2 ms·
> By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. That would be true only if the US wer
by asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish.
That would be true only if the US were handling this process extrajudicially. I'm still not sure that would be morally bad, per se, but it would certainly require the exercise of much more power and will.
But in this case, the process is being handled judicially. The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. The process they set up to handle that is what is being followed today. This is why I don't really agree that the current situation is undemocratic. It may be that the UK's representatives didn't do exactly what the people would prefer in aggregate, but that is always a danger in representative democracy.
- chuckee 5y ago> The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. That's ignoring a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure tactics. In fact, your analysis would cast every one-sided deal or law that is the result of foreign pressure (or corruption, or lobbying) as "democratic", unless it's the result of full-on war.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoI see what you're saying. But all countries deal with external pressures and constraints to some degree or another. I don't think we can declare their choices under these constraints undemocratic without rendering the word "democracy" into a purely theoretical concept.