3 ms·

> Is that what you consider "slavery"? Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment t

> Is that what you consider "slavery"? Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment that we would get in his own country. Let's say someone from country A uses a stoled credit card which is punished with 1 year of prison in A and 5 years of prison in B. Also (what a careless mistake), he speaks ill of the Queen and the Party which is not a crime in A, but is punished with 5 years of prison in B. If he is prosecuted in A, he gets 1 year of prison. If he gets extradited he gets 10 years of prison and gets a punishment for a deed that is not a crime in his own country. How can this be fair? The laws of his country guaranteed that he would be free one year later and that he could speak ill of Queen. Let's say country A has treaties with 50 other countries. This means that now citizens of A must learn laws of all those countries in order not to break them. if you think that extradition is fair, would you agree to extradite people to countries like China, Russia or North Korea?

throw_m239339 5y ago
> Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment that we would get in his own country. And? As I said citizens have rights but also duties as citizens, and constitutions establish these rights and duties. If a countries constitution acknowledges a supra-national treaty or authority, which is their rights as free and independent countries, then none of the defendant rights are getting violated provided the extradition treaty grants due process to contest that extradition. So being hyperbolic by claiming it's equal to "slavery", in an attempt at appealing to emotion, just makes your argument sound unhinged, at best. What's next? Extradition treaties are "racist"?

throw_m239339 5y ago

> Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment that we would get in his own country. And? As I said citizens have rights but also duties as citizens, and constitutions establish these rights and duties. If a countries constitution acknowledges a supra-national treaty or authority, which is their rights as free and independent countries, then none of the defendant rights are getting violated provided the extradition treaty grants due process to contest that extradition. So being hyperbolic by claiming it's equal to "slavery", in an attempt at appealing to emotion, just makes your argument sound unhinged, at best. What's next? Extradition treaties are "racist"?