Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] Muddling About

1303133353639

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    The article doesn’t say what the actual crime was. Huawei has offices and R&D labs in the U.S. If she violated sanctions involving one of those it’d make sense.

    JuliusMorganVFencingsaxtynickime
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The article doesn’t say what the actual crime was. Huawei has offices and R&D labs in the U.S. If she violated sanctions involving one of those it’d make sense.

    weren't the sanctions not in effect until last month?

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Corporate crime, can be esoteric, all this means is that all of those businesses that want to flip the bird at the sanctions we've set up should stop all US operations... and likely stop visiting countries we'll be able to extradite from. This will be great for everyone, and not cause any strife.

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Any number of europeans break american drinking-laws.

    SleepBlackDragon480Rhesus Positive
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Because that is how laws relating to sanction breaking work, and these people do not have diplomatic immunity based on their citizenship.

    Just like how Mueller has indicted Russians for crimes committed in Russia in violation of US law, this woman has been arrested in Canada by Canada for breach of US law in China (or wharever)

    Edit: I'm not saying I agree with the sanctions but the concept is not some sort of new precedent and nobody gets upset about it when it's some sort of human trafficking monster.

    I have no idea how those laws work, it just sounds counterintuitive to arrest someone for doing something that is legal in the place where it was made, and it doesnt involve the USA in any way. Sounds like an incredible overreach, at this point I just hope China answers in full strenght with sanctions and arrests of their own.

    In general you can't be arrested for things that are not crimes in the place where you did them, especially if you're not even a citizen of the country arresting you and are not in said country anyway. What possible jurisdiction could they even have?

    Not that you couldn't claim jurisdiction, of course. And if you're big enough and enough of an asshole others could certainly help you.

  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The article doesn’t say what the actual crime was. Huawei has offices and R&D labs in the U.S. If she violated sanctions involving one of those it’d make sense.

    You are correct, the article doesnt specify what crimes were commited, all it says is:

    "Details of the arrest have not been released but the US has been investigating Huawei over possible violation of sanctions against Iran."


    Wich lead me to belive that this was the cause for the arrest.
    Regratably, the article also says:

    "It said it could not say more as Ms Meng had sought a ban on the publication of details and this had been ordered by the courts.

    A spokesman for the US justice department in the Eastern District of New York - which Huawei said had brought the charges - declined to comment."


    Ms Meng is too high profile for one of USA´s illegal prisons/internment camps, so I guess we have to wait for more info to come out.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    Any number of europeans break american drinking-laws.

    Hell, any number of Canadians break American drinking laws. Drug laws now too

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    XaquinGnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480kime
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I mean she might have also been arrested under the suspicion that the Chinese government has been tracking everyone's everything because they make all our electronics. There's a chance this is more cyberpunk spy shit rather than just boring trade war shit.

    But we literally don't know yet.

    XaquinFencingsaxMoridin889
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 6
    Phyphor wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Any number of europeans break american drinking-laws.

    Hell, any number of Canadians break American drinking laws. Drug laws now too

    I'm sure someone will quickly point out the two dozen ways this is different, but something strikes me as funny about how many (often but not exclusively) conservative types rail against the UN as the start of some kind of global New World Order that will undermine their Freedom(tm), annnnnd now we have a right wing conservative administration pulling this kind of thing.

    Oh, wait, it's projection. It's always projection.

    It's the tell that keeps on giving.

    Which, uh, means someone is hopefully digging deeply into that pizzagate bullshit.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    Julius
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I mean she might have also been arrested under the suspicion that the Chinese government has been tracking everyone's everything because they make all our electronics. There's a chance this is more cyberpunk spy shit rather than just boring trade war shit.

    But we literally don't know yet.

    2018 hates us too much for this to be anything as cool as a cyberpunkish espionage situation. It's either some idiot deciding to use the daughter of the company's founder as leverage in the trade war or some Iran hawk at State dialing things up to eleven.

    Gnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    There is a distinction between drinking age laws and sanction breaking, international organised crime etc.

    Like, it's relatively common for human traffickers, cartel members etc to be arrested in Mexico, by Mexican authorities, and extradited to the US where they are charged with breaking US law.

    The fact that the US is prepared to take custody of and charge people who engage in pretty horrific practises in the rest of the world is actually one of the things that is welcome about the US to the rest of us, when said people have done horrific things anyway.

    In this case the real problem is Trump's breaching of the JCPOA. That's shit and charging someone with breaking sanctions that shouldn't exist because Iran didn't breach the JCPOA is pretty terrible.

    Gnome-InterruptusDongs GaloreMoridin889
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Yes, and those people are typically breaking the laws of the country they are arrested in. Human trafficking isn't legal in Mexico, it's just that it's unlikely to effectively prosecute and imprison them there

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    PhillishereFANTOMASJuliusMoridin889
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    IANAL, but the shortest answer I can think of is that being an officer of a company registered in the US (Huawei has a US subsidiary) is what makes her subject to these laws.

    There's also an element of prosecutorial discretion here, in that it is politically advantageous for the US government to target Huawei during trade disputes with the Chinese government.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, and those people are typically breaking the laws of the country they are arrested in. Human trafficking isn't legal in Mexico, it's just that it's unlikely to effectively prosecute and imprison them there

    Plus those cases like human trafficking and drug smuggling are crimes that directly involve the United States, usually as the destination.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Because that is how laws relating to sanction breaking work, and these people do not have diplomatic immunity based on their citizenship.

    Just like how Mueller has indicted Russians for crimes committed in Russia in violation of US law, this woman has been arrested in Canada by Canada for breach of US law in China (or wharever)

    Edit: I'm not saying I agree with the sanctions but the concept is not some sort of new precedent and nobody gets upset about it when it's some sort of human trafficking monster.

    I have no idea how those laws work, it just sounds counterintuitive to arrest someone for doing something that is legal in the place where it was made, and it doesnt involve the USA in any way. Sounds like an incredible overreach, at this point I just hope China answers in full strenght with sanctions and arrests of their own.

    In general you can't be arrested for things that are not crimes in the place where you did them, especially if you're not even a citizen of the country arresting you and are not in said country anyway. What possible jurisdiction could they even have?

    Not that you couldn't claim jurisdiction, of course. And if you're big enough and enough of an asshole others could certainly help you.

    You can be extradited to a country to stand trial, even if you did nothing wrong in the country you fled to. Interpol Red Notices were being abused by Russia for that a lot.

    a5ehrenshrykeGnome-InterruptusQuid
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, and those people are typically breaking the laws of the country they are arrested in. Human trafficking isn't legal in Mexico, it's just that it's unlikely to effectively prosecute and imprison them there

    I find it highly unlikely that the authorities in Canada arrested her for something that wasn't illegal in Canada as well

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, and those people are typically breaking the laws of the country they are arrested in. Human trafficking isn't legal in Mexico, it's just that it's unlikely to effectively prosecute and imprison them there

    Plus those cases like human trafficking and drug smuggling are crimes that directly involve the United States, usually as the destination.

    Often however they do not, see criminal organisations operating in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited December 6
    To be clear, the fact that if you ship containers of women from Serbia to Israel (and I'm sure you can imagine why) and then take a holiday to NY the US authorities will arrest you and charge you with human trafficking and slavery is not something I have much of a problem with. If you took a trip to Toronto and the Canadian authorities arrested you and then sent you south across the border I wouldn't have a problem either.

    In this circumstance I do, because the charge of sanction breaking against Iran shouldn't exist

    Solar on
    Xaquin
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, and those people are typically breaking the laws of the country they are arrested in. Human trafficking isn't legal in Mexico, it's just that it's unlikely to effectively prosecute and imprison them there

    I find it highly unlikely that the authorities in Canada arrested her for something that wasn't illegal in Canada as well

    I havent seen anything more about it, other than what was said in the quoted article, do you know anything else that would warrant that speculation?
    Solar wrote: »
    There is a distinction between drinking age laws and sanction breaking, international organised crime etc.

    Like, it's relatively common for human traffickers, cartel members etc to be arrested in Mexico, by Mexican authorities, and extradited to the US where they are charged with breaking US law.

    The fact that the US is prepared to take custody of and charge people who engage in pretty horrific practises in the rest of the world is actually one of the things that is welcome about the US to the rest of us, when said people have done horrific things anyway.

    In this case the real problem is Trump's breaching of the JCPOA. That's shit and charging someone with breaking sanctions that shouldn't exist because Iran didn't breach the JCPOA is pretty terrible.

    Why do you put organized crime and human trafficking, next to ignoring sanctions from foreign countries?

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    To be clear, the fact that if you ship containers of women from Serbia to Israel (and I'm sure you can imagine why) and then take a holiday to NY the US authorities will arrest you and charge you with human trafficking and slavery is not something I have much of a problem with. If you took a trip to Toronto and the Canadian authorities arrested you and then sent you south across the border I wouldn't have a problem either.

    In this circumstance I do, because the charge of sanction breaking against Iran shouldn't exist

    Do you have a link to the law that would let the US arrest you? Because my light Googling didn't turn up anything.
    And as much as I am not a fan of human trafficking, the idea that countries should just up and arrest people and then ship them off to countries where they can be charged with committing a crime based on actions taken outside of both their home country or the one they were arrested in is not something that sits well with me.

    The Hague is an international court set up for that sort of thing, the US is not.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    To be clear, the fact that if you ship containers of women from Serbia to Israel (and I'm sure you can imagine why) and then take a holiday to NY the US authorities will arrest you and charge you with human trafficking and slavery is not something I have much of a problem with. If you took a trip to Toronto and the Canadian authorities arrested you and then sent you south across the border I wouldn't have a problem either.

    In this circumstance I do, because the charge of sanction breaking against Iran shouldn't exist

    We don't get know for a fact that is the charge yet

    monikerJuliusKetBrashryke
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Extradition treaties aren't like a new thing guys. There's plenty of places you can't run to when you commit a crime.

    monikerPreacherQuidKetBrahippofantshrykeemp123IncenjucarMoridin889
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    To be clear, the fact that if you ship containers of women from Serbia to Israel (and I'm sure you can imagine why) and then take a holiday to NY the US authorities will arrest you and charge you with human trafficking and slavery is not something I have much of a problem with. If you took a trip to Toronto and the Canadian authorities arrested you and then sent you south across the border I wouldn't have a problem either.

    In this circumstance I do, because the charge of sanction breaking against Iran shouldn't exist

    We don't get know for a fact that is the charge yet

    We don't but if it is my problem is the charge, not the concept of nations enforcing egarious breaches of law with international consequences upon various people when the breach didn't happen on their territory. If they arrested her for selling technology to the DPRK then I wouldn't exactly weep either.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Extradition treaties aren't like a new thing guys. There's plenty of places you can't run to when you commit a crime.

    yeah, but if the crime is (as I think is expected) violating sanctions against Iran, that only became a crime last month! Will Canada and/or the US be arresting european businessfolk who are abiding by a lawfully enacted treaty because we pulled out of the deal?

    Julius
  • OghulkOghulk Aka Mr. RIBS Aka Andre 3001Registered User regular
    The article I saw about the arrest said that the woman didn't want the details put out by the press yet. I have a feeling the arrest is probably deeper than sanctions.

    raoADVy.png
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The article I saw about the arrest said that the woman didn't want the details put out by the press yet. I have a feeling the arrest is probably deeper than sanctions.

    I hope so!

    which is weird to type out. I just don't want other countries to act as cronies for our petulant man-baby president.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Turns out our strategy is literally to just kind of continue to be in Afghanistan forever because we can't politically admit defeat and don't want to pay the costs of a bigger forever war.

    https://taskandpurpose.com/mcchrystal-afghanistan-muddle-pompeo/
    Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, recently told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that he did not know what to do in Afghanistan but offered his “best suggestion” was for a small number of troops to remain and “muddle along” in the country, the retired four-star Army general told a small group last month during his book tour.
    “I met with Secretary Pompeo this morning and he asked me the same question, and I said, ‘I don’t know.’ I wish I did. If I had a clever answer… if we pull out and people like al Qaeda go back, it’s unacceptable for any political administration in the U.S. It would just be disastrous, and it would be a pain for us,” McChrystal said of a potential drawdown for the war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year.

    “If we put more troops in there and we fight forever, that’s not a good outcome either. I’m not sure what [is] the right answer. My best suggestion is to keep a limited number of forces there and just kind of muddle along and see what we can do,” he said.

    “But that means you’re gonna lose some people, and then it’s fair for Americans to ask, ‘why am I doing this? Why am I putting my sons and daughters in harm’s way?’ And the answer is, there’s a certain cost to doing things in the world, being engaged,” McChrystal said. “That’s not as satisfying. That’s not an applause line kind of answer, but that’s what I think, the only thing I could recommend.”

    JuliusshrykeYoutubeIncenjucar
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Because that is how laws relating to sanction breaking work, and these people do not have diplomatic immunity based on their citizenship.

    Just like how Mueller has indicted Russians for crimes committed in Russia in violation of US law, this woman has been arrested in Canada by Canada for breach of US law in China (or wharever)

    Edit: I'm not saying I agree with the sanctions but the concept is not some sort of new precedent and nobody gets upset about it when it's some sort of human trafficking monster.

    I have no idea how those laws work, it just sounds counterintuitive to arrest someone for doing something that is legal in the place where it was made, and it doesnt involve the USA in any way. Sounds like an incredible overreach, at this point I just hope China answers in full strenght with sanctions and arrests of their own.

    In general you can't be arrested for things that are not crimes in the place where you did them, especially if you're not even a citizen of the country arresting you and are not in said country anyway. What possible jurisdiction could they even have?

    Not that you couldn't claim jurisdiction, of course. And if you're big enough and enough of an asshole others could certainly help you.

    You can be extradited to a country to stand trial, even if you did nothing wrong in the country you fled to. Interpol Red Notices were being abused by Russia for that a lot.

    Obviously, but that's when you committed a crime in the country you are extradited to. So not at all like what I said.

    That's not even an abuse. That's the point of extradition treaties.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    "abuse" in this context is simply charging people for political reasons or making up charges, it relies on the legitimacy of extradition for justified charges against a person for crimes committed in the country calling for extradition.

    the question here is if that legitimacy is even present. If the USA alleges that this person broke their laws with actions in another country, then it certainly seems like it's not legit. You have no jurisdiction over other countries, even if you say you do.

    of course without knowing the actual charges we can't say whether this is the case.

    FANTOMAS
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    To be clear, the fact that if you ship containers of women from Serbia to Israel (and I'm sure you can imagine why) and then take a holiday to NY the US authorities will arrest you and charge you with human trafficking and slavery is not something I have much of a problem with. If you took a trip to Toronto and the Canadian authorities arrested you and then sent you south across the border I wouldn't have a problem either.

    In this circumstance I do, because the charge of sanction breaking against Iran shouldn't exist

    Do you have a link to the law that would let the US arrest you? Because my light Googling didn't turn up anything.
    And as much as I am not a fan of human trafficking, the idea that countries should just up and arrest people and then ship them off to countries where they can be charged with committing a crime based on actions taken outside of both their home country or the one they were arrested in is not something that sits well with me.

    The Hague is an international court set up for that sort of thing, the US is not.

    The US can arrest you for the purpose of extradition to Serbia or Israel, since they signed treaties saying exactly that (I assume), I don't know if they can arrest you and charge you for the crimes in the US itself. (But it is likely, the fact that it is a crime in Serbia and Israel too could be enough to charge.)

    Of course in this case (human trafficking) the ICC has jurisdiction from Serbia. Neither Israel nor the US are signatories, but they are certainly allowed to help.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 6
    Phyphor wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Any number of europeans break american drinking-laws.

    Hell, any number of Canadians break American drinking laws. Drug laws now too

    And so many Canadians in the marijuana industry have been warned that they travel to the US at their own risk, and that the US may apply their drug trafficking laws to them should said Canadians attempt to cross the border. It's arbitrary but not that arbitrary.


    Sleep wrote: »
    Extradition treaties aren't like a new thing guys. There's plenty of places you can't run to when you commit a crime.

    1. Yes. China also has extradition treaties with many countries. And also...
    2. China will just exfiltrate you themselves when they don't too. So...

    ... I'm a little puzzled as to why this is big news, when this is how the world has worked for many decades. A wide variety of crimes are considered "international" by various countries, including, in particular, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sanctions violations, terrorism, etc., but also for some countries, just saying bad shit about their leadership.

    hippofant on
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    depending on the situation

    ThawmusJuliuskime
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    I can't tell if it's the extradition or the sanctions violation, as part of Trump's reneging on JCPOA.

    Neither makes that much sense to me, cuz it's not like Huawei's some two-bit operator whose executives couldn't know beforehand that violating US sanctions and then traveling to an American ally isn't the best idea. Especially after Huawei's been in the US Justice Department's crosshairs for a while now.

    Julius
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited December 6
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    I’ll never forget hearing about the SCOTUS case that concluded that, if a country wouldn’t extradite somebody, the US could just kidnap them and bring them here anyway.

    Edit: US v Alvarez Machain, a 6-3 decision in which they ruled “If we conclude the [extradition] treaty does not prohibit respondent’s abduction [...] the court need not inquire as to how respondent came before it.”

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
    PLA
  • ThawmusThawmus Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    Republicans, and some conservative Democrats, are not a fan of extraditing Americans to other countries, regardless of cause (but might be on board if said American is sufficiently liberal enough, who knows). But they are simultaneously very gung-ho about being able to extradite world criminals back to the US, as well as shoving asylum seekers out our front door. It is one of those perfect storms for Trump, who thinks negotiations are a zero sum game to begin with, because what people want is already unfair to the rest of the world.

    camo_sig2.png
    FencingsaxJuliusBlackDragon480Youtube
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    I’ll never forget hearing about the SCOTUS case that concluded that, if a country wouldn’t extradite somebody, the US could just kidnap them and bring them here anyway.

    Edit: US v Alvarez Machain, a 6-3 decision in which they ruled “If we conclude the [extradition] treaty does not prohibit respondent’s abduction [...] the court need not inquire as to how respondent came before it.”

    Justice Batman writimg for the majority.

    XaquinAstaerethGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxSealFryshrykechrono_travelleremp123Kayne Red RobeMoridin889hanzoOghulkkime
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 6
    Thawmus wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    Republicans, and some conservative Democrats, are not a fan of extraditing Americans to other countries, regardless of cause (but might be on board if said American is sufficiently liberal enough, who knows). But they are simultaneously very gung-ho about being able to extradite world criminals back to the US, as well as shoving asylum seekers out our front door. It is one of those perfect storms for Trump, who thinks negotiations are a zero sum game to begin with, because what people want is already unfair to the rest of the world.

    This is literally every country. Canadians are also the same way. More than a few times, I've seen ad campaigns targeting Canadian politicians demanding that they go get <some Canadian person> out of prison in <some country> they went to and committed a crime in. And that's not even opposing extradition; usually in those cases, the Canadian voluntarily went to the other country.

    There are a whole buncha Chinese people on my Facebook posting angry shocked things about this now, yet they never said a peep when China was kidnapping its own nationals.

    hippofant on
    ThawmusGnome-InterruptusNSDFRandRchanenkime
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    Republicans, and some conservative Democrats, are not a fan of extraditing Americans to other countries, regardless of cause (but might be on board if said American is sufficiently liberal enough, who knows). But they are simultaneously very gung-ho about being able to extradite world criminals back to the US, as well as shoving asylum seekers out our front door. It is one of those perfect storms for Trump, who thinks negotiations are a zero sum game to begin with, because what people want is already unfair to the rest of the world.

    This is literally every country. Canadians are also the same way. More than a few times, I've seen ad campaigns targeting Canadian politicians demanding that they go get <some Canadian person> out of prison in <some country> they went to and committed a crime in. And that's not even opposing extradition; usually in those cases, the Canadian voluntarily went to the other country.

    There are a whole buncha Chinese people on my Facebook posting angry shocked things about this now, yet they never said a peep when China was kidnapping its own nationals.

    The US deals with this shit re: North Korea constantly. Gotta send someone over every now and then to try and get some idiots back because the alternative of "I mean, we told them not to go and they went anyway" is not politically tenable.

    a5ehren
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Wait, did extraditions just become controversial to Americans now, or something?

    I don't think the concept of extraditions became controversial so much as the reasons for it.


    like, I am pretty sure that nobody here would endorse extradition for miscegenation, protesting against apartheid, promoting press freedom or activism for LGBT+ equality. We're pretty comfortable with limiting extradition for various reasons. In fact this is an important principle of Interpol. Extradition should happen for just and fair reasons. Even recognizing the ultimate jurisdiction of other countries on their own territory, there is no reason we should recognize that jurisdiction in our own. Sure, breaking the law in other places can not be shielded by just going to another country, but otoh simply breaking the law of another country is not reason enough to extradite any person.

    So it's not about extradition being controversial, it is about controversial extradition.

    XaquinAridholMrVyngaardCommander ZoomFANTOMASGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.