4 ms·

> Boeing has violated a 2021 agreement that shielded it from criminal prosecution after two 737 Max disasters left 346 people dead overseas Somehow I think thi

by rob74 2y ago

> Boeing has violated a 2021 agreement that shielded it from criminal prosecution after two 737 Max disasters left 346 people dead overseas Somehow I think this phrase would have been better without the word "overseas". After all (to quote the old Depeche Mode song), people are people, no matter if they're from the US, Ethiopia or Indonesia, so the fact that it happened overseas shouldn't make a plane crash less relevant. Although, if the first crash had happened in the US, maybe the increased scrutiny would have led to the second one being avoided...

bell-cot 2y ago
True from most PoV's. OTOH, the U.S. Department of Justice's turf generally ends at the U.S. border, so "overseas" is an important distinction here.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > OTOH, the U.S. Department of Justice's turf generally ends at the U.S. border, so "overseas" is an important distinction here Nah, the US is extremely aggressive all over the world, to the extent I'm not sure anyone in that country understands the word jurisdiction outside of state/federal in their own context. Be it extradition of people committing crimes elsewhere/online, enforcing their own sanctions on companies in other countries, and tons of other things. Otherwise you wouldn't have Ukrainians getting extradited to the US for running torrent websites in Ukraine, Australians being extradited for running leak websites, French banks being fined for working with Iranian businesses, Colombians and Mexicans being assassinated or extradited for running drug empires in their own countries exporting to the US, kidnapping random civilians to be tortured based on their name/watch model, a law being on the books allowing the army to invade any place that held American war criminals (like the Hague and the courts there) and on and on and on.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It's still an important distinction. Your list of things doesn't seem relevant to that at all.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      If the US Department of Justice thinks it has jurisdiction over Ukrainian torrent websites hosting links to American-produced media content, why wouldn't it have jurisdiction over American-produced planes killing people in Indonesia and Ethiopia from negligent design and manufacturing, both of which happened in the US?
      - williamcotton 2y ago
        There are these things called extradition treaties.
        sofixa 2y ago
        Which apply to crimes committed in the country asking for extradition. E.g. Artem Vaulin didn't commit crimes in the US by running a torrent website from his home in Ukraine, yet he was extradited and sued by a court in Illinois, instead of a court in Ukraine where his alleged crimes took place. Random guys kidnapped by the CIA didn't commit crimes in the US either.
      - arcticfox 2y ago
        It would and should have jurisdiction over both, you’re right.
  - xattt 2y ago
    Even though the crashes happened outside the US, the malicious actions around the engineering of those planes happened on US soil.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Yes and no, and I used "generally" for good reason. While the DoJ's often-obnoxious international behavior gets plenty of attention, the "how much does this matter to the US?" threshold for them to get involved rises sharply beyond the US border. And the legal basis for their involvement (Boeing does have lawyers, to argue the details in court) often changes, too. OR - if a small-time, local crook is robbing US banks, how likely is the DoJ to get involved? (Hint: Answer includes "FBI".) Vs. how many small-time, local bank robbers is the DoJ chasing in Canada? Poland? Thailand?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      The US also has the Alien Tort Act from 1789 [0] (one of our oldest acts) that gives Federal Courts jurisdiction in violations of law abroad. It de facto allow foreign nationals to sue parties with sufficient ties to the US (most black money ends up in the US in some way) in Federal Courts for human rights violations committed outside the United States We also have the Magnitsky Act that allows US sanctions on foreign politicians found to have been corrupt (and it's named after the accountant who Jamison Firestone hired to manage his Russian business and who was assassinated for his investigations into corruption and malfeasance) There are a slew of additional laws, acts, and precedents that allow the DoJ to step in (or allow foreign nationals to push the DoJ to step in) if bad practices arise. Unsurprisingly, both China and Russia have been very vocally opposed to both acts, as it makes laundering ill gotten gains much harder. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute
      - weaksauce 2y ago
        it was worse than just a quick assassination... he was arrested and sent to a horrible russian jail where he was tortured repeatedly and then withheld from medical treatment for a period of time until he died.
        alephnerd 2y ago
        True! I was trying to keep a neutralish tone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - afiori 2y ago
    both can be true: The US is extremely aggresive in "protecting" internal interests internationally and lax at punishing its own for international crimes.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    The distinction here seems to be going the other way: the DOJ is investigating a domestic entity over its domestic activities, even though the most serious consequences of that activity occurred overseas. If it does decide to proceed, it seems unlikely that it will have occasion to seek extradition of the major targets (or, if it did, that it could reasonably be seen as an abuse of extradition.)
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Ukrainians getting extradited to the US for running torrent websites in Ukraine Source? >a law being on the books allowing the army to invade any place that held American war criminals (like the Hague and the courts there) and on and on and on. Seems reasonable, considering they don't recognize such organizations. If they held Americans for crimes, it'd basically be kidnapping.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_alleged_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_... In practical terms, America's policy is that might makes right - an attractive policy, when you've got the might. Extradition is essentially a one-way affair: Ukrainian Artem Vaulin runs a torrent website hosted in Ukraine? Arrest and extradition at America's demand. An American like Anne Sacoolas kills someone in the UK by negligent driving? No extradition.
      - andsoitis 2y ago
        I think you need more solid examples. > Arrest and extradition at America's demand. Was he extradited? The article you linked to suggests not. > Anne Sacoolas kills someone in the UK by negligent driving? No extradition. This article says: "Sacoolas admitted causing death by careless driving, which carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. Justice Bobbie Cheema-Grubb said Sacoolas' actions were "not far short of deliberately dangerous driving," but she reduced the penalty because of Sacoolas' guilty plea and previous good character." Which seems to suggest you should blame a UK judge for letting Sacoolas go free, no? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas-suspended-prison-sentence/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas-sus...
        michaelt 2y ago
        Sacoolas went free because she fled the country immediately after the accident, while making specious claims of diplomatic immunity. By the time it got to trial, Sacoolas was already beyond the reach of law. The only decision the judge faced was whether to further the controversy or brush it under the rug.
  - karaterobot 2y ago
    So you understand that there is a jurisdictional distinction between domestic and foreign. Good, so do they. That's what they're talking about.
- StanislavPetrov 2y ago
  Julian Assange would like a word with you.
- jchook 2y ago
  AFAIK the plane itself is still technically US soil.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Planes are under the jurisdiction of the country of the company that operates them, not the one that manufactured them. Both 737 Max planes that crashed were foreign owned and operated.
moring 2y ago
Might be just a remark so people don't wonder if they missed the news about these crashes.
addandsubtract 2y ago
Maybe they meant "over seas"

by rob74 2y ago

bell-cot 2y ago

True from most PoV's. OTOH, the U.S. Department of Justice's turf generally ends at the U.S. border, so "overseas" is an important distinction here.

sofixa 2y ago
> OTOH, the U.S. Department of Justice's turf generally ends at the U.S. border, so "overseas" is an important distinction here Nah, the US is extremely aggressive all over the world, to the extent I'm not sure anyone in that country understands the word jurisdiction outside of state/federal in their own context. Be it extradition of people committing crimes elsewhere/online, enforcing their own sanctions on companies in other countries, and tons of other things. Otherwise you wouldn't have Ukrainians getting extradited to the US for running torrent websites in Ukraine, Australians being extradited for running leak websites, French banks being fined for working with Iranian businesses, Colombians and Mexicans being assassinated or extradited for running drug empires in their own countries exporting to the US, kidnapping random civilians to be tortured based on their name/watch model, a law being on the books allowing the army to invade any place that held American war criminals (like the Hague and the courts there) and on and on and on.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It's still an important distinction. Your list of things doesn't seem relevant to that at all.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    If the US Department of Justice thinks it has jurisdiction over Ukrainian torrent websites hosting links to American-produced media content, why wouldn't it have jurisdiction over American-produced planes killing people in Indonesia and Ethiopia from negligent design and manufacturing, both of which happened in the US?
    - williamcotton 2y ago
      There are these things called extradition treaties.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        Which apply to crimes committed in the country asking for extradition. E.g. Artem Vaulin didn't commit crimes in the US by running a torrent website from his home in Ukraine, yet he was extradited and sued by a court in Illinois, instead of a court in Ukraine where his alleged crimes took place. Random guys kidnapped by the CIA didn't commit crimes in the US either.
    - arcticfox 2y ago
      It would and should have jurisdiction over both, you’re right.
- xattt 2y ago
  Even though the crashes happened outside the US, the malicious actions around the engineering of those planes happened on US soil.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Yes and no, and I used "generally" for good reason. While the DoJ's often-obnoxious international behavior gets plenty of attention, the "how much does this matter to the US?" threshold for them to get involved rises sharply beyond the US border. And the legal basis for their involvement (Boeing does have lawyers, to argue the details in court) often changes, too. OR - if a small-time, local crook is robbing US banks, how likely is the DoJ to get involved? (Hint: Answer includes "FBI".) Vs. how many small-time, local bank robbers is the DoJ chasing in Canada? Poland? Thailand?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    The US also has the Alien Tort Act from 1789 [0] (one of our oldest acts) that gives Federal Courts jurisdiction in violations of law abroad. It de facto allow foreign nationals to sue parties with sufficient ties to the US (most black money ends up in the US in some way) in Federal Courts for human rights violations committed outside the United States We also have the Magnitsky Act that allows US sanctions on foreign politicians found to have been corrupt (and it's named after the accountant who Jamison Firestone hired to manage his Russian business and who was assassinated for his investigations into corruption and malfeasance) There are a slew of additional laws, acts, and precedents that allow the DoJ to step in (or allow foreign nationals to push the DoJ to step in) if bad practices arise. Unsurprisingly, both China and Russia have been very vocally opposed to both acts, as it makes laundering ill gotten gains much harder. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute
    - weaksauce 2y ago
      it was worse than just a quick assassination... he was arrested and sent to a horrible russian jail where he was tortured repeatedly and then withheld from medical treatment for a period of time until he died.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        True! I was trying to keep a neutralish tone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- afiori 2y ago
  both can be true: The US is extremely aggresive in "protecting" internal interests internationally and lax at punishing its own for international crimes.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  The distinction here seems to be going the other way: the DOJ is investigating a domestic entity over its domestic activities, even though the most serious consequences of that activity occurred overseas. If it does decide to proceed, it seems unlikely that it will have occasion to seek extradition of the major targets (or, if it did, that it could reasonably be seen as an abuse of extradition.)
- gruez 2y ago
  >Ukrainians getting extradited to the US for running torrent websites in Ukraine Source? >a law being on the books allowing the army to invade any place that held American war criminals (like the Hague and the courts there) and on and on and on. Seems reasonable, considering they don't recognize such organizations. If they held Americans for crimes, it'd basically be kidnapping.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_alleged_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_... In practical terms, America's policy is that might makes right - an attractive policy, when you've got the might. Extradition is essentially a one-way affair: Ukrainian Artem Vaulin runs a torrent website hosted in Ukraine? Arrest and extradition at America's demand. An American like Anne Sacoolas kills someone in the UK by negligent driving? No extradition.
    - andsoitis 2y ago
      I think you need more solid examples. > Arrest and extradition at America's demand. Was he extradited? The article you linked to suggests not. > Anne Sacoolas kills someone in the UK by negligent driving? No extradition. This article says: "Sacoolas admitted causing death by careless driving, which carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. Justice Bobbie Cheema-Grubb said Sacoolas' actions were "not far short of deliberately dangerous driving," but she reduced the penalty because of Sacoolas' guilty plea and previous good character." Which seems to suggest you should blame a UK judge for letting Sacoolas go free, no? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas-suspended-prison-sentence/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas-sus...
      - michaelt 2y ago
        Sacoolas went free because she fled the country immediately after the accident, while making specious claims of diplomatic immunity. By the time it got to trial, Sacoolas was already beyond the reach of law. The only decision the judge faced was whether to further the controversy or brush it under the rug.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  So you understand that there is a jurisdictional distinction between domestic and foreign. Good, so do they. That's what they're talking about.
StanislavPetrov 2y ago
Julian Assange would like a word with you.
jchook 2y ago
AFAIK the plane itself is still technically US soil.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Planes are under the jurisdiction of the country of the company that operates them, not the one that manufactured them. Both 737 Max planes that crashed were foreign owned and operated.

moring 2y ago

Might be just a remark so people don't wonder if they missed the news about these crashes.

addandsubtract 2y ago

Maybe they meant "over seas"