6 ms·

The " legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction" consists of who has the biggest fleet. This has been true for about 5000years since the Egyptian

The " legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction" consists of who has the biggest fleet. This has been true for about 5000years since the Egyptians got their act together, has continued through the Greek, Roman, Venetian, British and now American empires. The only thing that is new is the power behind the fleet is now whoever pays for the commander-in-chief's re-election effort. If you doubt this you should look at UK students being extradited to the US under 'vital anti-terrorism legislation' for running a site giving links to TV shows

polemic 15y ago
Well, yes. Force is the ultimate source of power. The extent of which, in this case, means jurisdiction. To quote drusenko's first point: The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care" I don't see you disagreeing!
tptacek 15y ago
You discredit your argument by wording it so outrageously. The UK student you're talking about ran a 6-figure business, which he admitted publicly on his site was all about directing people to pirated movie content (the "TV" in his domain name is, of course, a red herring). But, worse, the notion that he was "extradited under vital anti-terrorism legislation" is simply a lie. The "anti-terrorism legislation" this phrase refers to is the entire UK/US reciprocal extradition treaty, which governs absolutely all extradition between the two countries. The changes in that treaty that people are referring to when they invoke "terrorism" were proposed and negotiated before 9/11, and actually remediate an unfairness in evidentiary standards towards the US --- it used to be easier to be extradited from the US than from the UK, and now the same standards are used on both sides. Moreover, those changes have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The crime which O'Dwyer was charged under was a criminal offense in both the UK and the US, and the evidence implicating O'Dwyer is open-and-shut: O'Dwyer, after having his domain seized by ICE, brought it up again with a fuck-you to the authorities. He admitted to UK prosecutors that he had been taking in 15,000GBP per month (!) running the site.

polemic 15y ago

Well, yes. Force is the ultimate source of power. The extent of which, in this case, means jurisdiction. To quote drusenko's first point: The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care" I don't see you disagreeing!

tptacek 15y ago

You discredit your argument by wording it so outrageously. The UK student you're talking about ran a 6-figure business, which he admitted publicly on his site was all about directing people to pirated movie content (the "TV" in his domain name is, of course, a red herring). But, worse, the notion that he was "extradited under vital anti-terrorism legislation" is simply a lie. The "anti-terrorism legislation" this phrase refers to is the entire UK/US reciprocal extradition treaty, which governs absolutely all extradition between the two countries. The changes in that treaty that people are referring to when they invoke "terrorism" were proposed and negotiated before 9/11, and actually remediate an unfairness in evidentiary standards towards the US --- it used to be easier to be extradited from the US than from the UK, and now the same standards are used on both sides. Moreover, those changes have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The crime which O'Dwyer was charged under was a criminal offense in both the UK and the US, and the evidence implicating O'Dwyer is open-and-shut: O'Dwyer, after having his domain seized by ICE, brought it up again with a fuck-you to the authorities. He admitted to UK prosecutors that he had been taking in 15,000GBP per month (!) running the site.