y agoThe US does extradite to other countries depending on treaties. Recently there was two to Japan. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/business/carlos-ghosn-escape-extradition-japan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/business/carlos-ghosn-esc...
- trasz 5y agoVery, very rarely. I’m guessing in this case extradition was deeply profitable to US for some reason.
- rwmj 5y agoAre you saying that (alleged) accounting fraud against a company based in the US isn't a crime in America?
- ris 5y agoHas a US company that deals with a Chinese one be considered to have committed a crime in China if the Chinese decide they have broken one of their laws? And in such a case what are peoples feelings about extradition?
- kube-system 5y agoUsually when countries disagree significantly on law, they just don't sign extradition agreements. It takes at least two countries to make this decision. The US has not signed such an agreement, and thus, it doesn't matter what China thinks.
- buran77 5y ago> when countries disagree significantly on law, they just don't sign extradition agreements That isn't about "compatibility" of the laws. The US has extradition treaties with pretty much all of their allies but the conditions are mainly dictated by the US given their stronger position. No country's laws condones war crimes and yet no international court even tried prosecuting any case of suspected war crimes committed by the US military because of things like this [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- kube-system 5y agoI'm not talking about disagreements in the minutia of law. I'm talking about "disagreement" of law in a broad context. Extraditions to the US, even from countries with which the US has a treaty, are not always honored. My point is that it's not a one-way street. Countries extradite because they think it's in their best interest.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- anonymousDan 5y agoI agree. There was a horrendous incident recently in the UK where an American woman drove the wrong way up a particular road and ran over a teenager. Somehow she was spirited out of the country and now the US refuse to extradite her.
- trasz 5y agoYou’re talking about Anne Sacoolas. There’s more to it: she’s a spook, and she fled on board of US military plane, lying about having diplomatic immunity.
- anonymousDan 5y agoYes - my understanding is she was the wife of a spoon and didn't have diplomatic immunity? I agree perhaps there is more to it, but still it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
- trasz 5y agoShe (and US officials I think?) lied that she was a diplomat’s wife and thus had immunity. The fact that she’s herself a spook - and thus didn’t have immunity - was discovered later, during the trial.
- f38zf5vdt 5y agoFor non-native English speakers, spook is vernacular for government intelligence agent (spy).
- microtherion 5y ago… or a caucasian, or an Asian, or an Afrian-American, or an Australian, or a heroin addict: https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/a23ap7q Clearly, the parent comment's interpretation is correct in this context. The only other use I've encountered was #3, I believe in James Ellroy novels.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> America shouldn't be allowed to extradite... America aren't extraditing him - the UK is extraditing him.
- teh_klev 5y agoSure, but a bit nit-picky. The extradition process being fought against in court was initiated by the US government.
- chippy 5y agohaving the biggest economy, army, navy and airforce in the world means whats allowed is relative to that power
- Ostrogodsky 5y agoI am not sure if you are arguing if that is how it is or how it should be.
- dfadsadsf 5y agoJapan just convicted two people that helped Ghosn escape to Lebanon. They were extradited from US.
- favorited 5y agoFor a crime they committed in Japan.
- hermannj314 5y agoIn 1985, the US extradited John Demjanjuk to Israel for crimes he committed in Poland.