3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_alleged_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_... In practical terms, A

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.
gruez 2y ago
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_... He tried to get his case dismissed on the basis that he wasn't in the US, and that motion was dismissed by a judge[1]. The reasoning given was that even though he was situated in Ukraine, he was doing crimes in the US by abetting Americans in copyright infringement. This seems somewhat reasonable to me. If a Ukrainian was hacking American computer networks from Ukraine, should he also be immune from US prosecution? [1] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-vaulin https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-vaulin
- sofixa 2y ago
  > The reasoning given was that even though he was situated in Ukraine, he was doing crimes in the US by abetting Americans in copyright infringement. This seems somewhat reasonable to me. If a Ukrainian was hacking American computer networks from Ukraine, should he also be immune from US prosecution? But he wasn't actively doing anything to Americans or American networks like hacking. He was hosting a website where people, including Americans, could post links, and use links to download pirated content. The fact that Americans broke their country's laws is a crime they committed, not him. The judge's reasoning would imply that anything that happens online where Americans could access it and is criminal in the US automatically becomes a crime that happened in the US, which is crazy and total bullshit. Why isn't the US extraditing Hungarian porn actors and porn companies for showing online where Americans can see it exhibitionist porn which would be illegal in many places in the US? It's a ridiculous case. But you can bet that if France tries to extradite someone posting antisemitic bullshit on X related to France (e.g. about the recent desecration of the Shoah memorial), US courts will refuse extradition.
everforward 2y ago
Anne Sacoolas is somewhat more nuanced than that, mostly because Diplomatic Immunity is a strange necessity for functional alliances. The underlying gist is that people important to the government or possessing sensitive knowledge are immune to prosecution from allies to prevent prosecution being a viable method of coercing information from government officials. Ie the US cannot charge a UK ambassador, because that ambassador may be tempted to leak secrets in exchange for leniency. The same typically goes for family members for the same reason. In this case Sacoolas had done undercover work for the CIA at some point, so likely had knowledge the State Department did not want leaked. Her husband was active in the CIA and likely also had similar knowledge. The same is true in reverse. You can look up the court cases, the US has had to drop several cases due to diplomatic immunity. There is an element of might makes right to diplomatic immunity because there is no real higher power to enforce it. If a country is willing to weather the political fallout (and reciprocal loss of diplomatic immunity), potential hostile action, and can get their hands on the perpetrator, they’re free to ignore diplomatic immunity. In practice, diplomatic immunity is almost always respected, even when it could probably be ignored, because of onlookers. If the US ignores eg Kenya’s diplomatic immunity (who they can likely afford to piss off), it might worry the UK who the US does not want to piss off. Diplomatic immunity is very, very rarely ignored, but is waived with some regularity. The US is particularly liberal with granting diplomatic immunity, though, and more reluctant to waive it than most countries.
- michaelt 2y ago
  There were a lot of questions about whether Sacoolas had actually had diplomatic immunity, due to not being a diplomat and not having the paperwork a normal diplomat would have. Although perhaps it's to be expected that spies' paperwork would be irregular. There was also a claim that Sacoolas had some sort of secret diplomatic immunity under a secret treaty. Some reports claimed US spies had diplomatic immunity only while on the military base, while their families had immunity even while off base, implying Sacoolas would have immunity unless she was a CIA employee. Which she was at the time, according to some reports. Or was she merely a former CIA employee? Understandably, the CIA is not in the business of confirming such matters. I agree with you that there is nuance involved. I would say the precise nuance is irrelevant. Whether Sacoolas had immunity in theory is unimportant - only that she had immunity in practice.

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.

gruez 2y ago

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KickassTorrents#Arrest_of_the_... He tried to get his case dismissed on the basis that he wasn't in the US, and that motion was dismissed by a judge[1]. The reasoning given was that even though he was situated in Ukraine, he was doing crimes in the US by abetting Americans in copyright infringement. This seems somewhat reasonable to me. If a Ukrainian was hacking American computer networks from Ukraine, should he also be immune from US prosecution? [1] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-vaulin https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-vaulin

sofixa 2y ago
> The reasoning given was that even though he was situated in Ukraine, he was doing crimes in the US by abetting Americans in copyright infringement. This seems somewhat reasonable to me. If a Ukrainian was hacking American computer networks from Ukraine, should he also be immune from US prosecution? But he wasn't actively doing anything to Americans or American networks like hacking. He was hosting a website where people, including Americans, could post links, and use links to download pirated content. The fact that Americans broke their country's laws is a crime they committed, not him. The judge's reasoning would imply that anything that happens online where Americans could access it and is criminal in the US automatically becomes a crime that happened in the US, which is crazy and total bullshit. Why isn't the US extraditing Hungarian porn actors and porn companies for showing online where Americans can see it exhibitionist porn which would be illegal in many places in the US? It's a ridiculous case. But you can bet that if France tries to extradite someone posting antisemitic bullshit on X related to France (e.g. about the recent desecration of the Shoah memorial), US courts will refuse extradition.

everforward 2y ago

Anne Sacoolas is somewhat more nuanced than that, mostly because Diplomatic Immunity is a strange necessity for functional alliances. The underlying gist is that people important to the government or possessing sensitive knowledge are immune to prosecution from allies to prevent prosecution being a viable method of coercing information from government officials. Ie the US cannot charge a UK ambassador, because that ambassador may be tempted to leak secrets in exchange for leniency. The same typically goes for family members for the same reason. In this case Sacoolas had done undercover work for the CIA at some point, so likely had knowledge the State Department did not want leaked. Her husband was active in the CIA and likely also had similar knowledge. The same is true in reverse. You can look up the court cases, the US has had to drop several cases due to diplomatic immunity. There is an element of might makes right to diplomatic immunity because there is no real higher power to enforce it. If a country is willing to weather the political fallout (and reciprocal loss of diplomatic immunity), potential hostile action, and can get their hands on the perpetrator, they’re free to ignore diplomatic immunity. In practice, diplomatic immunity is almost always respected, even when it could probably be ignored, because of onlookers. If the US ignores eg Kenya’s diplomatic immunity (who they can likely afford to piss off), it might worry the UK who the US does not want to piss off. Diplomatic immunity is very, very rarely ignored, but is waived with some regularity. The US is particularly liberal with granting diplomatic immunity, though, and more reluctant to waive it than most countries.

michaelt 2y ago
There were a lot of questions about whether Sacoolas had actually had diplomatic immunity, due to not being a diplomat and not having the paperwork a normal diplomat would have. Although perhaps it's to be expected that spies' paperwork would be irregular. There was also a claim that Sacoolas had some sort of secret diplomatic immunity under a secret treaty. Some reports claimed US spies had diplomatic immunity only while on the military base, while their families had immunity even while off base, implying Sacoolas would have immunity unless she was a CIA employee. Which she was at the time, according to some reports. Or was she merely a former CIA employee? Understandably, the CIA is not in the business of confirming such matters. I agree with you that there is nuance involved. I would say the precise nuance is irrelevant. Whether Sacoolas had immunity in theory is unimportant - only that she had immunity in practice.